Hi Juthani1, sadly I'm not very knowledgeable about the Swaminarayan religion. In fact, being honest, before I started to edit Wikipedia, I hadn't heard of the Swaminarayan religion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute with Editor on the Harry Potter Film Series page
The issue in dispute is listed at the address below:
My intent was to add text to identify the movie sequence and release date, in addition to making an update on the final film entry so that younger users in particular would understand that while the 7th novel was presented in a single volume of text, the motion picture adaption would tell the story in two separate films.
I have tried to follow common practice for such things, such as those used in most bibliograpy pages, which commonly list volumes with a number indicating the order and also commonly have release dates listed, such as this page about Robert Jordan:
I am trying to make the entries more understandable to people of all ages, while also following established procedures, such as those implemented above.
Below is the text of the proposed addition to the Harry Potter Films page. I would like to request a formal dispute resolution process, be it arbitration or mediation. If you would be able to assist me in that regard, or at least provide contact information for those who do handle such things, I would appreciate it, as I am inexperienced and unfamiliar with the procedure. Thank you.
Plot Outlines
Film 1: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - 2001
Harry Potter is an eleven-year-old boy. As a baby he had been attacked by Lord Voldemort who killed his parents; his survival brought unknown fame to Harry. He was taken by Hagrid to live with his aunt and uncle. Eleven years later, Harry enters his first year of Hogwarts along with his new friends Ron and Hermione. Based on Book 1 of the Harry Potter series of novels.
Film 2: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 2002
Harry, Ron, and Hermione return to Hogwarts for their second year which proves to be more challenging than the last. The Chamber of Secrets is opened, leaving students (and ghosts) petrified. Harry learns that he can speak parseltongue which leads to many students believing he is the heir of Salazar Slytherin. Near the end of the year Harry, Ron and their new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, Professor Lockhart, discover the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets. There he battles the young memory of Lord Voldemort (Tom Marvolo Riddle) and his basilisk. During the battle, Godric Gryffindor's sword appears out of the sorting hat (brought by Fawks), which we later learn from Dumbledore that the sword would have only appeared for a true Gryffindor. Based on Book 2 of the Harry Potter series of novels.
Film 3: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 2004
Harry's third year truly begins when the Hogwart's express stops moving, a Dementor attacks Harry and is dispatched with the help of new professor, Remus J. Lupin. The Dementor flees but not before it causes Harry to faint. A prisoner named Sirius Black has escaped from Azkaban prison; he was incarcerated there twelve years previously for apparently aiding Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Harry, believing it was Black who caused his parent's deaths, finds out at the end of the year the truth. Based on Book 3 of the Harry Potter series of novels.
Film 4: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - 2005
Harry's fourth year begins with him having a nightmare about Frank Bryce being killed by Voldemort. At Hogwarts, there is a new professor, Alastor Moody, Hogwarts is hosting the Triwizard Tournament, a dangerous tournament between three schools of magic. Fleur Delacour, Viktor Krum and Cedric Diggory are the three champions. However, Harry's name appears out of the Goblet of Fire making him a fourth champion. Based on Book 4 of the Harry Potter series of novels.
Film 5: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 2007
Harry's fifth year begins with Harry being attacked by Dementors in Little Whinging. He finds out later that the Ministry of Magic does not believe that Voldemort has returned and is in for a hard year. Professor Umbridge, a representative of Cornelius Fudge, is the new Defence against the Dark Arts teacher, and the rebellion between the students of Hogwarts and the Ministry of Magic begins. Based on Book 5 of the Harry Potter series of novels.
Film 6: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 2008
Harry believes that Draco Malfoy and Severus Snape are up to something. Harry falls in love with Ginny Weasley, Ron's sister. Towards the end Professor Dumbledore and Harry face an army of Inferi and return to Hogwarts to find that Death Eaters have attacked. The film is due for release on November 21st, 2008. Based on Book 6 of the Harry Potter series of novels.
Films 7 & 8: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - 2010 & 2011
Harry, Ron, and Hermione's quest to find all of Voldemort's remaining horcruxes begins. It is meant to be Harry's final year at Hogwarts but Voldemort's rise to power prevents him from attending. The trio undergo a long adventure to destroy Voldemort for the last time. While the written work was presented as a single volume, the motion picture adaptation will be comprised of two separate films, which will aid in theater scheduling and provide consumers with a more reasonable viewing length. The first film is due for release on November 19th, 2010 while the second film is tentatively due for release sometime in May of 2011. Based on Book 7 of the Harry Potter series of novels.
Phil, I really was expecting some sort of a response to my previous message, at least an acknowledgment of some sort. The way I was raised, that is the polite thing to do. You accepted a position of responsibility and I expect you to act accordingly. -- DannyMuse (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DannyMuse, you are misinterpreting Wikipedia's core policies, and making a lot of incorrect assumptions. In brief, the Biographies of Living Persons policy doesn't only apply to biographical articles, your assumption that I haven't heard of Richard Dawkins isn't correct, and no amount of selective quoting is going to justify this edit. PhilKnight (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, thanks for responding. You are correct in that I did assume you were not familiar with Richard Dawkins. Apparently I was wrong. Thank you for clarifying that point. However, the rest of what you wrote was not so clear. How exactly do you think I am "misinterpreting Wikipedia's core policies"? To say that without giving me a specific example is not helpful, but only frustrating. How do you think the Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism article? Are you implying that living people are not to be quoted as sources? I can't believe you would have meant that. Also, what do you mean by saying "selective quoting"? Dawkins frequently used both terms: "Darwinism" and "evolution." Surely you don't disagree with that. Do you? What exactly is your point?
Perhaps it would help if you told me exactly and specifically what you find wrong with the edit of mine which you referenced:
"Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist and prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design, also frequently uses the two terms--Darwinism and evolution--interchangeably. A notable example of this would be in his book and corresponding television documentary, "The Blind Watchmaker"."
To what part of that do you object or find in conflict with "Wikipedia's core policies"? Let's break it down on a point-by-point basis:
Richard Dawkins:
is a well-known atheist
is a prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design
frequently uses the two terms--Darwinism and evolution
uses them interchangeably
A notable example of this would be in his book and corresponding television documentary, "The Blind Watchmaker"
I'm totally serious, I would really appreciate if you could be specific, because that's not something anyone's been able or willing to do so far. That edit was cited by others as "WP:SYNTH", "WP:OR" and "WP:POV" with out any specific reason as to why or what exact part was the supposed problem. A wholesale revert of an edit with a knee-jerk cite of some Wiki-Policy is not helpful. The closest anyone came to a specific comment was when dave souzareverted my edit saying "that's your original research, and the book is over 20 years old so it's hardly current". I responded by pointing out that if it was from a book--no matter how old--then it couldn't be original research. I also changed the cited source to a more up-to-date reference from 2006, Dawkins' "The God Delusion". That also was reverted, but this time the explanation was that Dawkins is British and that "up to about three years ago creationism was seen there as some crazy American issue that didn't affect Britain". (Note this would have been a year before my now updated reference source from 2006.) It seems the "objections" keep changing, while never directly addressing the content of my edits. Thanks, -- DannyMuse (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DannyMuse, I have protected the article for a week, however if you continue to edit war, then you are going to be blocked. I don't understand why you find it so hard to grasp that articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. PhilKnight (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, you sound frustrated. I am also frustrated. I am trying very hard to contribute to articles on subjects that interest me and do so in keeping with Wiki-policies. If you would do me the favor of reviewing my recent edits to the article I think you will find that to be the case. Yet these edits were immediately reverted with no discussion!
You have said that some of my edits contain "new analysis or synthesis" but you have not specifically stated what. That is not helpful. I have asked you to clarify, but you have not. I appreciate that you're probably busy working on things that interest you, but if you choose not to answer my requests for specific clarification, then please don't be surprised when I have the same question.
Finally, if I am "edit warring" what are OrangeMarlin, Hrafn and Shoemakers Holiday doing when they instantly revert (and sometimes automatedly with WP:TW) without specifically reviewing the edits. C'mon, some of my edits are grammar and punctuation fixes. Those clearly can't be POV or synthesis. Again, please at least look at my recent post to the Talk Page to see that I am genuinely trying to engage in discussion. Thank. DannyMuse (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That I can understand. I wish you or someone else would have said that a week ago. At any rate, now I know what you at least find problematic. I don't know if I can find a published statement of someone commenting that Dawkins uses the terms interchangeably. It's kind of like looking for a statement saying "Dawkins declares water is wet." It's so obvious; who's gonna' make that observation. That being said, I hope you took the time to look at my request for discussion on the SDFD Talk page. Also, I hope you've noticed that NONE of my recent edits had anything to do the the subject of Dawkins. I've been staying away from that while I patiently awaited some dialogue. So far you're the only one to directly address it and you're not even involved with this article except as an Admin. Thanks again!!! DannyMuse (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I-P battleground stats
Phil -- thanks so much for updating the WP:IPCOLL battleground stats. I'd like to see that page get more exposure, maybe it could serve as an incentive for folks. Your ideas (and implementation) would be welcome. Take care, HG | Talk02:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PhilKnight, I wonder if you could take a look at Ronald Reagan, where a dispute between myself and another editor, User:Jimmuldrow, is starting to get out of hand. Here is the page history and three chronological discussions, starting with Talk:Ronald_Reagan#FAR. Here's the general lowdown:
I reverted, citing the fact that this article is about Ronald Reagan the man, not entirely about Reagan's presidency, as well as WP:NPOV and WP:SS, but I encouraged the user to place a NPOV paragraph related to this subject into Domestic policy of the Reagan administration, a subarticle.
The user reverted my edit, saying, "Why talk about Reagan's Presidency but not his policies? If I left out more positive environmental stuff, add facts in instead of removing facts with references."
User:SandyGeorgiareverted that edit saying, "Discuss on talk, marginally related to Reagan, likely belongs elsewhere"
Jimmuldrow then nominated the article for a featured article review, and created a talk page discussion (under his IP address, later signed properly).
On July 31, Many discussions took place, including those at the talk page and the FAR. At both, I outlined my reasons for opposing the insertion of this full paragraph and closing the FAR. The FAR was quickly closed by User:Marskell.
Following the closure of the FAR, Jimmuldrow inserted a very similar paragraph to the first one.
I responded on the talk page and proposed re-implementing this per WP:WEIGHT, WP:SS, and WP:SIZE. I did not revert in article space.
After two days without a response from Jimmuldrow, I implemented my proposal. He reverted just over an hour after I put in, saying, "this is closer to what the cited references say".
I did not revert him, but commented at the talk page.
The following day, Jimmuldrow responded, asking a question regarding WP:WEIGHT.
I responded, answering his question in the hopes that we can reach an understanding.
So it seems we have made a little progress, but still appear to be engaged in a stalemate. Sorry about the long list, but as a member of MedCab, any comments would be appreciated. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff21:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qaanaaq, the List of airports in North America is ok, because it contains some content other than a template. However List of airports in South America could be speedy deleted, because the only content is a template. I completely understand that you were only following the example of similar articles, so I'll restore. In my understanding, the problem is that technically all of these examples should be templates. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting a temp block on 203.193.139.84, cleaning his mess was starting to get frustrating. I appreciate it. TVK (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your comment on the Hoggart case clarifying your position. Looking back at my words I realise they could be read harshly. That was not my intention. Part of the problem with this issue has been Flatterworld's assumption that as mediator your opinion counted for more than other people, and that there was some abiding authority in what you said. I was keen, as when I first approached you, to clear up that mistake with Flatterworld. SilkTork *YES!07:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This case is starting to get out of hand, what makes it worse is the other mediator has effectivly bailed out due to ISP issues. I would like someone with experiance, perhaps a member of the mediation commitie to sit in on this one because this is proving a real headache. Thanks «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)04:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC) (I have put this notice on the other co-ordinators page also)[reply]
Colonel Warden, I'm being to suspect that you don't understand when you are being disruptive. If you took my advice, and used talk pages to establish consensus before making significant changes, you would be a more productive editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am just one of several editors reacting to User:Collectonian's actions which have been disruptive in the way you describe - making radical edits without consensus and in the face of opposition. Anyway, the point at issue here is the protection which you appear to have imposed without any discussion or consensus. Please explain your action, ideally upon the talk page for that article, so that all involved editors may understand it and its duration. If you have views upon the content issues, please state them there too. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was constructive, being made for a particular purpose which was to restore the links to the numerous articles about the distinct Masters Of Horror presentations which are present in this article. User:Collectonian has been engaged in obfuscatory editing (including numerous sterile reverts) to conceal these articles from the several editors who wish to restore and improve them. By opening up these links, I made it easier for myself and other editors to locate these articles so that we may improve them as is being actively discussed on several talk pages. An example of my action in improving such an article may been seen at The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode) in which I have made numerous edits today to improve its content.
Your own responses seem quite obscure too but by exploring the links I find that the details are at [1]. I note that while the complaint against me is that I did not allow 24 hours for discussion, you acted within 15 minutes and did not inform me of the action or potential for discussion. Please be more forthcoming when taking such action or being asked to explain - pointing to this link would have saved us both time. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I you decide just to "protect the article" to prevent the edit war, I would ask you to take into account my numerous attempts to discuss and to block on "my wrong version" in order to force him to dialogue. (see my complain on wp/ANI). Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. I now know that user page is not intended for content contribution. Where would content be posted? Under my contributions?
Arthrifon (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what part of G10 does this article not fulfill, and what part of deletion criteria suitable for AfD absent G10 does it fulfill? RGTraynor 17:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I may reply in anger to this guys badgering, make no mistake that it's his demeaning tone that brings me to that end. If he did not want to hear from me, he should not leave the initial unwelcome message on my talk page. I have NEVER left a message for him that was not in reply to one of his smart-alec messages. I have no time for him, I would like him banned from leaving his sarcastic banter on my talk page. I'm sorry for the part I played in rebuttal to his baiting me, but I'm tired of the little boy, it's well past his bedtime. He has left me messages numerous times, always with demeaning undertones. Have a good day. Wjmummert(KA-BOOOOM!!!!)20:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. PhilKnight, may I please enlist your assistance once again ([2]) to remind Wjmummert what a personal attack is? After your warning, he proceded with a personal attack in his Wikiquette alert [3], then what you see above, and finally copypasting the warning you gave him to my talk page [4][5]. I find it ironic that he's calling me a little boy when he's the one who's begging for a time-out with this behavior. When all is said and done, what I want to see is Wjmummert improve as a Wikipedia editor, but I am at a loss here. Thanks for your time once again. dfg (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
