User talk:Bobbyandbeans

Stargate (film)

Hello,

I saw your plot tag on the above movie and having spent the afternoon watching the movie, I reduced the plot substantially taking out plot bloats etc. Would appreciate it if you could take a once over and just see if I have crossed my t's and dotted my i's.

Thank you! :)

MisterShiney (Come say hi) 17:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullitt plot section edits

Greetings, user Bobbyandbeans. I see (after making considerable edits to the Bullitt page one end to the other you are avidly patroling movie pages with overlong plot sections, adding tags and cutting them down to fit under 700 words. Do understand that the 700 word "limit" is a suggestion, a yardstick, not an iron rule. Half or so the edits I made to Bullitt's plot section were general clean-up of sentence structure and such, the other half small additions in content to make otherwise unclear or insufficiently developed plot points appropriately so. I have since found they bring the section to 717 words. I'd appreciate your understanding the above and not mincing the effort.

Where articles are needlessly or grossly beyond the suggested plot section size keep up the good work. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not "patroling" anything; when I visit a movie page for info and find the plot section too long, I tag it. I don't have time to "patrol" anything on Wiki. Second, WP:FILMPLOT states: "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.)" While I completely agree that some films cannot be summarized this easily, I would hardly think Bullitt is "unconventional" or "too complicated." For example, in your recent edit, you state in the last line, "After taking off his gun and placing it on a table he looks at himself in the bathroom mirror and seems troubled by what he sees looking back at him." How is the taking off of the gun and placing it on the table important to the plot of the story? Why is this a vital bit of information viewers need to know? You also seem to be overly descriptive, with a "protracted, highly dangerous" car chase (aren't all car chases dangerous?) that ends in a "fiery crash." None of these descriptive words are vital and they contribute to the plot summary being overly wordy. Rather than instructing me on what changes I (or anyone else) should or should not do on Wikipedia, I suggest you open a discussion on the Talk page and get input from other editors as to why you feel your edits are necessary and reach a concensus for the page.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kind editor Bobbyand beans, reviewing your contributions it's clear that plot section length is an avid interest of yours. Vis-a-vis the additions you cite, Bullitt taking off and placing his gun down before splashing his face is (in the general view of reviewers such as at IMDB) an intentional addition by the filmmakers seemingly triggering Bullitt to reflect on the exploding conflict between his relationship (expressed as the peacefully sleeping Cathy) and his occupation (as a source of trouble for Cathy and something even he appears to be weighing the merits of given the two days or so just past, spanning various murders, his shooting to death of Johnny Ross in a very public place, and his contentious dealings with the smarmy and ambitious Chalmers character and Chalmers' toady in the SFPD Captain Baker). That's why I added the ten expository words there (Having no idea at the time there was any need to count and parse each one to fit under some arbitrary size limit suggestion). As for the other five words, "protracted, highly dangerous" is a highly economical way of exceptionally briefly characterizing a revolutionary 10-minute or so (asserted Academy Award-earning, movie defining, genre redefining, and public imagination capturing chase nearly half a century later) otherwise devoid of warranted depiction; "firey crash" simply sums in two brief words both how the chase ends and what becomes of the two hitmen (and threats to Bullitt) who theretofore had crucial roles in the plot's development.

By no means are these small additions "overly descriptive" (as you characterize them, nor am I, likewise), they're merely five words among 700 and change in the section, discussed minutely here merely because they are among the newest, and a third fraction of those few which ever so slilghtly push the section's word count above a suggested length limit. There is no slavishness or absolute about the latter: Wikipedia does not have a software loop which lops off the 701st word, or prevents an editor (in the instance a highly experienced one with some 12,000 or so edits to the encylopedia) from adding one over by rejecting the edit, "Sorry, section full". It is appropriate those making admirable efforts to pare down gratuitously overlong plot sections at movie pages be similarly less than slavish in their interpetation and pursuit of such a suggested goal. Do regard the use of the word "should" in Wikipedia's MOS, not must, and consider even with these small additions I lopped some 1,500 bytes (reflecting 265 words) out of the article as a whole. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of what I do for a living, I need to look up info on movies quite often. Unfortunately I've found too many Wiki contributors feel a need to add every detail about a plot in their summary, which is cumbersome, clunky, and unnecessary, hence the tags. It's not an "interest" by any means; please stop assuming my mentality.
One main reason for not having an overly detailed or wordy plot is that you lose a reader's interest. When something is too long, they click away, or lose the point of the summary when they're tripping over so many details.
My note about WP:PLOT is to point out that 700 words is listed as a max; ultimately the plot should be less than that. Note that plot tags state that it may be "too long or overly descriptive," so caution is needed in adding too much description, not just words count. Your detailed description of minor actions (taking off the gun and putting it down on the table) are unnecessary (should we also mention the TV dinners he buys, to emphasize he's a loner?), and can also be more adequately summed up ("...two empty sets of passport and airline ticket folders, two brochures from a Chicago based international travel agency advertising one of their Rome vacation packages, and hidden in the pockets of two sets of clothing a pair of travelers checks books denominated in thousands" could be described as "travel papers from Chicago and traveler's checks").
As for the car chase scene, note that it has its own section on the page, so it does not need to be overly detailed in the plot section. "Extended" I might agree with, but "dangerous" is just redundant. Everything in a cop movie is "dangerous," that's why they carry guns.
Again, I strongly disagree that your edits are necessary. This is not just about demanding some arbitrary word count be followed, but about unnecessary details that are clunky and cumbersome, and immaterial. Again I would suggest you open it on the Talk page and get a concensus since neither of us owns the page or should have the final say.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I took 265 words out, accidentally ending 17 over in the plot section. What you call "max" is a suggested max. Only good faith was involved. I've invested more effort here defending the 17 under attack than making dozens of edits on the page at issue.

Wikipedia just takes a survey to learn why it loses so many good editors. They only need review exchanges like this.

All the same, your forebearance in not launching an edit war over this is appreciated. Cheers Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Good" editors don't explain scenes in the clunky and cumbersome manner you do. You're not a good editor by any means; you're a blatherer. Making thousands of edits doesn't make you good, that just makes you talkative.
Again, this isn't about word count, it's about why you've gone over word count ... your excessively detailed descriptions that are unnecessary and which probably lose readers.
I might also point out that you didn't need to "defend" anything, since I never "attacked" your edits; Bullitt isn't even on my watchlist. You came to my page, telling me what to do (which is inappropriate as a concensus should be reached on a Talk page, not with one editor telling another what to do, but whatevs...). If you're going to open a dialogue with me, I'm going to respond. If you feel a need to continue repeating yourself after my response, that's your problem, not mine. I didn't invite you here and again, I never touched your edits. Don't suggest Wiki look at "exchanges like this," because if they did they would note that you're the one who started this garbage, wasting everyone's time defending your edits which were unnecessary to begin with, and which I never questioned in the first place. Bobbyandbeans (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generosity with the ad hominums. I'm done with this, and you. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem, and it's never plural. It's a descriptive term, not a noun.

Always fascinates me how one person can come to a user's page and bascially start a fight, then gets the stiffies when that same person has the audacity to simply respond (Gasp, how dare you have an opinion that is different than mine; I demand you toss out Wiki policy and the opinion of other editors just as I have done, and think exactly the way I think, and will keep talking endlessly until you do! Now I'm mad at you for making me keep talking!). Also fascinates me when they can be insulting ("Your bold nerve in simply disagreeing with me in a conversation I never needed to start, about edits that never even happened, on your page is why Wiki loses good editors, you shameful person you!") but then defensive over their own delusions of grandeur. As Spock would say, fascinating.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syncopy Films

Please take care not to engage in edit warring. Neither version is a "bad" version, so it's not necessary to be so forceful about it, especially if we're discussing the possibility of AfD. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Shiney is edit warring; I made a perfectly legitimate edit with a legitimate, legal reference and he decided to remove it, twice, for no logical or supported reason.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two; see WP:EDITWAR: "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'." Most disagreements on Wikipedia escalate because neither editor will let the un-prefered version remain. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One reason I'm restoring the correct info is because if you nominate for deletion, it should have all legitimate, supported information available so the community can see if it's notable. "American corporation" gives it validity, as does the reference, so they can at least see that it's a real company. Taking out legitimate edits before nominating for deletion is a mistake, as is keeping in poorly referenced material (the database with the location) as this makes the article seem even less legit. It's for the article's sake and for sake of reviews that I'm being "forceful."Bobbyandbeans (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody likes to be accused of edit warring. :) Believe me, I've done my share and have tried to be better than that. I understand what you say about the content, but my point is the conduct toward one another. You're adding grave emphasis about nationality when it was "American-British" for the longest time. There is just no rush here. I'm not trying to be insulting, I just wanted to prevent the back-and-forth from escalating too much. Sometimes it helps to be the better editor and stand down and discuss on the talk page, even though you dislike the current version. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think I took the American-British out because I thought it would be misleading. Especially given its registered status in the US. Which was why I added the founded by part. MisterShiney ✉ 17:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If "American-British" is inaccurate, it doesnt' matter how long it stood there. Wrong is wrong. I just visited the page for the first time the other day and noticed the inaccuracies and poor references, and that a nom for deletion is warranted, and decided on the cleanup and clarifications before that happened. But, no good deed goes unpunished. I'm bowing out of this here and there, so good luck.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was still accurate, just not in the strictest sense. Dont leave. You had justified concerns and we are all here for the same thing. In light of substantial information, perhaps it should be deleted and information merged with Nolan's page. Such is the case with GK Films. MisterShiney ✉ 17:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little Mix

In a recent edit to the page Little Mix, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. –anemone projectors– 17:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Greg Sestero (February 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Greg Sestero instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This page was an abandoned draft that has now been declined or rejected as duplicating an existing article. Any details in this draft that are not in the article may be added to the article. Because the author of this draft may be no longer active, any comments should be addressed to one of the recent reviewers. This draft should be allowed to be deleted six months after this date.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Greg Sestero and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Greg Sestero, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobbyandbeans! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Greg Sestero

Hello, Bobbyandbeans. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Greg Sestero".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Interstellarity (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]