Talk:Seven (1995 film)/Archive 3

Video Game Reference
I don't know if the following is appropriate content, but the video game "Borderlands 2" has small cardboard loot boxes spread throughout the game and in one area, a box appears randomly with a pistol in it called "Gwen's Head". When you open the box, you hear what sounds like Pitt's mournful cry: "Aaaah. What's in the b-o-o-o-ox?". See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-lSBQs5RpQ 47.214.183.73 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an interesting little easter egg, but to add it the article would necessitate creating a "Pop culture" sub-section and this doesn't really seem significant enough for that. Just imho though, other may see it differently however. - the WOLF  child  19:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit
Someone wants me to explain on talk why I removed a useless section. I removed it because it was useless. Happy now? Boredkarla (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not useless, but I will agree a section that is just a block quote without context is not our best work. More details should be pulled out of the quote and the Art of the Title article to give context and then use the quoted material where appropriate. --M asem (t) 23:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks better now, but either way we definitely want to keep something about the opening credits in the article. They were notable on their own for their style, which has since been copied by other directors for other films. I believe that section has been in the article for many, many years, so it was certainly the better move go improve it instead of just removing it. - the WOLF  child  01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The section is not worthless.  Saying so, with no attempt to explain why, is just smartass. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 01:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be fair to, she did post lengthy edit summaries with her initial edit removing the section and also with subsequent reverts. But, yeah she is somewhat... blunt with her comments here. It could just be frustration, but taking into consideration some of her summaries and other talk page comments, maybe that's just her way... - the WOLF  child  02:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The section obviously was useless - how can a lengthy quote without any context about something not even mentioned in the rest of the article be anything else? I am glad to see that something not useless has been put in its place. However, it still does not clearly explain what the title sequence consists of, and it does not make any mention of any how the title sequence was perceived as a piece of film making. I also find it bogged down in minutiae.
 * It was indeed very frustrating to make a clearly explained and necessary edit and find it undone without any meaningful explanation. WP:REVEXP nicely summarises why people feel aggrieved when someone does that to them. Boredkarla (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

- Ok, I have to ask; if you think there is an issue with some content, why don"t you improve it? You talk about your "edits" when really, "deletions" is a more precise label. Out of your first 50 or so edits here, other than a half-dozen or so (complaints on user talk pages about being reverted) all of your edits are deletions. How about contributing...? And why do you seem to get so irritated by... everything ? It seems like all your comments and summaries are mostly scathing criticisms and snarky complaints. You just joined, don't you a) want to get something positive from this? and b) want to help build this project? I don't see how you can enjoy something if it constantly frustrates you and you can't really build anything by only taking away. Just saying'... - the WOLF  child  07:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, that looks like a whole lot of misconceptions.
 * if you think there is an issue with some content, why don"t you improve it?
 * I did.
 * You talk about your "edits" when really, "deletions" is a more precise label. Out of your first 50 or so edits here, other than a half-dozen or so (complaints on user talk pages about being reverted) all of your edits are deletions.
 * None of my edits are deletions; anything I removed is still in the article history. All of my edits are edits. Editing can involve adding material, removing material, or rearranging material. There is no obligation to do any one type of edit more than any other.
 * How about contributing...?
 * I do, and I do not appreciate the insulting suggestion that I do not.
 * And why do you seem to get so irritated by... everything ?
 * You have certainly irritated me, by undoing my edit twice without giving a reason. Also see below. But you are not everything, you know.
 * It seems like all your comments and summaries are mostly scathing criticisms and snarky complaints
 * Who exactly would be well served if nobody criticised substandard content here?
 * You just joined, don't you a) want to get something positive from this? and b) want to help build this project?
 * Yes, and yes, and again I do not appreciate the insulting suggestion that I don't.
 * I don't see how you can enjoy something if it constantly frustrates you and you can't really build anything by only taking away.
 * Do you criticise a sculptor who chisels away stone? Do you criticise a doctor who removes a tumour? Do you criticise a gardener who pulls out weeds?
 * Just saying'
 * I've never seen anyone use that phrase attached to something that wasn't obviously intended to be irritating.


 * It seems that basically, your problem with my edits was that you think any edit that removes material is inherently bad. I think that's a huge misunderstanding of the nature of editing. Boredkarla (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, that looks like a whole lot of rage. Look "Doc", while you're out there trying to "sculpt" some kind of "garden", keep in mind that every article here didn't start as a big chunk of marble with a masterpiece contained within, it started as a blank page. The only way they get created, expanded and for the most part, improved, is by adding content. What have you added? How is gutting this page of a significant amount of sourced and relevant content making it better, as opposed to taking that content and making some changes? Also keep in mind that everyone here is volunteer editor, and no one appointed you as a managing editor, and no one is "well served" by demeaning criticism and insults. You are no great artist here, it's easy to swoop in afterwards, carving away at everyone else's work and mouthing off while doing it, but that doesn't make you any kind of a savior of this project. Now, are we done here? I think we're done here. Try to cheer up and have a nice day - the WOLF  child  03:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * How is gutting this page of a significant amount of sourced and relevant content making it better, as opposed to taking that content and making some changes?
 * "Sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. "Relevant" was the very problem - it was not relevant. It was a lengthy quote about something not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the article. And yet you can't grasp that that was a problem? I took the irrelevant material out. Removing substandard content makes articles better. What is there now bears no relation to what I took out and is better than what I took out. My edit helped to improve the article and I am disgusted that you chose to attack me for making it. You really do seem to misunderstand the nature of editing in a big way. Boredkarla (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You've moved from 'rage' to 'disgust', congrats! You are making your way through the five stages of 'Wiki-grief' (1: cluelessness, 2: rage, 3: disgust, 4: indifference, 5: acceptance). Once you reach stage five, you'll realize that "reverting" is not "attacking". Now, take a look a look at Masem's comments below; he makes a good point about "working collaboratively". Still hoping your day gets better... - the WOLF  child  17:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Grow up. Boredkarla (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm... now that creates quite the 'pot-kettle' scenario, doesn't it? I don't know where you're from, but in my part of the world you can be an adult and have a sense of humor. You just don't seem like a particularly happy person. Good luck with that. - the WOLF  child  17:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As a matter of working collaboratively, removing sourced content is generally a last step that should be taken over trying to edit to improve/expand it, or to open discussion related to problems. As it stood, I agree it didn't seem significant here, but when I started poking for sources, "Seven"'s title sequence is one that is highly praised (which I still have to find the original sources to be able to include that but one should include a New York Times Magazine article). Thus, discussion of the title sequence is noted in sources and could be expanded upon, starting from the quote and its source that was provided. Deletion should only be the case if you can find no other compelling means to improve the content - eg if the only discussion of the title sequence was from that source and nothing else, then by UNDUE there might be a valid reason to remove it. --M asem (t) 13:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - Unfortunately, because the movie is from 1995, that may make sourcing more difficult, but the opening title sequence is a significant component of the film and, as I recall, was much discussed and as you say; "highly praised" by critics, industry types and fans alike. In this review, it is described as "the beginning of a new renaissance in title design" and notes it as being ranked by IFC in 2011 as "the third greatest title sequence of all time". So, it is certainly worth noting in this article. Thanks for for your efforts to improve it. - the WOLF  child  17:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To some extent yes, sourcing will be harder, but my point to non-deletion as the preferred method is that when I did a first search to expand on sourcing, it was very clear that the title sequence was significant beyond just the film, to give enough reason to explain why we have a section on it - a section to be improved but a section nevertheless. I do hope the NYTMag quote is not a case of citogenesis since I've yet to solidfy when that was even published, but once we can source those directly, they should be included. --M asem (t) 21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Plot
seems intent on reverting my valid correction to the plot for some completely unexplained reason. As it stands, the plot can't stay the way it is, because any reader who hasn't seen the film for themselves is going to assume that Tracey is envy. The current plot is unclear and far from "fine the way it is" (as wolfchild put it). It is a requirement that plot summaries be accessible to all readers (not just those who are already familiar with the article's subject matter), so some substantial elucidation is needed to justify their reverts.  Dark Knight  2149  22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh relax. You made an edit and you were reverted. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in. If not, then it doesn't. AFAIC, the plot was fine the way it is. It's been that way for awhile and it's not as if people have been struggling to understand it. Hope your day gets better... - the WOLF  child  23:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You say that as if you are entitled to have your preferred edit in the article just because you made a revert. That's not how Wikipedia works. Honestly, if you can't provide a genuine argument as to how it's "just fine", then your edit will be reverted by default. In the meantime, I would suggest you read our policies on articles and plot summaries. Sometimes, problems in articles will go by unnoticed or unfixed for years at a time. Just because no one has spoken up about it (until now) doesn't mean the plot summary was clear. Hell, it isn't even the only part of this frankly poorly written article that will confuse the vast number of readers not already well versed in the subject matter. Shrug my genuine points off all you want, but you do not own the article and talk pages are for actual discussion.  Dark Knight  2149  01:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest you read WP:BRD-NOT, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense exists, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Please avoid wiki-lawyering, as your very arguments (and lack of a valid one) are against policy.  Dark Knight  2149  01:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You should read WP's policies & guidelines yourself before you try preaching them to others. I don't claim to have the to final say here and don't, but neither do you. And, simply reverting you does not imply ownership, but accusing someone of ownership without the basis to do so is considered a personal attack. You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment? If you're going to get this bent outta shape every time you get reverted, you might want to consider another hobby other than editing Wikipedia. In the meantime, if there is support for your changes, then in they'll go. If there is isn't, then they won't. I think you already know all this, so calm down and hopefully your day will get better. - the WOLF  child  02:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no personal attack given that your very arguments are a violation of the policies I just named, and you still have not provided a valid reason for the revert. In fact, your only argument can be chalked up to "Eh, as far as I am concerned, the previous edit was fine. No one has said anything before, so whatever." As previously stated, you need a valid reason to revert someone. And with your comment "You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?", you have pretty much confirmed that you only reverted me on the off-chance that someone might support you. You are in direct violation of WP:BRD-NOT, WP:LAWYER, WP:OWNERSHIP and, with your unsubstantiated WP:NPA accusation, WP:GAME. I will once again quote WP:OWN for you, "No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason." I would suggest that you (yes, you specifically) provide a valid reason for your revert. Otherwise, it will be reverted by default and attempting to edit war without actual elucidation will be met with a report (and any attempts to file a report on me would be an automatic WP:BOOMERANG given your statements on this post).  Dark Knight  2149 ' 03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You really expect a response to these increasingly hostile and uncivil rants? Look I didn't revert "in hope that others would support me", I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary. Get over it already. This constant bitching and whining isn't accomplishing anything. Take a break, give others a chance to contribute (others usually do here) and if there is support for your changes, then so be it. But jeez, relax already. It's like you're so pissed off that you can't type out your retorts fast enough and then you need to make another six edits to correct your mistakes because you don't even bother to use the preview button. Calm down, take the night off and come back to it tomorrow. The article isn't going anywhere and it will survive another day without your edit. Have a good evening. - the WOLF  child  03:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing hostile and uncivil here is your increasingly condescending responses. My posts were very straightforward, but they are hardly emotional. You simply didn't like what I had to say. And with "Get over it already. This constant bitching and whining isn't accomplishing anything. It's like you're so pissed off that you can't type out your retorts fast enough and then you need to make another six edits to correct your mistakes because you don't even bother to use the preview button", you can (ironically) add WP:NPA to the growing list of policies you are violating.
 * "I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary." - So you now say, suspiciously vaguely and without any proper explanation as to how they are unnecessary or in what way the previous edit was an improvement.
 * "Look I didn't revert 'in hope that others would support me'"" - That's not what comments such as "You made an edit and you were reverted. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in", "You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?", and your utter lack of explanation for the revert (not to mention the blatant wiki-lawyering of WP:BRD and now your attempts at gaming) all seem to indicate.  Dark Knight  2149  04:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow... more of the same. Is it at all possible for you to calm down, even a little, and maybe lay off the insults and accusations? Like I said, it is accomplishing nothing. - the WOLF  child  04:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "more of the same" - On that we agree. You still have yet to provide a solid explanation for the revert, instead continuing to deflect what I just said by going right back to your previous points (which I already refuted) without further elucidation. This is indeed not helping your case, especially when I have outlined precisely why I made the edit I did.  Dark Knight  2149  04:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How about some "mellow jazz? Or bongo drums? Maybe a huge bag of weed...?" Anything to help you to ctfd. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  05:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hi, regarding this revert, I had added "custom made" because "bladed strap-on" is quite vague, and for the fifth murder, saying they are just "told about it" is incorrect as they actually "attend the murder scene" (which is important, as there are visual clues that aid the viewer in understanding the murder and how that particular sin applies, eg: "pride" scrawled on the wall and a huge portfolio photo of the victim on her own wall that not only indicates she was a model, but a vain one at that... vain enough to kill herself due to her disfigurement). With this in mind, would you consider restoring these minor, but helpful edits? Thanks & Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  23:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * has already been reported for edit warring, as well as the disruption seen in the discussion above. Although TheOldJacobite has every right to reply if they so choose, I think it's a little late for Thewolfchild to be discreet (especially after the clear final warning).  Dark Knight  2149  03:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "final warning" you're referring to, or why you're trying to derail this thread with your off-topic attack posts. But I was reverted by, and instead of freaking out, insulting the guy and accusing him of all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, I just figured I'd try discussing it with him in civil and mature manner. An approach that perhaps you should have tried. But you've now fired up an ANI instead, with some accusations you will have a hard time substantiating, such as "edit-warring", "own" and "incivility", especially in the face of your own persistent incivility here. I also posted this comment before you posted that ANI, so... there's another accusation down the drain... Are you sure you don't want to just chill out and discuss this here calmly like adults? Well... lemme know. (but I would like to keep this section on topic, thanks) - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I honestly have no strong feelings about the plot changes. I don't think they're necessary, but I am not going to be drawn into this ridiculous argument.  You both need to take a break from WP for a few days. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 12:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - hi, just to be clear, I was asking you about your revert of my edit and nothing else. It's unfortunate that Dk2149 posted his comments here because I had no interest in drawing you into that drama. However, that said, I made an edit, you reverted, I came here, politely explained the the reasons for my edit further and asked that you reconsider your revert or at least clarify it a little further. Please don't conflate the above dispute with my request. Thank you - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  19:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - hi again. I see you've been active since the question to you directly above was posted. Can I expect a reply anytime soon? Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw this and then got distracted. I've reconsidered my revert and think that the changes you made were helpful.  Cheers! ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 13:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and reconsidering your revert. The page is locked until next Monday, May 7, so the changes will have to wait until then, but I'm ok with that, there's no big hurry. Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  15:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Plot con't
We don't usually hash out months-old debates, or post threats to run straight to ANI if we don't get our way, via edit summaries, so I found your summary a little unusual. But, you made a bold edit, I reverted, if you would like to discuss it, in a mature a civil manner, I am certainly willing to. This would be the place to have such a discussion. - wolf  09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you recall, the prematurely-closed ANI report was filed because of your repeated refusal to provide a valid reason for your revert. WP:BRD in itself is not a valid reason to revert someone, and neither is "I don't like it" (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWNERSHIP). So now I am giving you a second chance to explain why you reverted my edit. Make no mistake - reverting someone for no discernible reason, demanding that they "gain consensus", and then holding the article hostage is highly disruptive.


 * You are willing to discuss. Let's discuss. Why are you strongly set on reverting my edit? Especially when it's such a minor edit that does nothing but correct an unnecessary confusing and poorly worded plot sentence?  Dark Knight  2149  09:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please do not attempt to hide your behaviour by archiving the entire previous discussions, before replying here with snarky dishonest comments like "We don't usually post threats to run straight to ANI if we don't get our way". Trying to avoid the subject by being uncivil every time your disruption is pointed out (while irrationally insisting that I am the one making personal attacks) was another main reason the last ANI report was filed. You were fortunate that it flew under the radar.  Dark Knight  2149  09:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow. I can't say I have ever seen someone carry so much anger and hostility for so long (41/2 months!), all over a single edit. You go and make the edit again, but with the summary;
 * "Clarifying that John Doe is envy. This was actually disputed a while back, but seeing four months has passed and still no explanation has been provided on the Talk Page. If Thewolfchild would actually like to discuss this, which he has repeatedly refused to do so, then he is free to provide one. Otherwise, the ANI case will have to be re-opened (it was closed prematurely last time)"


 * Just to be clear, your ANI report was not "closed prematurely"... it was not closed at all. It's still there in the ANI archive, as you left it, where not only you didn't get the response you wanted, but where there was some sound criticism that you certainly weren't expecting and obviously didn't like. You were advised that the ANI was inappropriate for a simple content dispute, that you should have sought dispute resolution or a third opinion, neither of which you did. Meanwhile, another editor familiar with the article agreed with the revert of your edit. That, along with the complete lack of support for your edit here, or anywhere else, and the failure of your ANI should have told you that enough is enough... let it go.


 * Speaking of archives, why have you re-posted archived discussions here, (including a discussion that had nothing to do with you or your edit), when a simple link would suffice? As in, "if anyone would care to see the previous discussion on this issue, please see here; Talk:Seven (1995 film)/Archive 3." Meanwhile, you come here again, in full froth, hurling accusations and a litany of WP-alphabet-links, none of which you really seem to have any support for. In the ANI, it was explained to you that I was following BRD, by trying to give others an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. WP:IDLI hardly applies (except to you perhaps... you certainly don't like being reverted). OWN can go both ways; you accuse me of it because I reverted you, I can accuse you of it because of the absurd tenacity you're displaying in trying to force your edit into this article. But I think enough accusations have been posted, don't you?


 * Despite your appalling attitude and hostility last time, and the fact that you immediately resumed that same approach with your recent edit summary, along with your renewed accusations, blatant and repeated lie about the ANI and your needless interference with talk page archives, I was, and still am, willing to give you an opportunity to discuss this like a calm and civilized adult. I don't agree with your edit, it is not an improvement and it is not necessary. The plot is clear enough and your extra verbiage does nothing to enhance it. If anything, it complicates it. There, I've explained why I disagree with your edit. Another editor disagrees as well. No one has supported it, despite all the widespread attention you have tried to bring to it, nor your efforts to add it again months later (to what is otherwise a fairly stable article).


 * As I see it, you can; a) drop the hostility and try being more collegial, b) try dispute resolution, or c) drop the stick. - wolf  10:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Added note: Yep, I was trying to "hide my behaviour"... by linking to the very discussion I was trying to hide in my response. Oh puh-leeeze... will you lighten up with the repetitive and ridiculous accusations already? Just focus on your edit, for once, instead of constantly attacking me ffs. Are you even capable of a simple, mature and on-topic response? If not, then I think we're wasting our time here. - wolf  10:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Added note #2 (seems I have to keep adding these everytime you do something). I pointed out, with a simple link, the previous discussion that was had on this issue, from over 4 months ago. But it seems you felt the need to cut & paste the entire discussion here, removing it from the archive page. For some strange reason, you believe people are really interested in wading through 15,500+ bytes of argumentative nonsense. Ok, fine... have it your way. But when I simply collapse it, so potential users will see the current discussion (and still have the option of reading through the old one), what do you do? it, of course, with yet another snide, accusatory remark; "Stop trying to cover your tracks.". Can you stop all this aggression? Can you show that you're capable of even the slightest effort at collegial cooperation? Is that possible? -  wolf  11:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So your not going to explain your revert? That's all I needed to know. The amount of dishonesty and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT here is amazing, as is your continued insistence on changing the subject every single time you are asked to provide one. Now, you have finally started giving a little bit more than "I just didn't like it, alright!", but even that has only come in the form of commonly used buzzwords like "unnecessary" and "unneeded" with no further elaboration. That doesn't exactly help you considering that I have already gone into ample detail about why it is necessary, which you haven't even attempted to refute. [The manual of style specifically states that plot summaries must be accessible to everyone, including (and especially) those unfamiliar with the subject matter. In this case, no one who hasn't actually watched the movie is going to have any idea what "Doe states that he killed Tracy, representing envy; he also states that her head is in the box and that she was pregnant" means. Not only does it sound like Tracy is envy, but it doesn't even explain how it is "envy" (hence why a change is absolutely necessary).] You also attempted to hide your previous behaviour from plain-view AGAIN, this time by callapsing it. I would strongly advise against doing that again.
 * "WP:IDLI hardly applies (except to you perhaps... you certainly don't like being reverted). OWN can go both ways; you accuse me of it because I reverted you, I can accuse you of it because of the absurd tenacity you're displaying in trying to force your edit into this article." - LOL, what?! I don't know why you insist on playing mental gymnastics, as well as trying to pass your behaviour off as my own, but that has to be the most reachy attempt at an allegation you have provided yet. You are violating WP:OWN because you made a revert, repeatedly refused to explain why you made the revert, and then somehow demanded that I gain consensus. That's not how consensus works and you know it. In fact, virtually every policy and guideline related to consensus and edit warring all say the same thing (including WP:BRD); this is highly disruptive behaviour. And stop bringing up WP:BRD. As has been quoted to you, again and again and again, BRD is not an excuse to revert someone, nor are you entitled to have your preferred edit in the article simply because you made a revert. But as always, you only hear what you want to hear and ignore the rest.
 * "Meanwhile, another editor familiar with the article agreed with the revert of your edit." - Actually, has stated that he has no strong feelings about it either way, and has warned you to stop dragging him into this. But just with your dishonesty at the last ANI report, you're latching on to whatever defense you can grab onto.
 * "Just to be clear, your ANI report was not "closed prematurely"..." - Believe it or not, wolfchild, I am a very busy editor both on and off-wiki. And to be clear, the ANI page was indeed archived prematurely due to a lack of activity and, lucky for you, it received minimal attention due to WP:TLDR. Because I did a diff-by-diff breakdown of the discussion, it was far too lengthy, a mistake I won't be making twice.
 * As for that administrator you mentioned, a lot of what they said was blatantly incorrect and could have easily been refuted had I been there. And even they told you to further explain your revert, something you still haven't done four months later. This isn't a simple matter of you reverting someone and then doing a poor job explaining why. This is a matter of you reverting someone, repeatedly refusing to explain why at all, changing the subject and making personal attacks when pressed to explain why, and then irrationally demanding that the other guy "gain consensus" for their edit. I don't think you realise just how easy you got off with the last ANI report. And you can stop bringing up the "four months" difference, by the way. Your behaviour doesn't go away with time, just because something came up and you thought you got away with it.
 * You were also blocked two times for personal attacks in 2012, and then blocked indefinitely for it. The block was only lifted because you apologised and said you would stop. Since then, you have been blocked three more times for personal attacks / incivility, and twice for edit warring. Here, you have exhibited blatant ownership tendencies over this article, you have edit warred, you have continued making personal attacks, and you have been uncivil elsewhere. A case can easily be made for another indefinite block. If this goes to ANI and receives ample attention, it's not going to go the way you apparently think it will.  Dark Knight  2149  04:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, wolfchild, I'm this close to just reopening the ANI case. Only you can stop that from happening. You say you want to discuss this properly. So, without more bizarre allegations and off-topic attacks, tell me what your solution would be. For clarity reasons, the text can't remain the way it is and (for whatever unexplained reason) you're clearly against my revision. I mean this without sarcasm, tell me how would you would reword it. Because even if I rewrote the entire section from scratch, I suspect you would revert that as well. What's your solution?  Dark Knight  2149  04:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(break)
DK, jeez... do you ever just stop, take a look at what you've written, the length and especially the tone (not to mention all the off-topic detours, accusations and insults) and think that maybe there is another way to approach this? You think you have some proverbial gun to my head? Either you get what you want or you'll start another ANI? And taking the position that it's a given this section must be changed, whether you or I someone else does it. But it doesn't. The article has been stable for some time. The section is fine. And it's not just me, another editor reverted your changes, today, back to the stable version.

You say you want to discuss this, but that requires a collegial, cooperative attitude. Your attitude has been full-on hostile from the very first time you were reverted. (I get it, some people really, really don't like to be reverted). Look at your subsequent edit summaries with all your reverts, then look how you started on the talk page, either 5 months ago, or the other day... you come in here in full attack mode. Just how many WP:link policies, guidelines and essays have you (repeatedly) accused me of violating? Then you had the gall to accuse me of basically all sorts of bad behaviour. That I'm uncooperative, made false accusations against you, and broke sooo many rules.

Why couldn't you just do it the way it's supposed to be done the first time? You made an edit, you get reverted, you disagree or don't understand, and you ask on the talk page. Ask. Not attack. One of the first things I did was ask you to calm down. I asked you to give others a chance to contribute. Another editor has, and he has now.repeatedly reverted your changes, taking the article back to its original stable version. I don't agree with your edit. I explained why. You don't like my explanation, so you're gonna what...? Try to get me blocked because its "not good enough for you"? What about the other editor? Does he have to provide an explanation for his revert ot face your ANI wrath? Another point that I think is important, with all the drama and attention you tried to bring to your edit, and despite how long you've dragged it out, no one has supported your edit. I know that you firmly believe you're in the right here, but it doesn't mean you are. Name all WP:links you like, hurl all the insults you can, nothing will change that fact. If you want to run to ANI again, go for it. But everything from the first ANI on this talk page would need to be included. Why? Among other things, to show this is a content dispute. You were advised repeatedly to seek dispute resolution or 3P0 and you still haven't. I would suggest going that route first.

As far "discussing" this here and resolving it, I"m still willing to. But you would need to totally change the hostile attitude and.stop all the threats and insults. Who knows? Maybe it does get worked out. Aside from that, since OldJacobite has also reverted your edits, more than once, I would suggest you also ask him for his reasons. And perhaps also ask if he will discuss cooperative, alternative changes to the section you have a problem with. Again, who knows? Maybe it gets worked out. You just have to try to be less hostile and more collegial. -  wolf  06:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at this, and I honestly, for the life of me, cannot see why DK's edit is so bad. To me, it makes it clearer that John Doe saw himself as "Envy". , notwithstanding all the ridiculous, overwrought arguments from DK, and ignoring the awful and interminable wikilawyering, can you please explain for my benefit what is wrong with the sentence saying "Doe states that he killed Tracy out of jealousy for Mills' normal life and that envy is his sin".  Is it badly written?  Is it untrue?  Does it misrepresent something?  Or are you reverting it now just for the sake of reverting because DK has conducted himself so badly? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  10:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my reverts were to restore the stable version while discussion continued. The two of you have been arguing and reverting one another for 4+ months, and you both know that this is ridiculous.  The change in the text is so minor, I cannot possibly understand the basis of this edit war.  Please stop. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 13:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's incredibly petty, on both sides, and it is going to stop right now.  This is not a battleground. It's one line of a plot summary.  Wolf please lay out your objections to DK's wording.  As an uninvolved outsider I don't think it's particularly objectionable but I may be missing something. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  14:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already asked him to lay out a valid objection, repeatedly. At least two administrators ( and ) have even asked him to further elaborate, yet he refuses to provide any sort of explanation for his revert other than the most minimalistic and vague one he can come up with.
 * There is no "wiki-lawyering" (from me). Thewolfchild made a revert, continuously refuses to explain why he made the revert, demands that I "gain consensus" without discussing his revert, and seems completely incapable of being honest while expressing gross WP:IDONTHEARTHAT tendencies. For instance, even now, he is still going with WP:BRD as his only reason for why his edit should stay, even though WP:BRD-NOT has been read out to him over and over and over...
 * Case of point. Now, instead of explaining why he made the revert, Thewolfchild is trying to paint OldJacobite's reverts as having some imaginary support he clearly doesn't (even though OldJacobite asked him to stop months ago). And, amazingly, he's now demanding that I discuss his revert with TheOldJacobite! This is the blatant WP:OWNERSHIP that I've been talking about, and Thewolfchild has been blocked / reported for similar behaviour more than once in the past. This is far outside the confines of a legitimate dispute.
 * And contrary to Thewolfchild's dishonesty above, no one has fully supported his edits. In fact, he has been reverted twice by an IP editor (and if wolfchild thinks it's me, they can open a SOCK investigation right now). For that reason alone, I already have more of a consensus than he does.  Dark Knight  2149  19:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, your intervention here is the only thing delaying an ANI case against Thewolfchild from being filed today. I already suggested a third solution, such as rewriting the entire Plot section using GA criteria. I even asked him what his solution to the dispute would be. But predictably, his response (specifically the first paragraph) made it clear that he wants it the way it currently is and will revert any changes I make to it. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Thewolfchild wrote the Plot section himself.  Dark Knight  2149  19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , stop. Enough. No more threats, no more wikilawyering. Do not say anything else about wolfchild on this talk page until they have responded to my query. I will block you for tendentious editing if you do. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  20:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You said you wanted me to wait until Thewolfchild replies before mentioning him again, and that's fair enough. Frankly, that's all you needed to say. There is no wikilawyering, and there most certainly is no tendentious editing. Everything I have said has been justified and directly backed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (which I am prepared to list, if need be). I have explained my edits, attempted to discuss, and followed the consensus process to the best of my ability. I also seem to recall the wiki-lawyering essay being heavily blasted by at the last ANI report, and I'm starting to see why. I understand and feel your exasperation for the situation, but if you are going to make ill-justified threats and unsubstantiated allegations, then we might as well migrate to ANI right now. Such a sanction here and now would definitely warrant an ArbCom case request.  Dark  Knight  2149  21:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone, sorry for the delay. I had typed out a lengthy response earlier this afternoon, but wanted to proofread before posting, then got caught up IRL. I see there have been some comments posted since F+K's first post at 10:30 25 Sept. I will address this after if need be as I don't feel like rewriting my post. Here it is, as it was;

Hi Fish+Karate, thanks for the post. I see what you're trying to do here and appreciate the effort to try and resolve what must appear to be a disruptive deadlock. So, let's get to it and address the edits first; Here is DK's edit:

The extra wording is unnecessary. Do we really need the words "jealous", and "jealousy" and "Envy", all in such close structural proximity? Furthermore, in DK's edit: Doe states that he killed Tracy out of jealousy... envy was his sin creates a grey area that is subject to debate. I'm referring to a debate that had raged for years on message boards, like IMDb, about the meaning of Doe's "Masterpiece" and did he complete it? Some claim that the sinner must die for his sin, for the message to truly make sense. That Tracy's death was just a means to an end, that it was Doe's death that represented Envy. These folks go on to say that Mills will die for his sin of Wrath, hence the line from Somerset: "If you murder a suspect, David, it's death row all the way." These people actually assume that Mills is killed off-screen, completing Doe's ″Masterpiece" at a much later date. Only an idiot would believe that a cop, under those circumstances, would even be charged, nevermind tried, convicted, sentenced to death and then have that sentence seen through to conclusion. Or that such a brilliant film would basically have an unfinished ending and that the audience is supposed to assume or infer what happens in the weeks, months and even years after the credits roll. But I digress...

Tracy's death represents Doe's sin of Envy. One can just imagine the cops busting into the Mills' apartment, finding Tracy's headless body in bathtub, with "Envy" scrawled in blood across the vanity mirror. Doe's death represents Mill's sin of Wrath. Nothing says "Wrath" more than an 8 round mag-dump of .45 ACP 230 grain hollow-points slamming into a guys face and chest at point blank range. One can just imagine the coroner stripping the orange jumpsuit off of Doe's corpse to find "Wrath" tattooed across his chest. "Masterpeice" complete. What is the point to all this? We don't need to open the door to inquiry, followed by debate, followed by disruption. By putting the emphasis on " envy was his sin", it almost begs the question; "did he then die for that sin?" And from there it just goes on and on (and on). Confusion. Conflict. Chaos.

Now, after all that, I would think you would appreciate some brevity;

Here is the QUO version:

This version is less wordier, simpler even, but more concise. It's creates less ambiguity and and is more to the point.

In the QUO edit; Doe taunts Mills by telling him how envious he was of his life and Tracy.. Boom! There is his sin right there. No distracting synonyms. No repetitiveness. The sin is Envy after all, so let's just stick with what it's called.

Again, in the QUO edit: Doe states that he killed Tracy, representing envy There is something to be said about clarity and it doesn't get much clearer than that. Tracy's death represented Envy. Therefore, Doe's death represented Wrath. "Masterpiece" complete.

Now I have referred to the QUO version several times as the "stable" version. Because it has been just that. With the exception of one word, the wording of the QUO version has been in place since October of last year, after some improvememts by. That 'one word' has been in place since last May, when is was changed, and appropriately so, by. The plot has been relatively stable since then, except for the odd IP fly-by test edit every once in a while. Last April, an edit by restored the very wording being debated here, with the edit summary; "Plot needs to stay concise". I agree with the plot should remain concise, not over-burdened with clunky prose trying to explain every detail of the plot to the slowest of movie fans.

I will also note that OldJacobite is actually the last to revert DK's changes back to QUO (though curiously it hadn't been reverted back in by DK, but by some seemingly random IP user). You also note that last April 30 @ 12:57, TOJ said of DK's of changes that he "didn't think they were necessary". As a regular contributor here, and someone who has both reverted and disagreed with DK's changes, I would consider asking TOJ for his input on this. (He may not care to get involved though, he doesn't seem to like these talk page debates or content disputes).

Anyway, that's about it. Some detailed reasoning on why I disagree with the changes and reverted them. In short, they are unnecessary, clunky, repetitive, may serve to create plot confusion and basically do not improve the article. Thanks (and sorry about the length). - wolf  01:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Follow up,, I was not surprised to see your post this afternoon. Sorry this dragged out for so long, (though I am as surprised as you that it suddenly started up again so many months later) and that you got caught up in it. Certainly don't blame you for wanting to stay clear. Thanks for all work you do on this page. DK, still guns blazin' at anyone who dares to disagree with you, huh? Now threatening an admin with arbcon for just doing his job? Wow. Don't change a thing... just keep doing what you're doing. F+K, thanks for the intervention. Sorry for the delayed response. Cheers - wolf  02:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!! This is the sort of detailed explanation that I have been asking for for nearly five months now. But with the past aside, we can now begin discussing this properly. If you can remain this civil and forthcoming about your reasoning, there really shouldn't be any issues moving forward.

But on to the real discussion - Here's where I disagree with what you are saying: "Tracy's death represents Doe's sin of Envy. One can just imagine the cops busting into the Mills' apartment, finding Tracy's headless body in bathtub, with "Envy" scrawled in blood across the vanity mirror. Doe's death represents Mill's sin of Wrath."

While I can see how you came to this reasoning, it is actually explicitly stated in the film itself that John Doe (the killer) is envy. Tracy didn't represent envy because she wasn't the one who felt envy. You see, John Doe envied Mills' normal life and his entire plan was to provoke Mills into killing him, with Doe's death representing his own sin. And contrary to popular (yet understandable) misconception, the deaths themselves don't necessarily represent the sins. John Doe punishes them how he sees fit. For instance: The problem with the current version is that it insinuates that Tracy is Envy, which is factually incorrect (at least according to John Doe - "It seems that Envy is my sin. Become vengeance, David. Become... Batman Wrath.")  Dark Knight  2149  02:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Gluttony: Forced an obese man to eat himself to death.
 * Lust: He forced a lustful man to kill a prostitute with a strap on, effectively traumatising him for life. In this instance, the man was traumatised, not killed (prostitutes don't do what they do for lust). John Doe was trying to show him the error of his ways, albeit in the most twisted way possible.
 * Sloth: The man was chained to a bed and starved for a year (intentionally kept alive), only dying after his punishment.
 * Greed: An attorney is killed.
 * Pride: In this instance, John Doe sliced off the nose of a prideful model to spite her face. He had no way of knowing she would later kill herself. That was purely her decision, because she couldn't live with her punishment.
 * Envy: John Doe envies Mills' normal life. He provokes him into killing him.
 * Wrath: Another instance where John Doe felt ruining the victim's life was punishment enough.

(break #2)
Ah, you're welcome? And I'm sure that if you, well, don't act like the way you have up until now, everything will be just, er... let's see how it goes.

A quick caveat; I am intimately familiar with this film. The first five sins are pretty straight forward so there is no need to hash them out. As for the last two sins, before I get into any debate about the symbolism of Doe's acts within the narrative of film, I would prefer to address the edits. There is no dispute that Doe's sin was Envy and that Tracy died as a result of his sin. Nor is there any dispute that Mills "became" the embodiment of Wrath, and killed Doe, ergo Doe died as a result of Mills sin of Wrath. That is what we see and hear onscreen, and the QUO version reflects that. As I said in my earlier comments, I don't see the need for the repeated use of the synonymous word "jealous/jeaously" when "Envy" and "envious" are not only sufficient, but more appropriate. The sin is "Envy" after all, and we even have it linked. Any further hand-holding of the reader is simply not needed. The more significant change further along, however, is cause for more concern. Look at how you went right into your interpretation/explanation of who-committed-which-sin-and-who-died-because-of-which-sin. My concern is that the additional wording will open the door to just that kind of interpretation. This is precisely what I wanted to avoid. The QUO version is concise and explains only want is seen and said onscreen. That is why I agree with plot re-write last year, as have many other editors, and why it has been relatively stable during that time. This includes my revert of your changes last spring. Sure, perhaps I could have initially provided more of an explanation with my first revert, but even though I didn't, even though a slow edit war ensued, even though there was a lengthy back-and-forth on the talk page and even though this was brought before the mass audience of that circus known as ANI, during all that, no one spoke up and said, "DK's edit is better". No one. Now, that's that meant as a shot at you, but all of that is telling, and it reinforces what I said about stability. The numerous daily readers, the fans of this film, and the 200+ page watchers here are satisfied with the QUO version.

Now, onto plot debate. You wrote: "While I can see how you came to this reasoning, it is actually explicitly stated in the film itself that John Doe (the killer) is envy. Tracy didn't represent envy because she wasn't the one who felt envy. You see, John Doe envied Mills' normal life and his entire plan was to provoke Mills into killing him, with Doe's death representing his own sin. And contrary to popular (yet understandable) misconception, John Doe doesn't just kill with the deaths representing the sins. He punishes them however he sees fit."

(skipping first five sins)

"The problem with the current version is that it insinuates that Tracy is Envy, which is factually incorrect (at least according to John Doe - "It seems that Envy is my sin. Become vengeance, David. Become... Wrath.")"

See, this is actually where you are mistaken. We need to go by what is shown and told to us onscreen. You say Doe is "punishing". We see that Mills makes that same mistake, when he claims the same thing. He is corrected by the more learned and wiser Somerset who concludes that Doe is actually "preaching". He goes to explain how "the seven sins, and the seven virtues, were used in medieval sermons, created as a learning tool". Basically, if you are virtuous, you will be saved, but for sinners, there are consequences. Doe is preaching the consequences of sin. Sure, there is punishment involved, but it's part of the message. Envy was Doe's sin, and Tracy died as a result of it. Wrath was Mills sin, and Doe died as a result of that. Mills doesn't die, therefore we know that each sin does not directly result in the sinner's death. When you say that "Tracy didn't represent Envy", that is incomplete. Her death was a tool, part of Doe's sermon to the world on the consequences of sin. Tracy did not commit the sin of Envy, but her death represented the consequence of that sin just the same. This is what we learn from the onscreen narrative, and (steering back to the edits), therefore the plot should reflect that, an only that. It should be as succinct as possible and avoid any unnecessary tumescence. (jmho) - wolf  04:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(break #3)

 * Can I make a summary and a suggestion? There are two versions which do say similar things (this is, after all, just one sentence of the plot summary):


 * Option 1 (the status quo): Doe taunts Mills by telling him how envious he was of his life and Tracy. Somerset opens the box and warns Mills to stay back. Doe states that he killed Tracy, representing envy
 * DK's concerns with this version are:
 * Tracy didn't represent envy because she wasn't the one who felt envy. Doe felt envy, not Tracy.


 * Option 2 (DK's edit):  Doe taunts Mills by telling him how jealous he was of his life and Tracy. Somerset opens the box and warns Mills to stay back. Doe states that he killed Tracy out of jealousy for Mills' normal life and that envy is his sin
 * Thewolfchild's concerns with this version are:
 * The words "jealous", "jealousy", and "Envy" in close proximity
 * Creates ambiguity


 * I appreciate both of you are very knowledgeable about the film. I've seen it a couple of times, so am vaguely familiar with this part.  Surely we can come up with a reasonable compromise.  I actually think a better, clearer wording has been expressed here on the talk page:


 * Doe taunts Mills by telling him how jealous he was of his life and Tracy. Somerset opens the box and warns Mills to stay back. Doe says that his sin was Envy and that Tracy died as a result of his sin.


 * This avoids repetition (uses jealousy once, and envy once). It is not ambiguous; it is clear that Doe is the one who represents envy.  How is that? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  09:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, if it was my choice, I'd take option #1, if only because of the stability and wide acceptance I noted above. I'm obviously not a fan of option #2, and have explained why, at length. Though, I am interested to see when/if DK replies, if he considers revising or even withdrawing his edit after reading our responses. I suppose we can call your suggested rewrite option #3? Imho, I don't really see a need to use two different words, even if synonymous, to describe the same emotion. This why I believe another user changed "jealous" to "envious" some time ago, (diff). As for the latter part; Doe says that his sin was Envy and that Tracy died as a result of his sin, using "sin" twice in the same sentence is kind of clunky (no offence). Maybe ordered differently to eliminate one of the "sins"? Jooc, when you say it's from wording taken from here on the talk page, do you mean as an amalgam of snippets from both our various comments? Or am I missing that full quote somehow?


 * Anyway, we're not limited to the three options, right? And there is no deadline to have this decided? I would like to see if anyone else posts any suggestions. I know people haven't so far, but with a calmer discussion focused on content, who knows? Or if it's just us, maybe we can kick a few more ideas around the next day or so? Lastly, if you haven't seen the film recently, I would definitely suggest seeing it. Or at least check out, that has the (4min+) scene we're discussing. I'm going to watch the film again later today. Cheers - wolf  12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, absolutely not limited to those three options at all. And there's no deadlines.  Maybe I'll watch it again tonight.  I'd be happy to stick with envious, rather than jealous.  How about Doe says that his sin was Envy, and that Tracy died as a result of this?  When I said it's from wording on the talk page, the phrase I've quoted is from something you said a little further up. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  13:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in a similar position to Thewolfchild to where I obviously prefer option #2, but Fish and karate's suggestions are fair compromises IMO. I would be perfectly fine with options #3 or 4, as they both seem like a good WP:MIDDLEGROUND.  Dark Knight  2149  21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... just watched it again, for like the bah-zillionth time, though I hadn't seen it in several months. Still love this film. As I was watching however, a comment that DK made came to mind; "You see, John Doe envied Mills' normal life and his entire plan was to provoke Mills into killing him, with Doe's death representing his own sin.". The thing is, Doe was "methodical" and "meticulous" and had every murder planned well in advance. But, he couldn't know which officers would be assigned to the case, especially Mills, who had only just arrived in town after Doe had already killed his first two victims. He also couldn't know that Somerset would use an FBI contact to illegally and clandestinely track Doe down through his library book history.

Even after the detectives unexpectedly show up at his door (leading to the running gun battle, and Doe "smashing Mills face", as well as "breaking" his hand to conveniently cover up Pitt's actual on-set injury), Doe states that he will have to "change his plans after this... set back". Mills, and then Tracy, were last-minute additions to his plan, in place of whoever he had long intended for the final act(s). So the question is, what was Doe's original plan for the last two sins? The first five remain unchanged, but since this plan couldn't have included Mr. & Mrs. Mills, what was his plan for Envy and Wrath? Interesting thought, huh? Sorry to go on about this, I certainly don't mention it to debate the narrative any further, or as a reason to further amend the plot. I just find that unknown aspect of the story to be thought-provoking.

Anyway, back to the edit, the edit, the edit. Am I to understand that with 'option #4', the full paragraph would (essentially) read as this;

I'm ok with this version if you guys are. I did add one minor adverb (unbolded) to your suggested rewrite of the sentence (bolded). I also made minor additions to the preceding sentence, and re-arranged the second to last sentence, but without any significant change. Please let me know what you think. If we're in agreement, I would suggest that F+K make the edit, and we then can put this to rest. But I would also suggest then we clean up this talk page of unneeded past discussion by re-archiving the section titled "Plot" (of last April). If no one adds any comments to the remaining, current discussion, I'll archive it in 30 days, and hopefully the relative stability this article enjoys will resume. (Under the watchful eye of TOJ).

But, I would like to add that I am intrigued with DKs suggestion of overhauling this page to try and bring it to GA. Hell, maybe even FA! This film certainly deserves it. This action does not fit in with the idea of stability, but this is not something I would look to start right away. Perhaps in a couple months? Or after the New Year? Give some time to think on it? Anyway, it's just a thought; you guys can lemme know what you think, and if you're interested in participating. I'm sure some other editors might be interested as well. But in the meantime, we can let the page be for awhile. (jmho) - wolf  04:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for DK to say if he's OK with "option #4" and if he is, I'll happily make the edit verbatim as just above. And there is more than enough detail out there on this movie to allow the article to get to GA at a minimum.  I'd be happy to help (as an editor, not with my admin hat on).  <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  08:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the late reply) Yes, I'm with you two on option #4. As for Thewolfchild's inquiry about John Doe's original plan, my guess is that he had two other victims lined up for Envy and Wrath but changed his mind when he caught himself becoming increasingly jealous of Mills. That's just a theory, though. I definitely agree with you two that this article could benefit from being improved to GA quality (especially given its legendary status in film culture) but unfortunately, I can't help out due to time constraints. I still need to wrap up work on other articles, help another user with userspace drafts, ETC. I would assist if I could, though. I'm a lot busier on-and-off Wiki than I used to be.  Dark Knight  2149  05:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That edit is done, thank you to and  both for chilling out and engaging with one another.  Hopefully you can both see it's easier if we all work together. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  09:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, F+K, for getting that done and your efforts to help resolve this. I'm going to leave the page be for now, and over the next couple months give some thought to doing a re-write and putting in a GA review. Cheers - wolf  13:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Final quotation.
mentions "Somerset's quote from Ernest Hemingway" which is not present in the article. It reads "Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part." - William Somerset". If that's the quote used, I believe it should be incorporated into the "Plot" section. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

John C. McGinley
In the article intro, it says the film stars Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey and John C. McGinley. In the infobox only Pitt, Freeman, Paltrow, and McGinley are mentioned.

Why is McGinley mentioned in the infobox, but Spacey is not? Why is McGinley mentioned by R. Lee Ermey is not? McGinley's role is basically that of a body and a voice. His face is not even visible in the film, and his role - compared to Spacey especially - is insignificant.

I propose changing the opening paragraph to mention Ermey instead of McGinley, and the inforbox to mention Spacey instead of McGinley.

Any objections, and if so, why?Robbmonster (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox cast goes by who is credited on the film's casting block which only has those 4 names. Obviously Spacey's name was omitted to mask the id of the killer. In the lede, since we don't care about spoilers, Spacey is mentioned with the rest of the cast block names. --M asem (t) 14:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"Seven (1995 film) (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Seven (1995 film) (film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  19:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternate Ending/guilty
There is an alternate ending to the film, though not filmed but storyboarded and features on the DVD, so why not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.198.17 (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the song "guilty" by gravity kills featured? The soundtrack did extreme injustice by not including nin, among others.

Horror or not?
Can we remove all elements saying that this is a horror film?81.101.15.25 (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is not a horror film. Why would we have it have horror when it is not a horror movie?81.101.15.25 (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)