User talk:SonOfThornhill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit warring discussion

First, let me thank you for your efforts in protecting the Planet of the Apes pages. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about the WP:3RR violations we've had to deal with at Planet of the Apes (novel)‎. It's at [1] if you want to comment there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Some pages seems to attract more edits and edits based on opinions than others. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's one way to put it. And now -

WP:3RR

Please watch you don't break WP:3RR on Star Trek. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, the IP doesn't care about the rules here and has done another revert. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected the article that YOU are for no reason to trying damage with a wholly unnecessary argument. In future do some research into the subject matter before questioning the veracity of the provided information. --2.220.52.201 (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You're seriously accuse me of trying to damage the article? I'm not the one who's been changing it repeatedly. You've broken WP:3RR and been asked to wait until WP:Consensus was reached by the editors before making any more reverts. SonOfThornhill (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the only reason I'm not reporting them is that both of you might get blocked. If you two cannot come to an agreement, maybe ask for a WP:3O? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (TV series)

Hi - hope you check out my comments on the 'talk' section of the Planet of the Apes (TV series) page under "2 air dates". Best. ~~Abbythecat~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbythecat (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverts at 'List of Planet of the Apes characters'

Hi SonOfThornhill.
Just letting you know that an edit you reverted, without saying why, here at List of Planet of the Apes characters appears to have been a 'good' edit that removed at least two repeated sentences. In fact they should have cut more, all after "was a human astronaut who ..." is tautology. I have now removed most of the repetitive text in that area.

Your next revert returned sections of text that seem to be an editor's opinions re the character Landon ie. "... an adventurer and a patriot.", and it is also repeated. I saw the first movie recently and don't recall that being said, through it may have been. The 'original' text had some grammar issues but otherwise seemed OK. Also the returned, "... in perhaps hundreds or thousands of dollars ..." in the Rise of the Planet of the Apes section, seems rather subjective.

On further inspection I see that this is somewhat a page 'under construction' as it has several empty sections, few sources and is full of unsourced opinion and speculation. :-\ --220 of ^Borg 08:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on Wrath of Khan

I understand your motivation (I think), but the original wording in the article was not the exact line from the film. The original was a paraphrase with excerpts from the line from the film, and the way the IP editor before and now your revert have altered it changes the meaning materially. The line from the film, as pointed out in a recent edit summary, is "He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking." The article, as you have left it, states "Kirk exploits Khan's inexperience in space combat and two-dimensional thinking to critically disable Reliant." The meaning is altered, and ambiguous. To me, it reads as "Kirk exploits Khan's inexperience in space combat and [inexperience in] two-dimensional thinking". If you want the original line, it should be worded to match the original line more closely, not mangled the way it is. Otherwise, it should be made less ambiguous either by rewording, or by explicitly disconnecting the "inexperience with" from "two-dimensional thinking", the way I attempted to do. --Fru1tbat (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked the film before I made the change. It was the original wording. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: Use of term trekkie in "Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan" entry

To insist that the term "trekkie", when applied to fans of "Star Trek", is common is nonsense; I defy anyone to go to a Star Trek convention and address the attendants as "trekkies" - they will be TOLD to leave, not asked. Even if Wikipedia (and its various iterations) were edited solely by an august group of acknowledged experts (read "authorities"), it is incumbent upon those editors to avoid name-calling (ie -"trekkies", which is denigrating in it diminutive labeling of Star Trek fans, as if they are inferior persons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.116 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bring the subject up on the film's talk page. If a consensus of editors agree with you then the change will be made. That is the proper procedure. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

POTA

Just leaving a note so you're aware of Talk:Planet of the Apes#Ship - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Original Series

Thanks for your reversion of these edits; at first I was thinking this was a content dispute, but it increasingly feels like tendentious editing. Granted, I'm in the party that finds Cushman's use of evidence and conclusions suspect, but that seems beside the point that his book is self-published and the only thing out there arguing for this particular interpretation of facts. If time (and more importantly, more reputable research) proves him right, I'm happy to include that view, but forcing it into the article now is inappropriate. However, revising the article to allow for that interpretation when we know the source isn't reliable enough to include on its own merits seems equally suspect and POV to me as an approach. Am I thinking crazy, or does that make sense? Grandpallama (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Licence to kill

There is a consensus to include the word rape, especially as this is backed up by reliable sources. Do not edit war, go back to the talk page and discuss. For your information, the IP editor is a perennial single-purpose pain on this topic whose edits are driven by their own ridiculous opinion, rather than the use of any encyclopaedic or neutral approch. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is shaky. It is one person's opinion. That is no any encyclopedic or neutral approach. And while the IP editor may be a pain, on this issue he or she is right. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"The source is shaky"? Utter balls! It's an academic text (which makes it fairly fireproof), and if you want a stack of others that say the same thing, I'll drop those in there too. The IP is not right - "Why does the plot mention that Della is raped and killed? Sexual violence/rape is not associated with the James Bond franchise. Rape is non-consensual sex and sex is generally associated with love (love and sex), not with hate and violence. If you don't like someone, would you want to have sex with them?" was one of their earlier posts: this is a single-issue POV pusher, and they are quite wrong. They are pushing against the third-party sources and against the standing consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the history of the IP editor. On this issue they are right. There is no direct source that Della was raped. An academic text is still an interpetation. I have the novelization of the film written by John Gardner, like the film, there in nothing in it that which states Della was raped and that is far more reliable source than any third party "academic text". I could produce dozen's of "academic texts" that say Hamlet was gay. But that is just their interpetation and opinion, not fact. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You're speaking nonsense. There are a stack of sources that state the fucking obvious on this, but you're too tied up in brainless kneee-jerk edit warring against the sources, which I can't understand from someone who should know better. To leave an edit summary of "Stop edit warring and produce a reliable source" is dishonourable. You shoul know better. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me. If there are "a stack of sources" produce one that directly quotes the director or screenwriter or anyone that was actually involved with the making of the film to confirm this. If it was part of the story why is there on a live of dialogue in the film about it? Why is it not in the film's novelization written by the official Bond novelist at that time. Della being raped is a matter of interpetation and opinion, nothing more. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not the sole fucking decider of what does and doesn't go in the article, and the consensus is very much against you: you are acting inappropriately and in an arrogant and high-handed manner. The fact you have removed sourced information just shows what a petty and dishonourable approach you have taken on this. As for the novelization, it's full of stuff that didn't happen in the film, and missing out much that did – it's unreliable as a source here. – SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

So now you're the decider of what is a reliable and unreliable source? I think you are projecting here. The novelization written by the official James Bond novelist at the time, published by the official James Bond publisher and with the approval (and assistance) of Eon Productions is a far more reliable source than someone who never sent foot on the set and years later writes their opinion and interpetation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There's the rather basic stuff in the book about Leiter having already lost arm, leg etc frm a shark attack and this being the second shark attack. No, this is not projecting, this is fucking basic stuff, like using reliable sources and respecting a standing consensus: two basic things you seem to have ignored at this point.

You can also take this as formal notice that you are at WP:3RR. One more revert and I will report you for edit warring, despite there being a consensus against you and despite there being an ongoing discussion on the point that you are single-handedly ignoring. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And I could report you for edit warring too. But I don't like to threaten people just to get my way. The sources are not reliable since they come from people that had nothing to do with the making of the film. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

DOnt be ridiculous: I have threatened no-one. I have left an appropriate warning for you not to breach WP:3RR. you haven't bothered to threaten anyone to get your own way: you just edit warred to your personal preference against the consensus, which is contemptible. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And you edit warred to get you're own way too. So I guess we're both contemptable. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I edit warred back to the long-standing consensus. You edit warred to your own personal preference and ignored the considerations of others. Your call. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

So at least you admit you edit warred. And it was once the long standing consensus that the earth was flat. But that wasn't right either. In this case there is not consensus. The opinion of 2 editors is not consenses. The defintion of consesus is that all parties agree. All parties do not agree. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The defintion of consesus is that all parties agree": no, no, no! That's not right in any way shape or form. - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is: con•sen•sus \ken-"sen(t)-ses\ noun often attrib [L, fr. consentire] (1858) 1 a : a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

Wrong, wrong, wrong - see WP:CONSENSUS: [[tq|"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."}} Not even cose to "all". - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't read what you post? nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. So by your own definition, consensus has not been achieved on this issue. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Grow up: you are suggesting a copyright violation. This very minor punctuation tweak ensures it isn't. Are you really so petty that you're prepared to go to these lengths to get your only way on something so minor as this? - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My way is to remove the word completely. I offered a fair compromise and was met with bad faith. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no bad faith at all. A minor punctuation tweak which keeps your proposed wording is not bad faith, and takes it a shade away from the rather crass copyright infringement you proposed. Brackets do not work as well in open text as em dashes, where the flow of reading is kept. the "by implication raped" wording is kept together, and separated from the muder by punctuation. This is not bad faith, but is an improvement on your suggestion through a very minor change of punctuation. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:HARASS SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is as unconnected here as many of your other statements have been. Have you actually read any of the policies you throw around? This isn't "guideline bingo"! - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING SonOfThornhill (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't think so. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:HARASS SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Opened

I'm happy to live with whatever the dispute resolution process comes up with here [2]. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I realized that WP:RFC might be the better option, so I might have the dispute case dropped. I'll wait to see what they say. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Kelvin Timeline change

I am trying to avoid a edit war. A discussion about renaming the "reboot series" the "Kelvin timeline series" has been made at here. Please add your input. Oldag07 (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Star Trek (film series). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 16:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit on Star Trek Into Darkness, but gave no explanation, even though I explained mine on the Talk page (and pointed there in my edit summary). Would you mind replying there? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You're explanation was that you thought it was unnecessary. We don't delete whole sections based on one person's opinion. There is a higher standard here. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the article page, but please see WP:ONUS. The standard is rather the other way around. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No if you read it, it isn't. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That means you don’t automatically restore it, and certainly not based on your opinion of another editor—Comment on content, not on the contributor. You did the latter and not the former, dismissing my reasoning out of hand. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You deleted a long standing section in the article, so WP:ONUS doesn't apply. That threshold had already been reached long ago when it was originally included. And unregistered editors are often disruptive and have vandalized articles. If you want credibility to make edits, I suggest you register. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If you’d prefer an environment that does not welcome the contributions of unregistered users, I humbly suggest you look somewhere else. Wikipedia is rather more open-minded. See also WP:ADHOM. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The real question is why you refuse to register. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to have a personal chat, then fine, we could discuss that. But I thought we were talking about an encyclopedia article. Seems kind of off topic. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Not when you come to my personal talk page which can be seen as WP:HARASS. One of the reasons why unregistered users are frowned is that, unlike registered editors, they don't agree to adhere to Wikipedia rules of conduct. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:AOHA. If you feel I’m harassing you, and if you let me know what I’m doing that’s making you feel that way, I’ll try to remedy that. Also please see the text underneath the edit summary field when editing a page: By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use […]. Yes, they do agree. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly coming to my talk page to discuss the same issue on the articles talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

SonOfThornhill, you were not reverting vandalism here and so entering in an appropriate summary would have been good. Also, I don't see any harassment here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

First, I never claimed I was reverting vandalism. Second, I only said it could be seen as WP:HARASS which is why I didn't report it. Third, how is this any of your business? SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User talk pages belong to the Wikipedia community and anyone can comment on discussions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And why are you suddenly commenting? SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page is on my watchlist. I scanned the discussion and saw problematic statements on your part. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And why is my Talk page on your watch list? SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Look above. I've edited here before. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, once over 3 years ago. So now I'm being perpetually monitored? SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we've interacted since then, so obviously not. You need to realize that, just like all other editors, any edit you make on Wikipedia may be looked at by other users and commented on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course I realize that. I'm just wondering why after 3 years my talk page is on your watch list. And why you accused me of claiming vandalism when I never did? SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Every page I edit stays on my watchlist. And I did not accuse you of anything. If you revert/undo without providing an explanatory edit summary it is generally taken to mean you are reverting vandalism or a sockpuppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

OK I didn't know that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. And for the record, I just want a valid reason and to see a proposed revision before signing off on deleting a whole section from an article. The 'I don't think it belongs' argument from an unregistered user just doesn't seem a good enough reason. And I know there is no rule against unregistered users, but when a user is registered you know they have some credibility and are not just some troll trying to create havoc. I was given that advice and became a registered user, and have never regretted it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

First, you’ve never seen a registered troll or vandal, or multiple registered sock puppets? Registration is trivially simple, and not any kind of mark of credibility. One establishes credibility by demonstrating critical thinking skills and awareness of the policies and processes of Wikipedia in any given discussion, as one of the two of us has done. Second, if you think my argument was “I don’t think it belongs,” I ask that you actually read my rationale. It’s right at the top of that discussion, and I quoted it in {{tq}} green early on, too. Third, the removal of a section is a revision. If you don’t believe I proposed it in the first place, please see WP:BRD (which I recall I had to prompt you into following). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

At least I have something to back up my protestations with. All you have is ad hominem complaints about the fact I edit under an IP address, and blatant misrepresentations of my argument, which have nothing to do with the question at hand. If you’re going to object, do it like someone who knows what he’s talking about. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I struck a nerve! SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

(Same editor on a public computer.) Yes, apparent incompetence combined with tendentious editing tends to do that. My apologies for letting it get to me. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries! SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don’t know whether you’re really this bad at logic and debate, or whether you’re some kind of troll. Assuming the former, in good faith, let me put this as simply as I can:

The article is about the second movie. The section has early scraps of information about the third movie. We have an article about the third movie. There is literally no reason to have that section in that article.

The simplest solution is to delete the section. There are no negative consequences associated with this, and there does not appear to be any need to have anything else in its place.

If you disagree with any of this, you need to explain why.

Please let me know if there’s any further confusion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Resorting to personal attacks doesn't help your case. In future, please keep the discussion of this issue on the article's talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks were intended. I merely made a best guess to why your objections have been so insistent yet vague, and then tried to address that issue. If I’m mistaken, then please explain so I can act accordingly. And I disagree strongly with the notion that an article talk page is a more appropriate place to discuss a user’s conduct. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Again please confine this discussion to the article's talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, an article talkpage is not the place to discuss user conduct. I suppose we could try WP:AN if you’d prefer to discuss somewhere other than here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought this was over. And you should be the last person who should call anyone out on their conduct. At this point, please stop harassing me. Go away. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have not been harassing you, and if you have any issues with my conduct, I ask that you explicitly bring them to my immediate attention so that I may address them. But very well, I’ll drop the subject. Take care. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Buh-bye! SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Blank lines in discussions

I’ve noticed that in threaded conversation, you tend to add a blank line between your reply and the preceding comment. Please see WP:LISTGAP and Help:List for why this is a bad practice. In short, the blank line resets the : list. Hope that helps. Cheers! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1