Deproduction
| Welcome!
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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing! If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page! Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:
Best of luck to you, and happy editing! |
- I'm assuming you're the same person as the anon editor from Talk:Public-access television and have decided to register. Whatever the case, welcome, and I hope our discussion proves productive. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, after reading more on etiquette and policies, decided it would be a good idea to register. I appreciate your feedback, and I look forward to receiving more clarity on the situation. If Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY are really the justification, perhaps the wording of those two guidelines should be modified. From an outsider's perspective, those two policies didn't seem to apply in this case.
- The above information is VERY helpful. Thanks for the effort Deproduction (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Arguments of WP:USEFUL do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the wording of those two official policies are specific for a reason, so things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. Feel free to to try and change those policies if you like. Untill that time, those are the policies.--Hu12 (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hu12, you seem to refer to policies very loosely. I am saying that Directory and Repository do not apply in this case. This is a list, like hundreds of other lists in Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting that those policies be changed to allow it, but suggesting that if the intent of those policies is to exclude lists like the one on that page, their wording should be changed to make that more clear.
Your message
editThanks, I really appreciate your kind words. I do try to be supportive and encouraging to newbies because, like everyone else, I was one once, and I found the place very intimidating until I'd found my way around (particularly all the jargon and abbreviations). I also think that we need every good-faith contributor we can muster, and it's too easy to upset and antagonize people who are intending to do the right thing, but just haven't figured out how it all works yet. I do believe in this project - even with its many faults, it's still a great idea and I learn from it constantly. Best wishes for lots of happy editing! -- Karenjc 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Got your message re the problems with this article. To take them separately:
The references were indeed incorrectly formatted. I took the URLs given and turned them into inline citations. To do this, I used "Cite web" in the Wikipedia refTools gadget. Do you use this? It's very convenient. To enable it for yourself, just click on "My preferences" (top right), then "Gadgets", check the "refTools" box and save your settings. Now whenever you edit a page you'll find a couple of extra buttons on your edit toolbar. To make a citation, click the "Cite" button, then choose the type of source you want to cite (journal, web, book, etc) and fill in the form that pops up. You don't need all the info asked for, but name, date and title at least are essential. Once you're finished, click your cursor at the point in the page text where you want the citation (this is important, otherwise it will default to the beginning of the article) and click on "Add citation".
For your inline citations to appear properly as numbers in the body of the text and a corresponding numbered list at the end, you need a references section and a reflist. If there isn't one already, create a new section headed ==References== as I have done in the article, and put the text {{reflist}} directly under the heading. The section will then populate itself with any properly formatted inline citations that already exist, and will add new ones automatically whenever they are introduced to the article.
The line with the typo you were concerned about appears to have been old vandalism not noticed in subsequent edits. I went back into the history and opened old versions of the page until I found one where the line was undamaged, then cut and pasted it back into the current version and saved.
I hope this helps and the article is now OK. If I can be of any further help, or if you have any difficulty getting refTools to work (it's a good handy gadget but can be a bit clunky to use), don't hesitate to ask. Best wishes -- Karenjc 14:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
-Thanks Once again Karen, I've added that gadget and look forward to my first citations (its about time)Deproduction (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Before you vandalized this section, you had some questions on the Talk page. I addressed as many of them as I could. 76.218.120.86 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
How do you define "vandalism"? I wrote extensively about why/how the language was inaccurate. I then suggested a solution and I waited several months for a response. Receiving none, I made the change I had suggested and explained the justification for many months earlier.Deproduction (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I see you reverted a line in that article that said: "By cloaking their decision in pseudo-scientific jargon, they hide their bias for better-known (read: blockbuster) movies." I did not write that line, and am glad you deleted it. I don't have time now to look at who added it, but it certainly wasn't me. I have to assume that is the vandalism you were talking about, and it'd be great if you found who it was and had a similar discussion with them.
My concern with this article is still here. It is clearly inaccurate to say that a film with a small number of ratings/votes is "penalized", because the equation actually BOOSTS the score above their average if their score/rating is below the average across all films. Its obvious that the author of this did not fully understand how this score plays-out across the database, and I imagine they had some bone to pick. The current language maintains a level of criticism of IMBD's approach that is based entirely on misconceptions. Deproduction (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Procedures
editI am looking at your request regarding protection of Open Media Foundation. Meanwhile, please examine WP:TP to learn how talk page comments should be written. It would be best for you to slowly read that linked page but in brief: (a) Use "new section" (sometimes "+") at the top to add a new section; (b) use a colon to indent comments when replying; (c) use ~~~~ to add a signature. Finally, do not start text with a space. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Johnuniq. If you don't feel the page merits protection, can you chime-in on any of the entries made since march by this disgruntled former intern? I am not familiar with all the policies, but they must violate NPOV, Living Persons, Libel, Slander, etc. I looked closely at his citations and the conclusions he is drawing from the citations are not substantiated by the citations. Deproduction (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)