Hosta

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.

The Swimmer --RottenTomatoes approval rating.

You undid my change of the RottenTomatoes approval rating from 79% to 100%. This does clear up where that 79% rating came from--I'd supposed it to be out of date, perhaps, as I'd overlooked that the audience rating was 79%, never having bothered w/audience ratings.

I think that the RottenTomatoes approval rating for 'The Swimmer' really can be considered to be 100%, though--but I'll submit the question to you, doesn't everybody (else) treat the rottentomatoes tomatometer 'rating' as the rating, as opposed to bothering with the 'audience rating'?

I note how the rottentomatoes homepage lists all the top box office movies and opening movies, etc., with their tomatometer 'rating'. Additionally, the 'fresh' or 'rotten' (as in 'rottentomatoes') icon, also listed for these movies, and just as ubiquitous, always provided for any linked movie title, is calculated from the tomatometer 'rating'. The tomatometer only uses critic reviews. The significance of this, re: rottentomatoes' project, is that the goal in creating rottentomatoes was 'to create a site where people can get access to reviews from a variety of critics in the US' and for that quote I cite wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes).

My bottom line, is I suspect I have a good handle on what RottenTomatoes is all about and what the 'RottenTomatoes approval rating' is taken to be, in the usual parlance. It's the tomatometer rating. Journalists often cite the tomatometer rating as the 'rottentomatoes rating'. I could give examples, but the other question is do I have a good handle on what wikipedia is all about--there are lots of entries for movies..

I've done a bit of due diligence on this, looking up 'Brown Bunny' on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brown_Bunny) And: 'Brown Bunny maintains a 45% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes'. Which doesn't resolve anything, because Brown Bunny's tomatometer rating is 44% and its audience rating is 46%. A look at Star Wars gives this quote 'According to review aggregator, Rotten Tomatoes, 94% of 66 reviews assessed are favorable, with an average rating of 8.2/10.' This supports my position, though I'd have no objection to spelling things out like this, if the term 'approval rating' is ambiguous.

I might note, that RottenTomatoes ratings, given as a percentage, are calculated (as that Star Wars one is), by aggregating ratings on a 0-10 scale. The Audience rating (about which, my impression was, of course nobody actually cares about the audience rating) is calculated on a 0-5 scale. I take this to reflect a conscious lack of the same serious interest, in RottenTomatoes' part, in audience ratings. In fact, if it's audience ratings that you (or wikipedia readers) want, I more commonly see expect IMDB audience ratings provided. Among many alternatives, I suppose, but RottenTomatoes is primarily a critics review aggregator, that's their brand, I thought?

Another example of RottenTomatoes being cited on Wikipedia is Chinatown: 'The film holds a 100% certified fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes with 50 reviews.[17]' This supports my point.

So, for the sake of consistency, the RottenTomatoes' 'rating', the 'approval rating', is what rottentomatoes calls the 'rating' or, alternatively, the 'tomatometer rating'. You're probably not contemplating fixing all these other wikipedia entries, and etc. Though, I'll stipulate your point if you are actually prosecuting that one? :)

The 'audience rating', I had always taken to be an afterthought, trivia. Been using the site for years. I don't even notice the 'audience rating'.

Maybe the RottenTomatoes thing is overrated anyways, I just take this as an opportunity to see what happens if I try to volunteer some wikipedia contributions and learn wikipedia's standards (a broader point on which I am inexperienced).

Apologies for the length of this, I could cut it down, just thinkin out loud. I'm curious if I can convince you to see this one my way. But, I won't alter the page, pending your review of my argument? There are lots of other pages in the balance, of course.DanLanglois (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't have any deep thoughts on this issue, since my stance is that we really shouldn't have Rotten Tomatoes's ratings (or those of any other "aggregator") in our articles at all, since they are basically meaningless. As far as I can tell, they're primarily a gimmick to assign a number to each film, as if this was measuring something concrete, instead of just being a statistical calculation with no apparent value. Reviews which may be complex or vascillating are reduced to either a "yeah" or a "nay" -- and let the counting begin! (For a somewhat analogous situation, think about the arguments over whether it's possible to condense the complexities of "intelligence" into a single IQ number -- but at least there it seems possible that IQ is actaully measuring something, even if it isn't measuring the ful panoply if different kinds of intelligence.) For these reasons, I'd prefer to remove RT ratings from articles entirely, but the few times I tried to do that, the WikiProject Film community jumped down my throat, so I learned my lesson and backed off. I've no interest in mounting a campaign to convince people otherwise, so I just try to ignore the ratings. (The only reason I changed yours what that "100%" seemed rather absurd, as if The Swimmer was somehow the perfect movie!)

In any case, you seem to have looked much more closely into the thing than I have, so if you feel strongly about changing back, please go ahead and do so -- and you can cite this discussion in your edit summary if you wish. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I have a foot in both camps about RottenTomatoes. Paying attention to it like I have, is perhaps a vice. So easy to pull these ratings up on our phones. However, re: these rottenTomatoes ratings, we do have good access to the data and know how it was obtained, so I've changed the rating back to 100%, which is cited, so, this is not to misrepresent what is going on.

I suppose that statistics are both extremely valuable, and also notorious, for being a means that people use to make false and misleading arguments. I think that there are many ways to be fooled by statistics, and I take your point, that rottentomatoes ratings hardly can replace seeing a movie for yourself in order to make your judgment. Incidentally, I found a 0% rating for 'Hick'. The 'perfectly bad' movie? :) DanLanglois (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Center for the Study of Los Angeles at LMU

I am involved with the Center and thus create a conflict of interest when editing the page. I see that you contribute to the LMU page often and would appreciate your help in resolving neutrality issues for the CSLA page. Iggy the Lion (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bouket

You didn't start this case, so someone else did after WP:WQA is read. Maybe you can help the case after all since you had suspicions on Bouket and JJB. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've commented there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To notify you, JJB is blocked as sockpuppet. --George Ho (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Matter Life Death Hunter Niven.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Matter Life Death Hunter Niven.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Un-orphaned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ben-Hur (1959 film)

Preparing for GA, you may wish to help out with copyediting and improvements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look, but I don't really know the film well at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

New York City draft riots

FYI: As per the above article's revision history, an IP user made extremely unprofessional comments in his/her edit summary, insulting you in particular (based upon a comment -- 'makes sense' is a decidedly stupid reason for an undo" -- you made in a previous edit summary). Quis separabit? 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to tell MIT that I'm a "retard", they'll be extremely embarrassed to have admitted me as an undergraduate.

I'm not going to revert this editor's changes, although I think I'd be perfectly justified in doing so. The one change (about Southerners and hotels) is referenced, but it's a minor point and not worth fighting about. The others - changing "blacks" to "black people" or whatever -- look like someone who's a bit oversensitive, and their edit summaries read like someone with a chip on their shoulder who's perhaps uncertain about their own intelligence, so they have to lash out at others. That seems to me like the kind of editor to avoid tangling with, especially when I haven't been very good about controlling my own temper recently. So, thanks for letting me know, but I think I'll pass. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Just for the record I didn't recommend any particular course of action, although gross incivility does carry a risk of blocking. I just wanted to keep you in the loop, although if the article is on your watch list you would have found out anyway. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Thank Your Lucky Stars (1943 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to David Butler, Don Wilson and Green Pastures

Florynce Kennedy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Young Democrats

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

All fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

unsourced NYU Poly alumni

Regarding this, I had noticed myself when I removed John Stone Stone that the same editor had made other entries. I checked Ragazzini in gbooks and that one seemed to be sourcable. SpinningSpark 03:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I checked Ragazzini's NYT obit and it didn't mention NYU-Poly, but it was a short obit. If you've got a good source, feel free to revert my deletion - but you might want to keep an eye on the IP (who edits under a number of different numbers), who seems to "own" the NYU-Poly article, and doesn't appear to be too concerned with quality of sourcing, or writing for that matter (the article is atrocious). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in editing the NYU Poly article, or watchlisting anyone about it, my concern was only the John Stone Stone article which was what led me here. I'm just giving you information I had to hand - do with it what you will. SpinningSpark 07:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Otto4711

Can you see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711? Seems suspicious for a while, but how do you check edit similarity?(Lihaas (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)).

I just finished commenting there. The Wikistalk doesn't nail it, unfortunately, so the evidence of writing style etc. will probably have to be beefed up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

His reverts and dubious assertions seem to show that. Refusal to discuss while reverting and waiting for others, despite BRD. Certainly getting smarter...wonder if his tv articles have any other sleepers...(Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)).

No rules were broken

I'm breaking no rules by putting my own comments on MarnetteD's page. You were mistaken. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you are incorrect. It is well established that an editor can remove comments from his or her talk page at will, and that the removal is a de facto indication that the editor has read the comments. It is also well established that repeatedly restoring the comments is edit warring and disruptive and grounds for blocking. The fact that they are your comments is irrelevant -- it is her talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC

No, because I added to my comments when I restored them. Perhaps you didn't notice that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did not notice that, but it's not relevant. Unless MarnetteD had asked you not to post on her page, you were perfectly welcome to post another message to her with the additional comments, but not to restore the messages she had deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Preston Sturges.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Preston Sturges.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Restored to article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Justice and Construction Party

Whilst I support your move (although you didn't need the DAB of (Libya) as there is no other party by that name), did you realise there is an ongoing RM on the talk page? Number 57 15:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, the DAB was my mistake. I'll take a look at the RM discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

440 West 42nd Street merged

Thanks. Besides busy, I was also hesitant. Drat; I dislike the modern overenthusiastic commercial CamelCasing of building names, but then as an old fart I find much in the modern world to grumble at. Also thanks for straighting the mess I made with categorizing my quick pix in Commons. Maybe a better retoucher will find one of them worth fixing up for article use but with increasing intrusions of Real Life I will definitely not find the time. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm currently uploading a bunch of stuff from April, and after that I've got stuff I just shot in the Finger Lakes region to do, but I'll try to take a look at the 440w42 shots and see if there's anything I can do, since RL for me is relatively sane these days. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I did some work on a few of the 440w42 shots on Commons, Take a look, and any you don't like, feel free to revert to your original. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Changing "Image" to "File"

Actually, I'm fixing disambiguation links. The Image --> File change is just part of the setup, along with a few other common fixes that I implement while fixing the disambigs. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ali Javan Article

I'm just wondering why you keep undoing my edits to the article of professor Ali Javan? You stated the material was "unsourced", when in fact in my last edit I have provided a reference for each and every single claim which was added to the article.

The reason you gave was that I’ve "added material without any additional citations". This is false. In my very last edit I've added many additional citations including from the following sources:

• Masamori Endo and Robert F. Walter, Gas Lasers
• Pages from Javan’s MIT website
• Laser Science, Inc. website
• A. Szöke, and A. Javan, Isotope Shift and Saturation Behavior of the 1.15 μm Transition of Ne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 521 (1963)
• Javan, Extension of absolute frequency measurements to the 84 μm range
• Hermann Haken, Laser Theory
• Zinth, Laubereau, Kaiser, The long journey to the laser and its rapid development after 1960

Did you not see these sources? I find it unfair and frustrating because I have spent a great deal of my time expanding the article, and with the best of intentions. I am the first person to actually add something about the man's contributions. So, if you believe something in particular needs further citations, why don’t you let me know so that the issue can be resolved? Thanks. --Grinevitski (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In the very first edit in the article, you changed the wording of the information without changing the source. You added to the existing sentence "He foresaw masers without inversion...". This is a new claim or analysis of the paper, and needs a new source to support it, per our policy on original research. You also added language which pumped up Javan's accomplishments, cited from a commercial company he is now associated with. This is promotional in nature, and is deletable per WP:PROMO. The material you added beginning "Javan wanted to ensure that his laser would work..." is not encyclopedic in nature, it's more memoirish. In short, your edits served to make the article more promotional, less encycylopedic, and less neutral in point of view.

If you want to try again, I suggest you discuss your proposed additions on the article's talk page, or adding it step by step instead of in bulk. Also, I want to point your attention to our policies on editing with a conflict of interest. If you are connected to Laser Science Inc, or to Javan, or are editing on his behalf or on behalf of the company, you will need to following the suggestions given on the COI policy page -- which is basically to not edit the page directly, but to post suggestions on the talk page and allow other editors to incorporate them into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I can omit the line "He foresaw masers without inversion" from my future edits, no problem. However, it is fair to say that since Javan was the first person who discovered the possibility of inversionless amplification in masers (and the first with any inkling of this kind of effect at the time), I don't believe that my sentence was promotional or an exaggeration of his accomplishments. And since the old source was Javan's original research paper which announces this very same discovery, frankly I didn't think this was a new claim or a special analysis of the paper which required an additional source. Here it is:

• Javan A. (1957), Theory of the three-level maser, Physical Review, vol. 107, Issue 6, pp. 1579-1589

My edit was simply a change of wording intended to make the paragraph more comprehensive and accessible. I did not mean to violate Wikipedia's guidelines. About the second sentence, your point is taken. And from now, I will discuss my edits on the article's talk page.

The only citation from Laser Science Inc. was to verify his position as the founder and the chief of the company, something which can also be verified at the American Institute of Physics website here. Furthermore, I am not connected to Javan or to Laser Science Inc. in any way. I am just a student who is an admirer of Javan's work. His article was a stub, which is why I took up the task of expanding it. Thanks. Grinevitski (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that all seems good to me. Sorry if I as unnecessarily harsh in my comments or actions. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your actions in removing commenting on my block review

Your comment puzzled me. Do you think a bad block is something we should encourage Admins to continue to do without review? I could easily look the other way and ignore it, and simply say "It's not my problem, its not my account", but a good editor just got blocked despite policy which tells us to discuss things first.

You want me to go off and ignore this stuff and just make edits. But isn't that what Watchubot was doing? Until he got blocked at least.

I wasn't rude, I asked that the block be corrected. Who is going to stand up and ask for things to always be done right? -- Avanu (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said you were rude, I said you were annoying, and, yes, I do indeed want you to just go off and do the thing we're here to do, which is to improve the encyclopedia. An occasional comment on Wikipolitics is one thing, but it's beginning to look to me as if that's become your entire focus, and we already have far too many people doing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I would love to be able to go back to ignoring AN/I for a while. However, I can't ignore bad blocks. And unfortunately lately we've seen a parade of badly blocked accounts come through AN/I. I actually prefer not seeing all the lame drama in AN/I. Like I said, if I don't say something, who will? I'm not doing this to bust Magog's chops or whatever, but who is really pushing for people to take a second look at these things? Dennis gave a gentle gentle nudge, but that's all.

To me, the bad block is probably the worst thing you can give an editor. Its unjust and undeserved, and it silences their ability to be a part of things. Its a big shun for a person who is just trying to be kind and help out the cause. And if we see it, we should speak up. I don't like the tone of AN/I and I do like making edits and have been since the Newt thing got resolved by Roger. It was nice to see something turn out well. But if I fully ignore things simply because it would go easier on me or on them, I'm not doing my duty to the greater good. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm about as interested in having this conversation with you as you seem to be to edit articles, so consider it done. Please don't post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)