Jump to content

User talk:Scott93205

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{ADMIN HELP}} Theleftorium: At least three times now you've deleted my paragraph without a word to me. In each case I have revised the paragraph, and in each case I've been left in the dark as to what your objections are. What messages I have received from you have only shown that you do not understand a word I write. We seem to be having an "edit war", and so I have reported it. I'm hopeful that my paragraph can be worked onto the page in one form or another. I'm sorry you can't see its relevance.

If you scroll down this page, you will see that I told you that you can't "add content without verifying it by citing reliable sources," which you have failed to do. Theleftorium (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


{{ADMIN HELP}} In reply to your message: Lewis and Shearer have never had a dispute, to the best of my knowledge, nor did I write a word to suggest that they had. I’m not aware of Lewis and Shearer ever having met, though Shearer’s reputation certainly got a boost when he came out with his story of Lewis’s having shown him his unfinished film. Among film buffs, Shearer is far better known as “one of the only eight people” to have seen what is generally regarded as the most legendary of all unfinished films, than he is known for doing voices for the Simpsons or for any of his (supporting) film roles. Shearer’s writings on Lewis, most notably his “epic piece” (to quote Vanity Fair) TELETHON, are still widely read today. I did a search on SHEARER / THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED, and stopped counting when I reached the hundredth consecutive instance of Shearer’s name being attached to Lewis’s film. If you can find an article on THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED that doesn’t contain an unflattering comment or two from Harry Shearer, I’ll appreciate your sharing it with me. In the meantime, I’ve simplified my contribution, to avoid giving anyone else the impression that the subject of my entry is a mere squabble. Because it is now questionable whether Shearer ever actually saw Lewis’s film, his remarks concerning the film lack credibility - yet they are still taken at face value by legions of film buffs to whom Shearer’s “first saying one thing and then saying another” count as more than a matter of “trivia”. Shearer has a credibility problem. I did not create it, but unlike you, I grasp its significance. It stands as a “notable” part of his history as a public figure, and belongs on any page detailing that history.

{{ADMIN HELP}} To Theleftorium: I’ve looked up your profile and see that you “mostly edit articles about fiction (particularly THE SIMPSONS)”. Even your username is a reference to THE SIMPSONS. Since Harry Shearer does the voices for eleven of the characters on your favorite TV show, I think it’s safe to assume that you are a fan. Your deleting my contribution without having shown me what was wrong with it stands as another indication that, where all things SIMPSONS are concerned, you hold a bias. Would it be possible for you to pass me on to an objective administrator? You input simply has not helped me.

{{ADMIN HELP}} Now you’re deleting my contributions without communicating with me at all. Two {{ADMIN HELP}}s down you’ll find my reply to the first help you gave me on the Harry Shearer page. I could not make sense of your help. Would you mind replying to my questions, please? Thanks.

{{ADMIN HELP}} Yesterday I went to the trouble of contributing a paragraph to your page on Harry Shearer. What I wrote was factual and supported by easily verifiable citations, which I supplied for you. What I wrote was as relevant as anything else pertaining to Harry Shearer. For the past several decades, Shearer has passed himself off as an authority on Jerry Lewis (see LAST TUXEDO STANDING at Vanity Fair, for an online example), and most specifically on Lewis’s unfinished film THE DAY THE CLOWN CRIED. Shearer’s usual claim is that Lewis showed him the film personally; however he has also stated that he viewed the film without Lewis’s permission, behind his back - though he will not disclose the name of the individual who “borrowed” the film from Lewis’s vault for a secret viewing. This morning I find that my paragraph has been removed. Please tell me why. Thanks.

{{ADMIN HELP}} Is the “May 2012” entry your actual reply to my request for help? It makes no sense to me. You write that I should not add content without “verifying it with reliable sources, as [you] did to Harry Shearer.” Well, thanks for noticing that I did my job correctly. But what’s the problem, then? If you want other instances of Shearer purporting to have been shown the film by Lewis, I can site others, but why should more than one be necessary? The Spy magazine article can already be found, almost verbatim, on your site. A more recent, though less noteworthy, instance of Shearer purporting to have been shown the film “by Lewis himself at a private gathering” can be found in the October 30, 2010 issue of the Mondo Film & Video Guide, wherein we are told that Shearer is one of only eight people on the planet to have been shown Lewis’s rough cut of the film. Shawn Levy’s Lewis biography (KING OF COMEDY) also perpetuates the fallacy that Lewis showed Shearer the film, and repeats comments made by Shearer regarding its content and quality. Now, when Shearer says to Howard Stern that Lewis didn’t show him the film after all, the controversy that ensues is relevant to your page on Harry Shearer. What’s more, the source - Harry Shearer’s own mouth - could not be less “reliable”. Please tell me what’s missing. Thanks.


Welcome

[edit]
Hello, Scott93205! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Seduisant (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Welcome, etc.

[edit]

Scott - "Also I don't know where to sign what I wrote." - Click the little pencil icon displayed when you edit something and WP will sign your edit. Or you can type 4 tildes (~).

I should have added this Welcome template at the beginning. Sorry. It contains many useful links to Wikipedia policies and tools. Happy editing. (Clicking pencil icon now...) --Seduisant (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Harry Shearer. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Theleftorium (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Reading through your contribution, the ultimate problem with it is that it doesn't seem notable. So Shearer had a minor and not widely publicized dispute with Jerry Lewis over Lewis' controversial, unreleased film? I don't see why that justifies inclusion here. By all means on the page for the film itself, but it just seems totally trivial for Shearer's own page, especially at the length you've written and especially as most of it is uneyclopedic conjecture. If Lewis sued Shearer, fine. If it got some wider source coverage, fine. But at present I fail why it justifies inclusion. Thanks. Gran2 22:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just some additional points having read some of the sources you suggested above. I'd heard and read the article on the film before, and it's a interesting topic. The ultimate points are that 1) Shearer is one of the few people to see the film 2) He seemingly saw it without Lewis' consent. Now 1) is fine for the article itself; it is clearly notable to the film itself that Shearer has seen it and spoken publically about it. But "Shearer sees unreleased film" - in the context of his own article - is just trivia. It's interesting, but it doesn't belong there. 2) would potentially justify its inclusion is it became a major issue. He's always said he was shown by Lewis, but on Howard Stern he said he was not: fine. But the conclusion you have added to the article - even though it is probably true and Shearer himself said it - is original research, so cannot be included. All we can neutrally say is that Shearer said this and then he said this. Stuff like this "Shearer has yet to explain how an unnamed acquaintance of his acquired a copy of the film from Lewis’s private vault, or why he chose to view a film he had no right to see, much less comment publicly on it," is not neutral, is OR and has no place on an encyclopedia. All I say from Lewis himself is a second-hand comment by Shearer about Lewis' "rage". Which agains goes back to notability as well. All, it appears to me, you can say is "Shearer sees Lewis film, tells him it's terrible, Lewis rages; Shearer later says Lewis didn't actually show him the film himself." Gran2 23:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harry Shearer. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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. Cresix (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Multiple reversions with no attempt at discussion is not appropriate, violating Wikipedia:Edit warring. Please read this page, WP:BRD, and consider making your case at Talk:Harry Shearer after your block expires.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

— Scientizzle 17:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Scott93205 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Since receiving my Edit Warring notice, the only action I have taken has been to report the matter, using your online form. Because I believe this was an appropriate action, and cannot see that it constitutes further warring, your block seems unwarranted to me. . . . Also I would like your assistance in adding an appendage to my report: I was asked to name the editors with whom I was disputing, but was unclear at the time whether I was communicating with one or two people. It turns out I was dealing with two, and only named one. Thanks. Scott93205 (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

My block was probably too hasty and I have reversed it. Please accept my apologies. Your editing was problematic, but you did not continue the edit warring after being warned. Your Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring report was malformed, but it can be confusing, so that's not a big deal. It was frivolous, though. (If you look at the article history, three other editors challenged your addition and none of them reverted more than twice.) Ultimately, you need to discuss your proposed changes at Talk:Harry Shearer before re-adding any of the disputed text. — Scientizzle 19:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you remove all but first two sentences of this request; it is all that matters. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{ADMIN HELP}} Thanks, Jpgordon. But since I was instructed last night to provide the names of all parties with whom I was in conflict, I want to do that, so I need the assistance I requested. I've shortened the request considerably, though, thanks to your input. Scott93205 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott93205&oldid=1063860540"