User talk:Erik

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

Discussion at Talk:Max Steel (film)#Section break[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Max Steel (film)#Section break. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Filmmaker vs. director etc[edit]

Hi Erik, remember me from the days of Manual of Style for film? Actually I was more into film categorization [1] and "missing films" at the time. I wonder if you remember something about a decision or consensus to disambiguate film related names by (filmmaker), instead of (director), (screenwriter) and the such. I have been searching talk page archives in various projects and sub-projects, but I didn't find a thing. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 15:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: Hello! I remember you, yes. :) I don't recall if there has been a high-level determination about filmmaker vs. director. The only discussion I recall from personal experience is Talk:Steve McQueen (director)#Different disambiguation term? which was not that in-depth. Maybe treat it on a case-by-case basis? Whatever reliable sources label the person as? You could see about referencing WP:NCP and maybe add a simple section at WP:NCF to suggest following WP:NCP. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I see... This helps, thanks! Hoverfish Talk 16:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The Dark Tapes[edit]

A plot section was removed due to being unsourced with this edit, isn't there an exception with WP:FILM? I do not see any FA film articles having plot summaries sourced. Valoem talk contrib 19:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not original research. WP:FILMPLOT says, " Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." If a stink is still being made, just add inline citations using {{Cite AV media}}. It's like, duh, of course the film is the source here. Just need to make sure that the description is basic. Per the aforementioned guideline, avoid interpretations (or at least clear up a disputed key detail with a source). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, he doesn't know what he's doing. Valoem talk contrib 19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
You can reference the guideline and indicate that it has been long supported by the community as a non-issue. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I dunno if you want to chime in here, rather shocking behavior from an administrator. Valoem talk contrib 00:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted and added inline citations. While we don't need them, they are easy enough to add. To call the write-up "original research" is ignorant of WP:PSTS, though. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey not sure which is better, I removed the inline citation because I've never seen it before in other articles, should we start doing this? (I've added it to the end) Valoem talk contrib 17:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I would be fine if we did that across the board, but it should not be a reason to blank plot summaries. If they exist, no real reason to remove them. It can be a pain, though, when summaries change paragraph numbers. Like three paragraphs, each with an inline citation, could change into four paragraphs, one being "uncited" all of a sudden. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I've never heard of such a request, I don't get why a ten year admin would blank a page I was recently working making a request he as probably never seen in film. It looks very strange which paragraph is cited all of them, but that makes no sense, why do that it seems like a waste of time and looks clunky. Valoem talk contrib 18:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


Since you have also done three edits to undo mine, let's go thru mediation. In case you wonder, Supermann (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's incorrect, you've reverted both me and TenTonParasol, so you are further along in reverting two editors who agree that your content is original research. Please stop going against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. These have been explained on the article's talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Film censorship in China". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 June 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 03:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Film censorship in China, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)