| Revision as of 16:02, 3 January 2017 editLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,671,071 edits →Your [] nomination of []: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:01, 8 January 2017 edit undoDarkknight2149 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,418 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| == Your ] nomination of ]== | == Your ] nomination of ]== | ||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can ] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC) | The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can ] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ==] nominated for deletion== | |||
| You are invited to take part at the deletion discussion at ]. ''']]]''' 23:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:01, 8 January 2017
 Archives |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
 | Welcome to my Talk Page!If you are leaving a note, please remember to be civil and not to include any personal attacks, and please remember to sign your message. This talk page is automatically archived, so if you don't see your thread anymore, please start a new one. |
|
Thank you for your unbiased comment on Stranger Things (TV series)
Thank you and the other administrator --Mfor the brief comments you placed in the Talk section. Within a few hours, the other editor who had been deleting my revisions made some significant edits, in the direction I was hoping. (Clarifying the differences in cast and plot between Season 1 and 2).
It was not what either of you said on the Talk page. It was the visibility of two independent editors taking a fresh look, making it clear that others were involved in the dispute.
Much of the content of this article was written by the editor with whom I was having a dispute. I came to the article much later and made some revisions. Initially, he disagreed with every single change. A proprietary attitude, in my opinion.
While the dispute was troubling, Misplaced Pages readers benefit from the outcome: a more accurate article. This Misplaced Pages:Third opinion should be more widely publicized to editors.
All the best! Peter K Burian (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your welcome for what little input I had. I am quite familiar with this sort of issue, as I tend to be involved in incidents like this quite frequently. It is important for both sides to look at the issue from each other's perspective: I understand what it is like to have all your edits reverted when you were certain you were improving the page, but I also know that Favre1fan93 has been involved in a lot of articles where these sorts of issues have already been solved, with the best practises already widely in use. In this case, Favre was right about the formatting that should be used, but you were right in that some clarification was needed to aid readers who were coming to learn about the series. In the end, all that matters is that the article came out the other side better than it went in. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree; Favre1fan93 is clearly an experienced editor who did a great job on the article when there was only a Season 1. The problem was, when Season 2 was announced, with info about the added cast and plot, the update to the article was not well done. Bits of info were added but without a clear explanation of what is in Season 2 vs. Season 1. As a new reader that was immediately apparent to me. My edits were intended to solve that. Nearly all were reverted. (Favre1fan93 did a lot of reverting in two days. And yet he warned me about Edit Warring; oh well, no big deal now.)
- Eventually, we seemed to reach a compromise. I still feel that the cast added in Season 2 should be mentioned much earlier in the article, so it does not sound as if the new actors were in the show from Day 1; (that is clearly specified only near the end under Casting). In any event, the compromise seems OK for both of us and I am convinced it was reached only because of the Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. All the best. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
|
Congrats, it's a... |
| ...Misplaced Pages Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)
The article Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Joker (character) nominated for deletion
You are invited to take part at the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joker (character). DarkKnight2149 23:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)