User talk:Lexein/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Comment moved here

This was originally a response to Kww at Arbitration/Requests/Case, but was moved to 1st level indent, per that page's guidelines. As a result, the comment had no relevance to that page, so has been voluntarily removed by me. --Lexein (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Kww - is this really the right place to attack editors not involved in this particular discussion? "Ignore"? "Subvert"? "En masse"? Those are fighting words, since my stated, meticulously argued position is the exact opposite of what you wrote. You, like Koavf, falsify the intent and language of other editors, and of policy: time to stop. Admins should never do that. --Lexein (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC). (revised --05:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

I stand by the content of the comment, as I always do. The following comment is apparently intended to be a response to the above. --Lexein (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay Do you see the irony in your above statement? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not ironic if you keep bleating on about it. Thanks for blowing the joke, ffs. --Lexein (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh So it was intended as a joke? I guess it's lost on me. For what it's worth, it would be nice if you didn't keep on slandering me serially across several pages (e.g. higher up on this very talk) or if you actually wanted to discuss my edits, inform me of it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly, it's not slander if it's the literal truth. I elect not to let editors who falsify or misrepresent policy off the hook. As soon as public_admissions/retractions/redactions/strikethroughs are done, you will no longer be on the hook. We can have a jolly time convivially editing other stuff, but the above sticking points won't budge until you do.

Oh, and I've imposed a style restriction: no bolded lead words in discussion here. See top. --Lexein (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, so you'd be cool with me constantly making references to your glib assertions about rape even when it's not relevant to you at all? Honestly, you should get over it and move on. Others will likely have no idea what you're even talking about with "Koavf-level lying" (which I never did, by the way, although you seem to enjoy asserting this untruth.) I can hardly believe that I'm actually asking another adult to be this mature, but please stop spreading "false, malicious statements (spoken or published), especially which are injurious to a person's reputation". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you'd be lying there, too, because I never used the word "rape". You may (only) quote my entire sentence, if you like, which was (quote):

"It's called supervoting, and it bypasses discussion, and it sucks, and it's bad practice, and it breaks faith with the community, and it's kinda rapey, and if editors admitted they'd be doing this during their RfA interviews, they'd be nowhere goddamn fast. --Lexein (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)"

There's no untruth. I said, and it is still entirely absolutely, uncontroversially true:

"You've edited your nominations to further falsify policy, by injecting emphasis and intentions not stated in policy: "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease" are not stated or implied or intended in NFCC."

I let things go when people stop doing them, and retract or redact prior commissions of them. Why should you be let off the hook for egregiously misrepresenting policy? You're asking for something which in truth is not in my power to grant, unless you change your behavior, adult. --Lexein (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Lying? I don't think you knowing what lying means. I never lied about you. What I said is that you made a glib assertion about rape (which is true), not that you used the word "rape" (which you actually did, since you made the construction "rape-y".) What I meant when I said you had been lying was that you made the claim that I was a liar, when I wasn't. That is the lie you keep on spreading. Furthermore, your assertion that I misrepresented policy is not an assertion that has support. You may feel that way--that's fine. I don't really care. You had your chance to explain yourself and others disagreed. Now you should probably get over it and move on. If you want to make passive-aggressive user essays about me, fine. But keep it all to yourself and don't go spreading it around to others. If I see you going around calling me a liar in other discussions where I'm not even relevant, I'm going to take further action. On your own talk page, it's all fun and games and basically irrelevant, but I don't want you bad-mouthing me to strangers elsewhere. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I reject all of your statements as, again, false. Sorry, but your grip on expressing the truth ethically is slippery at best, as I've demonstrated repeatedly. Your exaggerations and distortions both of policy and of what I've said are laughably obvious, and my assessment of them as inappropriate does have support - in the bare truth. Too bad you don't have the decency and civility to admit that. As for "passive-aggressive", just look at the way you linked that - going against the notion of fair disclosure and least surprise right off the bat. If you didn't insist on self-aggrandizement by bolding first words in discussion, against Talk page common practice guideline, I would never have had to bring it up anywhere, let alone in an explanatory subpage for people who will be justifiably mystified by my talk page request. As long as you exaggerate (lie about) policy language, I will call you on it. Any Wikipedia editor should do no less - I would expect you and other editors to try to reign me in if I repeatedly misstated or exaggerated policy language, in "272" FFDs. Your threats are duly noted, now, and for the future. --Lexein (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In eight years, I've never explicitly told anyone to just leave me alone and stop bringing me up in completely irrelevant venues, but you really tempt me. Go ahead and note any and all threats (?) that I've made, continue being self-righteous, and act a martyr: again, it's all fun and games and you seem to enjoy it a lot. But I'm going to have a hard time ever working with you in the future if you take completely innocuous actions on my part as wildly egregious attacks against you. Note also that you're probably going to have a hard time getting anyone else to agree with your preposterous claims, but if you can find some level-headed users who do, I will happily amend my behavior. In the meantime, you come across as a spiteful crank. Unless you have something new to say, then I'm done with all of this petty nonsense, just as I was weeks ago until I happened to stumble across the fact that you're hypocritically bad-mouthing me to others when it's utterly irrelevant. I suppose that this kind of behavior isn't a subset of m:DICK, huh? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, adult, in eight years, it's too bad nobody else cared enough about accurately representing policy in discussions and deletion actions to challenge your distortions for what they are. Speaks poorly of others, not me. An adult would simply own up to the error, see what a problem it is, and commit not to make it in the future. It's no error on my part to call you on exaggerating policy for effect. The exaggerations you committed are not "innocuous" - to say so indicates a really serious lack of respect for the policy, and other users. There's nothing "preposterous" about any of my claims - the evidence speaks for itself. In eight years, one would think one would just learn not to do such things. But no, you act as if getting away with it makes it right. Also sad. And I'm not sure why you refer to user talk pages as "fun and games" - they're not; it's where behavioral issues are discussed one-to-one or few-to-few. Pretty serious, if you ask me. Finally, who's acting the "martyr" here? It's you, for acting offended, having been caught out, adult. Remember it was me who repeatedly pointed out having supported some of your previous actions with some provisos, and my disappointment that you seem to have escalated to distorting policy in deletion nominations. --Lexein (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In case I was unclear, what I meant what innocuous is using bold. Somehow, you think that this behavior constitutes being a dick. Simultaneously, you think that your behavior doesn't. That's confounding to me. Talk pages are fun and games to the extent that you can have your personal domain to play around in and say what you will: if you want to bad mouth me here, I guess I don't mind so much although it would simply be common courtesy to stop calling me a liar to others (especially since it's not true.) But you should stop it elsewhere, especially when I'm not relevant to those discussions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Userfication update?

All done now; sorry for the wait. — foxj 01:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem.--Lexein (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Lexein. You have new messages at Foxj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— foxj 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Say What You Want - Kay.jpg)

moved to uploader User talk:WikiGaGa --Lexein (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you are still 'minding the shop' - Merry Christmas, Lexein!

Greetings! Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Hi!
 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|
gives you this puppy!
Puppies promote WikiLove and I hope this little fellow/girl ^{(your choice)} has made your day better.
Remember! Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever.

Merry Christmas and a happy 2013
05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your example and guidance during 2012 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ha,Ha! Of course, I knew that. Have a lovely day! –
   – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

War of the Worlds - The True Story

You stopped in asking about the change to War of the Worlds The true story article, on my talk page. Essentially the page was being harassed I felt by someone who really didn't want the page there. They never contacted me. So I had to be clear about the sourcing, with the loss of the news article in the beacon it ended up being that that portion of the page was no longer verifiable. Currently the aforementioned user is trying to merge the page with a different film that was made in 2005. Which alarmingly was somewhat successful.

If you feel like it, you can find sources to bring the section back in there, by all means feel free to do so. I have not seen much press on the film of late though. They did a one day run across the USA on halloween according to their site, but I don't have a third party source on that either. I'm hoping the media picks up more coverage, it's a very interesting film, I was able to see it at an early seattle showing. Their facebook page has a good following, and they usually post media exposure there, like I said have not seen much of late. But the most recent post on facebook seem to hint at why.

Sorry for the lateness of my reply. Cheers! Jzesbaugh (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I did the merge as a result of the discussion, which was over the notability of The True Story version of the film, which the Beacon article didn't help very much, in truth. The merge isn't so bad, and as notability grows, the two films can be re-separated. I have a PDF of the Beacon article here, and can confirm that it's verifiable at libraries which stashed the paper. My discussions with the editor of the paper to restore online verifiability have not succeeded, basically because it's beyond their control.

In any case, I'll put the Beacon-sourced claims back in that part of the article. --Lexein (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• And I'm not convinced we've properly mined all the available sources, either. (I linked the subsection heading above) --Lexein (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/reminderlist.html#w War of the Worlds the True Story film is currently in contention for oscars in several categories. The film features new cast, and is a documentary. I saw the Film as it toured, and have seen the other, they are fundamentally different, hence why one is in consideration for an oscar, one is not. I think it would confuse people(members of the academy) looking for the OSCAR considered film, which I don't think is the purpose of wikipedia to confuse people. Does this make sense, can you remake the page for this now, I think its notable enough with a listing on the Oscar page? According to the facebook for the film its playing in http://laemmle.com/viewmovie.php?mid=8753 for its week of oscar consideration. Thanks Jzesbaugh (talk) 21:51: 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on it. It's not a nominee. It's eligible to be one. Which categories? Doesn't say. Please recall that True Story was merged in order to save it from certain deletion. Nominations are frequently not enough for WP:NFILM. So it's safe for now. --Lexein (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-1218-war-of-the-worlds-20121218,0,6972818.story?track=rss I don't suppose a review in the LA times is good enough. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2507628/ IMDB calls it it's own film. As to the oscar, for best score for an oscar --> http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/academy-reveals-104-eligible-original-scores-for-2012-oscar-race?page=1#blogPostHeaderPanel. It's mentioned on the Oscar web site, the LA times, and Indywire, many other sources, as listed. Maybe I'm missing something..It's the only film I'm aware of that is created in this style. I'll keep an eye on it this week, probably lots of reviews seem to be going up. Anywho thanks for saving it. Jzesbaugh (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ouch, bare urls. Again, read WP:NFILM - your argument is not with me. That LATimes review is from today. Feel free to go ahead and summarize it and put it in Reception. I added it as a review and source. IMDb is not reliable about anything. As soon as a few more major reviewers (not just major papers -Goldstein isn't a "major" reviewer) cover it, True Story will be safe to move back to its own article. At that time, we'll do a history merge, so its prior edit history is restored safely, along with the recent edits. Patience, please. --Lexein (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually looking at the unique accomplishment in cinema aspectWP:NFILM, to my knowledge it's the only film that is heavily based on found footage that is modified with special effects. I realize my argument is not with you, just want to be clear about what requirements I was thinking of when I created the article. Since it's inappropriate to move the film with out the communities say so. It's also a play off of the Orson Wells Radio broadcast in the 1930s The War of the Worlds (radio drama), from what I can tell. So my understanding that a film must be considered under its own merits, there is some unique stuff going on here.

The article I sorta intend to make is going to be hopefully included in lots of other articles about film making such as found footage and Mockumentary, as a unique mile stone in documentary/mock documentary film making. So I think you have one of the classic sic-fi stories H.G. Wells, being told in its historical context. To get you a concept of why I reviewed the guidelines, and placed it there, maybe it would be wise to make a section on its unique contribution to film making. I think the intent of the article was misinterpreted. It's hard not to end up in a grey area, since its both historical tons of people aware of the topic as a whole, and commercial a movie based on a historical concept. Thanks for your time, you had asked to work on the article, so I wanted you to understand the main thrust, and historical context and possible significance of the film, as related to other historical topics and styles of film making. Hope that makes sense, as we move forward on the article creation, you still want to help, yes?

Say I take one of the sources that say's its based on the radio broadcast by orson wells, done in tribute, and make a link back to the The True Story, meaning I modify the Orson Wells Radio Broadcast page linked above with one of the sources for this info out there, then the user clicks that link, and ends up on a page for a movie that was made in 2005, and has nothing to do with the radio broadcast, a film that did not use that as a concept. That's basically why I've stopped doing anything editing wise, till this gets resolved. I think making those changes would end up causing to much confusion. And my basis for the "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits." Is there a forum or something to discuss this?

Anywho, thanks again for your help.

Jzesbaugh (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not really clear on what you're doing now, or what you're talking about. Are you creating another article about True Story? It would be better to add whatever is relevant to True Story to the article where it is now. Your edits won't be lost, and the record of them will be retained forever. True Story is only merged with the other Hines WOTW film(s) temporarily. I'm not sure I ever asked to work on the article - I've been involved with the Hines WOTW content for years, since back when there was horrible edit-warring between the three WOTW production companies, fanbois & etc.! --Lexein (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh gotcha, I interpreted your post on my talk page as wanting to help. I'm not really aware of the 2005 stuff. Nore am I interested in an edit war, but I've seen some interesting posts along those lines already. I have no intent to recreate the article on the true story, until is appropriate. I'm looking to you for guidance on that. Anywho, glad it's all not lost that was my biggest worry, spent some time putting it all together.

My point was that the True Story directly relates to some other articles. The War of the Worlds (radio drama) is mentioned in lots of the sources. I don't feel the 2005 film has the same relationship. My goal was to link the articles the True Story, and The War of the Worlds (radio drama) when it became appropriate. Sending users to the 2005 movie, I feel would be confusing. Hopefully that's clear. I'll keep yah upto date on what I find. Cheers Jzesbaugh (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seen my edit history? Plenty busy. I do appreciate the leads on True Story.

I have to take this moment to officially caution you about something called WP:Original research. Also, WP:Synthesis. Don't do either.

Next, the anchors within Wikipedia pages, tied to section headings, do useful work. War of the Worlds - The True Story is (for now) a WP:Redirect leading to the True Story section within the WOTW article. Just fixed this, so now it's really true. Might be a little confusing, but not much, for anyone who uses the web for six months or more. IMHO that's where it should stay until we get more reviews. Seriously. By then it will be safe to move to mainspace on its own. If we moved it now, somebody would almost certainly throw it to AfD again, and it would end up merged again.

Next, I don't think it's appropriate to link Orson Welles' WOTW to Hines' WOTW or any other production. That's what categories such as Category:War of the Worlds dramatic adaptations, or lists List of War of the Worlds dramatic adaptations. Experienced Wikipedia readers know about Categories and Lists - believe it! That's just my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC) (update --08:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

Another review So here is another review, that also may be meaningful. I mean I'm looking at the sum total of articles on this film, and wondering with all the guidelines presented is this useable in the article itself as a citation or how does that work? I want to make sure this is correct. Jzesbaugh (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

They add up. It's ok to accumulate links to useful resources in Talk, as long as they are eventually used (moved) to an article. I want Hines to open up, break out more production notes & history, give more credit to his crew and cast, and let them out of the box. It's spooky: everyone is silent about this production: nobody is "talking up" their experience working on the film in blogs, tweets, forums, nothing. If I know Hines from his past press forays, it's going to be interesting to watch what happens next. --Lexein (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I know that Hines has a blog, but I didn't think I could use it as a source for article creation, are you saying that cast and crew blogs, and tweets can be used in article creation? I think maybe Hall, has one I'd have to check I never considered looking since I didn't think they were usable sources on wiki? Are they? Jzesbaugh (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I was complaining that there's no information at all coming out of the production, let alone unusable sources. See WP:Primary source and WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:SELFPUB (I know). Hines' blog might be usable very carefully in a limited way. Cast and crew, less so, but maybe in footnotes; worth checking. Is Hines' blog linked to from the film(s) website(s)? The cast & crew? That helps establish that they really are the people involved in the production...

My poorly-made point was really to research everything. Of course we quote and paraphrase and cite actual WP:reliable sources, and in rare cases, use other sources at arm's length, with full attribution, such as a relevant, notable person's blog or twitter feed.

At least a blog or verified Twitter account can have verifiable authorship, especially if the link is established in secondary RS. Wikis and forums are out as sources, because their authorship is almost universally unverifiable, but they are still fertile ground for finding things. That's how I found the original press materials for the HDDVD release of Elephants Dream, via a single link in a single very old forum thread, that happened to be a dead link, but was archived at archive.org, yay.--Lexein (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• There was one thing I meant to mention earlier about the project: Hines has been putting up and taking down clips of several of his earlier films, including Bug Wars. In the distant past, he made claims about getting name actors onto the WOTW project - even though the reports were attributed clearly, they have been deleted from the article by other editors due to their extraordinariness, without extraordinary verification. To me, these incidents reduce his apparent reliability as a primary source, which increases our burden of caution when citing. --Lexein (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki projects can be fun, this has been my first article, and its been quite a hornets nest. One I'm hoping to make in the next few weeks, a fellow in Seattle who created the Voters rights act in california, he used to live there, and argued before the U.S supreme court, not much mention in the books on him yet.. Not ready to publish, but the stuff is really cool, when I publish the page will you review? Make sure I did it right? Jzesbaugh (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope you also keep going on WOTWTTS. Best to develop new articles either in WP:Articles for creation, or in userspace as a subpage like User:Jzesbaugh/New Article, and sure, I'll check it out. Feel free to also communicate with WP:IRC helpers in #wikipedia-en-helpers ---Lexein (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter They seem to be posting more reviews, this one cites technical achievements. Trying to figure out how to mix it with the rest. Jzesbaugh (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Good find. I think straight quotes are best here, since the review is so short. I wish it had been more specific about technical matters. At least we have an independent source for the cast list, finally. --Lexein (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)