User talk:Arcayne/Archive 3:More Learning Curve

.

Reference Nuts-n-Bolts

 * The issue might be that you do not have a closing tag. With some coding, you have two fairly similar tags -- one at the beginning, one at the end.  For example: .  The tag ends the use of the coding for that instance.  If you neglect the slash, it confuses the program that compiles the coding, because you'd essentially be trying to initiate the coding twice, without ending the first initiation.  Is this helpful? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if I am to understand you correctly, the first reference I want to have as an endnote would be "<ref" open-ended, and the conclusion of the cited would have carrots on both ends of the "ref", so (substituting & for ) &ref& chicklets.com/yummy&ref&. this was the style I was using. I am not getting how the forward slash comes into play.Arcayne 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your open note would be. The slash tells the reference note that you are done with that reference, and that nothing else is coming after it. If you don't have the slash at the end, then it assumes you mean to reference everything in between that opening note and the next available end note.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

AhhhHHHHHhhhh, NOW I get it. Okey-doke. What a piker mistake on my part...Arcayne 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(conversation removed to archive)

A Fine Line
In this case, I think that Wikipedia's fundamental concept of "Truth derived from consensus" comes into play in addition to the good faith act. We first must not assume that an editor is merely trying to sway the opinions of the readers to his own. Second, you will notice that any information on Wikipedia is slightly different, while still derived from a source. To simply copy and paste from another website would be a copyright infringement. Hence why any information on Wikipedia taken from the said site is an interpretation. There is no difference and some difference between OR and interpretation. OR is unsourced information that is written on the site. The information is sourced by the film itself. If a user disagrees with another users interpretation of the source (and this is possible with any source, be it a website, film, or book). Then they may dispute it in the talk page. Everything on this site is unsourced OR, the rest is sourced interpretation. The Filmaker 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and funny
"You are an interesting and funny man, mssr. Perel"...lol, oh I'm definitely *not* an interesting and funny man at all, really! The requisite major surgery and hormone replacement therapy necessary for that to happen doesn't much appeal to me ; ) Also, I notice many seem to assume Perel is my surname, but it's actually just the Yiddish half of my two-part Jewish name. Ah well... -- M P er el ( talk 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I did't really mind : ) It means "pearl" in Yiddish, but one of my coworkers once insisted it means I'm perilous and dangerous, particularly when there are cups of any kind of liquid setting on a surface in a nearby vicinity of where I am sitting.  -- M P er el ( talk 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:The Man in Black fled across the desert........to help with some references
I took a look at the reference and went ahead and corrected, and left an edit summary to show you what you forgot; also, there's the "diff" version that will illustrate it for you. I wouldn't mind getting those comics, but I have a lot on my plate now with school, work, and trying to read these two official making of books for Friday the 13th (for the Jason Voorhees article and the films).  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oooh, Freddie isn't going to be too happy when he sees you've reverted his removal of Kal flying, yet again..lol.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Freddie could talk about his proposed changes instead of getting all het up when concensus gets reached without him. I hope he posts something amusing on my talk page. Viri is annoying, but not amusing. :( Arcayne 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be cool. You can send it to ... As for Freddie, I told him that I agreed with the removal because it was kind trivia type information. I'm really indifferent to whether it's there or not. Originally, it was placed there to compromise with all those people that say he's flown, but then Freddie removed it and I really didn't want to get into an argument about it's placement. You should leave him a message telling him to address it on the talk page, no..second thought I'll leave the message. You two can give your reasons for cutting/keeping it and I'll lay my decision based on the best argument. Hopefully others will see the debate and cast an opinion as well. My apologies for just siding with its removal, but it was past 1 am where I am, and I wasn't going to continue an already exacerbating argument about Clark's powers that had just ended. In regards to Nancy, I'll look through the whole article and see what is wrong with the templates. I have an idea, but let me look to make sure.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked, other than it containing a lack of citations, I saw that 8 references where just in a "hidden link" form, and not in the footnotes form. Also, the form is a basic one that most reviewers will want updated. These templates will be what they want in the end, because you can add detailed information about the source, like publication date, access date, publisher, whether you got it from a website or the news. If you think you aren't comfortable working in those templates just let me know and I'll help, and I'm sure Erik would help as well. He's really good with determining if it's "news" or just "web". If you want to practice with them then you could get all the sources and work on the templates in your sandbox (just add that "reference" section from Nancy's page so that you can view what they look like).  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that is an awesome little link! (Btw, that file, Dark Tower_01.pdf, should be winging its way to you now) I wasn't excluding Erik from the process, as he's already let me know he would help. He seemed pretty trundled with exams, though and I deeply sympathize, being an MBA student while participating in the cubicle rodeo. How did you spot the hidden link stuff? Simple exposure to it before, or are you one of those Save the Cheerleader, Save the World-types?Arcayne 13:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I was "Save the Speedster, Save the World."..lol. I would like to get Heroes when it comes to DVD. I got the email, and it works...thanks a bunch. The "hidden link" I'm talking about are ones that look like this, except they don't have "this" as the link, they have a number. If you look on the page there are 8 internet sources that are, in the least, not footnoted. It's not "bad", but it's not "neat" either, and that is what reviews will point out. They want editors to use the "" type of templates.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in the comic. Care to send for pick-up by spambox1231 at yahoo dot com? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I hope you like it. I also have a copy of Lex Luthor: Man of Steel. I consider it to be one of the best Superman GNs written so far. Let me know if you are interested.Arcayne 02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I have that. Have you ever read Secret Identity before?  It's a graphic novel that's kinda-sorta about Superman, sort of an Elseworlds deal. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, and I liked it as well. :)Arcayne 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good taste. How about Watchmen? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one of the grandpappies of good comics. You can pretty much tell who isn't ready for quality comics by discovering who doesn't like Watchmen.Arcayne 02:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent! They're making a movie of it, no idea how good of a job they'll do.  And to be honest, I don't know the answer to your question.  I skimmed the policies, and there doesn't seem to be anything.  I assume past tense? :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan
Thanks for asking. I removed the mention of "the late" as everyone dies sometime, and not every mention of those who have died has "the late" preceding. I like to assume that the readers here are intelligent, and that they (for the most part) know that he has died, and if they don't, you can click the link and find out more about him. I made a long argument in the talk page for PETA about why it should be discouraged (in most cases) to include that phrase. Would the World Book encyclopedia refer to the dead as "the late"? I doubt it, and we're here to improve on the print encyclopedias. Booshakla 02:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with you at all. We should at least have comparable standards in grammar and style to the major print encyclopedias. Booshakla 03:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Smallville Edits
Thanks for catching the vandalism. I have been warning him, and a look at his history says that someone is up a little past their bedtime. Maybe an editor needs to be brought in?Arcayne 09:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've given him the final warning template, and he's since attempted to repost the information. I definitely think it's time to inform an admin.  Locriani 10:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'd like to instruct you on how to deal with vandals. If you encounter a case of vandalism, the first step is to review the editor's talk page (if one exists) for any previous warnings issued by other editors. Make sure you check the talk page history as well; some vandals will blank their talk page. If there is no warning, then you can issue a template on the editor's talk page. For the subject, have words that briefly address the situation. For example, I would put, "Your edit to Children of Men". Now, with the aforementioned template, you should issue it as instead of. The reason for this is that "subst:" will generate the full coding on the talk page. If you just saved it as instead, the actual text would be seen, but the underlying edit coding will just show , which makes it clear that it's a template. Using "subst:" somewhat provides the illusion that it's not really a template being used. Now take a look at Template messages/User talk namespace (might want to save the link on your user page); there is a list of different warnings to issue based on the situation at hand. If the vandal is persistent and/or has a back history of vandalism, then the warnings do not have to be issued level by level. To report a vandal, go to Administrator intervention against vandalism and follow the instructions there. Remember that vandals should only be reported when they have received a final warning saying that if they continue, they will be blocked, but commit another act of vandalism anyway. Any questions, let me know. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another rule of thumb; these templates really only apply to new users. If there are experienced editors making inappropriate edits, then they should be contacted personally to determine why they're doing that.  Also remember to assume good faith about what editors try to do; I have a feeling that you do that better than me already. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent tutorial, Erik. Thanks for the schoolin'. This is precisely what i was looking for. If you look at some of the edits here I have been rv'ing probably vandalism, I have been trying to assume good faith, and not be all Mr. Snippy. :)Arcayne 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Fountain
I'm interested in an independent opinion of this film article. It was one of the first articles I ever edited on Wikipedia (as I was interested in the film's premise), and I've developed it ever since. Can you take a look at it and point out anything that does not make sense to you? I'm hoping to improve the article and nominate it for Featured Article status. The two weak areas, in my opinion, are the last couple of paragraphs in Themes (someone else added it, and while I'm fine with the content, I don't like the way it's structured), and expanding the Reception section as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to do so tonight. Arcayne 18:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Abusive email
Replied on my talk page. But I lengthened the block and forwarded his email to his ISP Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tags
Hi, hmm, what's your question, I will do my best. I've only been doing this since last summer. But, if I can help, I'll try. Best, Jim CApitol3 01:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. yes, pictures need licences, or fair use declaration. I remember a challenge of one picture there, I think of Mrs. reagan with Mrs. Thatcher. I think it's gone now. I don't know exact wiki policy on numbers of pictures. There a few there. I tend to lean towards more is more in images. the discussion page might be a good place to talk about this. Best, CApitol3 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Interlude:_Textboxes
Sorry for the delay, I didn't see your message until just now. It looks like you may have done the same thing (missed the "/") with Interlude:_Textboxes; it has been deleted, see here. I expect that if you contact the deleting admin (or probably any admin) they will undelete it and move it into your talkspace. Regards, Mr Stephen 11:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

nancy reagan edits
Please see reply of your query on my talk page. Regards, Shyam  ( T / C ) 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fountain
Well, I hope you like it. The movie turned out to be a bit different than I first expected, so I guess I'd suggest to go in without expectations. What is GN, though? Hope this means you can take a look at the film article and offer any insights on the wording or the flow of information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * GN=Graphic Novel=comic book. And watching it preparatory to giving the article a look-see is exactly what I intended.:) Arcayne 13:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, silly me. I haven't heard it used like that.  Did you enjoy the film?  I've never read the graphic novel (which has its own article, by the way), but it's supposed to be based on the original script by Aronofsky with Pitt and Blanchett to star in the film.  No idea how it compares to the Second Coming of the script.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And I'd like to check out the GN. You know how to get it to me. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The same Pitt and Blanchett that instead did Babel? Odd how that particular pairing would be used in a completely different film. I will send it along after I finish work.Arcayne 14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the project was a while before that. You can read all about the history of The Fountain when you get to the article. There's a lot of good detail (at least, in my opinion) to learn. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you had time to take a look at The Fountain? Also, a funny thing yesterday... I was driving to a Habitat for Humanity worksite, and I saw an Indian restaurant called Shanti. The thing is, I've eaten there before, but didn't make the connection until now. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the Shantih is everywhere. I was going to write the heads-up yesterday, but I headed up to my parents' place to help them with their piano, and Wisconsin was subsequently buried under a big bucket o' snow. I have not forgotten about it, and it is high up on my to-do list. Stay warm. How did Finals go?Arcayne 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * They were midterms, actually. Most of them were fine except for finance.  I guess I shouldn't have wasted my time on gathering CoM references, eh? :)  Nah, it was more because my study strategy of starting a week before the exam wasn't good enough.  Thus, I've adopted the strategy of previewing and reviewing for my classes, so the material is really set in my head all semester long.  Also, I was wondering, do you like the film Fight Club?  It's been a pretty lousy article for a long time, with a lot of fanboy edits, but I've been working on a project to renovate the article in its entirety.  Just a little look behind-the-scenes at what I do. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Dark is Rising (film)
I only used the wording from the citation at hand, which says, "Part of a five-book series by Susan Cooper, "The Dark Is Rising" focuses on a youth, Will Stanton (Ludwig), who discovers at age 11 that he's the last of a group of immortals -- the Old Ones -- dedicated to fighting a growing presence of dark forces. He comes to the realization he's charged with saving the world." The other citations actually have some more detail about the plot (at least, what's adapted for the film), so I'll have to go back and see what else I can include. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look on the film article's talk page. Is the premise the same as the story, or are there any differences?  I noticed the most recent citation doesn't say "immortal", so it might've been an assumption made by the previous citations. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the refernce where they are referred to as immortals...pretty glad that was corrected later on.The premise is pretty vague, but it seems to cover in broad strokes the story. It might be noted that this movie differs from the Potter series in that it has a darker tone and deals with a lot of Celtic myth and Arthurian legendArcayne 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Nancy Reagan edits
Thanks very much for your message. I'm fairly new here, and I don't know a lot about Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could help me out. I happen to know a lot about Ronald and Nancy Reagan, though, and I've met Mrs. Reagan a few times, but I don't know how to cite my edits. If you could help me out, that would be great. I'm looking forward to occasionally adding new things, but I guess the right thing to do is cite them. Once again, please get back to me. Thank you. Happyme22.
 * One more thing: i noticed that you deleted everything that i wrote. i know it to be true, but how do i cite it? i think that the paragrapgh on the assassination atempt needs to go farther in depth than what is currently written, because it was a major event in Mrs. Reagan's life. I got all the info from Nancy Reagan's personal memoirs, My Turn. Again, I don't know how to cite websites or books, so please get back to me, and we can work something out. Thank You. Happyme22.
 * Sorry it took a bit of time to get back to you after removing the data. If you visit your Talk page, you will see that i added a lot of info about how to get the most out of Wikipedia - using it, editing in it, etc. Maybe after you get through that stuff, you can do - -for starters - a Google search for the info you need a citation for. There is another editor on Wikipedia who is awesome at this stuff - he sets his Yahoo to search for news articles with certain search terms. I am sure you probably know a bit about that. I removed the infomation because it needs to have a verifiable, reliable source, and I have learned the hard, frustrating way that if you cannot cite it, you cannot - for the most part - include it. If you have questions about that stuff I sent you, I am here to help. :)Arcayne 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Arcayne. that helped me, and I'm looking forward to a fun time here at Wikipedia! Thanks, Happyme22 04:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan edits
Arcayne- I got your message. Thank You for that. I read about how to cite my info. I tired to do it on the Nancy Reagan page. I think it worked. I know that all of the information is on the page. If I didn't do it rite, could you (or somebody else) please help me out? Just check the Nancy Reagan page, under First Lady, and it's there. thanks, Happyme22 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do.Arcayne 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan edits
Thank You so much Arcayne! I listed all of the facts about the book I used on Nancy Reagan's discussion page, so maybe someone will reference it for me. U can check it out if u want. You've been a big help, and, once again, thanks. Happyme22 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Freedom Award
Arcayne, I just wrote my first article. I know I might be rushing things here, but I saw the Wikipedia didn't have one for the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award. I know you aren't really a big fan of President and Mrs. Reagan, but if you caould take alook at my article, that would be great. I need some feedback. thanks, Happyme22 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart
I don't consider them to be mistakes. The thing about the narration didn't have a source, so I took it out, and the section was empty so I removed it. I think "Themes" could be a magnet for opinions or original research, but if you can find some sources, please re-add it. --AW 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, go ahead and change it back --AW 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Go to the article, then click on the history tab. You'll see radio buttons between the (cur) (last) column and the time/date column. For the revision that you want to revert to, just click on the left radio button that corresponds with that row. This should have the left radio button at the row of your preferred revision, and the right radio button at the very top for the current revision. Click on "Compare selected versions", and you'll see both revisions side-by-side, with all changes that have been made in between. It'll say (x intermediate revisions not shown), which were the revisions between your preferred revision and the current revision. Click on (edit) for your preferred revision, and it should give you the information and coding. It will say at the top, "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed." Pretty self-explanatory. Type in an edit summary that explains why you're reverting back, then click on "Save page". It's basically saving an old revision on top of the current revision. Be aware, though, the bigger the gap between your preferred revision and the current revision, the higher the likelihood that you'll be reverting positive edits as well. That's why cases of vandalism need to be reverted pretty quickly -- sometimes other editors might add something to one section without seeing vandalism in another section. This would require some manual finesse in removing the vandalism and keeping the positive edits. It's kind of tricky to explain that aspect; you just have to get a feel for it. (Hint: Has to do with copying/pasting.) Hope that helps! And where's my free shantih!? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February Newsletter
The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Helen Mirren Edits
Hi there, no problem with the assist. I have now found a citation that clearly states that she was born in Essex. It is from a BBC site which is obviously reputable. I only hope that it is enough to support the statement. If not.... well, we'll have to come to that bridge when we cross it! Many thanks. Eagle Owl 19:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

More on Helen Mirren edits
Hello Arcayne. The reference to her declining a CBE in 1996 has been in the article all along. 'She was also invested as a Dame Commander of the British Empire on 5 December 2003. In 1996 she had declined a CBE.' I didn't insert that information, but I have no reason to doubt it so I'm prepared to take it on trust. The editor who removed her from the list of people who have declined British honours must have thought, she's now a Dame so how could she have declined an honour? The answer is that she declined a CBE in 1996, but accepted a later DBE. Different honours. I have no issue with the way the article is now. Cheers. JackofOz 10:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. One thing to understand is that there is no "process", as you put it.  A large number of people have been offered honours but declined them, for whatever reason.   Some of these people have later accepted an honour.  Regardless of that acceptance, they are still people who have, at some time in their lives, declined an honour.  List of people who have declined a British honour shows more than 20 such people (I'm sure it isn't exhaustive.  Such details are only infrequently released, being essentially a private matter between the nominee and the Crown, until such time as they are accepted and officially announced to the media).  The list includes at least one person (Vanessa Redgrave) who accepted one honour and later declined another.  The British honours system is not unified in the sense that I think you understand it.  There are various awards, various orders of knighthood, and sundry other honours, none of which is connected to any other except by being part of the overall set of awards that are made to various people at various times for various reasons.  Some are made in the Queen's name but on the recommendation of the British government (and some other governments in the Commonwealth make similar recommendations) - and she has no choice but to approve them.  Others (such as the Royal Victorian Order) are in her personal gift, to be awarded on her volition as she sees fit, and the government has no say.  The only awards that are connected to others are things like the various levels of orders such as the Order of the British Empire.  One might be awarded a Membership (MBE), then later a Commandership (CBE), and even still later a Knighthood (KBE).  A person could theoretically refuse an MBE, hoping to be later offered a KBE.  Their chances might be somwhat diminished by the initial refusal, but that's the risk they take.  Or they could refuse a KBE but later accept the entirely unrelated Order of Merit, or the Companion of Honour - or accept a KBE but decline an OM or CH.   There are so many possible permutations of circumstances, that we couldn't possibly cover them all.   I still think Mirren's article is fine as it stands.  But I'm always open for debate about these sorts of things.  Btw, I agree that this discussion is better held on Mirren's talk page, so I've transferred it there.   Please respond there.  Cheers.  JackofOz 02:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Helen Mirren Succesion Boxes
Hello Arcayne. The edit you are referring to was when I went to check on her page (which as you well know has been busy, busy for the last few weeks) and found that someone had rearranged the many succesion boxes at the bottom of the page. As near as I could tell (and I could be wrong) they had been put in the order of the dates at the top of the box (and a chack of this editors activity for the day in question showed that they had done this on a number of pages). I put it back the way it had been based on the fact that most of the actors pages that I have seen here at wikip, where the person has multiple awards, have had the Acadamy Award box at the top and various other awards followed (in fact I can't remember a page where this wasn't the case). The putting of them in chrono order also has the inherent problem that when the award is presented doesn't always match up with the year that the awards performance occurred. I don't know if there is an actual rule about this, but if you are wondering whether their is an actual heirarchy to these you might ask at the wikiproject film or the wikiproject TV talk pages (though they might argue whether Emmy's or Oscar's should go first). I hope this answers your question and apologize if it doesn't. MarnetteD | Talk 05:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I wasn't upset really. edit summaries only have a limited amount of space. The thought that I didn't have room to express is that language rules set up parameters and, while in general, are followed always have exceptions. Those grow exponentially as you move away from the homeland in both distance and time. So far none of the editors, either anonymous or named, have provided any evidence other than the rules of the language for their edits. Now my evidence might be criticized, but I am going by the many interviews with her, print and live, that I have followed over the years. The most recent was her 60 minutes interview which aired just a couple of Sundays before her Oscar win. Neither interviewers or Helen have ever pronounced her birth name with an -a at the end. Your note about tracking down the evidence that goes beyond the net is a very trenchant one as errors on the world wide web become mistaken fact so easily. The confusion over Helen's birthplace is a prime example. She has always said that she was born in Southend-on-Sea. Our article says Ilford and IMDb has it totally wrong claiming Chiswick. I have had great fun getting to the library to look through old newspaper files, or getting on the phone (see my note on Trey Parker's talk page about researching where he lived) to get the citation right. As to tightening up her page I say more power to you. The listing of every single city's film festival where The Queen was praised needs some big time trimming. She is a true gem and I was lucky enough to see her on stage in New York six years ago in a play which also starred Ian McKellan and David Strathairn. Well, this has gone on way to long so I'll close by saying that I will try to keep my edit summaries more in line with what you like (though if I can put them in funny mode I sometimes try to do that). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarnetteD (talk • [[Special:Contributi


 * No worries Arcayne. Thanks for the notes and keep up the good work here at wikiP. I hope the company calls you back:). MarnetteD | Talk 04:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the MiB discussion
I wasn't using a M:TG card as support for a position - I just like the card's flavor. It sums up my opinion on a wide variety of subjects, Wikipedia included. I realize that MiB was attempting to tell me Wikipedia's policy, but that's all he did. And when one does that, one is saying nothing of value. You see, I don't need to mosey anywhere and attempt to change there. I do it every day, by following my own personal policies when I edit articles. Mine are slightly codified, but most people's aren't. By making a good article that violates some Wikipedia policy, I show the policy as flawed. And since most people on Wikipedia do the same way, there's an inevitable progression from bad articles to good articles. The former being restricted poorly, the latter being more interesting. Remember, mob rule is only stupid if you're against the mob... which is really one's own fault, isn't it? Older gamers who hate Electronic Arts because they are popular with modern gamers wind up being bad because the games they like aren't mad. Older Magic: The Gathering players hate the newer cards, and only wind up feeling bad because older cards aren't reprinted. Eventually, all they can argue is some analog to Godwin's Law... and when that happens, you know they've lost. Scumbag 03:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Answers
The information from an editor who interviewed the subject of an article can't be attributable unless the information is published in on a relatively authoritative source (and blogs definitely do not qualify). Since it can't be proven who a user claims to be, the user can't correct his or her information in the article. Instead, the user could contest the validity of the citation of whatever the information is. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Helen Mirren picture
I have seen the picture and I agree that it is much nicer than the other one, and also gives us a better look at what she actually looks like. However, it is true that it will be deleted in a week as there's no copyright tag on it. I really don't know enough about pictures on wikipedia to add a tag, but maybe if we could get in touch with an administrator they could assist. I really want the picture to stay though!! Any more thoughts? Eagle Owl 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart editing...
Thanks for the msg about B-heart. Yep, fans just seem to want to gush way too much over this film so they keep adding quotes, minute plot details, etc. The thing that annoys the hell outta me is the insistence on incl quotes, particularly the way they keep throwing in the opening line about hanging heroes purely to emphasize the dramatic nature of the film. It's just NOT necessary for a plot summary in Wpedia. If you get a chance, read the plot summary of Collateral before I deleted it, it was bloated & horribly written.

Re: Spidey 3 image
It was discussed on the talk page a while back that when we put up an image of Venom that it would be one of a full body shot (or as close to that as possible) because we will need it for comparison purposes. This character has never been in a feature film, only comics and cartoons, and so it will probably be that we will compare the design of this Venom to the design of his counterparts. We can't do that with a half a head shot, even if it's clear quality. That image is being used for nothing more than eye candy. It's the same image that has been removed before, just of better quality.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They probably didn't see it, because I don't recognize their name as one that frequents that article (in the editing sense). Full body, like the concept image that was leaked of Venom months ago, an image that shows almost his entire body. Comparison to his other incarnations. We have a Venom for film, but there was one in TAS and the comics, and each had it's own look. In the production section, when we start breaking down into subsections, we'll probably have a section about special effects or designs or something, and there we'll talk about the filmmakers decision to alter his design one way or the other. Also, we have no need for that picture right now. Images (yes, in essence are eye candy) need to provide a fair use rationale for this encyclopedia, and just sticking a picture of Venom into an article willy nilly, because you know people are going to want to see a picture of him, is not providing that rationale. I'm telling you, if I didn't remove it either Erik, ThuranX, Ace or Wiki probably would have, and under the same reasoning. If you want to bring the discussion back up that's cool. It probably shouldn't have been archived because it would be an ongoing direction for new editors. Oh, and we have a fansite already on Smallville. We probably shouldn't even that that site, but Kryptonsite is more highly regarded than the others, and literally get first hand interviews with cast and crew. Other than that, Devoted is pretty much the same website as Kryptonsite. Unless they offer something else that Kryptonsite doesn't, that was my reasoning for removing them.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)


 * As you can see, There has been ample discussion of this issue before. All current images aren't Fair Use, and we've been waiting for a long time for a good, clear, fair use image. Please check the archives instead of asking me to give you a full repeat of the rationaleThuranX 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You brought it to my talk, I replied at yours. Talk pages are for replies. If you don't want replies, don't use talk pages. Finally ,as I said, go review the archives at the talk page. Thank you. ThuranX 03:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I suggest, however, that before provoking a new conversation on a talk page, check the archives. YOu my find that the existing rationale for consensus is clearly spelled out. Then you can either decide to agree with the consensus, or formulate a cogent reply touching on multiple points. Instead, by directly demanding of established regular editors that they drop everything and explain it separately to you, you immediately set them on edge, as you did to me. Thanks, and continue this on the talk. ThuranX 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've explained the situation on the film article's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the transformation picture was supposed to be notable in the sense that it was the official confirmation of Topher Grace as Brock at Comic-Con, which was major news at the time. I'll have to revisit the Promotion section to detail the importance of that particular still.  In addition, the image that you're showing does not detail the film's Venom clearly, and it was a screen shot from a temporary trailer release, so it is not for 24/7 public consumption.  Fair use policy says, "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."  Venom does not equate the film itself, and there are no major points or sections that would easily permit yet another image to be used.  If there was in-depth information about the visual effects to create Venom, that would be suitable.  However, it is not the most suitable preliminary illustration of the character -- not everyone is familiar with the character, and not everyone will realize that Venom is a humanoid form from that one image.  We want to include full-body shots of the characters that can be tied into the article's context if it exists.  Like I've said, there is little in the way of the plot to illustrate key scenes between major characters or in the production section in terms of specific characters.  For instance, the New Goblin doesn't have much physical description to him right now, besides the fact he has a surfboard called the Sky Stick.  If more information about the character can be added, such as why he is designed the way he is (instead of being Green Goblin II), then an image would be appropriate to illustrate that.  I'm not sure where you think that we're conflicting Wikipedia policy here; we're enforcing fair use policy because we want to ensure an encyclopedic article and not a showcase for the latest images. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When explaining a fair use rationale for an image, we would never get "fair use" with a description that says "for people that want to see the new picture of Venom". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. It has to be encyclopedic (there are plenty of unencyclopedic things on here, but that's another story), but being in an article just because people will want to see a picture isn't encyclopedic. Images need to a purpose beyond just "hey someone will want to see this, we should put it on Wikipedia." The real question should be, "why do they want to see this?"  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  11:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you weren't being a dick, and that you were just questioning the revert. I understand that, and I appreciate the fact that you don't take things at face value. And trust me, I haven't fully figured out "fair use" either, that's probably why most FA candidates fail initially, or in the first stages of review, because even "fair use" is frowned upon. Wikipedia wants completely "free" images, if they are available which sometimes they aren't. As for the image in question, I know what you are saying, and I personally like that image better than those other images of the same scene that were popping up months ago, it's just that it has to add something to the article and not just be there because "people will want to see it".  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  13:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Smallville links
Wiki is not a repository (#1). This should address the situation. If you disagree with the denotion of Kryptonsite as being "the major fansite" for Wikipedia's external links, just start a discussion on the talk page.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We used to have tons of fansites, and really 1 is a stretch. I just follow the "repository of links" policy, because "what wiki is not" is a policy and not a guideline. I've been to Devoted before, and unless they have changed their website around, they were generally a mockup of Kryptonsite, just reorganized and differnet background.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  14:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I only see one. There are two sites listed in the "fan site" section, and one is really a Wiki that is devoted to the show which I think Smallville has as well.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of what the image is showing, which is basically nothing at all, atleast nothing that helps support the article. The promotional poster with Eddie is for the marketing section, the Sandman/Spidey image is for the special effects, every image needs to serve a purpose greater than just "people want to see what this looks like". All the images do that, except I don't really know what the image of Topher alone does, I've personally wanted to change it to one of Topher being directed by Raimi, but that's just me. That particular image doesn't provide anything to the article. Maybe, something like that would be good for the plot, but we don't have a large enough plot to support any image. Also, the legality of said image is in question since NBC removed the 7 min clip at midnight on May 6. Obviously this isn't something that Sony wants swishing around the internet, which is why they gobbled up some really awesome, and most article benefiting pictures that were leaked earlier today. If you didn't see them I saved them on my computer (at work) just in case. There were several in that bunch that were full shots of Venom, not just a frame of him morphing, and of Topher in the Venom suit that would have been great to have.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all about image selection and placement, and generally that's ruled by a consensus. The consensus was that that particular scene doesn't provide enough notability to be used, and you can't really make out anything that benefits the article. Someone uploading the image is only uploading it because it's "VENOM!!" and not because of a disagreement to the consensus. If you check the contribs of the user that uploaded it, you'll that's all he was doing was trying to upload an image of Venom, because it appeared on TV. Also, being promotional for 24 hours doesn't mean it's fair use forever. What exactly is your reasoning behind keeping it.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: 300
Yeah, I'm not too crazy about the political implications of the film, but even if it's not intended, any notable reaction should be recorded. I don't know how severe the dislike for this film will be; I'm half-expecting it to get banned in a country or two. It's just a matter of hostile editors really trying to put their POV across, which, to be honest, strikes me as a conflict of interest. If people are up in arms about it, whether it's rationalized or not, we need reliable sources to attribute these things. I'd also like to include the citations from the film article's talk page that show that the studio was concerned about the film being related to the contemporary conflict. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That would actually be a neat addition (in my opinion); I hope that someone notes somewhere that this isn't the first time that it's happened. Though I do wonder how out of hand this will get with international audiences. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:They'll never take our freedom!
Here is what I personally saw, but everyone's different and I believe second and third opinions are great resources for this kind of thing.


 * First, the plot should come down to, in the least, 900 words. It's a long movie, but the plot is pretty clean as far as complexities go. You could find some images for the plot (2 at most), ones that help detail some main points of the film.


 * The cast should be trimmed to just the principle cast, the key players. That list looks like it's just about everyone, minus some extras. For example, who is "Drinker #2"? I haven't watched Braveheart is forever, but the name strikes me as someone that probably isn't the important to the film. If there are cameos by respected actors, then I'd say a little prose saying who they are and who they played might be ok. But generally, the cast should be the principle characters, because you are going to add a little detail about who they are in the story (the kind of things you would leave out of the plot section). It could look something like this] or, if you really want to keep them all then it would look like this.


 * Production needs to be expanded, sourced, and turned into prose. The biggest thing is the listing. It should generally be avoided, especially in the production section.


 * All data-esque information needs to be cited. Awards, box office take, etc.


 * Could the "Wallace Monument" be merged with "Cultural effects"? It seems to be the same theme.


 * Historical inaccuracy needs to be sourced by reliable, expert opinion...there doesn't seem to be any sourcing currently.


 * Spoofs and references could also be put in the "Cultural effects" section, as it's showing how the film is affecting things outside of the film world.


 * Soundtrack should be moved to it's own page, with a link to that page and some prose about what the soundtrack consists of. See Revenge of the Sith's soundtrack section for what that would look like, or Jaws' music section.

 BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OED, reply
OED is the Oxford English Dictionary. Plot summaries as a whole do not technically require sources because they are concrete. Comments such as "All goes blank and zebras are heard neighing and then credits roll for five minutes until Ooga Booga Booga is seen scrolling across the screen" do not pertain to the plot. They do not further character development or the story as a whole. You can argue that it symbolizes something, but again, that is not plot. It is unrelated to the plot and does not belong in the plot section. PS: you forgot to sign your comment. María: ( habla ~  cosas ) 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've also just violated 3RR. Be careful where you tread.  María: ( habla  ~  cosas ) 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The OED reference was for your lack of knowledge of the term and was not meant to insinuate that the OED has anything to do with wikipedia or WP:films guideline, both of which I'm aware of. You still fail to grasp what constitutes as plot, and for that there's nothing I can or wish to do.  You may believe that because another editor erroneously agrees with you, the reference is in the right; however, you forget that two or more editors disagree.  Therefore, there is no consensus.  I believe it should be pulled, but I'm not going to be the one to do it.  For now this should be discussed on the talk page if it is discussed at all.  As for the 3RR, you did, in fact, violate it, but I doubt you will be reported.  It was merely a warning to watch how you edit in the future.  María: ( habla  ~  cosas ) 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free
I think that you should feel free to remove the unsourced data from Anti-Iranian sentiments. It generally draws a lot of POV editing & dubious assertions, but now is as good a time as any to cut this out. You can expect my support in this effort. Don't give up! The Behnam 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The post to the noticeboard may be a good idea. Yeah, this article has a lot of staunch defenders, and while I admit that it is an existing phenomenon, the article exaggerates its prevalence and scope in addition to OR.  One of the problems was that the primary author felt that anything that affected Iranians negatively was anti-Iranian, rather than considering only acts of bigotry.  Also, the topic really isn't studied as much as, for example, antisemitism so there aren't really that many good sources on it.  The big event was the AFD which forced a lot of improvement, but problems definitely remain.  You may want to read through the arguments at the AFD as "battle preparation", since I expect that the measures you plan, while completely in line with WP policies, will meet strong opposition.  I'll be watching to help out and do my part in stopping blind "I don't like it" reverts.  The Behnam 02:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider this. I believe it may tie up some loose ends on some of the CNs you added. The Behnam 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 02:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just don't get mad for a second!
I saw you made an edit on my user page and fixed that grammar error and I wanted to thank you for that. --Arad 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. But I'm not muslim. ;-) --Arad 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply re Anti-Iranian sentiment
Oh, I've been around this particular block a time or two. :) Though wikilinks are not in themselves sufficient, quite often the other article does have a source cited which also can back up (or refute) a claim in the article linking to it, so it's a good idea to follow them in any case. I think you did right to ask for some help with it, some of these issues can be rather touchy. Next time, though, you might do better to post at the village pump, a lot more people monitor that then the COI noticeboard. Also, the COI noticeboard is generally for stuff like a person editing their own biography, or single-purpose accounts that appear to be corporate shills. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Silly rabbit, fair use images are for kids
That was funny. I wish we could use more fair use, but until it changes, no matter how silly, we have to abide by their rules. But that was still funny.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men
Dear Sir,

I was most appalled at the type of language you chose to utilize on my talk page. First of all, I am making it clear and I am being frank: any more utilisation of my talk page for any arguments with the user Viriditas, shall result in my obligation to report you Arbitration Committee, and I would regret having to do so. However, on a lighter note, I would like to thank you for the support you gave to me and to support my reasoning to having chosen that sentence to be added (in other words not getting all irritated and snappy immediately . My reasoning for this (the laughter) being important is the fact that it shows "Was this all a dream?" But it could also be interpreted as being something ironic, as what Theo had been trying to achieve had been achieved, but for this to happen his death was to occur. The laughter is, in a way, an artistic interpretation and the moviegoer is left to ponder...

Accept however my most distinguished salutations, sir Yours most sincerely,

Booksworm Talk to me! 08:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men/talk
No offense, but I think the both of you just have a need to be correct (or to feel correct). The children's laughter, going solely on what I've read since I haven't actually seen the film, is something that simply does occur. The fact that it does occur should suffice as reason to include it in a summary of the film. Then, if any interpretations of the laughter are found, they should go in the "theme" section, but I'm just rambling on now. I'd recommend just following your plan. Wait for an admin to access assess the situation, accept whatever the admin says, and move on to further improving the article. Speaking of which, I only read over the article once, but I don't think I saw mention of the fact that Alfonso Cuarón didn't read the book before making the film.

Anyway, hopefully that situation will be cleared up soon enough and the wikiworld will go on spinning. Nice to meet you and happy editing. Chickenmonkey 11:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't comment on either of you two's character as I haven't really observed enough to do so. I will, however, say I believe you're right about including the laughter's presense in the summary. Time (otherwise known as an admin... haha) with tell if I'm correct in that belief. Chickenmonkey 11:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I edit based on a complicated system of squared algorithm-based equations... or randomly. Randomly works, too. So perhaps Braveheart will work its way in. Chickenmonkey 11:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional Resources
If you feel that your voice is not being properly or fairly heard, you can take it to Mediation or, more informally, the Mediation Cabal. As far as ownership issues on an article, take a look at Ownership and see if that gives you any ideas. Honestly, I don't know where one would go beyond mediation as far as another editor feeling he or she owns an article, but I don't think it's going to get you the result you want here; the mediators will likely look at the 3rd Opinions provided and wonder why you were unhappy with the results. I suppose you could ask for mediation regarding his behavior, but I don't believe that any enforceable guidelines exist to prevent someone from being tendentious. My recommendation is just to let the article be; you've contributed a good amount of material to it and you can move on knowing that it has been enriched. Life's really too short to worry too much something like this. Snuppy 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

300 edits
Hey thanks. It's a pretty good movie, it should have a good article. I guess the plot summary is too long (you added that tag?) but it sure is harder to shorten rather than lengthen an article. Critical Info 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, I didn't perceive any disrespect, plus, I didn't write the bulk of the article, I just made several changes. And added a pretty awesome picture if I do say so myself. Critical Info 09:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: 300
No. It just adds redundant space. A lot of FA/GA articles don't bother. Even Jaws, which has a pretty small cast and no section. WikiNew 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I know; I was the one who requested page protection, and saw it take place myself. I'm sure he, having the tool available, had a reason for how it was set, so I changed it back. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me did not semi-protect 300. This edit is just a move-protection of the page. "{sprotected}" is the common and appropriate tag for pages that are semi-protected. --Mardavich 14:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is that PR section? I can't figure out if it's entirely original research or just some marketing tool for artist to submit their artwork.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen, he sent a message to Erik and ThuranX also. He provides no explaination of his actions, he's just "warning" people for the hell of it, as it appears. Removing OR is not reverting, because removing OR is basically something that should be mandatory. He's basically saying that if someone puts up a big marketing took, and you remove it then you are violating the 3RR. That's ridiculous. I don't know what his agenda is yet, but I wouldn't worry about him. Any admin that reviews the current edits done by you, Erik or ThuranX wouldn't find cause to block any of you for 3RR. Removing NPOV and OR is not cause for violation of 3RR.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was very unhanded the way he had you blocked. It reminds me of the time an Anon had The Transformers fully protected because he was introducing completely false information and we were removing it. The lack of investigation appalled me.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  12:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no problem. It was definitely a block that I disagreed with. I don't even think it warranted a "one revert on multiple edits" label, because it's like saying we are going to get punished for removing unsourced, original research from articles. Especially when it's not even the same information. But yes, I would send Erik and ThuranX, and anyone else you know he's so called "warned" (which by the way, I love how he said he warned you on the report, but on the talk page tried to clarify that it wasn't a warning just a note to make sure people know what the 3RR is) about what happened so they can avoid it.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second... (regarding Children of Men)
Maybe I totally misunderstood the talk page conversation, but didn't Viriditas want to have the childrens' laughter mentioned in the themes section of Children of Men, but you wanted it in the plot section? I was coming in with (the third opinion that we mention it in neither place, given the lack of sources that commented upon it, since that seemed like the neatest solution. This is the source of most of my confusion regarding your accusations of taking Viriditas's side; I was under the impression I was taking no side, offering the solution presented by the sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Viriditas thought it might be better off in the Themes section, but without citation, he knew it could not remain there. Knowing that to be the case, I wanted the mention of the laughter mentioned in the plot, as it seemed to be the denoumént of the film.
 * I am sorry about accusing you; it is clear from your talk you don't seem to be blindly accepting his state of affairs, which was my greatest concern - well, that and the whole WP:OWN thing (he has pretty much reverted anyone from making changes to the article that isn't following his instructions). You are now experiencing some of that heavy-duty back and forth that drove me and two other editors away for a time.

To answer your question, I don't really care where the laughter stuff is mentioned, so long as it is mentioned. I don't think it would survive Viriditas' edits, since there is no direct citation of it (the whole Keyser Soze thin, remember?), and he specifically said that he would remove any material added without citation. I could cite you at least a dozen of those exclamations. You rendered an opinion, and while I don't think it accurate, I am abiding by it. Again, sorry for all the heatedness. Viriditas has great edits sometimes, but he is a fairly unpleasant human being.Arcayne 12:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Arcayne. I just wanted to know, is accusing someone of being a meat-puppet serious here on Wikipedia?

Booksworm Talk to me! 13:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that is meatpuppetry equal to sockpuppetry?

Booksworm Talk to me! 13:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men
Arcayne, I'm concerned about your edits to Children of Men, which seem to be causing some disruption. You said you were going to stay away from it. Did something happen to make you change your mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I kept an eye on the page, watchign Viriditas revert anyone who offered any new edits, and decided to reinstore a plot point her reverted, seeing a new potential concensus in the article. I had forgotten how vitriolic the guy can be. I've since withdrawn again.Arcayne 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran-related editing
Feel free to notify me if you are having trouble handling some odd Iran-related editing. I see you have had some problems that lead to 3RR, so in the future notify me if something funny is going on so I can take a look. I suspect that in some of the cases your edits were correct under WP documentation but you simply couldn't fight the reverts. The Behnam 03:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on March 12 2007 to 300 (film)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 31 hours. Alex Bakharev 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Mr. Bakharev didn't bother to read the diffs. I guess that's why they put erasers on pencils.Arcayne 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have unblocked you. Indeed your reverts were not opposed by other editors and can be considered as one large multi-stage revert (in team with other users). Still, please take into account:
 * You have violated the letter (if not the spirit) of WP:3RR. When undoing the work of others, please at least count reverts
 * Removing of sourced info might be seen as vandalism
 * Some of your comments upset some Iranian users and might contibute towards the bad faith to your edits.
 * Please in future be more careful with your edits Alex Bakharev 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me. It was not my intention to violate 3RR in any way. I do understand that some editors with specific POV push (in this case, the Iranian editors contributing to the article) would take offense to their material being removed. I am never going to base my edits or reverts on someone's ethnicity. Hiwever, I will count my edits more closely, so as to avoid being made a target for opportunistic editors trying to limit editors who oppose their viewpoints.Arcayne 05:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, how long after removing the block should I be able to edit again? I still cannot edit, and am beign given a notice that I am still blocked...Arcayne 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are autoblocked still. You may need to request that the autoblock be removed from your IP.  The Behnam 06:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have cleared the autoblock. Sorry, about it Alex Bakharev 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to watch the article when I can, but I'm on spring break right now and not really able to defend Wikipedia from the POV pushers. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I decide is if the comment has absolutely no constructive criticism of the article, doesn't even make an attempt to provide some help for improvement or at least let us know what is wrong with an article, then I remove it. That comment was nothing more than a jab at Americans, and not about the article. If people have constructive comments, but lace them with personal attacks or tangents, then I generally just ignore it and weed out what is useful. Obviously you know if someone is talking about the article in a constructive manner and whether they are just out for attention.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot
See WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines. The section is not meant to be exhuastive or to completely rehash the plot in all of its intricacies. It should be straight forward and to the point. Because of this, some minor detail, or what you call cleverness, may be lost. We as editors must pay more attention to guideline rather than sentiment. As it is now, the plot exceeds nine-hundred words. This is overly excessive. That is why I and others are cutting it down. María: ( habla ~  cosas ) 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warnings
Typically it is up to the person who reverted a vandal's edit to leave a warning on their talk page. You rather just stepped on my toes and caused an edit conflict, though I know it was unintentional. It's merely annoying. María: ( habla ~  cosas ) 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the way you handle yourself on Wikipedia, yes, but that is neither here nor there. I double, and sometimes triple, check myself before doing anything that may affect another editor, even if it's just a revert + vandal warning.  Perhaps I'm just paranoid, but I highly suggest the practice, if you think it could help you in the future.  Everyone makes mistakes.  I apologize for not assuming GF.  María: ( habla  ~  cosas ) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

300
Sure 300 times. NikoSilver 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of this thread and editor: Talk:300_%28film%29. ThuranX 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was merely going to look for some online images that I could post a link to for comparison of this "color" theory. Here is one that I did find, but I don't know (having not read the comic) who he actually is, but he darn sure isn't black or white .  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You think the article should banish all forms of discussion over "controversy" until the article is stable enough for someone to wade through citations and pick out stuff? Afterall, people could be overreacting. I recall the Casino Royale section having a bloated controversy section over Craig. Btw, what did you think of the film? WikiNew 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't personally need the images, I was going to put them in links for the talk page to end all this "it's black, no it's white" talk. I think I'll just purchase the entire comic to read for my own edification. I agree with Wiki, I think all controversy talk should be moved to the talk page until we can all agree on should go in and the film has had time to breathe. I mean, have you seen how many edits have occurred on this page since the film's release? It's down right scary.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  22:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well most don't even have a decent history of editing (with some coming off several months of breaks just to post some new "contraversy" over the film). We could just leave it alone, let them put what they want, work on the other sections that don't provoke problems, and after a few months go back to the "contraversy" and weed out the unnecessaries. They probably won't be around by then, and we can read through everything and find the best sources. A lot of this crap has more to do with the actual GN than the film.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Temps can work. There's just too much going on over here to be able to follow it all. Edits are occurring at the same time and you don't know what's going on. Did you know the infobox said "69". I don't even recall when that happened. There is so many people trying to get their 2 cents into this article that vandalism is slipping in unnoticed.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't spoken to anyone about it. The problem comes in how to address it, because if you keep it a secret then that's going to cause problems later. I personally haven't seen the film yet. I wanted to get when it opened, but I'm glad I didn't (70 million). I don't particularly like sharing a movie theater with lots of people. I'm hoping it will be cooler this weekend for that, or I'll try in the middle of the week when people don't usually go. Back to topic, I'd consult an Admin about what to do, preferably an Admin that hasn't been on this article, but one connected to WikiProject Films.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, my gal would probably come just because I wanted to see it. But I'll most likely go see it with my buddy from work. You can try "The Filmaker".  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not that sure what you want me to ask him to do (even if he responds). Being more experienced doesn't get you that much in the ways of requests. I haven't dealt to much with him specifically in all the time that I've been there. Erik probably "knows" him better than I, but he's on a break. I think the best thing to do is just make an announcement on the talk page about a proposed "Temp" page for all this other talk, because of it's lengthy discussions. Then you can see how many others agree with the move.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably needs that.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. My suggestion is to rewrite the critical reaction in a prose manner. Describe: WikiNew 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who felt the film was groundbreaking.
 * Liked/disliked it as nonsensical.
 * Dismissed it as racist.
 * Liked/disliked acting.

Gorgo, planter of coins
You're mistaken. Watch the movie again; I've seen it twice and can say for certain that the coins fall because Theron is corrupt, not because they are planted. All Gorgo does is precipitate the falling. In fact, that he was conveniently carrying Persian coins is somewhat corny, but what can you do? María: ( habla ~  cosas ) 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Temp Page
Well, as far as editors go, I think just posting the note on the discussion page for 300 should attract everyone. I wouldn't bother Erik, since he's on his break he won't be on here too much, and when he comes on I'm sure he'll notice what happened (if he isn't playing God and observing all the sins of the children at this moment already). As far as creating the page, if you haven't done it already, I think a simple 300 (film) controversies/Sandbox will be fine. It being a sandbox should keep it from getting picked up as a "newly created article". Next I would say we should try and find a film that is FA status that has a controversy section, or something similar in it. With that we can have something to compare to the 300 information, so we know how to tackle the section. I'm thinking V for Vendetta (film) has one. (Just checked with "preview") It isn't that great, but there are some ideas; there may be other FA films that have sections like that, we'll have to check. I'll be in class all day tomorrow so I won't be of any help on anything except right before I leave, but I'll have time during the day to pop on and see what is happening with it all.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  03:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am, in fact, playing God. :) Just taking a break from my break. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah!Arcayne 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, I KNEW IT!! Anyway, I hope something out of all that helps Arc, I'm off to bed (it's almost midnight here). Oh...sorry...Goodnight lordly watcher.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. Sleep well, East Coast Prince.
 * Well, i am sure you've been reading up on the big ol plan. Most of it is on Big's page. I am not sure a sandbox will do the trick, as some uncivil soul might simply delete it. A Temp Page might serve the needs better, but as always, you opinion is helpful.Arcayne 03:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They couldn't delete anything that we couldn't just revert back to the page. Deleting a sandbox is just like deleting an article. Someone puts it up for speedy deletion we just put the same "hangon" tag up and explain its existence.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He's posted me up on the 3RR report page.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  12:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I reported it to the incidence board, they said "unrelated". Maybe you can shed some light on it.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to go so if I get blocked then I get blocked. If it happens then I think it's a total breakdown of the system if someone like Mardavich can manipulate the rules to get his way. He's already made me late, because I had to make sure I got some words into that report, or else it would have been his word and nothing else.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, could you take the problem to WP:DR, I have to leave.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong "warning"
I am not vandalizing anything. I just rearrange the subtitles of one article and add some more information. If you are not agreed with my information you cannot just label me a "vandal". Take back your warning.--Mani1 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also did nothing to the PageName as you said. You must have mistaken me with some other user.--Mani1 14:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(his edits showed differently)

Blind revert
Why did you remove all of my edits here, which were sourced and I had spent hours formulating? --Mardavich 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The page was reverted back to a point before it fell victim to rampant vandalism - which I will point out you did nothing to stop. If you feel the edits were removed incorrectly, I invite you to resubmit them. If any authentic, RS and NPOV additions are made, I promise to not remove them. If any such were removed in the reversion to a prior article version, you have my apologies, as it was not my intention to do so. As well, I believe I asked you to never contact me. I do not like you and do not - in the slightest - condone your vile and abusive behavior here in Wikipedia.Arcayne 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do feel that cited edits were removed incorrectly, but it's not my responsibility to correct your mistake, it is your responsibility not to make disruptive sweeping blind reverts of dozens of editors, instead of detecting and reverting the "rampant vandalism " you're speaking of. I urge you to revert yourself to restore all the cited edits made by me and others, and then go through the individual edits to remove the "rampant vandalism" you were supposedly after. --Mardavich 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of 'never contact me again' was unclear to you, Mardavich? You have no coin with me. I assume no good faith concerning you or your edits or motives. You are not a nice person, and I am being tame, as I am sure you will find a way to attribute this as some sort of attack on yourself. Go away.
 * And no, I will not revert my reinstatement of the previous article which would restore rampant POW-pushing and vandalism. I have offered you the opportunity to re-submit your edits. I am currently looking through the edits prior to the reinstatement of the prior version, and will resubmit those edits which represent NPOV, non-OR edits. Its rather tedious, but worth it to salvage good edits from bad.
 * Allow me to be crystal clear: do not contact me again. You have nothing to say that I want to hear. Life is too short to be wasting it dealing with lowdown dirty dogs such as yourself. I have no time whatsoever for you.Arcayne 15:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting and vandals
There are probably multiple ways to revert successfully, but the way I usually do it is to compare the two different versions in the history, and then edit the previous version. It will say "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed," which means that if you saw this when you did your revert, you may have gone back too far. There was a lot to revert, sadly. I've had the problem of having to restore info before, and it's a pain, but it's a good thing you're taking the time to add it back in.

On a separate note, I had a bit of a brush with Mani1 and his recent bouts of vandalism on 300 film and Zack Snyder. I'm keeping my eye on him for now since he's since threatened to do it again (bzuh?). Just letting you know that you did the right thing in warning him, though he seems to be miffed by it. Never underestimate the power of denial, huh? María: ( habla ~  cosas ) 16:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I wouldn't call it a "fondness." It's more of a mutual appreciation stemming from an altercation we had on CoM (before the article got out of hand) stemming from the Bible verse that James used for the title of the novel, and therefore film.  In short, I was correct, he was wrong, and he apologized.  So there's no need to continually mention him on my talk page (three times! in the past day!), because we're not exactly buddies.  We've merely had a positive, constructive butting of heads in the past.  I'm not in it with him, though I do agree with him on some accounts.  For the risk of sounding like you have a complex, just stick the past behind you and let it go.  You've earned a bit of my respect for taking advice and the time to put back a substantial amount of those edits.  María: ( habla  ~  cosas ) 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The 300 controversies
Hi. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the whole 'critic' section (including Persian controversy) or just the Persian controversy? If the latter I don't think it is even large enough (yet) to warrant a separate article. Also, some users may question the branching, or continue adding information to the main article anyway. While it definitely seems to be distracting the development of the rest of the article (based on the edit history), controversy tends to do that and we shouldn't necessarily move it because of this because those distracting editors will think that we are trying to suppress the controversy. While I obviously need some more specifics as to what you exactly mean, I think you should propose it on the talk page so that we can discuss this with the other editors too. Also, I couldn't figure out where the V for Vendetta subpage is. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the page and we can discuss the idea further on the talk page. Thanks. The Behnam 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I think that if you explain that it is a division of efforts with a final goal of reintegration, then you should post it on the talk page.  It just needs to be clear that this is a temporary solution to streamline the editing of two different aspects of the move (plot versus persian issues).  Unless there is something in the WP documentation against this sort of thing, I think it sounds like a good idea to clarify the issues in separate places, so I recommend you post your proposal to the talk page.  If it passes we can just include a link to the subarticle for that section until the final product is made.  Reintegration should be the goal.  Also, I still don't know what V for Vendetta page you are talking about; mind pointing it out? Thanks.  The Behnam 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, VforV's is very well written and focused on significant reactions. I think we should aim for the same with this movie, and perhaps the separate "controversy development page" is the best way to do it.  The Behnam 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted
I just hope you guys assume good faith with me, truest me, I am not after you or anything. I got irritated because I saw you appealing to other users for tag-teaming, and then you removed hours of my work with a simple revert, it's not just about the content, I had spent hours tidying up the section, making wikilinks etc, and it was all gone by your revert. We should be working together, not against each other. Your interest is movies, so I think it would be better if you concentrated more on the technical aspect of the movie, and not the controversy part. Anyways, I hope we can put all this behind us and move on to improve the article. But please, don't make sweeping reverts like you did today, it really irritates users. I'm also going to withdraw the 3RR report as well so there wouldn't be any fresh bad blood between us. You can make a comment on AN/I too if you want, I'll make a reply as well, so everyone knows the issues has been solved. --Mardavich 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for you to make a comment that we're on good terms now before I could make a concluding comment. It's not necessary though, an admin has archived it already. Please let User:Bignole know that as well. Cheers :) --Mardavich 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Temp page
You can create a temp page in the same way that you create any page. I don't believe there are strong naming guidelines in place, as long as it relates directly to the article it correlates to. So you can simply write a link (or use 300 (film)/Temp or Talk:300 (film)/Temp), click on it, and then edit and save away. I'm guessing it's for 300? María: ( habla ~  cosas ) 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have little interest in contributing to the Controversies section, so I fail to see why I should create a temp page for it. Since you seem to be the one calling for such a page, why not create it yourself?  It's a valid enough idea.  María: ( habla  ~  cosas ) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Talk:The Prestige (film)/Differences from novel for layout suggestions. WikiNew 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha WikiNew 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To emphasize the link, there may be a template for generic linking, or at least a way just to generate a box. I'll keep looking.

Bad timing, but heck, creating a page isn't rocket science. WikiNew 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was very kind and responsible of you and I appreciate it. I was trying to catch up on the news, and the first thing I did was go to my talk page to see if I had been blocked or not. I'm on the school net, I'll be home probably in an hour. How's the temp page coming?  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  22:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Arcane randomly deletes well sourced findings
Arcane just tried to delete my finding in the 300 article about Xerxes' Jewish wife. He just deleted it! He completely deleted it off of talk. It's as well sourced as you're going to get. IT'S IN THE BIBLE. Despite Miller and Snyder's portrayal of an androgynous homosexual king, Xerxes was married. I spit on you, you information censor. --Wavesswung 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold the spit and go back to the Discussion area, Wave. You post so fast, I hardly have time to respond before you got all het up. Please relax, buddy.Arcayne 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop it
There is no consensus for the Temp page thing right now. If you keep removing it you'll get into trouble. Just giving you a heads up. The Behnam 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Temp page
Hi. I appreciate the effort, but I think that you would be better served doing whatever cleanup you think the rest of the article requires, since you're worried about that, and leaving the protection of the criticism part to the many editors interested in that. It's a sprotected article anyway. Hornplease 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ive had a little experience with things like this. With a two sentence summary, even if theres a subpage, people add information to the main page anyway. It doesnt solve the problem. Also, if it involves removal of material from the main page, its a little objectionable when people will be coming in droves to the webpage of the no1 movie in the country. Finally, as I said before, if you aren't interested in the controversy itself, ignore that part of the article and the discussion!
 * Note that an article on the controversy itself will not survive AfD, with a 'merge' vote likely, so that is out as an alternative. Subpages were deprecated as an alternative many years ago. Hornplease 00:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Aren't Temp Pages different from regular article pages in that they aren't subject to AfD? As I said before, the Temp Page is a workspace - a place to knock out the controversy section without interruption. the way it is, we have two groups gridlocked, and very little is getting done, and taking a long time to not get done.

Redirecting contributors to the Temp Page is a lot easier than dealing with each and every edit and complaint that comes ringing into the Discussion Page. By providing a specific area for those edits to happen, it becomes a lot more orderly.Arcayne 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I say above, if those complaints and edits are about the parts that dont interest you, ignore them. Let those people who do think its interesting or important handle it. Hornplease 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Man, I'm completely lost. This is what happens when you are gone for a day. Is the temp ok with everyone?  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

300
I have no problem with a temp page. I would suggest, though, that you make it known on the 300 talk page. No secrets. Otherwise, I think it's a good idea. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well. If you need any assistance, let me know. I myself am battling lots of vandals on the American Idol season 6 articles. It's a joy. Basically because it's not just 1 article. It's 14 (12 finalists, the season itself and semi-finalist Antonella Barba). --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome. :) Main article is here. You can go to the finalists and go to whichever ones you want to and watch them. Sanjaya Malakar and Antonella Barba are the main focal points, but all are getting hit...especially with fansite links and the like. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all over the map, honestly. Some of it is "Sanjaya sucks!" and some of it is unsourced fancruft stuff. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of the stuff I'm talking about. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hello! Have a wonderful day. ^_^ Saber girl08 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

300
No, Greece and Greeks have separated articles - Sthenel 16:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk-war?
Heh, re this, I thought you had asked for this! Anyway, take it from here... NikoSilver 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should have given it a chance. My timing was perfect. Anyways, re the gay-Xerxes issue, theaters in Greece burst laughing when they saw him massaging Leonidas's shoulders with his long manicure, his thin voice, and a catch-phrase that said something like "you'll only have to kneel in font of me". I suspect that's one of the scenes that pisses the Iranians off the most (and yes, Iranians and Persians are two words for the same thing, mostly). NikoSilver 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, the massaging was there. His voice, indeed was not "thin", it was deep, but not male-deep if you get what I mean. It was more like trans-deep (at least that's how the trans in Syggrou Avenue sound to us). Anyway, the Greeks still laugh about this. Maybe it's a cross-Atlantic trans cultural difference... who knows! There was no dub (as always in Greece). Finally, the disturbing "kneel" phrase is sourced ("The Persian commander, the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) is a towering, bald club fag with facial piercings, kohl-rimmed eyes, and a disturbing predilection for making people kneel before him" A movie only a Spartan would love by Slate.com) some title the slate article has! Actually Spartans would hate it for that! They always preferred decent enemies! NikoSilver 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men lead
Yes, Philip French describes the Human Project as "the best hope of mankind". Chickenmonkey 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

your complaint on my talkpage
You made the following statements: "..people were far too interested in bickering.."; "..It is going to benefit all of us to write only about those aspects that directly surround the movie."; "Miller's quote has nothing to do with the film."; "Iranians are offended by the film. We get it. Now, shake it off, spank the inner child, whatever. Move on. It is a movie."; "Keep it to a minimun, and move on. This is much ado quite literally about nothing." And so on. All very well, and identically incivil, but whatever. The point where you will lose a few people is when you keep on insisting that the important thing about the film is the film as a work of art, where it should be eminently clear - and has been pointed out to you several times - that for many many people the notability of the film is his dubious historicity and possible politics. If you wilfully continue to ignore that, you are only setting yourself up for snappiness. Can you try and accept that the article is not going to be the same as for, say, Polar Express? Thanks. Hornplease 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First, you fundamentally misunderstand what the point of Wikipedia is. This is awfully disappointing. "I ask you to try and accept that, for a majority of the English wiki, the concerns of the Iranian cultural brigade is not going to really matter. Not that we are insensitive to your concerns, but rather that they carry less weight here than they would in, say, the Iranian wiki (if there is such a thing)." This is not a wiki for English-speaking people. It is a wiki in English. If that is not clear to you, I suggest you read WP:BIAS and sit this one out.
 * Second, I urge you to re-read WP:RS. We have wasted over a week arguing about two reviews - two. At Rotten Tomatoes, there are gathered at least two dozen articles. There are reviews, and reviews. Some are from some chap with a website, and are listed at rottentomatoes. Others discuss solely the visual experience, and can be quoted as ssources for that. Some others - including the 'two' you mention, which presumably are slate and the New York Times, for heavens' sake - have discussed the historicity, the nature of the enemy, etc etc. Those have been almost uniformly negative. My hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe, made that point. So did, incredibly, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. Clearly among sources of a certain standing, these matters are of near-universal notability; regardless, indeed, of the politics o the source. Research, anyone?
 * Thirdly, Polar Express was quite as visually interesting as 300. But that's just my opinion. Hornplease


 * Oh, and also: if my remarks were directed at you, it was because I paid you the complment of assuming that if I were to post an "I wish people would realise..." thing immediately after you posted your remarks, you would correctly infer that they were directed at you anyway. Hornplease 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint on my talkpage (continued from archive)
"Let's not discuss this anymore?" Fine, but you can't get away with absurd misrepresentation, either. "...perhaps you might endeavor to actually quote in the article some of the sources you allude to. Instead, we keep hearing about the Slate interview. I am not saying that it doesn't bear mentioning. I'm not even suggesting that were we to find a great many sources that say otherwise that we should ignore ones that point solely to the cultural insensitivities, we should not mention it. I am suggesting that these other sources should be cited, so as to avoid the appearance of wearing blinders." There is no impression of wearing blinders. We do not have to cite every review. We have cited two representative ones. We have established they are representative. You originally claimed they were not. You now claim that all you wanted was to ensure that all reviews were cited. Yeah, right.

"...I ask you to try and accept that, for a majority of the English wiki, the concerns of the Iranian cultural brigade is not going to really matter. Not that we are insensitive to your concerns, but rather that they carry less weight here than they would in, say, the Iranian wiki (if there is such a thing)". In response to that I am forced to point out that this is not a wiki for english-speakers, but a wiki in english. your statement clearly implies that there should be a difference in notability between this and an iranian one. In defence, you say "We aren't supposed to focus solely on Iranian news sources, and yet we have. I am not going to dwell on that. Hopefully, this will correct itself. Please, do not ever accuse me of cultural bias ever again. " Have we focussed on Iranian news sources, let alone 'solely'? I really dont see that. Again, a misrepresentation. And does directing you to WP:BIAS indicate I believe you are biased? Well, it indicates that I think you do not have a clear idea of what WP's international outlook is supposed to be. I note you dont defend that.

''"..You don't know me, and you quite clearly have no idea what sorts of bias I do or do not have." Exactly. I just extrapolate from what you said, which indicates a lack of knowledge about systemic bias, nothing else. And I find your concern about 'knowing me' charming, given that you seem to have assumed above that 'my concerns' are those of the Iranian cultural brigade. Way to go with the assumptions!

.."Let's not talk about this anymore." Archiving of active conversations is considered extremely rude. If you really dont want to talk bout this, I urge you again: dont get distracted by the parts of the 300 article that you consider unimportant. Hornplease 01:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)