Talk:Fox in Socks

message: I had moved this paragraph to the end of the section as it seemed to fit better there, rather than in the middle of the outline of the story.  However, mycopyedit has been reverted by anonymous user  without an edit summary – I've asked this editor for their reasons.  Also, I note that this paragraph is also un-referenced; so if no references are forthcoming, it may be deleted anyway. Comments? -- MightyWarrior (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment added by  relating to the above paragraph that "It is strictly forbidden to move or delete it" has been removed from the article – it appeared to contradict the Wikipedia guideline relating to ownership of articles.  All editors are encouraged to be bold in editing this and other Wikipedia articles.  This is how community consensus emerges regarding the content of each article. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added section headings to make it clear what is the original Storyline, and what is additional media comment (not part of the original text).  The "Stop it" paragraph has some prefixing context from the original text to allow it to be seen as a comment on the original.  But I don't believe it should form part of the Storyline section. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent edit by  appears to have cleared up the difficulty with an acceptable storyline and an acceptable entry in the Media section.  Thanks to all for resolving this issue. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph starting "Stop it! Stop it!"

message: The comment "It is strictly forbidden to move or delete it." appeared in the article.  Articles do not "belong" to any one editor, and may be modified by anyone.  It is up to the community consensus to determine whether any edit is acceptable or not.  If editors continue to make such statements, they may be at risk from sanctions.  With regard to the edit in question, I believe that there may be consensus from removing the edit: at least two people have done so, and only one user appears to want it kept.
An editor has described the text in question as a segue from the previous one – but this fails to take into account that it places it in the middle of the description of the story which is an unsatisfactory place for it to be, in my opinion.  That it why I moved it to the bottom of the section where other paragraphs talking about "Fox In Socks" in a wider context are already placed.  Please discuss this here, rather than adding one-sided comments to the article.  As I described above, the type of comment that is being added appears to be an infringement of the Wikipedia guidelines – no single editor has the right to state that a piece of text must not be deleted.  Wikipedia works through consensus; which is why these matters should be discussed on the talk page.  -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to discuss this paragraph

message: Yesterday I edited this article. The article used a quote from the book which does not appear in ANY edition that I can locate ("Stop it! Stop it! I can't stand it! That world is a vastly cruddy, bloody bore!"). Today it was reverted by . Can someone please confirm that this quote does not exist in the book? Dazcha (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote does not exist in the book – I have a copy which is I read to my son almost daily!  The user who reverted it is intent on putting the quote into the middle of the storyline as a "segue" from the story to a quote from the CBS TV special.  My opinion is that it should go in the section below that regarding the media.  However, as stated above, I have been completely unsuccessful in discussing this with the user concerned.  He or she will not answer any messages or make any comments on this talk page.  The only response is a revert and comment within the article to the effect "Do not delete or move this text!".  I've also for help from an experienced administrator in deciding the best way forward within the Wikipedia guidelines (but no answer yet).  I don't want to perpetuate an edit war, but I think the consensus at it stands, is to move the text as I described. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the  clarification. I also didn't want to get into an edit war. It's a shame he insists on reverting our edits. Dazcha (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Hey. I'm not really sure why this page was listed for a third opinion, as there's no conflict here, just vandalism. I reverted the editor's talk page and put up another vandalism warning. If this continues, you may want to put a note in at WP:AIV. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to have added a level 3 warning to the user's talk page, but then removed it straight away!  Are their contributions vandalism or not?  If you don't feel able to warn them, then I don't.  If it is vandalism then we can take steps to stop it; alternatively, if it is a content dispute, then I'd like a third opinion. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to check the history of the page before pointing fingers; as you can see from this edit, the editor blanked the page, not me. Even if it is a content dispute, I still don't believe that it belongs on the page. It doesn't bring anything to the discussion, and serves no real purpose anywhere on the page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wow, that's weird. I think something got messed up in the reverts, and since I was working in multiple tabs at the time, I may have accidentally clicked revert again, or the requests slowed down and got messed up. Anyway, I've reverted my own mistake there. My opinion that the user's addition shouldn't be part of the page still stands. Apologies to all! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I never thought Dr. Suess would be controversial.  I was steered to this page by a recent Onion (Kelly) satire cartoon, which insinuated Fox and Knox were promoting a gay lifestyle.  I was a bit shocked to see the controversy on this page, and also unprofessional phrasing, such as the Israeli author had "milked" the book into Hebrew (??).  I changed this to "translated" which seems more appropriate.  Translations are never exact, particularly in poetry and other areas where rhyming schemes are involved.  If a better word is out there, please change it.  But my understanding is that "milked" is pejorative.
BTW, the phrase "Stop it! Stop it! I can't stand it! That world is a vastly cruddy, bloody bore!" is cited as not coming from any BOOK, but from a CBS children's television special.  So I think that has been fixed. 
Joe Patent (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The original text in the article was "translated", but this was modified (maybe maliciously) to "milked" on 24 March 2009 by .  This user also changed "Knox" to "box" which I fixed today.  Thank you for your contributions, Joe. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, you are right.  The quote "Stop it!..." is now correctly indicated as being part of the TV programme, and cannot be confused with what's in the book.  Originally, when I made my comment above in January 2008, the quote was in the "Storyline" section - which was very misleading. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the author of the paragraph on the Hebrew translation, and I definitely wrote "translated", not "milked". Thanks to MightyWarrior for fixing that. Shortly thereafter, though, an unidentified IP-based user truncated the paragraph with no comment in the edit summary, so I have reverted it. If someone wants to shorten the paragraph, at least have the courtesy to explain yourself as to why. Thanks.
Shalom S. (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Can anyone locate the alternate/spoof lyrics that make use of features of the Internet? It ought to referenced here but I can't seem to find it. Been around for at least a decade, too. --Michael K SmithTalk  20:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A "spoof" that isn't discussed in independent reliable sources is trivial and should not be included here. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Internet" spoof lyrics