Hello! Welcome to my talk page. If you leave me a message here, I will answer it here. So either follow my page or remember to check back later. If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will watch your page and reply as soon as I can.
Please note that I am Semi-Retired and so it can take a little while for me to reply. But I do endeavour to get back to you as soon as I can.
I do occasionally make mistakes and misinterpret policy so please be patient and remember to assume good faith. I am here for one reason and that is to ensure that articles are their best and that opportunities to expand further are taken.
Finally, I like to see who has sent me a message so don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
MisterShiney, we have a problem at Star Trek Into Darkness, again. This time, a user named Azx2 apparently nominated the article for GA, without even a single edit to the article itself, and didn't even felt bothered to discuss it to anyone. I reverted him, but he doesn't even listen. Now I need your advice, as your are the one of the major contributors of the article, whether keep the GA nomination or warn him for doing this, because I'm absoloutley in no mood for an edit war. Thanks,----Plea$ant 1623✉12:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for letting me know. I don't really see an issue of it. As far as I am aware there is no requirement to have edited an article for GA/FA status if you haven't edited the article before. If anything it is a compliment that an editor comes along and feels that it is ready to be promotion. The same thing happened over at Skyfall. There is no harm in someone coming in and nominating it, it gets reviewed and it failing. If it fails sera sera, its a good way to get pointers on how to get it up to standard. --MisterShiney✉18:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry for my behaviour on STID, the reverts by me were extremely silly. However, I didn't always believed that articles can't be nominated by non-major contributors. Apparently, last year I nominated an article which had failed before, as I believed that the article was eligible for GA, but this user (now retired, and has a great history for being extremely rude to me) reverted me, with the edit summary, "You are not a major contributor, so discuss it with those who are." So I thought that any editor, that is not a major contributor of a particular article, should discuss first before nominating it for GA. Regards, ----Plea$ant 1623✉16:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh well they sound charming. ;) Nope. To my knowledge no such rule exists. Although I may be wrong. I don't really get why it would be an issue. Some people do like to think they own articles sometimes though. --MisterShiney✉19:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipolicing
How about reprimanding my opponent for this in the first place? Selective policing by jumping in the middle of a dialog tends to piss people off. - Altenmann >t18:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, because I had not seen that. Secondly your attitude is completely wrong referring to other editors as "My Opponent" is the wrong way to go about getting things done. If you see editors as opponents that need defeating then that is only going to cause tension. So I strongly urge you to be the bigger man, said user has a habit of upsetting other editors and as such the best thing to do is to say your piece on the article talk page, letting other users contribute, and dealing with it with civility. --MisterShiney✉18:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you exhibit an undue hypersensitivity. Please don't look for evil where is none. The word "opponent" is a fairly politically correct way to refer to a person with whom you have a disagreement in a discussion. Therefore I strongly urge you to ease on WP:CIVILITY advisory (even if you restrict your attention to four-letter words, you will still have plenty work in wp talk pages.) Also I did say my piece in the article talk page; once again, you are meddling with your advice in the issues you don't see in full. Here is my advice back: article issues are discussed in article talk pages, while personal issues are dealt in user talk pages. You already knew it, right? Well, me too. best wishes. - Altenmann >t20:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again. You seem to have an attitude problem. There are no opponents or political agenda here. We are all here for the good of the encyclopedia and do not forget that without face to face contact, the tone of a comments can only be taken at face value. And the face value of your comment is that you are going around calling people names. So, once again, I say to you, be careful what you say and how you say it because the tone of your last comment comes across as both patronising and condensing. --MisterShiney✉20:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None that comes to my mind at this moment but I was taken aback by the article Star Trek Into Darkness for a while. I am really impressed with your work. Even if the article does not get a GA, which is next to impossible please remember that the it is indeed true to Wikipedia's standards at the same time it is a revelation after a lot of copybook GA's I've seen in the past.
Ahh fair enough. Thank you. Although I would say that none of my contributions are any better or any more valuable than anyone else. In fact, I am quite surprised that I am the top editor. But that is probably due to them mainly being minor in nature. Credit goes to other editors who actually do the groundwork and find all the facts and information. All I do is tweak. But thanks for the Kudos. --MisterShiney✉18:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the tweaks are small yet have an all-encompassing presence in Wikipedia. Don't they? Please reply on my talk page or better yet leave a talkback message!
For template warning me I will ask you not to go near my talk-page again or interact with me on Wiki. I don't take kindly to being targeted and accused of edit-warring when I am simply reverting to the consensus version of a page. I also don't understand why you specifically targeted me when all I did was undo a blatantly incorrect edit you made. Thanks. --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, don't throw your toys out the pram. You were not specifically targeted but by definition you were in violation of WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring. If you actually look, you will see that the template I used it is a much softer wording than the standard warning, with an explanation (that I did not have to provide) as to why you were being warned, something which I took great care to do. I deliberately chose the softer version because the heavy handed templates can be quite aggressive. But I saw you were a relatively new editor so I decided to correctly use the templates because they are a nice way to link in all the relevant policies the said user (you) were in violation of at the time. Especially when at the time I was editing on a mobile device. So it was nice and convenient too.
You are correct, you weren't not the only one reverting, but in the space of 24 hours you made at least 3 reverts (that I could see at the time) on the same content within the article, in violation of the 3 Revert Rulehere, here and here. Which to my knowledge and that I could see, no other editor did. Which, regardless of if you were maintaining the "agreed consensus" or not, was still in violation of the 3RR.
You should take note that Consensus can change regardless of how long the content has been there for, politically incorrect or not.
Finally, if I see you in violation of policies again, I will warn you about it, regardless of your message. If you choose to ignore my messages and delete them, then please note that deletion is taken as that you have read and understood the message. I will also guarantee that next time you will be reported to the relevant admin board if you are in violation of policies, despite being warned. To prevent this, and to get a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, I strongly urge you to read the policies and guidelines, which are so beautifully laid out on your talk page. Or you can find them here.
I hope this clears up any questions you may have as to why you were templated. If you have any more, you are of course welcome to discuss it further. Have a nice day. --MisterShiney✉17:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. It would appear that the reliability of your sources was questioned. So, rather than drag it out and misuse edit summaries, go forth and discuss on the article talk page. That way you know that when an Admin comes along (not saying I am an admin) you (and Niteshift36 are not both slapped with Edit warring blocks. One of you needs to start a discussion (and contribute) rather than continue to disruptively edit. --MisterShiney✉19:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion was going on and he chose to be uncivil and not respond and continue to revert. The WP:DISCOGRAPHY style guide says Discogs is a reliable source for discographies. And there is no need for more than three sources just to prove a song exists that has two not notable artists with Wikipedia pages featured on it. STATicmessage me!19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have resumed the discussion and hopefully Static can rejoin it. We'll ignore the fact that Static was every bit as uncivil and has 4 reverts himself.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rvt 1 [1], rvt 2 [2], rvt 3 [3] and rvt 4 [4]. Just because you added some other sources doesn't make it "not a revert". In every case, you restored something that had been challenged and removed. Oh look, Niteshift can count.....and read WP:3RR too. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Welcome Niteshift. I myself would agree that it is not reliable because it sounds like it is similar to IMDB. Let's just agree that you are both as bad as each other ;) But that is neither here nor there. Lets keep things civil and discuss it properly. I would also suggest someone heading over to the Reliable sources Noticeboard and inviting participation from a wider audience. --MisterShiney✉19:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are denying that you made this edit? Because if you did, then that is a personal attack/threat to another user. Or in the very least lacks Civility So, I advise you to calm down and get back to the conversation and be civil. If you didn't make the edit, then I would suggest that you sort out your password by contacting the relevant department. --MisterShiney✉20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Bad Beetleborgs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Fletcher (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.
Um, some of my editing was for sure valid and didn't have to be rejected, such as fixing the UPN rerun statement to make sense and giving the proper link to Power Rangers Wild Force. Plus, it's been approved before with Shannon Chandler delinked since it's a deleted article. Just being helpful I am.--2600:1005:B017:20B:F1F0:B76D:6A46:DF09 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013
Hey MisterShiney. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Hi, I'm confused by your continued reversions of my content. I've very plainly explained my objections and you've done very little to edify me on the nuances that prove my objections invalid, or to respond to me constructively. So far, (from my perspective) you've reverted and condescendingly instructed me about what steps *I* should be taking to make my edits happen. Your initial complaint about my edit was that it disrupted readibility, which I think I addressed fairly well in my most recent edit by fixing the introductory sentence, and reordering the hodgepodge of cherrypicked reviews. On the issue of synthesis, you've essentially only said, 'no it's not', while another editor has indicated that consensus at WikiProject Film holds that similar language is absolutely synthesis. I've sent you two Talkbacks inviting you to continue the discussion, both of which you've ignored. More, I've run the discussion past WikiProject Television to no response. So in terms of good faith, I've done quite a bit. So if I have a dispute with someone who is unwilling to participate in discussion, in compromise or in resolution, then who exactly do I have a dispute with? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont feel I have ignored you. If you look at my contributions, you will see I haven't properly edited in nearly 3 weeks. You will also see that I am Semi-Retired. You didnt address my point about readability. You just continued to claim it was original research. You have not, that I can see, invited other editors to contribute to the discussion, and seem to think that just because only one person disagrees with you, that its ok for you to carry on. As you have been told WP:BRD the correct process is to continue to discuss widely with other editors and not just the person who disagreed with. As well as stop being a filibusterer --MisterShiney✉18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that maybe you're having a little fun at my expense. The condescension, the name-calling (Filibusterer? Well, I never!), the burden-shifting, etc. All red herrings. Meaningless. The issue is WP:SYNTHESIS. I say unsourced summaries are WP:SYNTHESIS and have explained why, you say it's not, but haven't explained why it is not. I asked other editors to chime in two weeks ago, to no avail. I've been actively engaged in a good-faith campaign to address your unexplained objection. That said, if you're going to throw around WP:BRD, you might be reminded that it is neither a policy nor a guideline, but should we treat it as one, I fail to see when or where you were actively engaged in discussing our differences or arriving at a resolution. If you are the only objector, I think there is a reasonable expectation that you should explain your objection. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Khan vs. Khan Noonien Singh
This is meant in the least rude way--why have you insisted upon the distinction between the Khan seen in the film "Into Darkness" and Khan Noonien Singh? You mentioned both Spock Prime's line and the credits as being insufficient justification to refer to him by that name--is there a reason for this? I don't particularly understand, and someone was perplexed on the talk page as well.
RocioNadat01:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you look in the closing credits you will see that he is just referred to as "Khan" and not KNS. Nowhere in the film is there - Except for Spock prime's reference to the khan in his timeline - is there a reference to him being called KNS. Additionally, there is not a reliable source with a direct source that says he is indeed KNS. Finally, don't forge that Khan is a title. Not a name. MisterShiney✉19:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question about reversion
Hi MisterShiney! When you reverted my edit on Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness, your edit summary stated "This mod shouldnt be used on talk page as it changes the formatting of peoples comments." While I agree that I shouldn't change the formatting of other people's comments, I don't see where this edit changed anyone's comments. Could you please let me know what I'm missing? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted one of your good faithedits. The source says "but he added that fans can expect to see Iron Man 'leading the team with Captain America'." However, I'm not even sure if this is even a necessary detail to include. So feel free to re-revert me if you like but also remove the corresponding reference if you do. Cheers!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MisterShiney you bullying me here (I don't spend 8 hours everyday at home on Wikipedia nor am I getting paid to edit this to put salary information ,it is volunteer time and just brief info) and saying IMBD sources are not reliable (even though you know Martin Downey Jr made $15 million[5], Jude Law made $9 million[6] and Rahael McAdam made $5 million[7][8][9][10][11] on Sherlock Holmes Game of Shadows). I feel you just want me blocked and is not willing to consensus the salaries on the Game of Shadows film. As I said, the sources I only replied were only adding salary information on the actors, what is so hard about that? It seems like you refuse to have salaries on there at all (not one bit of information on actors salaries), are you being paid by a private agency to avoid putting actor salaries on the article? Is that wrong to place salaries with sources to at least verify the budget and what the budget cost to pay the actors out of the budget? Really, it seems you are bullying me here.--62.73.9.4 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
_15.jpg){kind=link}