User talk:Lairfans12
Lairfans12, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Lairfans12! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Lairfans12. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Shaye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Revert
[edit]Please see WP:SPOILER, WP:LEAD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why are you removing spoilers from the lead? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Justin (koavf) -- Because if someone is interested in the movie, but wants to read about the film's production on Wikipedia first, they may have the movie partially ruined for them by seeing a spoiler in the lead section. I thought having a spoiler in the lead went against Wiki guidelines as well. I could be wrong on that, but I don't see spoilers in the lead section of, say, Memento (film). Nor in any other movie article I can think of. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I honestly don't think that spoiler needs to be in the lead section of the article. There's already enough plot info for people to get the gist of what it's about. Lairfans12 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Spoilers" make you enjoy films more. You're just wrong. The lead should give an overview of the entire article, including the entire plot. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Justin (koavf) -- Um, way to be diplomatic about it. I'm trying to be nice here because it seems like you're an administrator and I don't want to get banned, but the way you just responded to me was unprofessional. You only addressed one of my points. And to be honest, I don't think you addressed it very well. One study does not definitively prove that everyone likes movies being spoiled. Most people I know say they hate it. I personally dislike it. Beyond that, you didn't address one of my main points: I can not think of a single movie article on Wikipedia that spoils a film in the lead section like the Thoroughbreds article does. Sure, there needs to be a general rundown of the narrative in the lead, but that doesn't entail giving away twists or endings (once again, see the Memento (film) article to understand what I'm talking about). You also didn't respond to my statement that the spoiler policy on Wikipedia is against putting a spoiler in the lead (I could be wrong on this point because I haven't read the policy in full, so I'd appreciate it if you would give me a direct response). If you keep treating me like I'm an idiot, I'm gonna take this to another administrator and try to get the dispute sorted out. Because you're just wasting my time giving me the runaround. Lairfans12 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin and admins can't ban at will, so that's not an issue. Why is it that some users not wanting "spoilers" trumps me wanting a comprehensive overview in the lead? The purpose of a lead is to give an overview of the rest of the article and the plot section is about the entire plot. I would recommend that you read WP:LEAD and WP:SPOILER in full (why haven't you...?) but "spoilers" are not treated differently than any other information here. I edited back when we had spoiler tag warnings and the community realized that it was a bad idea and arbitrary standard: what constitutes a "spoiler"? Is mentioning that MLK got assassinated a "spoiler" of his bio? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Justin (koavf) -- Thank you for the direct response. I haven't read the policies in full because I'm not a frequent editor and I simply don't have the time. I know that the plot section is about the entire plot, and I have no issue with spoilers being in the plot section. I'm talking specifically about the lead, which is the only part of the article I edited. Once again, I bring up the Memento article as an example of a lead that provides a general overview of the plot without going out of its way to explain every single detail, including the ending, to the reader. The Memento article's lead is written in such a way where, if you haven't seen the movie before, reading the lead wouldn't tell you how the film ends. But if the policy says its acceptable to write a lead like Thoroughbred's, then I guess I'll leave it like that. I wish you had explained your rationale at the beginning of this discussion (especially what you wrote about "arbitrary standards" and the fact that the community agreed upon this); it would've made things a lot less contentious. Lairfans12 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- "[the] lead is written in such a way where, if you haven't seen the movie before, reading the lead wouldn't tell you how the film ends" That's the problem, yes. There will be an RFC for this topic and I encourage you to give your perspective, even if you don't edit regularly. I value your contributions, even if we disagree. Thanks again for pining me and discussing this--it's encouraging and helpful. Let me know if you need any help on the site. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Justin (koavf) -- Thank you for the direct response. I haven't read the policies in full because I'm not a frequent editor and I simply don't have the time. I know that the plot section is about the entire plot, and I have no issue with spoilers being in the plot section. I'm talking specifically about the lead, which is the only part of the article I edited. Once again, I bring up the Memento article as an example of a lead that provides a general overview of the plot without going out of its way to explain every single detail, including the ending, to the reader. The Memento article's lead is written in such a way where, if you haven't seen the movie before, reading the lead wouldn't tell you how the film ends. But if the policy says its acceptable to write a lead like Thoroughbred's, then I guess I'll leave it like that. I wish you had explained your rationale at the beginning of this discussion (especially what you wrote about "arbitrary standards" and the fact that the community agreed upon this); it would've made things a lot less contentious. Lairfans12 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin and admins can't ban at will, so that's not an issue. Why is it that some users not wanting "spoilers" trumps me wanting a comprehensive overview in the lead? The purpose of a lead is to give an overview of the rest of the article and the plot section is about the entire plot. I would recommend that you read WP:LEAD and WP:SPOILER in full (why haven't you...?) but "spoilers" are not treated differently than any other information here. I edited back when we had spoiler tag warnings and the community realized that it was a bad idea and arbitrary standard: what constitutes a "spoiler"? Is mentioning that MLK got assassinated a "spoiler" of his bio? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Justin (koavf) -- Um, way to be diplomatic about it. I'm trying to be nice here because it seems like you're an administrator and I don't want to get banned, but the way you just responded to me was unprofessional. You only addressed one of my points. And to be honest, I don't think you addressed it very well. One study does not definitively prove that everyone likes movies being spoiled. Most people I know say they hate it. I personally dislike it. Beyond that, you didn't address one of my main points: I can not think of a single movie article on Wikipedia that spoils a film in the lead section like the Thoroughbreds article does. Sure, there needs to be a general rundown of the narrative in the lead, but that doesn't entail giving away twists or endings (once again, see the Memento (film) article to understand what I'm talking about). You also didn't respond to my statement that the spoiler policy on Wikipedia is against putting a spoiler in the lead (I could be wrong on this point because I haven't read the policy in full, so I'd appreciate it if you would give me a direct response). If you keep treating me like I'm an idiot, I'm gonna take this to another administrator and try to get the dispute sorted out. Because you're just wasting my time giving me the runaround. Lairfans12 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Spoilers" make you enjoy films more. You're just wrong. The lead should give an overview of the entire article, including the entire plot. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Justin (koavf) -- Because if someone is interested in the movie, but wants to read about the film's production on Wikipedia first, they may have the movie partially ruined for them by seeing a spoiler in the lead section. I thought having a spoiler in the lead went against Wiki guidelines as well. I could be wrong on that, but I don't see spoilers in the lead section of, say, Memento (film). Nor in any other movie article I can think of. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I honestly don't think that spoiler needs to be in the lead section of the article. There's already enough plot info for people to get the gist of what it's about. Lairfans12 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Lairfans12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
Disambiguation link notification for October 27
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Glacier Fox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kit. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)