User talk:Arcayne/Archive 4: 03.16-18.07

Donorman
Ok, I'm sorry, not meaning to be rude, but I'm not sure I like the idea of you tailing me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donorman (talk • contribs)


 * Alright Arcayne, i appreciate your help, and if you look at my edit history you will see I have attempted a reconciliation with Bignole. My reasons for acting the way I did are also contained within. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donorman (talk • contribs)


 * My patience is gone Arc, he's already been reported. They are just a little backed up at the moment, so it will only be a matter of time before he's gone. Hopefully they will see his current efforts and block him for good.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it. I'm beginning to think we're dealing with some teenager.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, yeah I'll be sure to ask him. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt that, in the least they were more mature than this. I instantly doubt the so called "British Law student" theory. If he's a BLS, then I feel sorry for that countries legal system already. Oh, did you see what he did on Leo Frank? I wonder if he was sending a message?  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think all the admins are on vacation. lol. The Vandalism board is just filling up.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops that was supposed to be vandalism board. He got 48 hours, which I think it lite compared to how he acted. I asked to admint to rethink that block and extend it a bit more.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You did well. But, we need to go through and make sure EVERYTHING has a fair use rationale, and it would be good to have that copyright tag for each as well. I'm assuming that not only did WB pay for the film, but they paid for distribution domestically and overseas, correct? Because that could change the copyright tags. I only saw WB in the production info. Anyway, even the poster needs a fair use rationale, I got the image of the cliff rationaled, just need the other Leonidas image, the poster, and I think the Xerxes image needs one (haven't check the poster or Xerxes yet).  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:the 300
Your edit looks fine, I just wanted to include the info that they called the film "psychological warfare" - the previous quote of his comments had not included that.
 * --Wowaconia 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

300 updates
Did you even watch 300? After the treason is exposed, the council just shouts their joy for how much richer they are from the money, there is absolutely NO evidence that they unite for the 300! Americanuck 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's looking pretty good. I've been keeping my eye on it, and I'm especially glad to see all of those nasty lists seamlessly transformed into prose, though I don't know if you're responsible for that or not; either way, it's awesome. I agree with Bignole's thoughts on the talk page, however, regarding the images being moved around; I'm not particularly fond of the arrows-blotting-out-the-sun one, myself. I don't know about including pics of the toys (yes, there are toys), though, and I almost positive that they haven't released a movie-tie in version of the graphic novel; the edition I keep seeing in all of the bookstores is the one and only hardback book that I've had at home for years. What is your take on the images?

By the way, I don't know if you've read it, but Nehrams2020 posted on the talk page about nominating the article for GA status once it calms down a bit. María: ( habla ~  cosas ) 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is not worthy of a nomination yet, as well, but it's something to aim for; perhaps in a week or so when things stop being all crazy-like.


 * Also, I would love to see something from the GN on the article, just to make some of those "it's not accurate, it's not accurate!" folks shush up. I hate uploading any picture that isn't either a movie poster or a bookcover, for fear of violating copyright, but doing a quick Google image search, I came across this:  and then I drooled.  I have no idea if any of it is fair use, though.  I really, really want it to be.


 * Oh, and not just toys: dolls! Okay, action figures.  But they're really dolls, you know.    María: ( habla  ~  cosas ) 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion, the 4th to last (start at the bottom and count up to the 4th) and the first large scale image (the cliff scene) are probably the best. Actually, if someone could crop them we could use a better image in the plot for those, just crop the comic out. Anyway, as for fair use, so long as you have a comparison section it's fine, you just have to write a fair-use rationale. What I generally do is find a FA and just copy their fair use rationale, supplimenting the appropriate information or adding stuff if it didn't list it. Also, you'll need a summary of what the image is depicting (don't mean in the article, mean on the picture page) which would basically say something like "image is being used for comparison of how the GN translated to the cinema" or something like that.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes about bootleg in Iran. Check if you like it. Nice working with you. Cheers (Shahingohar 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC))


 * It looked good, I was copy editing it a second ago. I was also trying to find a comic panel tag, but I couldn't. If it's just "comic panel" cool, if not and you know what it is then I think you should add it.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if you haven't already then go ahead and tack on that tag as well. This will cover both images.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean, since none of the images are "free", and we are using them under "fair use" then we have to apply a fair use rationale (like you did for the comic comparison) to every image on the page, including the poster. I've taken care of it all minus the image of the behind the scenes compared to the finished version. Everthing also has a copyright tag. I'm going to search articles to see if I can find one that explains how to give a rationale for a similar comparison of "behind the scenes" and "finished product".  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Took care of it. All is square with the images, I believe.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! I just love the comparison pic; it's cropped perfectly, so great job. Now I'm trying to search for Gorgo/Theron pics, but it's difficult when all that comes up is pics for Gorgo (film). Er. I'll comment if I find anything useful. María: ( habla con migo ) 21:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the anti-300 site is already mentioned in the article, and others who are reverting it and its friends don't want the article to be overrun; the site that I recently reverted, however, (and I think Bignole did before me) is a fansite, actually; submitted fanart with an Ancient Persian theme, probably inspired by the movie, but come on, people. Speaking of the calm before the storm, I wish fansites were the only reverts we had to look forward to, heh.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the 300movie.info website? It's basically an online petition, the same as petitiononline.com. As such it's a violation of NPOV because it's an entire site devoted to fighting the film. A source that discusses the website is fine, but an external link for the website itself wouldn't be appropriate. It wouldn't pass the WP:EL and the Conflict of interest for campaigning as they are basically campaigning against the film, just in an unusual way. It's being included as an external link, and not as a source for anything.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am just showing what is being portrayed in the Iranian media. Mercenary2k 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am editing only in this section since I am more knowledgeable in this area. Not all me contributions are Iranian-friendly (e.g I have added Warner Bros response at the end of the article and I have removed un-sourced material and vandalism a few times), In fact I don’t totally agree with Iranian outrage and I criticize it myself. Not all Iranians are pushing in one side (see my arguments with The Behnam). Anyways thanks for your advice and I am happy that you are unblocked. (Shahingohar 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

3RR
FYI: 3RR applies in all contexts except for the removal of blatant vandalism—"good faith" edits, if they revert material more than 4 times in any sort of conflict, violate the 3RR. If they're simply to remove what is generally agreed to be vandalism, that's an exception. The Jade Knight 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how justified reverts may be, the 3RR is there to encourage people to discuss and try to see things eye-to-eye, rather than simply constantly reverting eachother (often both sides in a revert war feel that they are completely justified). It also helps ensure that consensus will be maintained even in the face of vocal opponents to the consensus.  The Jade Knight 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR & Zionist thing
Hi, thanks for the compliment. After a little spat with Agha Nader on the AN/3RR page, I am in the clear on the 3RR thing, so there is nothing to worry about there. Mehrshad123, who I reported, also ended up in the clear, amazingly enough.

As far as the Zionist thing, that is the state media, which of course is can't exactly be called the thermometer of the Iranian people. But if you read the transcript itself, it is just another Iranian conspiracy theory speculation. (In case you didn't notice, conspiracy theories are fairly common with Iranians). I believe it was 'commentary' by the IRINN, and hence speculation, probably the opinion of one or a few commentators. Anyway, I addressed this earlier. I felt that Mercenary's initial inclusion had a bit of an anti-Iranian tone to it (it was the strawman), so I adjusted the sentence to be more specific, accurate, and less vehement/POV-toned. I hope that improves it. It is fairly easy to 'milk' a MEMRI transcript to portray something very negatively but I believe I have corrected this, and that my rewrite is more accurate. The threat always exists with MEMRI reports; for some reason they manage to translate things from the negative side of the Islamic world almost all of the time. But if you can make it even more accurate and neutral, please do.

Anyway, I think I've tied up all of the loose ends needed to start a wikibreak. I'm rather busy in the next few days, but I'll be back by 22nd if not earlier. Keep up the good work. The Behnam 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * TheBehnam based on that comment I see why you are doing what you are doing. You are obviously a biased party here and I really don't think it's appropriate for you to stalk me on me edits. Mehrshad123 10:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Move your comment from Mehrshad123's user page to his/her talk page.

300 Edits
No problem. I love that movie i hate to hear peopel try to turn it into something that its not, which apparently is a history system. Wuthai 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

300: "Production" sub-section
Hold on a sec -- how was that edit "POV pushing"? I'm just trying to turn choppy & ungrammatical English into better prose; the content remained entirely unmodified. Best, --Javits2000 15:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But as an addendum, in the intro to the Hanson quote, "foreward" is simply a spelling error. The book-section in question is known as a "foreword." Best, --Javits2000 15:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion for 300
That may very well be the next step. If you'd like, I could put it up for Peer Review at wp:films; they're very responsive and detailed in their responses most of the time. María: ( habla con migo ) 15:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This will be my first time, but the guidelines are listed here. Very cool stuff.  I'm in the process of doing all of the necessary steps for 300 as I type this.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image
Is it doing anything? Two images from the film are enough, and one seemed stray so I purged it. It's not doing anything to contribute. WikiNew 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I just think it's pointless. Not as iconic as pushing Persians over the cliff certainly. WikiNew 16:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I was especially prouf of that and the GN-film comparison - they were my very first successfully-added images to WP. :D
 * I still think he image represents one of the more identifiable images from the film, along with the cliff thing and Xerxes. Arcayne 16:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Time quote
Hello, in truth I'm not sure which you mean. But if I inadvertently left quotes around a periphrase, by all means, take them out. --Javits2000 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Wait, I think I understand. The previous text was


 * Azadeh Moaveni of Time reports "all of Tehran was outraged. Everywhere I went yesterday, the talk vibrated with indignation over the film 300 - a movie no one in Iran has seen but everyone seems to know about since it became a major box office surprise in the U.S."

which I replaced with


 * Azadeh Moaveni of Time reports that Tehranis were "outraged" following the film's release: "Everywhere I went yesterday, the talk vibrated with indignation over the film 300 - a movie no one in Iran has seen but everyone seems to know about since it became a major box office surprise in the U.S."

-- simply to give a temporal anchor (i.e., when was Tehran outraged? it's obvious if you're reading this week's Time, but becomes less obvious as the article becomes older). But I think the section marked off by quotes is still just that, a direct quote. Best, --Javits2000 16:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Na ja, ships passing in this night! Thanks, I'm having fun working on this article, saw the movie a few days ago and got interested in the press coverage. I think it's shaping up quite nicely! Best, --Javits2000 16:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, born & bred (Connecticut). But I've been mostly abroad for the past year, so maybe I'm slipping! --Javits2000 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, this is a question of taste. The OED gives "host" in this sense ("An armed company or multitude of men; an army.") as "Now arch. and poet."; and it sounds a bit funny to me, as I think immediately of OED 3a. "the multitude of angels that attend upon God." But I suppose we can be poetic if we like. "Quaking with fear" strikes me as wordy, and the sentence is already a bit convoluted. To make the phrase fully grammatical one would have to write "Quaking with fear at the prospect of facing...." or something to that effect. But if it seems more effective to you, no problem. --Javits2000 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI
I'm letting you know that I removed that "Zionist" bit. What some random and unknown commentator has claimed on an Iranian TV channel about the movie, in a political commentary, is neither relevant nor significant. If it had any real News value, the news articles reporting the controversy would have cited it. Until then, I believe we should keep it off the article. Cheers. --Mardavich 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did bring it up in the discussion, you didn't reply there, instead you blindly reverted my edits. I am sensing bad faith again. If the quote was relevant, it'd have been cited in the news reports. --Mardavich 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's not cited in news or by any news agency, it's insignificant trivia. --Mardavich 21:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded on the talk page. I really don't like it, mainly because it's a nonprofit organization that claims to be "nonpartisan". It's not an authoritive source on anything, they basically just grab something and give their opinion on it. Sorry, but I don't think it's reliable, not any more than petitiononline.com is.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that's just messy with semantics. Think I'll stay away from that one. On an unrelated bit, are you watching the peer review? A user brought up a point about the comic/film comparison pic and how it may need to mention its source for better protection. Thought you may want to look into it. María: ( habla con migo ) 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought, re: images for the marketing section: why not a still of the video game? It'll be less cheesy than the dolls, and more relevant than another still from one of the trailers.  Using an external link listed at the VG article, I found this: .  The game looks horrible, but some of the images aren't half bad.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't know you were having some difficulties; tough luck, man. I'm glad to see everything's cool, though.  Still haven't heard back from you about the images, so I was wondering if I should just bring it up on the talk page; I understand if you're indifferent.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather chew my wrists through than be an admin; far too much pressure, and when you make a mistake, it's a mistake. Life is complicated enough when you work with demanding patrons all day like I do, ugh.  Anyway, I agree that the fourth pic is the best.  There's a fair use rationale for VGs in the drop down menu that says "Computer game or video game screenshot." Looking at a couple FA game articles, they all look similar to this one, with a simple explanation and such.  Not sure what you mean by formula, though?  María: ( habla  con migo ) 02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Well, looking at the MOS, I didn't see any specific rules for the number of images in one article.  I also didn't see anything at WP:films.  Film FA seem to vary, however; Boondock Saints only has two aside from the infobox image, but The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) has nine.  300 has six so far, so I'd say we're safe in adding one or two more considering how important the look of the film is.  Placement is key, and the lower half of the article is greatly lacking.  María: ( habla  con migo ) 02:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 31 hours for violating the three-revert rule on 300 (film). Do not resume edit warring after the block expires. --Core desat  23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"May I ask why I have been blocked, seeing as no 3rr complaint was filed accusing me of such? All of my edits have been in good faith and reverting vandalism. I have looked over my edits,and while I have had three reverts, that does not violate 3RR. My other edits were preventing POV vandalism.
 * Original edit: . Reverts:, , . The edits you reverted do not constitute vandalism. --Core desat  23:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the removals performed addressed the numbers of Iranian MPs who called for the film's banning. In all but the last revert, pov-pushing edits claimed that 4 out of 290 persons contrituted "several". Not even the dictionary does that. When I opted to be more specific and stating that "four MPs (out of 290)", so as to allow the reader to make up their own mind about what word best qualified, someone changed that to 'some', which is still considered by dicitonaried and most folk as more than 4/290ths. What I reverted were attempts to make the support for banning to appear grater than what it was.
 * If however, you are considering the reverts of the statements concerning zionism, I had been reinstating edits that blanked them repeatedly, despite the statements having reached concensus days before. the reason the POV-editors wanted the statements removed was rather succinctly put by one of the ones blanking the statements here; they felt that arguing the reliability of the statements and dismissing the reliability of all Iranian TV and Fox to boot (here) was the only way to maintain any valid defense of the Depiction of Persians section of the article. I personally don't think the statement's inclusion would have truly hurt that, but it would have balanced the Iranian-as-victim stance that had been adopted by the POV edits. Arcayne 23:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Core, but are you aware that the last "diff" you provided wasn't a revert but a rewording, based on the contents of the actual source itself? How can you classify wording a sentence to reflect the contents of its source as a revert, just because someone wrote it in a manner that was inaccurate?  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. The fourth diff wasn't a revert. Unblocked with apologies. --Core desat  00:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, after re-reviewing WP:3RR, it doesn't have to be the same thing - all reverts in a 24-hour period are counted. I won't reblock you, but you are advised to avoid edit warring in the future. --Core desat  00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it happens. Good to see you weren't blocked...er...well reblocked. Just keep an eye on things. Don't repeat yourself, do it once and then immediately go to the talk page for discussion if someone reverts behind you. It's ok if it's in there while your discussing, the article isn't going anywhere.  BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)