Filmfluff

.

A merge to be made

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Kiss,_Please

James O'Keefe

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

You have convinced me that there should be something in the article about the additional evidence that CNN has besides the 13 page memo which was not written by O'Keefe - so I now agree that some mention of O'Keefe's emails is in order.

However, this is a blp, so I think O'Keefe's position (his denial) should be stated at the end, and that we shouldn't go back and forth in a "he said", "she said" manner. Also, the emails were disclosed to CNN before O'Keefe made his second series of denials, so it is somewhat better chronological order to mention them right after the discussion of the 13 page memo. Here is the diff showing my edit. This is not a huge issue with me, but please let me know what you think. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good work. Filmfluff (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Filmfluff! FYI, I would suggest redacting this comment from your latest posting on the Talk Page: "'I'm really beginning to wonder who you're working for. Are you associated with Veritas or O'Keefe?". WP:NPA says at the very top of the policy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor," so as a friendly concerned editor, I'd recommend deleting that sentence immediately. Also, just an FYI, after leaving a warning on the other user's talk page, I've made a report to WP:AN3 concerning edit warring here in the hopes that an admin can politely inform the other user about WP:3RR concerning his deletion of the "heavily and selectively edited" statement to excess.--AzureCitizen (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the good advice. Will do. Filmfluff (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I must warn you, that your characterizing of another editor's edits as "vandalism" is entirely inappropriate (see WP:NOTVAND). Between that and the fact you are just barely avoiding WP:3RR (your last revert was a BLP revert), please be careful to avoid personal attacks (calling another editor's edits vandalism is a personal attack, no matter how bad you think his point of view is) and avoid future edit warring; otherwise you may find yourself blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought that repeated removal of properly sourced information was considered vandalism, so thanks for the clarification. I'll try to be more careful. Filmfluff (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Respect! Filmfluff (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again Filmfluff. Yep, always be careful whenever dropping the V-word on someone - only use it when vandalism is obvious, never for a difference in opinion, etc. Thank you for taking to heart what we discussed earlier too. Just an FYI, I posted a lengthy message at the other user's talk page here, to give him some pointers and help him figure out WP:BRD since Wikipedia is all new to him, and to offer advice on how we might all go forward together from here for constructive collaboration. Best regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

FilmFluff, what's the issue here? I uploaded the court document to wikipedia. that way, if a website containing primary source like this ever changes, the reference will still exist. I noted in the wikipedia upload page from where the document was obtained. Also posted this on Talk page. please discuss there SpecialKCL66 (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I replied on the talk page. Filmfluff (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

WP:FILMS Welcome

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for September has been published. October's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Restoring Honor

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi Filmfluff, the Restoring Honor rally crowd size section is currently under formal mediation after two months of disputes. Please do not make controversial edits until the mediation is complete. Invisible warnings have been added to remind of this. Thanks. BS24 (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notification. I was just doing what was being discussed on the talk page and was well within our rules for weight, RS etc. Rumors to unnamed persons on Twitter is hardly a RS and other unreliable rumors were also being deleted. You have restored the deplorable state of affairs....sigh. I would think you'd want high quality information, not rumors. Filmfluff (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Filmfluff. You made this edit, saying Soxwon had a good point. I don't see it. Soxwon's edit summary said: (One bloated should not over-rule the concensus, since no one has backed up Bachman's claims, it should be closer to reality)

I'm not sure what concensus Soxwon was referring to, but Bachmann's 'estimate' is no more a violation of reality, and no less "backed up", than the estimates from Beck or from no-name mystery-men hiding in dark towers. If the ridiculous is going to be represented in the article, then Bachmann has every right to be there as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what consensus either, unless it was the one about using only good sources and not including rumors, IOW Beck's, Bachmann's, and the unnamed Park's employee at the top of the monument should ALL go. Pare it down to only verifiable sources that have some validity. The air photo analyses are the only scientific estimates, and of course they should stay. Any others should only stay to document that there was disagreement, but that the scientific estimates say otherwise. You seem to be in favor of keeping crappy numbers with no scientific basis. Filmfluff (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

No one has asked me what I am in favor of, and I don't think I've expressed my position on that. What my edits DO make clear, however, is that I won't sit by and watch editors remove one estimate because they view it as absurd, while leaving other equally absurd estimates in the article. A Wild Ass Guess is a Wild Ass Guess, regardless of what number is guessed. Hopefully we'll be able to hammer out some reasonably sane content in the mediation -- you should participate. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You don't seem to get the point. Why give weight or priority to ANY "absurd estimates" and "wild ass guess(es)" at all? Guesses aren't reliable, no matter where they are published. They are just guesses, often based on wishful thinking. I'm not saying they can't be referenced in the article (I was only removing some as I saw things were going in that direction and was trying to help cleanup the article in a totally non-partisan manner), but they shouldn't get any weight. They should only be produced as evidence that there has been a lot of contention and guessing. The scientific estimates should get prominence as they are based on actual counts by uninvolved professionals. They are the only ones that get anywhere close to being "reliable", and we need to give reliable information priority, no matter who they favor. Filmfluff (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi FilmFluff. I think Xenophrenic understands the point all too well, which is what he was hinting at in the first sentence of his last reply. As it stands right now, the scientific estimate in the crowd controversy section is being repressed by another group of editors in the mediation, which you can see at this link here: RHR Mediation. Please have a look at the opening statement by Xenophrenic there (posted under the subheader "Statement by Xenophrenic"). If you do, I'm sure the conversation thread you have been having above will come into focus. :) Also, we would certainly welcome your participation there. Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

After the edit conflict, I'll scratch the lengthy reply I had written and just point to what AzureCitizen posted. I find this a bit humorous, however, that we completely agree -- yet still find a way to argue ;-) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. I'll take a look. Politics isn't my big thing. I just happened to run into this subject and, although I find it somewhat interesting, I'm not interesting in a whole lot of conflicts with anyone. Filmfluff (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Indefinite Block of BS24

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [1] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up! I haven't followed along on that editor's history, but it's good they're blocked. I absolutely hate improper socks. Where are the links to their IPs and the SI page(s)? I would like to know what to watch for. Filmfluff (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply