Talk:Prequel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Shirey

Barsoomian, it would be very gracious of you to self-undo let it go on the Shirey ref. It appears Gothicfilm has accepted the article as is without it and it is not necessary to lean on it for any particular. Your undoing Gothicfilm might be considered by some as stretching a point, but your self-undoing letting it stand would be considered very magnanimous. Thanks for hearing me out. JJB 04:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gothic is deleting this ref, misrepresenting it and talking shit about me in his edit comments. "Barsoomian (talk) First you go against consensus, now you're going against WP:RSN "still a no from me." This source is talking about comics, not the films.)" If he'd read beyond the headline, he'd see that it is about how the comics fit into the film "history", and as these comics are suthorised by Fox, that is authoritative, it's not just a fan on some random forum. It's relevant to the discussion, if not a direct statement that that can be cited for inclusion, so I did remove it from the list cites. Despite again Gothic's false accusation:"WP:RSN#Prequel's call "Shirey still a no from me" and Barsoomian's claim on Talk to have "omitted" the bad sources, this was still here half a week later."

He seems to be trying to provoke me into incivility, having failed to challenge the listings on their merits, maybe he wants to get me banned. I note that he still maintains ownership of any article related to the Apes films, deleting any reference, however cited, that mentions the word "prequel". Anyway, out of respect for you I'll let his abusive edit and shit-throwing comments stand. Expecting him to reciprocate in any way except by deleting every mention of any Apes film the moment he thinks he can is a bit Pollyannish.Barsoomian (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why thanks for the compliment. Yeah I tried an edit at Planet of the Apes (franchise) to see if anything would happen, and Gothicfilm reverted and then came back here and deleted Shirey. Yeah I recognized (and the edit summary barely permits recognizing) that you had deleted Shirey from the table and kept it in the text, and that was not worth a fuss then, and it is not worth a fuss now with it not being in the text either. It's my view that the Shirey mention of "new prequel" means that the films were prequels in context, and Despayre stated that it could mean simply something new that's also the first prequel, and I think you're also reading "prequel" separately from the facts of the history; and those competing exegeses will not be settled without OR, so I'm not sweating it. Keeping WP:COOL and not going uncivil is important. The original content question being resolved (albeit if on a hairline fracture) is important. Gothicfilm is not going to delete again unless there is a new source argument, and if there is then WP:BRD discussion is appropriate to see if the new consensus changes or is the same. But our extending the prequel content question into other fora, as shown by Gothicfilm reverting me, is probably unimportant. Sorry if I was stoking the pot: but a couple of sidelong edit summaries are not worth losing sleep over. Best keep distance and, if there is another content disagreement, get other editors involved quickly. JJB 05:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This after the blatantly false charges Barsoomian made against me. I pointed them out long ago on this page, even providing a diff showing how they were false, and neither of you ever responded, despite having lots to say about everything else. Now Barsoomian wants to talk about civility? And what part of "Shirey still a no from me" does he not understand? That from Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel. He didn't say "Go ahead and use it in the prose." - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

See response at your talk. I try not to respond to comments about the contributor rather than the contribution. But feel free not to cool down. JJB 06:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How convenient. You don't say anything when the one you're advocating for is laying out false charges. And you're the first one I'm saying this to: Feel free to stay off my Talk page. Keep it here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What "false charges" are you on about now? What do they have to do with you sniping at me in edit comments? The request I put on your Talk page were not about Prequel, they were about your inappropriate edit comments about another editor. Barsoomian (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Actually I just spent pretty much the entire time between that last post and this looking for that false charge and that diff you provided. I seem to remember them vaguely, and I found several of your references to it having happened, but I haven't put my finger on the event itself. If you do have a link handy that'd be great. If you still want to contest the current article status or the RS judgment or something, that'd be great too. I don't believe I've been uncivil to either of you. But generally article talk pages are not for comment on contributors, so if you don't have something directly related to Shirey or this page, I may not respond here. JJB 06:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Having also looked, I guess he's talking about how he rewrote the definition in the lead to suit his personal belief, while still citing it as sourced to a dictionary. I called him on that. Barsoomian (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Earlier, well above this, you made a false charge against me, claiming I'd misrepresented the dictionary, and claiming I'd been "caught" at it. This did not misrepresent the dictionary entry. In fact that dictionary said a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age. So if anything I was lessening it toward your POV. I had to respond to that with a diff proving otherwise. I also had said something about a definition you didn't like on the WT:FILM page, but not in any article. You never responded to either of those parts of the thread, much less admitted you were wrong, and now you've repeated it. Either you're delibertly making false charges, or you're very sloppy with your charges. Either is a violation of WP:Civility. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So, it was the the dictionary. The facts speak for themselves, you misquoted it. Glad that's sorted out. Barsoomian (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

More of your garbage. There was no misquote. Anyone looking at what I did will conclude you are misrepresenting it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this intentional misrepresentation by anyone. Here is the original insertion with "It usually portrays"; Barsoomian replied that that was an inaccurate gloss of "as by portraying", which is a correct reply; Gothicfilm then properly changed it (properly lessening it) to "The definition may include that a prequel portrays"; Barsoomian did not say "caught", but did go on by saying the inaccurate version "would justify his [G's] own prejudice". Presumably Barsoomian had not at that point realized that Gothicfilm might have made an unconscious inaccurate adjustment to the dicdef rather than a deliberate self-justifying distortion. This is a very very trivial matter; but it's certainly appropriate for B to apologize for attributing G's error to deliberation, or for G to apologize for attributing B's lapse to deliberation. It's also appropriate to drop it. I suppose you could fight a duel too, hadn't thought of that. JJB 08:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, and rather than drag this point to another page while you are watching, please see WP:BLANKING about user talk. JJB 08:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You're the one taking these discussions to other pages. I haven't done anything inconsistent with WP:BLANKING. Barsoomian ought to read it. A user can delete sections off their page. I don't get enough entries there to set up archiving, which isn't required anyway. And Barsoomian did say I had been "caught" on this Talk page.

And if I had wanted the above to back my POV, I would have used the actual quote: a literary, dramatic, or filmic work that prefigures a later work, as by portraying the same characters at a younger age. But instead, because I don't believe that would be an accurate definition in all cases, I did the responsible thing and qualified it with usually - but not as a quote. What Barsoomian did was irresponsible, and you should have called him on it then. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's fact that Gothic did change the quote to reflect his prejudice. I cannot divine if this was a conscious decision or if he was in a fugue state, but he did it nonetheless. I "dropped it" weeks ago. That issue (of the definition) is resolved. I don't owe him an apology. It doesn't justify his inappropriate personal remarks in edit comments, which, unlike Talk pages, remain prominently visible forever. Barsoomian (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Gothicfilm, you haven't done anything inconsistent with WP:BLANKING, which is why I encouraged you to read it. No, discussions about personalities should generally be moved to user talk. No, he did not say you had been "caught" in the current version of the talk page; I searched the word "caught". The quote I provided from Barsoomian was the edgiest statement I saw in lieu of "caught". Yes, it's responsible not to represent the word "usually" as a quote. No, it's not the same as the definition given: "as by portraying" means here's one example, and "it usually portrays" means here's the most frequent example. No, I had no place to call him on it, as it happened some time (and appeared resolved and unimportant) before I arrived at this page. Was Barsoomian irresponsible? Did Gothicfilm reflect prejudice? I generally don't agree with statements attributing negative motives. Yes, Barsoomian, in all seriousness you could always claim libel and ask for WP:OVERSIGHT. But sooner or later we all get smeared in edit summaries and we learn to live with it. JJB 09:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Barsoomian used words to that effect - "caught" or something like it. I can't find it in the morass above. He made many other uncivil comments as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll turn the other cheek on this last pinprick. But next time it will be reported. As for blanking, of course Gothic can delete stuff from his Talk page. But the issue of his edit comments is inappropriate for THIS talk page. Barsoomian (talk)

First I'm threatened by you on my Talk page with reporting for deleting a section, now "of course" it's perfectly okay. More of your nonsense. Take it anywhere you want. You have been immature and uncivil ever since this started. And now you're making unjustified threats of reporting me here. I don't think anyone at WP will be impressed with your behavior. What I said in the edit summaries was accurate. Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel said "Shirey still a no from me". He didn't say "Go ahead and use it in the prose." You said two sections above I have omitted the ones they had reservations about. You hadn't. They were on the page until I took them off. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Threatened? Feel free to report me to someone who will give you a reality check.

Your comment was "Despite Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel's call "Shirey still a no from me" and Barsoomian's claim on Talk to have "omitted" the bad sources, this was still here half a week later.)" This 1) implies that it is a "bad source"; that is your opinion only, though as usual you ascribe it to someone else. The opinion at RSN never said that. 2) You imply that I was lying about removing said "bad source". The Shirey ref was removed as a listing citation. That was the context of the opinion we asked for at RSN. I followed through exactly as I said. Now you're repeating this libellous, uncivil and deeply stupid assertion that I lied. Barsoomian (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You said at the bottom of two sections above: Please note that the sources for the Apes films "prequelness" were presented at WP:RSN#Prequel for auditing and most were deemed WP:RS. I have omitted the ones they had reservations about. Anyone reading that would take it to mean you removed them from the page. You removed none. So I removed three, one after you moved it - not omitted it. I gave you half a week to do what you said you had already done , and you didn't do it. And incredibly, when I finally did take it off, you reverted me, putting it back. What I said in the edit summaries was accurate. Good night. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I did EXACTLY what I said I would at that time with this edit and comment: "2:06, 5 May 2012 Films: trimmed refs following review at WP:RSN. Remaining are considered WP:RS" when I deleted the two refs from the list entries. The audit at RSN was about the cites' suitability to verify the respective films' listing in the table. There was no hint that the sources were "bad" or unreliable in a general sense -- I'm pretty sure that would have been mentioned at the beginning if it were so. Since I hadn't taken part in editing the prose section here, I left that as it was, just repaired the orphan refs. JJB and Betty hammered that out, I wasn't going to mess with it. So to summarise: You are, again, falsely accusing me of lying. The diff above proves it. Barsoomian (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Proves what? I can't see where you took anything out, and I'm not going to spend a day comparing that much text where the whole swath is highlighted. And I wasn't talking about that. You now say There was no hint that the sources were "bad" or unreliable in a general sense. As usual, you ignored the salient point. As I quoted already twice above Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel said "Shirey still a no from me". He didn't say "Go ahead and use it in the prose." To me when someone says "No" that's a no. I don't need a further hint. You said two sections above I have omitted the ones they had reservations about. You said "omitted." Not "moved." If you had omitted them, I could not have taken them out. I removed three Despayre deemed to not be RS, one after you moved it - the Shirey one, which is talking about comics, not the films. Applying that to the films strikes me as WP:SYN, which you're usually against. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're now lying about what the record shows I did, which is exactly what I said I had done in the my note here and edit comment. Compare the previews (look for the little blue superscripts and you'll see them magically disappear) and, even to you, this will be apparent. The references in the prose were not part of the audit. No one had disputed them there. Barsoomian (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Most everyone who commented on this page and at WT:FILM was disputing calling those films prequels. So what if we didn't specifically identify your refs? Everything I laid out is true and you call me a liar? WP:UNCIVIL and irresponsible. Nonsense and garbage. Those quotes from you just above aren't what you said? You never respond to points you have no answer for - e.g. you said you were omitting those refs and you didn't - then you go off on irrelevant tangents and strawmen. Debating with you is a waste of time and effort.- Gothicfilm (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're lying about me, and since the evidence of that is above, as it was in the very edits you referenced, it can only be with intent and malice. You can't refute the facts so you just add more inane personal attacks. "Never responded"? You mean "Never agreed with your version". I've responded on your talk page; you deleted it. I responded here, you ignored it. The question asked at WP:RSN#Prequel was about using those references in the list, and I followed though exactly as I said, omitting the references deemed not to support list membership, within minutes of seeing the results at WP:RSN. It's a stupid malicious falsehood to say otherwise. Barsoomian (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's an instructive quote from Despayre:}'No source is reliable for everything, be more specific. You want to ask something like, Is "source A" a good source for the sentence "Fact B."?' The question we asked was are these good sources to support listing these films? Their use elsewhere was never considered at WP:RSN. There was no challenge to the sources then in the prose. There was no need and certainly no obligation for me to seek out other places these sources had been used for other purposes and erase them. This should all be completely obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Barsoomian (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Those last two grafs were a bit harsh, and Gothicfilm has complained at ANI. I again commend to you both the view that you've simply misunderstood each other. Gothicfilm, the RSN was always about table inclusion, not about the text, just as it says; and omitting in one place doesn't have to mean omitting in every place. Barsoomian, this is not necessarily a s.m.f. if it's just a mistaken view of what you intended your statement to mean. We all learn a little something about clearer expression and sources of misunderstanding in our speech. Now I will need to speak a little more clearly to protect both of you: if you find yourself unable to cool down, there really are bad ugly warty Rouge Admins who pick a name or two from ANI at random for the Purposes of Tool Misuse. It's very easy to think you're speaking the truth and be told by a new consensus that you're the (only) one laying out the (false) accusations. It's happened to me. Keep an eye out. JJB 03:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

He is obviously mistaken. If he saw that and if not admitted it, at least stopped repeating it, I could let it drop. But he keeps repeating the same assertion, that I didn't "omit" the references as I said I had. And then digressing to complain about other things. I can turn the other cheek once. I'm not going to lie down and let him kick me. But I'll strike the characterisations above. Barsoomian (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's very magnanimous. And one reading of the response I just made at ANI ("the incivility is over") might be: he's been offline for 4 hours, so maybe he's done repeating his side too. Interesting view that one only turns the other cheek once (per situation): it has significant (but not universal) merit. JJB 04:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Despayre has clarified his advice on the Shirey cite: here:

To be clear, my opinion at RSN was *solely* provided on the basis of Shirey being used in reference to the specific "prequel" question that was asked. I offered no opinion on Shirey's RS-ness overall, or in any other aspect. If there are other issues that Shirey may be contentious as a source for, I would be happy to give my opinion on those as well, if you submit those questions to the RSN board. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly as I thought and said above. And confirms Gothicfilm's describing Shirey as a "bad source" as purely his own opinion; which I feel very comfortable in not agreeing with, let alone acting on. Gothicfilm's edit comment "06:45, 9 May 2012‎ (Despite Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel's call "Shirey still a no from me" and Barsoomian's claim on Talk to have "omitted" the bad sources, this was still here half a week later.)" is now demonstrated to be untrue in every respect. And so I hope this dead horse can be now left in peace. Barsoomian (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Except in the respect that Despayre at WP:RSN#Prequel did say "Shirey still a no from me" regarding using that source to back up calling those films prequels. You have a strange idea of how to leave a horse in peace. I haven't been here in nearly three days, but you keep flogging away. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Despapayre explained what his words meant. So clearly you have WP:ICANTHEARYOU. After you tried to have me sanctioned at ANI for objecting to your repeated lies, excuse me for not slinking away into the shadows. You claimed I had misrepresented my edits. This is now a proven falsehood. You're just making a fool of yourself to persist in this slander. Barsoomian (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to see if B's metonymy could be left alone. Like many people, B is using "untrue" to mean "deceptive, misleading", even if as you say the comment is technically true. But even if your view of B is completely true, there's nothing whatsoever I can see to gain by verbalizing it again. Also, this talk page is about improvement of the article, so (obligatory question) anything we can improve about the article? JJB 22:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The conclusion that I had misrepresented my edit, that I had not not omitted the references as I stated, is the bone of contention. That is not "technically true". It's a lie. I didn't want to argue this crap here, but Gothic refused to do so on his Talk page. Barsoomian (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to argue, just trying to get the oobleck off me. I don't see a recent sentence of G's that we can point to and say is flatly false; we can only call it a lie by its subtext and tone, not by its text. It was true that Despayre said thus, B said thus, and Shirey was still there; what was false was the synthesis that B meant something additional and that B misrepresented. G never said those latter things outright. Thus it really doesn't help to accuse G of falsehood. But even if your view of G is completely true, there's nothing whatsoever I can see to gain by verbalizing it again. Also, this talk page is about improvement of the article, so (obligatory question) anything we can improve about the article? JJB 06:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry again, but Gothic said "now you're going against WP:RSN ": that was a lie. That wasn't my "synthesis", it was exactly what he said. He lied attributing "the sources were bad" to RSN. He lied in saying that I had not removed the sources that I had. He's just repeated these lies in various ways ever since, even after Despayre explained that the use elsewhere was beyond the question or the opinion he gave. I realise that it's boring for everyone else, but I won't allow this libel to stand. He escalated it more by taking to to ANI. But please, feel no obligation to mediate or even read any of this. Barsoomian (talk)

Thanks, that's better evidence, I have a very high bar for accusations of lying. Yes, you show that "going against WP:RSN" is a demonstrably incorrect synthesis, and in an edit summary; he confirms that synthesis by saying, "He didn't say 'Go ahead and use it in the prose'" (verbatim thrice) and "What I said in the edit summaries was accurate" (verbatim twice). The second clause, "the sources were bad", is actually a rearrangement of G's words "bad sources", and this is not technically incorrect because Shirey was regarded "bad" for table inclusion, though G wants "bad" to mean more than that.

When an editor is confirmed in such a misunderstanding and appears to be lying, often one can still perform the very hard but charitable task of assuming they're mistaken. G's last statement backhandedly acknowledges part of the final semantic distinction (instead of reading it as "bad" for all purposes, G is now reading it as "bad" for "calling those films prequels"). So since you two and I are all detail types, this is still a technical risk of recurrence if neither of you wishes to drop the disagreement over the accusation. I appreciate that, based on the strength of your concerns, you have politely declined my suggestion that it could be dropped.

I will make good on my earlier suggestion. I think you have now proven that at least one edit summary contains at least unintentional libel, which has not yet been resolved through discussion, and that it is appropriate for revision deletion (which I conflated with oversight). Although WP:REVDEL does dissuade "ordinary" accusations, I don't see a problem with your asking for a review based on the higher standards of unintentional libel and risk of recurrence (I also think BLP applies to editors as well as topics). If you contact an admin politely and link the diff of this present comment, I hereby second you and the admin will give you at least a fair hearing. The admin will need to read quite a lot to recognize that G has committed this (at least mistaken) edit-summary accusation and has not recanted it. If I were in that case and felt that strongly, I too would argue that deletion of this right-side revision and edit summary would be an improvement to the project, and so I tentatively support that argument in your case. But I am hopeful that the appeal to admin will also be able to help you consider alternatives if the revision is not deleted. Return to ANI is contraindicated.

However, I must also say that it's very easy to be told (by anyone) that your good-faith request for resolution of the alleged libel is disruptive, or my encouragement of resolution is. I am hopeful that my current statement makes it clear that the evidence of unwithdrawn error is significant enough to make the request in good faith. The requested remedy has no disruptive purpose whatsoever (unless we gloat afterward, which we won't).

I'm probably more an involved editor than an informal mediator now because the presenting question is settled. So I am not unwatching these pages yet and will be looking for closure, but as always I only step in when I deem it reasonable. JJB 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't wish to try for formal remedies at this time. Admins are likely to think it all a storm in a teacup, as they also ignored Gothic's complaint at ANI. It's pretty clear that Gothic will never back down and withdraw his remarks no matter how much proof is piled up, consistent with how he has acted in every other dispute here. Sources, citations, don't matter if they contradict what he wants to believe. (Now that he's finally deigned to participate at RSN he's still only citing his own feelings rather than any sources.) I'll let it rest as long as he doesn't repeat it. But if he repeats these allegations here or anywhere else, directly or indirectly, I will respond and reconsider formal remedies. Barsoomian (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)