This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This person ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moovi) reverted my edits rather than revising the parts that he disagreed with or discussing them on the Talk Page. He has been blocked for Edit Warring in the past ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moovi/Archive_1) and his appeal was rejected.
He makes contradictory claims that I added nothing new and that I added unnecessary details. The former isn't true because I added references to KCVO, Elizabeth II, and clarifications of action scenes. The latter, concerning what details are necessary and what are not, should be discussed in the Talk Page rather than left to his own discretion.
I am disappointed with Moovi's inappropriate behavior. Here is my version ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Patriot_Games_(film)&oldid=630496258) and here is his ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Patriot_Games_(film)&oldid=630509634). I am asking for a Third Opinion. The question is not necessarily which one is better, but whether mine made any useful improvements at all, in which case Moovi's actions were obscene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.26.88 ( talk) 06:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not a question of the only 82 characters that you inserted. The additions fall into all the categories above. On top of that, your sentences are missing commas, they include redundant phrasing, contain Weasel wording, and offer no new information. You rewrote the entire plot summary for no logical reason. The plot summary tells us the exact same thing as was written earlier with more incorrect verbiage. These are pointless edits. There are only so many ways you can say the same thing twice. Like below:
As far as the other issue I was involved with, what's your point? It was a similar circumstance, where I proved my point with factual Wikipedia guidelines. You haven't proved anything. Moovi ( talk) 13:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I will accept your judgement if you give me valid examples each of the following:
Otherwise, I will seek appeals with other editors, including those I have worked with in the past, and continue to press this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.26.88 ( talk) 13:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I confess that I don't have much experience with Wikipedia. To be honest, I have no idea how this paragraph below, taken from the Canvassing page, isn't a self contradiction:
However, canvassing which is done **with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way** is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.
That said, I will withdraw my claim to editing this page.
The general editor who stays on Wikipedia (and most Wikia wikis) day in and day out making edits, is not someone adding content. People who stay there adding content always end up banned, and the ones who deeply care about Wikipedia end up banned with a public shaming, often with their real name associated with the shaming since they had once believed in the project so much they divulged it. Most of the people who still do add content then are anonymous editors and people who rarely edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.26.88 ( talk) 14:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Since asked to explain, I shall, but will refrain from further edits on this issue.
USN1977 ( talk) 00:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
A note I added was removed as 'editorializing' (notwithstanding that, in terms of address [check your Debrett's Correct Form], my note reflected indisputable fact), so I shall repeat the observation here: in the film, a character is referred to both as 'Lord William Holmes' and 'Lord Holmes'; the latter is far more commonly used- including in a shot of an English newspaper- and 'Lord William Holmes' is first used by a female American reporter (who would be unlikely to understand the distinction). He cannot be both 'Lord William Holmes' and 'Lord Holmes'; the former indicates his father to be a peer, and the latter implying he himself is a peer (although the fact that 'Holmes' is a name implies a Life Peer, which would be unusual for a character such as this who is supposed to be a royal, and would be likely to have a locational title which is usually of far higher status). Given that 'Lord X Y' is the formulation for a younger son of a Duke or Marquess (the eldest being likely to bear one of the peer's lesser titles), perhaps he is supposed to be the son of a royal duke, in which case the more numerous references to 'Lord Holmes' within the film are misleading. We are unfortunate in this case in that the film is not based on a book, which might clarify matters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.202.23 ( talk • contribs)
It's not really a case of me wanting to add some interesting trivia; it's merely a fact that he can only be one or the other (or, technically, that he would only be ADDRESSED as one or the other; a younger son of a peer might well be created a life peer at some point, although I'm not sure which of the two he would be more likely to opt to use- probably the former, because it's indicative of his parentage... but that's by the by). The fact that both usages are represented in the article without some mention being made of the fact that the film refers to him in both ways despite it only being possible in reality to be one or the other introduces the unwelcome possibility that the article was written by someone who might have made a mistake/ might lack understanding of the state of affairs, rather than simply accurately reflecting the film's own erroneous usages. Aside from published sources such as Debrett's Correct Form, Wikipedia's own articles on 'Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom', the 'Courtesy titles used by sons and daughters' on the 'Courtesy title' article, and the 'Peerage' section in the 'Lord' article all clarify the state of affairs, but don't seem to include specific sources. I fully appreciate that, whilst I personally consider that a note observing this would be of benefit, I am after all only one person and no doubt the majority of people would be unaware of, and uninterested in, the existence of the distinction.