Jump to content

User talk:Fru1tbat/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Too Much Too Soon (album)

Hi Fru1tbat! Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting on my newly opened FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the request! I don't have much experience with FA reviews, but I'll take a look, at least. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion of a conversation I'm having on the Disney wiki?

The behavior of the administrator I'm talking with is baffling me. Could you please take a look at what he's saying, and what edits he and I have made (and maybe my edits at the Pixar wiki), and tell me what you think I should do? http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:569816 Dogman15 (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't use talk pages on Wikipedia for business involving other wikis, and I don't think this conversation should continue past this reply, but since you've invoked Wikipedia there (yes, I took a quick look, out of curiosity): other wikis have very different standards. Having never visited before, I have no idea what the standards there are (for content or for administrators, for that matter), so I really can't weigh in on the debate. For Wikipedia, though, yes, it would be inappropriate to include unsourced unverifiable information, and a vague single questionable source that has since been removed would be completely insufficient. --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

About The Stanley Kubrick Filmography

Hello Fru1tbat! It appears you mistook my edit on Filmography and awards of Stanley Kubrick for vandalism. I understand why you would think it. You wouldn't think Kubrick would be nominated for a Razzie. But apparently he was. As said here. So, you made a mistake, doesn't matter, just saying. But thanks for spotting what you thought was vandalism!

I didn't think it was vandalism -- that's why the edit summary very clearly says "reverted good faith edits". So, no, I didn't make a mistake. I don't even question the veracity of the nomination. I do question whether or not Razzie nominations should be listed in an "awards" article. Generally, I would expect to see a negative award (a pretty joke-y one at that, but let's not debate the validity here) in a "critical response" section for the film in question, not in a list that's normally reserved for accolades. But since you disagree strongly enough to comment on my talk page, I will leave it alone for now. --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Council Rock School District

in the council rock school district page, the Leadership page was included because the citizens were looking for who represents them by district - and this was a convenient location to list that.

on the same page the list of associated organizations you removed had been placed there because of confusion within the public about various organizations. that confusion resulted in decreased contributions to a 501c3 organization which provides enhanced services to students because people thought it was another organization, which was being portrayed in local press as being partisan.

please restore both sections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.25.193 (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to these edits: [1][2]. I'm not sure who was confused about those organizations ("the citizens" is pretty broad), but I don't think they belong in this article. The section heading was "Independent Organizations Associated with District Wide Activities" - that's a pretty loose connection. As for the district's leadership, all of that information is readily available on the school district's website - I'm not sure it's necessary to list them all with their terms. I started a new section on the article's talk page to open a discussion, though, so I suggest you weigh in there. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Looper

[3] The way I figured it, young Joe seems to be a favored client of Sara's and vice-versa, and he even offers her half his silver. Sure they come into conflict later, but they start out friendly -- and in the end, seem see each other in a good light. Basically was just looking for a way to contextualize Sara so that in our plot summary she doesn't seem to come up only when he goes to her farm. So -- this perhaps? Anyway -- cool film! --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. I haven't seen the film in a little while, but I don't think Sara is the dancer/sex worker. The plot summary has that as her name, but I believe it's incorrect (I just changed it). I believe they're different actresses, anyway (both blondes, though). Can you confirm that they're the same? --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No, you've got it exactly right! Two different actresses, Sara ≠ Suzie. Funny, I *thought* "Emily Blunt" looked kind of unlike herself in that scene... "was it the makeup?", I wondered... etc. :-) Cheers! --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:04, 9 October 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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Intersteller

I didn't say it's strictly 100% soft, but it does have significant elements of soft science fiction so people can get a better idea of what it is and what the scientists are saying about it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Taeyebaar: Just like here You need references for your changes and probabbly consensus for the template you added to Interstellar (film). Mlpearc (open channel) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That seems too much like OR to me, though. Linking a quote from a critic to the term is one thing, but providing it as a "see also" link implies some synthesis to me. I don't feel strongly enough about it to revert, but I think it crosses the line a little.
Incidentally, the original post here is in response to a section I started on Taeyebaar's talk page. As the edit referenced in Mlpearc's comment was Taeyebaar's, not mine, perhaps this conversation should be moved there...
--Fru1tbat (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect to whether or not it is an "alien" intelligence who placed the wormhole near Saturn, the film never mentions the word "alien." It only refers to "they." "They" becomes the term continually used to designate who put it there. Later they start calling them "bulk beings," as bulk is a way of referring to the higher dimensions that surround our three/four dimensional world. Removed use of "alien intelligence" previously because this generally conjures images of some other lifeforms living in a distant galaxy. And that's not at all what in inferred in the film by "they" or "bulk beings."
--Schrodingers9Lives (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. My impression watching the film was that they all assumed it was an alien intelligence at the beginning, and I would not have thought that interpretation of the film was controversial, but if they didn't mention the term explicitly, I don't feel strongly enough about it to get into (or further extend) a conflict. Thanks for clarifying your position! --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And thanks for bearing with me as a rookie editor too! --Schrodingers9Lives (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The Good Dinosaur

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Plot not all plot summaries have to be below 700 words. "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range."

This film's plot summary hardly seems like a wall of text and I do not see the need to shorten further. Dimadick (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

First, thanks for the response. While I don't generally police plot lengths, I don't think I would interpret that guideline quite as loosely as you have. I read the "should not" (and the "should" that precedes it) strongly enough that I would expect exceptions to be rare, and well-justified. To me, The Good Dinosaur doesn't have a plot that's especially unconventional or complicated. I can revert myself if you feel that strongly about it, but if pressed, I would have to disagree with your change, and I would at least ask that you consider an edit summary next time to clarify your reasoning. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Blade Runner

Hello, Fru1tbat. Not too long ago, you reverted my edit of Blade Runner out of "good faith" and claimed that it was not an action film. What is your reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0E2:D210:34C8:3924:4C19:1BCC (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It struck me as not quite the right description for the film. The film certainly has action sequences, but does that make it an action film? I guess I would tend to reserve that genre for films that are primarily action sequences. Others may disagree. I was just being bold in my revert, but if you feel strongly that it should be described that way (or that the consensus among reliable sources supports your interpretation), you can revert it back, or open a discussion on the article's talk page and see what others think. Incidentally, the "good faith" in my edit summary refers to my assumption of your good faith (i.e. while I disagreed with your change, I believed it was made constructively) -- I'm not sure from what you wrote above if that was clear or not. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Force Awakens Edit

Thanks for fixing up my edit on The Force Awakens article, I wasn't sure how to put all that information in one sentence without mentioning Chewbacca twice.

LS100Studios (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem - Happy to help! --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Die Is Cast (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miles O'Brien. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fru1tbat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wall-E's banning in China

Should we change the word "banned" to "not allowed to be screened"? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My reading of the source you provided (or Google's translation of it, anyway) was that, essentially, there's a limit on the number of movies that are allowed to be imported, and WALL-E was not selected due to low demand (or estimated demand). Is that correct, or is there more to it? If it's just that it didn't make a short list, "banned" is misleading. The article doesn't seem all that reliable, anyway - it seems to make a lot of guesses or assumptions. I would try to find a better source. --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Your reading of the source is correct, which essentially means the movie was banned in China. The source speaks for itself. As for guesses and assumptions, bear in mind that China isn't a country that comes to mind when people talk about transparency, integrity, and honesty in government. I am open to replacing the word "banning" to "not allowed to be screened in theaters". Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 01:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
"Banned" to me implies something a little stronger than that, but maybe it's just me. I'd be fine with "not allowed". --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Race (2016 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Service station. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your revert/revision on The Star Trek, TNG episode article

When I was alerted that someone had reverted my edit on the Star Trek, TNG episode article, I was very annoyed. You see, I had hastily assumed that it was a revision to the substantive edit I had made yesterday regarding the plot synopsis. As I had just watched the episode, I knew bloody well that I was correct and that the material I revised was incorrect, albeit on minor points of the ordering of events. When I went to the article to find the culprit, I discovered that you had reverted my second edit, an arcane point of grammar, as well as having made a revision on a grammatical point of the original edit. I was incredulous! As you seem to be a grammarian and most interested in and presumably experienced in such matters, I’ll take your word for it and leave them as is. I even publicly thanked you for the grammar revisions, the second of which, at least, I agree with without reservation. (I'm a bit fuzzy on your first reversion point, but again, shall take your word for it.)

I was, however, curious, as to what attracted you to the article. Are you interested in the subject matter and are thus a page watcher, or perhaps are you some sort of Wikipedia official who is notified of randomly assigned article edits? In any event, thank you for your attention to these matters. It is appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the feedback! I realize reverting edits has the potential to irritate other editors - with that in mind, usually, when an edit is obviously well-intentioned, I use AWB's built-in "assume good faith" revert (which, hopefully, communicates good intentions on my part as well), but since AWB automatically reverts multiple consecutive edits by the same editor, and you made one both yesterday and today, I had to resort to "undo". I generally do one or the other instead of manually reverting (even though it may sometimes be better, I suppose) because I don't like to "hide" the removal of someone else's content - I'd rather be up-front about it. Sorry if it seemed unnecessary even so, but I guess I do like to see grammar correct (when I notice - I'm not really an expert). To explain the grammatical issue: the correct verb tense with "demands" is unconjugated regardless of the person. You demand/request/whatever that something happen, not happens. e.g. "HistoryBuff14 requested that Fru1tbat explain himself." :)
As for why I watch that article - I have a bunch of Trek articles on my watchlist, pretty much just because I'm a fan. I don't track all of them - mostly just the ones I've touched. When I edit an article, it tends to stay on my watchlist a while. I've rewatched various Trek series now and then, and if I get around to it, I check and fix the episodes I've seen recently.
I did appreciate the thanks you sent for the edits, and now even more so that you've explained. Sorry to have caused you any trouble!
--Fru1tbat (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, you’re quite courteous which I do appreciate. As I explained, I was only annoyed at first because of my erroneous assumption as to what had been reverted. I shall learn from that experience for future reference. Especially as I am an amateur writer (hey, Bobby Jones was never a professional golfer! :)) with internet credits, I especially appreciate the grammar lesson. On a final note—as you indicate that you are a Trek fan—, I was disappointed that Barash never appeared again. Maybe it would have been too difficult finding a competent actor willing to endure wearing that funky insect costume. I would have been interested in who invaded his planet and apparently inflicted genocide on his people and why. It might have also been poignant learning how the character dealt with being the last of his kind, if he ever could and avoided suicide as a result. (Troi could have figured prominently in such a hypothetical episode.) Thanks again and best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fru1tbat. 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)

Real-life Turbo vs. Turbo in "Wreck-It Ralph"

Okay, you have a valid point about the real game having very little relevance to the depiction in the movie. But can we at least establish some connection? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@DanTD: Thanks for the message! I can see two scenarios: On one hand, if the real Turbo was any inspiration to the film, and this can be verified, it should definitely be mentioned. On the other, if it's unrelated ("turbo" would be a pretty common word associated with racing games), it could get a link in the "see also" section, but otherwise I'd feel compelled to clarify it as something like "the unrelated game Turbo" so as not to mislead readers, in which case why are we mentioning it? It's just a minor coincidence. For what it's worth, the (possibly unreliable) Disney Wikia says: "TurboTime is supposed to be a parody of Rally-X, ..."[4] I wouldn't have a problem with a See Also link, but not more than that unless a connection can be established. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think a mere "See also" mention would be sufficient. I don't know how old you are, but I personally remember the real-life Turbo being overshadowed by Pole Position, and justifiably so. Even if we can't establish a direct connection, there ought to be a little more than a brief mention of the real game. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm old enough to remember my share of 8-bit arcade games as well, although not Turbo in particular. Considering what you just outlined, I wonder if it really did inspire the film. In that case, I'd be fine with mentioning the parallel, but I definitely wouldn't do it as a quasi-hidden link in the plot section, which implies a connection without discussing it and clarifying for the reader. Instead, I think I'd discuss in the existing "video game references" section. How does that sound? Just be aware that some editors might remove it on the grounds of WP:OR if the connection can't be verified with references. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand that. I wouldn't want to use original research either. And yes, I would be perfectly content with adding it to the Video game cameos and references section. Even if we can't confirm that this inspired that aspect of the film, it should still be noted. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Brightman

Why do you keep undoing my edit? Titles and headings are supposed to be capitalized. Melissa Hastings (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Melissa Hastings: I'm glad you asked! That style (i.e. title case for headings) may be the style you're used to, but it's not the only valid convention, and it happens not to be the one Wikipedia has standardized on – we use sentence case for headings, per MOS:HEAD. I realize it may look wrong at first (it did for me as well), but hopefully you'll get used to it! --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fru1tbat. 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)

Pork roll/Taylor Ham

Agreed, I think that the topic can benefit from further discussion. As it stands, the current talk page consists of anecdotal evidence submitted by users of which only two are signed, and the first citation directs to a dead page. The updates I had made cite a New York Times article describing the product as: "Taylor ham, invented and loved in New Jersey since 1856, is a lightly smoked slightly spicy pork product generally sold in rolls of three or six pounds that must be hand-sliced and then grilled or fried." The times is a reputable source, and I would appreciate an acceptance of the revision I had made while debate occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrosefStalin (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will continue discussion once the admin clears it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrosefStalin (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rollback of my plot summary edits on How to Train Your Dragon (film)

Hello to Frui1bat. You rolled back all of my careful edits wholesale, without taking the time to consider if any of them were in fact an improvement of the prose or the content. That action tends to look like an "Ownership" issue. I suggest you reconsider. If someone did this to you, you would consider it rude and inappropriate. I left you a similar note on the talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted a single edit ([5]), which I did review, actually, though now that I look again, the diff is misleading and difficult to parse, so I might have been a bit too hasty. Still, several problems jumped out at me immediately, so rather than take the time to weed out the good from the bad, I just reverted. The first few sentences immediately struck me as problematic, and there are far too many paragraph breaks. I skimmed further down, and some of the sentence break changes there were also choppy. And yes, I would probably have been frustrated if I were you. Let me see if I can restore some of your changes in a way that reads a little smoother. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for reconsidering. Part of what you didn't like is just a different style of writing. Invertzoo (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ratatouille

I mentioned you but messed up the ping! Captainllama (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up! --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Voltron edit...

With all due respect sir the only time you should do it the way you have indicated is if you were going to shorten down a long article or category name and of course without the spaces, otherwise using Category:Voltron without the | or space should surffice. If you have any further comments or concerns please feel free to reply so that we can continue to discuss this. YborCityJohn (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:SORTKEY (bullet #2) and WP:EPONYMOUS (in the "Guidelines for articles with eponymous categories" subsection). For eponymous categories, the sort key for the main article(s) should be a space. That syntax is just a quick way to promote the "main" article to the top of the category listing. In your edit summary, you called this a "faulty category", so I assumed you were unaware of the technique - no disrespect was intended. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Nope I wasn't aware of that and don't worry no offense taken. Have a nice evening. YborCityJohn (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Shaun

hi I started a new draft for shaun the sheep: A Winter’s Tale and wonder if you wolud like to come over and help edit it Fanoflionking 15:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

My first impression is that it's probably too soon for a separate article (or even a draft, really). I think this belongs as a new section in the main Shaun the Sheep article. As more relevant information is published, the section will expand, and then that can become the basis for a new article once it warrants one. Otherwise, just needs some copy-editing - the information there is good for now. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fru1tbat/Archive_3&oldid=1140606643"