User talk:InfiniteNexus/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Skydance Task Force

Listen, I understand about the Skydance Task Force but i wanna learn more about Skydance and it's culture. There's so much work to be done and no one hasn't doesn't done at least a single thing for Skydance since trying to split Skydance Television into a page. Everyone in the Wikipedia is doing their part but the WF rules are bothering me through and through. I wanna build this task force since the wikiproject failed and putting it in Animation was a nice choice. Building it up for other wikiprojects is gonna be more harder than i through. I'm sorry about the mess I caused and i just wanted to make Skydance noticeable. Not to mention getting it on the templates of Wikiproject Film and Wikiproject Animation is hard since of the request thing. Any thoughts about the task force and please don't be too negative on me. It really makes me sad and nervous. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@BMA-Nation2020: I understand and appreciate your enthusiasm, but you have to do things the right way. I'll elaborate over there, you don't need to apologize. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you, man. i started liking Skydance since Geostorm and Luck. Luck was the only thing i got so interested in learning Skydance cause of it's strange history and it's knack from Skydance Sports to Skydance Television. I wanted to make a wikiproject like them but a user told me to start a task force. So i did that and build it up as a work group for Skydance sections. Each Skydance part is divvied into 5 groups. Normal which is films and shorts, Animation, Gaming, Sports, and Television. I put it in Animation since it's a good start to make the task force. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a nice idea for sure, but WikiProjects and taskforces only work if there are enough editors willing to commit to collaborative work in the same area of interest. Based on the lack of response to the talk page posts you made the other day, I'm afraid there likely isn't enough editors interested to make a taskforce feasible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

i'm sorry about the talk page. I didn't know i need more people. I thought 3 would be enough. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, it's okay to make mistakes, we're all learning here. Let's keep the discussion centralized at the taskforce talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. But how would I make a task force for three people? I need about 6 more to get this up and running. I know recruiting some is not your style but what else do I need to do to get some editors like Skydance? I noticed there's a few Skydance editors working on the films but they are just all released. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, let's keep the discussion centralized over there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

k BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I managed to move it to WikiProject Film. but it will take a while for it to be proposed by. or whatever i need to do to make it happen. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. How does moving the taskforce page from WikiProject Animation to Film address my concerns of a lack of consensus and participants? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

i don't know. you told me that in the talk page. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No I didn't. You asked me whether the taskforce's parent WikiProject is WikiProject Film or WikiProject Animation, and I told you it would fit in WikiProject Film more even though it was technically part of WikiProject Animation. And then you moved it to WikiProject Film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

whoops. i'm so sorry, man. i was wondering if you can fix it for me but... i'm not good at making this task force or anything. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you sound a little lost, so let me clarify. You need to start a discussion, either at WT:FILM or WT:ANIMATION, to see whether enough editors are interested in joining a hypothetical Skydance taskforce. If so, it's all good, but if not, there is no good reason for there to be a taskforce. You shouldn't have jumped the gun and created the taskforce before testing the waters to see if editors are interested. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

okay, okay, i think i got it now. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

There! Here it is! As you told me, too. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

you checked the link i sent you? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It hasn't been 24 hours, but the continued lack of response should give you an idea of how much support there is for the creation of a taskforce. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to wait 24 hours for them to respond for my task force? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it's too early to draw a conclusion, but things aren't looking good so far. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How do i make it better?! I'm trying so hard and i got nothing! What am i missing!? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Skydance Task Force isn't a discussion, it is a notification of a discussion occurring elsewhere. As for how long it takes - it won't be hours or even days, consensus (if there is one) to create a taskforce will take weeks (if not months) to form. Remember: there is no deadline. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

i get it there is no dateline. but any example of making a discussion for a task force like Skydance? Like from any task force in the wiki? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Redrose64, they're referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Skydance Task Force 2. The section heading is duplicated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

i knew i forgot something. But still no response to wait 24 hours. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Pixel 6 Dimensions

Hello,

I saw that you reverted my changes twice of the Pixel 6 und Pro dimensions. I understand, that you only referencing to the offical dimensions of the spec sheet, but so did I. Both - the dimensions in inch and in mm - are in the spec sheet, but as I wrote: those in inch are way off, what results in an error of over 6mm in the height. It does not makes much sense to insist on one side of the official specs if they are wrong.

Regards, Markus LoRDxRaVeN (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@LoRDxRaVeN: The dimensions in inches were being automatically converted to millimeters, but it looks like the automatic conversion was a little off. I've adjusted the code to render the same output, but using millimeters to convert to inches instead of the other way around. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a decent compromise. Thumbs up. LoRDxRaVeN (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Your recent editing history at Oppenheimer (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jauerback: WP:DTTR. I am well aware of Wikipedia's policies on edit-warring and 3RR, which I have not violated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Your recent editing history at Jack Champion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: My goodness, has no one heard of WP:DTTR? I have reverted once thus far, how is that remotely edit-warring? If we're counting, you have now reverted twice. Posting frivolous talk page warnings on other users' talk pages is not a good tactic to resolve disputes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Read up on WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I can recite those pages backwards. I sincerely hope posting frivolous warnings like this one is not a habit of yours, this behavior is borderline disruptive/uncivil. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of reciting them backwards, follow them instead, and stop making personal attacks. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

STATUSQUO and BRD are essays that have no binding force, and I fully intend to further discuss the matter on the article talk page. But it is not a requirement by any means to go directly to the talk page if reverted, that's called WP:1RR and only applies to certain articles. I have made no personal attacks, please read WP:WIAPA and refrain from making false accusations, which is considered uncivil. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again, stop with the personal attacks. Repeatedly calling someone uncivil for no good reason goes against WP:GOODFAITH and is considered an attack. Read WP:AVOIDYOU and focus on the article and gain WP:CONSENSUS for the changes you propose. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out uncivil behavior is not a personal attack, nor uncivil behavior. Again, please read WP:WIAPA. I assumed good faith when I reverted your edit (for the one and only time), assuming you would either (a) concede, or (b) revert, in which case I would take it to the talk page per BRD. And yet you reverted ... and slapped a 3RR warning on my talk page even though I had reverted once and you reverted twice?! And then when I try to point this out to you, you make unfounded claims that I made "personal attacks" and was uncivil? This behavior is very concerning, and the fact that you still believe your actions were appropriate is even more concerning. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that your talk page is slapped with multiple disputes and warnings is what is concerning. Please concentrate on improving the encyclopaedia instead of moral signalling and making unrequited comments on people's personalities. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The only other warning has been the one directly above this, and similar to this case, I did not violate 3RR. The admin who posted that warning later voiced support for my position on the talk page discussion, and the dispute was resolved. As for the other disputes, the primary purpose of user talks pages is literally to resolve disputes, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. And do you still not understand that posting a 3RR warning was not the appropriate course of action? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, (talk page stalker) here. Where exactly are the multiple disputes and warnings? I've checked on the last four archives and I've found no warnings related to disruptive editing and/or behavior concerns that aren't in this very thread. It would also be helpful for the discussion if Krimuk2.0 cited exactly which comment they perceive as a personal attack, because it's not evident which one they're referring to. —El Millo (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I am sorry for the 3RR template bomb. That was my mistake. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the apology. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I was expecting an apology for your repeated unrequited comments on my personality & behaviour, but then, we can't have it all, can we? :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

My comments about how posting frivolous warnings and making false NPA accusations is uncivil were correct and justified, and calling out uncivil behavior is not uncivil, nor considered a personal attack (which has a very specific definition on Wikipedia). I won't lecture you further, but I won't retract my previous statements either. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Haha, absolutely not surprising. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Knives Out#Comedy_Genre".The discussion is about the topic Knives Out.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Doobledoop (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Media

I have a question for you.Highwatermark1 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you there?Highwatermark1 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Fire away. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You correctly said the "task force" which isn't really a task force for Skydance and animation at all, is operating ad hoc and outside of both the guidelines and rules for Wikipedia.Highwatermark1 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Those weren't exactly my words, but go on? I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I see based on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Minions: The Rise of Gru that you appear to be involved in some kind of drama with BMA-Nation2020 and LancedSoul. If there is a content dispute, please discuss with them on the talk page of the articles involved. If it's their behavior you're concerned with, I would advise taking it to their talk pages, and then ANI if all else fails. BMA-Nation2020 is already involved in an ANI thread, but this seems to be an unrelated matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Those two are editing in a wrong fashion. The "task force" while well-intentioned is not operational. DRN was no help.Highwatermark1 (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

DRN is only for content disputes, not editor behavior. Have you tried talking it out with them on their talk pages? InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a chance. Besides one or more of them being autistic, they are making several mistakes. We're not talking about a few, dozens.Highwatermark1 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMUNICATION is required. If you are truly unwilling to engage with them, you may consider filing a report at WP:ANI, but please be aware your edits will also be scrutinized. I strongly advise starting a discussion on LancedSoul's talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to try talking to those two, then do it. I have no plans to talk to them.Highwatermark1 (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You may strongly advise starting for discussion on me, but I discovered that this user is actually using inaccurate/incorrect edit summary for one words. Like this for example. Also, I am considering semi-retired from Wikipedia as I'm busy for doing work outside of Wikipedia, unless if I found a reliable source. LancedSoul (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware. I left them a message on their talk page asking them about their edit summaries, but they removed the notice without responding. Though I'm not sure if using weird/inaccurate edit summaries qualifies as disruptive behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Given the discussion on your talk page, you might be interested in this discussion. Highwatermark1 has directly stated that they are unwilling to talk it out with BMA-Nation2020 or LancedSoul on their talk pages. @Redrose64: You might be interested as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)