User talk:Edwpat

Welcome!

Hello, Edwpat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering with us. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jake-helliwell ^(Talk)

Your edits to Elijah Wood

Hi, you may have noticed that your continual edits to incoporate an external link to your own website are always quickly reverted. Can I recommend you familiarise yourself with WP:EL, with particular reference to what should not be linked to, paragraph three, i.e. linking to your own website is discouraged. I hope you understand why your edits are reverted, if you have any questions, please don't hestiate to get in touch. Cheers. Budgiekiller 13:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Budgiekiller 14:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've warned you here, and each time I've reverted your changes, I've explained why. Next time you add your link I will ask an administrator to intervene which would lead to the possibility of your account being temporarily or permanently blocked. Budgiekiller 14:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Link has been there for a Year

But so be it. I'll add content. In the meantime, 2 other links were added by others and you have singled me out. You haven't zapped them.

I was enforcing para 3 of WP:EL (what not to link to), which you directly contravened. I'm not picking on anyone! And as for the other fan sites added, they do not contravene para 3 of WP:EL. Which is what I'm interested in. Cheers! Budgiekiller 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. They violate the one fansite per article rule then. I linked here a year ago because my content was deemed valuable by the Elijah Wood on-line community. But I guess you're right and I'll continue to add content to all the individual film pages. It's not like I need the traffic - I've gotten over 2 million visitors since I've opened, and Elijah is a keen web surfer. But hey, since fansites are now encouraged, more power to them. I'm just touchy. Us Queer as Folk kinder are. Go in peace and take the blessings of this 60 year old Queen with you. edwpat

Hi again. You're right, it may not seem reasonable. I do two things for Wikipedia, adding content and enforcing some of the less controversial policies (although in this case, apparently not!). I'm most definitely not actively encouraging fansites, although I accept that due to my tacit acceptance of the links (for the time being) it may appear that I am. I will now re-examine the policies in this area and "pass judgement"! Don't, whatever you do, take this personally. I found the Elijah Wood article to be vandalised on a regular basis and as such I check it regularly. Your edit to reinsert the link just caught my eye, hence the enforcement of WP:EL. I'll get back to you, but please don't think me uncivil! Cheers!Budgiekiller 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've evaporated the two fansites which were, for different reasons (one linked to a site with only the forum available - not allowed, the other was a German language forum - best used in German Wikipedia). Interestingly, you could avoid WP:EL links to avoid para 3 by encouraging someone else to examine your site, approve it as an enhancement to the article and then add it...! I've got a spare few minutes.... Budgiekiller 18:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure I follow you re: getting my link reinstated. BTW, the 2 links you deleted, are back again. I guess they are thinking like me. I think I'll add my content to the various articles. As I said, I'm not craving traffic. I have information to impart - and I probably should impart it directly. I am already prominently linked to the Elijah Wood Always & Forever fansite, which is the most prominent and award winning fansite in Elijah's world. I'm read daily there by thousands in their update area. And that site is the approved link on Elijah's article. So, I'm cool. I will also be posting on the Stephen King article area and probably the Gilbert & Sullivan area - but since I'm one of the web's most prominent voice on Elijah Wood's filmography (google is my friend) I'll spend more time being vigilent (me and my editor) on the LIJ articles. We're usually right on with facts, perspectives and the balanced view. Thanks for your work. Edward C. Patterson edwpat

Hey. I'm pleased to read your approach and completely support you. In order to avoid the para 3 clause, what I was suggesting was that I'd recommend (i.e. add) your site to the Elijah Wood page. If I add the link then para 3 doesn't enter into it. I can't encourage you enough to enhance the other EJ articles, and hope that I can help you, in whatever capacity, in your continuing, good quality and good faith edits. Budgiekiller 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you Budgiekiller. Would you recommend and add my site as a link to the Elijah Wood page. it is Elijah Wood: Performer for Our Time http://www.dancaster.com/ejw and I will by all means be appreciative and will update the articles in this site. Accurate and timely information on Elwood is my primary concern. Thanks Ed P edwpat

Bye Budgiekiller. I've given up on Wikipedia. I spent some time contributing and another member of the WikiPolice reversed all my contributions. I cannot with good conscience recommend this experience to any of my writing or fan communties and certainly will not on my syndicated blog. This has been an eye-opener indeed. Thanks. You at least encouraged me and seemed to want contributors. However, I think I will post some warnings among my colleagues and friends before they jump in and waste their time and talent. edwpat

Copyvio in Everything is Illuminated

Please don't copy text from other web sites and paste it into Wikipedia: this is against the law and Wikipedia's rules. I have removed your additions to Everything Is Illuminated (film). For more information, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. —Michael Z. 2006-10-06 18:48 Z

The copyright for this material is with ME, I am the owner of the website in question. There is no copyright violation - I am restoring the matierl. Thanks for your attention. Ed Patterson. edwpat

My apologies; I didn't know that was from your own site. Nevertheless, I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to review films or actors' performances. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. —Michael Z. 2006-10-06 21:12 Z

I was invited to contribute to Wikipedia and so far the experience for a writer has been absolutely horredous. I invested a deal of time adding to this and other articles, linking etc., only to have it all reversed. I think I am going to abandon Wikipedia. First I tried to link materials to the Elwood site and that was reversed. Now, when asked to contribute, my contributions are spurned. You want contributors, yet you make it difficult for working writers to contribute. It's a bit like a French Revolutionary Tribunal. Well, I am flattered that you recognized the material, meaning you had been to my site independantly (so have 2 million other visitors), so I am not in need traffic or readership (especially since my original thoughts were not credited); however, I don't think I can recommend the Wikipedia experience to any of my writing communities or on my syndicated blog. Thanks for your attention to your interpretation to the rules. Edward C. Patterson. edwpat

Don't stop now

Hey, just got your valedictory... Not right. If editors here are making mistakes by stopping you doing the right thing, it's their error, not yours. I would most definitely encourage you to discuss the issue, both with me and others, and try to resolve the situation. Having discussed various issues with you, I can confirm that your intentions are 100% geniuine, good and acceptable. If you need me to help others to understand what you're doing, let's talk. The last thing I want is for you to be discouraged... The Wikipedia should be a place where new contributors are encouraged. There are certain conditions where new contribrutors will be berated. It's wrong. Let's talk... Budgiekiller 22:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. I am frustrated. Here's the exchange, if you haven't seen it.

Please don't copy text from other web sites and paste it into Wikipedia: this is against the law and Wikipedia's rules. I have removed your additions to Everything Is Illuminated (film). For more information, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. —Michael Z. 2006-10-06 18:48 Z

The copyright for this material is with ME, I am the owner of the website in question. There is no copyright violation - I am restoring the matierl. Thanks for your attention. Ed Patterson. edwpat

My apologies; I didn't know that was from your own site. Nevertheless, I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to review films or actors' performances. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. —Michael Z. 2006-10-06 21:12 Z

I could see where the copyright was an issue and I expected that the page would be restored and I would need to give permission or something at the end of each section. But when I was told that original thought was discouraged and that a review or a performance appreciation is inappropriate, I wonder. In addition, the Synopsis materials (which has no point of view) and Trivia was also reversed. If you can help me here, I'd appreciate it. I haven't gotten on my highest horse yet. I have only brought it to the Elijah Wood fansite (we're all like family their and I'm sure they'll be livid - from Sydney to Moscow), but I haven't expressed my opinion in the blog or the author zones. edwpat

Okay, well the only thing I can really add is that as an free, open source document, Wikipedia has to be uber-paranoid about copyright violations, and as such, several editors are really tight about this sort of thing. However, based on the above conversation, I'm not sure what Michael Z is complaining about. Perhaps it's worth asking him specifically which edits are causing problems, and why. And if you need some subjectivity, feel free to call on me, leave me a note here... Rest assured you shouldn't resign from editing on this basis... Budgiekiller 23:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Street

Edwpat, I suggest you reread the links that others have provided for you about editing on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and not your personal website. It is not appropriate for a film article to include a review, as this violates WP:NPOV.

Also, when leaving messages on a user's talk page please include a link to the article in question. It took me some time to figure out what you were talking about. Propound 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I've heard. I wish all the Langoliers on Wikipedia good luck in this disasterous undertaking. I suggest you reread your Boy Scout Handbook. I am withdrawing all copyright permissions extended to this site and will delete my contributions. edwpat

From what I've seen, everyone has tried to be polite and helpful towards you. I'm sorry that you had to throw a tantrum and take things personally. Best of luck in the future. Propound 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No tantrum. I'm just being my old queen judgemental. Par for the course. BTW if you want to read a good review of Huck Finn see http://www.dancaster.com/ejw If you ever need any material from me (the oldest member of Elijah Wood's on-line fanclub) feel free to visit. I'm also a HooliFAN, those fans that got Green Street Hooligans distributed in the US; so, it's hard for me to approach this subject without a point of view. edwpat

Fair enough. Thanks, I'll take a look at the site. Take care. Propound 13:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Witness

Hi, thanks for the message. I just thought I'd better clarify the importance tag. Please don't think that it means the article is in any way endangered. Quite the reverse in fact, we have a project running Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. Feel free to check it out. The tagging system is designed to improve all film articles. It identifies the articles that are very short and need a lot of work, some people like to work on those to make them better. Those that are aleady nearly perfect, they just need a few tweaks. Those that are of high importance and really should be high quality. And those that are lower in importance that perhaps don't need a group effort but individuals can pick at them any time they want. The tag I've added is meant to flag the article to others who may want to contribute to it. It's not going to be deleted on the strength of the tag and as you say, a film with Elijah Wood in it is going to be notable enough to survive any nomination for deletion. I hope this all makes sense and puts any worries you had about the article to bed. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Mallanox 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso At The Lapin Agile

Hi,

I read your coment in IMDB and your change in Elijah's filmography. Well, whre you found this information? Elijah has confirmed that he will play Einstein at Giffoni Film Festival.

Liz30 November, 2006

He gave an interview to Teletext in London at the Happy Feet premiere and the text appeared in A+F. Evidentally, he has confirmed nothing. He also in this interview harangued (which is not his usual style) Newline on the Hobbit - Peter Jackson issue and confirmed he IS playing Iggy Pop in what he describes as a "small film." edwpat http://www.dancaster.com/ejw BTW, this news does not make me happy, and is from sources I turst or I wouldn't have posted it. I am the oldest and perhaps the only male member of the worlds largest and most prestigious Elijah Wood Fan Club (A+F Elijah Wood).

I saw this on Livejournal, but I don't believe in this so much. Because few months ago Elijah confirmed that he will play Einstein in an interview for a argentinean newspaper, called LA NACION. And this was mentioned in this article [1] We have to wait, time will tell the true.

Liz 30 November, 2006 :-D

His quote was picked up in Britain along with other materials. I have asked the UK fanclub to verify their source. I for one would love him to play Einstein or anything in this play, but . . . when it comes from the Penguin's mouth, I DO listen. edwpat BTW, denial has set in alreadywith some Wikipikipdidestrains, who will try any means to squelch tuff they don't like. The material was deleted, but rephrased and added. PLUS it has been put back in the film list as unconfirmed.

Well, it's better add this information when you find a source to confirm. If this is true, we have to remove Elijah Wood from the film article and Picasso... from his filmography. But FIRST, we need a confirmation. Does someone saw him saying this??? It's like Vamp rumor, some people said that Elisha Cuthbert said "I will be filming a movie with Elijah Wood in June", but this wasn't confirmed. Elijah never said something about this movie. Now there is Madman rumor. I don't know, I will believe in it when someone find something to confirm. Well, at least I'm sure about Day Zero, The Oxford Murders, 9 and The Passenger. Liz 30 November, 2006 :-D

Lizlady - It was picked up in London during an interview with LIJ rgarding The Hobbit, where he went into a defense of Peter Jackson. During the interview he was asked about The Passenger and Picasso. According to the source, he made the statement regarding Picasso. I believe the individual, but have asked her to dig - this is not from the HocumPokem board - but through the A+F membership, the group that promoted GSH in the US (I'm one of those HOOLIFANS). Will keep all posted. edwpat

So, if he denied, it's better to delete this film from his article. Maybe this film will not be produced or it's scheduling conflicts. Maybe he had to choose between The Passenger and Picasso... and he optioned for Iggy movie. What do you think????

I know A+F, it's a great site and your site too. I'm Elijah fan.

Can I talk to you out from wikipedia or IMDB????

Liz 30 November, 2006 :-D

Sure Lizlady - edwpat@att.net edwpat I think Elijah is one of the hottest guys around!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you! I'll send you an e-mail in the next weekend.

Liz 30 November, 2006 :-D

Happy Feet

That is funny :) Yeah, I saw the virulent response in the talk page and figured it forced a POV compromise. I actually really enjoyed the movie, and if a minority are upset because the character is accepted for being different and because humans are shown to have an impact on the environment... well they must be very sad people. Fine to represent them, but not to give them more credit than the sorry minority they are. Sad mouse 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sin City talkpage edit

I reinstated the information you removed from the Sin City (film) talkpage. Be careful in removing info from talkpages; it may be considered vandalism. Next time, if you can't say something nice... etc. María: (habla ~ cosas) 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being nice. The talk page stated that it was becoming OF TOPIC, so I removed it. The operative word here is "may" and in any case, it would be more visi-gothic than vandal. Que lastima. edwpat

Testing a save. edwpat

Gollum's hobbithood

He and Déagol were of "hobbit-kind", sure, and "akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors", sure, but Déagol is directly called a Stoor elsewhere (therefore Gollum must be a Stoor too) and Stoors are one of the three hobbit-kinds. So isn't Gollum a hobbit? Of course Frodo's line "not very much different from a hobbit" (paraphrased) in Jackson's Two Towers doesn't count as definitive since we're talking about the writings. Also see this. Uthanc 05:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandbly and by inference, you are correct; howeve, despite Tolkien's penchant for niggling, he was often contradictory and had some continuity issues in all his works. I can relate to this. When I am in the reision process in my own novels, I get bit in the ass more than once - and I bet, with something less than a microscope, my readership can find such contrdictions. But Tolkien's world and mine are different. He is branded (and dead) and I am not. However, I think we honor him by "niggling" over the point. We would have made him proud. edwpat The self-appointed LIJPolice - visit the EJW: Performaer for our Time site http://www.dancaster.com/ejw

About this trivia

To Edwpat.

He's learning to sing professionally, He collects Star Wars stuff, He said,"If he wasn't an actor, he'd want to be a secret agent!", He sometimes wears glasses He LOVES the book The Hobbit - the book which JRR Tolkien wrote before the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Elijah says he's a "hopeless romantic" , He smokes - a bad habit he picked up from his The Faculty co-star Josh Hartnett, His fave actors are Tim Roth and Emma Thompson, ^[1]

This trivia is old.i know.but this is true. Everyone has the right to write this. What authority do you have?

You said that this information was old. but this information is true. Wikipedia is not news site.

Sorry, I meant to say that this information is OLD and is also no longer TRUE. And since this is not a news site, as you pointed out, it has no place on Wikipedia. edwpat http://www.dancaster.com/ejw

Revert of trilogy -> novel edit in Elijah Wood article

Please read the talk page for this article. Thu 12:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day Zero poster

I gave up from wikipedia. Ed! Unfortunately! Jane-21

WP:NFF

Please read the notability guidelines for future films. There is no reason for the article to exist, and I followed the process found at WP:FUTFILM to merge the article appropriately. The target will be redirect to the appropriate spot until filming begins, at which there can be a stand-alone film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only try keep Elijah Wood's pages healthy and complete and free of vandalism, which is time consuming enough. It's good to know that others have no life whatsoever and spend their time applying arcane Wiki rules. This rule will keep you busy for at leat three years. Good luck with that. edwpat LIJPatrol. Do collect stamps?

Your edit summaries

Hi Edwpat, I came across some of your recent work reverting vandalism on the Elijah Wood article. First off, many thanks for your help in keeping vandalism off articles. Its much appreciated. However, could I ask you to tone down your edit summaries. Many of these are unnecessarily inflammatory and incivil. It is important that you do not stoop to making personal attacks on other editors, yes even against vandals. Edit summaries that call other editors "idiots" or "A-holes" or "JerkWads" are clear personal attacks and are against both policy and common good manners. While I appreciate it is frustrating to see good articles attacked by vandals, it isn't helpful to use this sort of language - it tends to incite further vandalism and it puts off good editors from contributing by creating an antagonistic environment for all. I'd appreciate it if you would moderate your language in edit summaries. Many thanks, Gwernol 12:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It is frustrating. I watch all 52 of Elijah's pages and visit 6 to 7 times a day as LIJPATROL. It's more bravado thatn anything else, because most vandals pop in anonymously and spurt. That last one annoyed me, because it was an undo and report vandal, which I know should just be undone and warned and then escalated. My summary comments have been posted as such for two years now and this is the first time anyone chastized me, bhut it's valid and even at the ripe old age of 61 I can still be admonished for adopting Elijah's own vocabulary in response. I know he visits the Wikipedia entries and sometimes refers to them in interview. In fact, when he was refered to as a "music mogul," I vociferously fought to keep that term in his bio until he stated, although he got a kick out the notion, it was far from the truth and wished it "gone." I obliged him. Sorry again for any vituberous outbursts against those Jerkwad idiots who should be watching some good porn instead of playing on Daddy's computer. he he. But as a professional writer, I tend to lance the boils rather than tip toe around them. Edwpat

Wikipedia does not publish unsourced or poorly sourced personal information or contentious claims. Please do not readd this claim without a reliable source. Fan photo sites are not reliable sources. That the information was not noticed in the past is not an acceptable reason to leave it there - Wikipedia has no statute of limitations. Please see our policy on biographies of living persons. On Wikipedia, in accordance with BLP special enforcement provisions, "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy." The ruling goes on to say, "Administrators should counsel editors who fail to comply with BLP policy on specific steps that they can take to improve their editing in the area, and should ensure that such editors are warned of the consequences of failing to comply with this policy. Where editors fail to comply with BLP policy after being counseled and warned, administrators may impose sanctions on them, including restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary." --B (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Elijah Wood. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Edwpat_reported_by_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz_.28Result:_.29

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Excerpt: Elijah Wood on the set of his new movie". studenttimes.org. Retrieved 2007-06-08.

[1] "Excerpt: Elijah Wood on the set of his new movie". studenttimes.org. Retrieved 2007-06-08.

[1]