User talk:Bobbyandbeans

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. When you recently edited Tanit Phoenix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transitions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bobbyandbeans. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David James (South African actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winnie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bobbyandbeans. You have new messages at MisterShiney's talk page.
Message added 21:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MisterShiney (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:AIV

Please give an editor a warning before taking it to WP:AIV. Often a simple test template will cause an ip to stop a bit. I've left a note on the ip's talk. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

To go into a little more detail (you asked for comments): read the notice headed "Important!" towards the top of WP:AIV. There is a graded series of vandalism warnings and, as Vsmith says, a warning is often enough to stop a vandal. The thing to do is to look at the talk page and see whether there are other recent warnings, and if so add one at the next level up. {{uw-vandalism4}} is a "final warning", and if there is further vandalism after that, then is the time to go to AIV. WP:Vandalism gives a guide to what to do, and WP:WARN has a full list of warning templates. After the {{uw-vandalism2}} series (which can be abbreviated to {{uw-v3}} etc), the {{uw-delete2}} series are the most often useful, for page or section blanking. You can include the article name, like {{subst:uw-v3|Justin Bieber}}. The level 1 warnings like {{uw-v1}} are very gentle, assuming that it was a mistake not mischief; for real vandalism you should start ta level 2. Keep at it - Wikipedia needs all the anti-vandal patrollers it can get! JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I hadn't put a note on their page because this vandalism was the only contribution they were making, and I didn't want to change their edits (again) for fear of edit warring. I felt more comfortable handing it off to an administrator, but I'll remember the above for next time. Tx again.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Looper (film)

Hello there! I noticed you tagged Looper (film) with {{plot}}. According to WP:FILMPLOT,

Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)

The plot summary as it stands now is about 730 words, which is an acceptable length, considering that the film deals with time travel (read: more complicated than average), so the tag is not really appropriate. If you have any ideas as to how the plot can be further summarized (it was around 900 words at one point), I suggest you voice them on the talk page and contribute to the discussion. Cliff Smith 01:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I personally disagree that it's so complicated that it cannot be more readily summarized, but don't care enough to get involved. Feel free to remove the tag with your reasons or note it on the Talk page; I won't fight it or argue. Thanks for the note.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I appreciate your candor. I'm going to remove the tag for the stated reasons and note this on the talk page, but just so you know, I too think that it could be a bit more summarized. I intend to work on it soon. Cliff Smith 01:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey

I switched them around because the timestamps don't match, there was no need to have them in the order you put them in and you didn't explain your reasoning at all. I was following the Talk page guidelines by keeping the layout clear. I did not change the wording of your comment in ANY way and was NOT in violation of the above policy as you claim. If you feel this is in error then I suggest you report it.

I feel I should also point out that my comment had addressed issue raised and your comment was not needed and seemed a bit "show boaty" to me. MisterShiney (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Timestamps lining up are not noted on WP:TPO so no, that is not a good reason to move anyone's comments. The layout is perfectly clear; note the guidelines for layout state indenting and headers, not order of comments. 2. If you move my comment again, I will consider it edit warring since that will be the 3rd time and will report it. 3. I don't need to explain my reasons to you or anyone else. If you want to know about a comment made by someone, put that note on the Talk page or their page; do not take it upon yourself to edit their comments on a Talk page. They can decide if they want to explain themselves to you, or not. Talk pages are different than subject pages and not guided by the same need for concensus between editors. 4. How you feel about my comment is immaterial. If you want to assume I'm showboating, that's your issue, not mine. I don't edit Wiki with your feelings in mind, and as I've pointed out to you before, if you cannot remove your personal feelings from Wiki, you should reconsider editing at all.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Because that would be covered under "Ease of reading" I for one spent nearly 5 minutes wondering how the page had been edited. It may not be directly referenced in WP:TPO, but it is considered good practice to put your comment relating to the same issue directly under the preceding comment, unless of course it is directly relating to a previous point in the discussion. As for first editing your comment I was just following Wikipedia:Assume good faith and that it was a mistake on your part (easily done) and saw no need to make an issue of it. I have noticed from several discussions that you take BIG offence at other editors who don't edit the wording of your comments at all, but just putting in the required indenting as per talk page guidelines. You are the one that needs to take a step back and not assume that just because your comment gets given the correct formatting by another editor that it is in breach of said policies. Because its not. If they were editing the wording of your comments then that would be a different matter entirely. In all honesty I couldn't care less how your comments are edited or reworded. But when you bump my comment down for no justifiable reason, then I have questions and wonder why, especially when you react so negatively when its put in its right place according to policy! Out of all the editors I have come across I find you the most defensive and quick to jump the gun. MisterShiney (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1) If you spend 5 minutes wondering how a page has been edited, I would suggest you use the "diff" button or "compare selected revisions" option on the history page. That makes it easier, and that's why they're there. Talk pages like Taken 2 will get long and wordy, and moving around comments to make them easier for you is inappropriate. 2) "Good practice" is open to interpretation, and if someone's comment on a Talk page does not violate Wiki policy, it's better practice to leave it alone, or as I said, ask them first before taking it upon yourself to change it. 3) As for assuming it's a mistake on my part, that doesn't explain why you moved it twice, after I undid your first revision. Obviously it's not a mistake on my part if I changed it to my original comment. Again, ask before you arbitrarily change, especially before you change twice. 4) The time stamp allows anyone to read when comments are placed, which is why it's not "policy" as you just erroneously stated to put things in exact order. Indenting allows for ease of reading so you can note which comments are in response to earlier comments. Which of our comments was actually posted first has nothing to do with ease of reading since they were both in response to the same previous comment. 5) No one "bumped" your comment. This isn't a typical forum or board that pushes things to another page depending on their order. Your comment didn't disappear, and comments appearing above or below one another don't determine their importance or relevance. 6) Again, your personal thoughts about me are immaterial and grossly inappropriate. Keep your thoughts, feelings and comments centered on the articles and policies and guidelines, and topics at hand.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point. The said policy about talk pages go UNDER the previous comment said. I love how you twist the policies to suit your needs. point is, I wasn't breaking any policies in putting the order they should be in. The reason for the time stamps is to show the order of comments and by your above comment of "comments appearing above or below one another don't determine their importance or relevance" just highlights the question of why on earth put it there in the first place? This topic is over. You are incredibly frustrating and argumentative and seem to enjoy baiting and snapping at people. I don't know how long you have been editing for, but I do politely suggest a change in attitude and tone down the "you're breaking policy" rants. Whilst I do agree that policies are needed, they are open to interpretation and as said in most of their names, they are guidelines and open to interpretation. MisterShiney (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1) A conversation on my Talk page is over when I determine it's over, not you. 2) If guidelines are open to interpretation, that would beg the question of why you insisted on your own interpretation about that guideline, twice, for someone else's comment on a Talk page. 3) If you again make inappropriate comments directed at me personally, I will ask for arbitration regarding your personal attacks. As I said, keep your conversation and comments limited to pages, policies, and guidelines. Bobbyandbeans (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)