User talk:Ring Cinema/Archive 1

Transponder
A transponder is a TRANSmitting device that resPONDs to an interrogation. In aviation a secondary radar sends out messages, sometimes to individual aircraft, asking who they are. Primary (simple) radar doesn't always give a strong signal and cannot easily measure altitude. The reply to the secondary radar query comes from a transponder. It can therefore both receive and transmit giving information about the identity of the aircraft and (in Modes C & S) its altitude. What distinguishes it from any radio is that it automatically replies and only does so when it is asked. I do not know the film so I cannot say whether the word is correctly used. JMcC (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No Country For Old Men...
...'s plot is still 30% too long. The film is not complicated and 900 words is the upper limit for a complex plot (say Magnolia). 500-700 is the recommended length. No Country, as I write this, is 1099 words. If you are dedicated to it you could lose 399 words, or around 30%. Then remove the plot tag. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The MOS:FILM
Says 500-700 words, 900 for a complex film. And for a start the paragraph about the opening narration could be lost. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest...
...that you look at The Simpsons Movie for how a plot summary should look. The goal of all article is to reach featured status, and those who assess and pass FAs generally pick up on long or tonally inconsistent plots. The Simpsons Movie was passed as FA. The plot does not need to dwell on the thoughts of characters, sub-plots are not usually important and the tense needs to be the same throughout. If you have seen the film Seven Pounds I would also recommend that, it does two hours in under 700 words (although if you have not seen it do not go there as it is one massive spoiler). Darrenhusted (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude...
...give it a rest. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No what I mean is...
...stop putting comments on my talkpage, and move on and do some editing. You have 44 edits and with 8 on my page alone. I am fully 18% of your edits. I have 417 pages on my watchlist, I suggest you expand yours and stop adding comments to mine. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for April has been published.  May's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men (film)
First, stop reverting. I suggest you read WP:Edit war and WP:BRD. You very boldly redid this article's entire plot section without discussion and for questionable reasons. The article is currently a WP:Good article, meaning it has been reviewed for content, including its tone, accuracy, etc. If you feel there are specific parts that are inaccurate or contain speculation, bring them up on the talk page for discussion. However, your wholesale replacing of a generally well-written plot summary with a very bad one is not appropriate. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''I was trying to WP:AGF that you were just well-meaning, but that you insist on continuing to revert without discussing the issue properly, this is your official warning to stop the edit warring. Start a discussion on the talk page if you feel there are inaccuracies.'' -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 05:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate the above, please stop reverting and use the talk page to discuss the changes you'd like made. This certainly isn't worth edit warring over. Dayewalker (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to this edit, please don't take this personally, but I've reverted your comments. I have no interest in discussing this matter with you on my talk page any longer. Your actions have caused me to doubt that you're acting in good faith to seek consensus, and even if you were, the proper place for discussion is on the article's talk page. That way all editors involved with the page can be a part of the discussion. Building consensus in integral to wikipedia, so please begin to discuss your changes on the article's talk page. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please move the discussion to the talk page of the article in question. Do I have to tell the both of you to go to your room? FWiW (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Talk page
Please don't create a new section for every detail you think is wrong, keep it all in the same section so that people don't have to scroll the entire page just to see what else is wrong with the article. Thank you.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The only reason I can think of is because that version of the plot had a longer history than yours, and per WP:BRD if a revert takes place (which is what she did, she didn't write anything but just restored an early version) after an edit (the edit being your work), then a discussion should follow that and the page should remain as it is until the discussion can reach an agreement. Unless there is original research (which I don't know if there really is true OR, just some unclarified facts) or copyright issues that need removing immediately, the page stays to the way it was after the reverting. I understand yours was there for a month, but it's the same principle. Maybe pointing out all of the errors will allow them to be addressed, as well as keep the plot summary more succinct (as Collectonian mentioned that what you had was a little long winded).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please show some proper etiquette and comment on the article, not on editors. If you disagree with me, or think I'm wrong, that's cool. But please do not be rude to me for no apparent reason on article talk pages, it's uncouthe. Thank you. Bignole 17:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't your behavior I was advising you of initially, it was your specific editing actions. Your behavior had nothing to do with it, not unless you want to break that down into operationalized behavior. It also wasn't anything offensive. I was advising you that creating a section for every thing you want to address isn't the best way to organize stuff.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No Country edits/development
Rather than spreading to individual talk pages, it may be more advantageous to center the discussion on content and stylistic issues to the article's talk pages. FWiW, Ring, your edits are valued and that is the only aspect that should be in question... Bzuk (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC).


 * E, thanks, your last action on this file is commendable; that shows a lot of moxy and smarts. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

Sure no problem. I'm happy to justify my edits.Ring Cinema (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Find out who has the other half
To find out where the other half went, trace my contributions. FWiW, yes, you did deserve the honour, for keeping WP:COOL when things got hot. Bzuk (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter
The May 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter
The June 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Zampanò in La strada
I am curious as to why you consider it speculative to describe his emotional ouburst at the end of the film as "repentent"? Philip Cross (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Thank you for your feedback with the rewrite of the "Plot" section! I've been slowly but surely trying to revise the guidelines as a whole. There's never been a concerted effort, in my opinion, and it shows (like with the guidelines' "Cast" section, which I'll be rewriting soon as well). I've seen you participate in discussion and would like to welcome you on board. :) Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about film articles or WikiProject Films, and I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability.  One last thing -- I recommend starting a user page.  It will give other editors an idea of who you are and what you're interested in, film or anything else.  You could also link to policies and guidelines, since there's quite a few of them to be found.  Happy editing! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It does take a lot of work to source content for film articles. I used to edit articles about upcoming films frequently because headlines were always pouring in.  For older films, research is more challenging, but I find it more rewarding as well.  I like to tell the story of how a film came to be, how it was made, what it's about, how it was received, and what themes it touts.  It's nice to give readers such comprehensive coverage on such an accessible website.
 * In a way, Wikipedia practices what you propose. WP:BURDEN says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."  It's just a bit stricter in that regard, especially if you want an article to be recognized as one of the best Wikipedia has to offer.  I'm not one to remove material since there is usually an ounce of truth to it; some sources are just a Google search away to back up uncited material.
 * Keep an eye on the talk page for the guidelines! I'm sure more revision is forthcoming.  Hopefully I can encourage more best practices while keeping the overall guidelines flexible. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wittgenstein
Well, I thought I had explained it well in the talk page of the Wittgenstein article.

Basically I think it is original research; the text does not reference it (I read it carefully, but maybe it could've slipped), and there's no discussion whatsoever on its relation to the proposition it uses as caption.

On absence of better information, I deduced that it was trying to refute that proposition. Well, that does not make sense. The proposition states "Though a state of affairs that would contravene the laws of physics can be represented by us spatially, one that would contravene the laws of geometry cannot". But a representation is very well-defined, and does not include a two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional object. It has to have the same structure, the same form of the being represented. And R2 is not homeomorphic to R3. In the case of geometry, he states quite specifically in proposition 3.032 that a representation has to be a full representation, as through the means of its coordinates. Well, any projection loses information about a coordinate, so it cannot be a good representation.

Anyway, it is not important if it was wrong or right. The way I see, it was unsourced original research, not belonging to Wikipedia.

Please, tell me what you think, as I plan on removing the triangle from the Tractatus' article as well. I'd prefer that you'd respond through Wittgenstein's talk page, so that other people could participate as well. --Tercer (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments
You're becoming increasingly hostile to others on the Project talk page. You're insulting their efforts, while at the same time crowning yourself King of all who edit Wikipedia. Please try and remain civil, and show some proper etiquette when discussing things with other editors. It's very disrespectful to "point out flaws", as you are trying to do, especially when you keep doing so in what appears to be an effort to degrade their contributions. I know you are better than that, so please show me that I'm right.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines
Multiple editors endorsed my draft. I even implemented Bignole's suggestion of a sentence from yours to mine. We have tried to explain plot summaries and primary sources to you in different ways, but you cannot "get" it. I highly recommend that you work on articles in the mainspace and review articles in our spotlight before you can claim any sort of experience with film articles. — Erik (talk • contrib) 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Ring Cinema, I've noticed your asking about the use of primary sources in film articles. I'm not sure exactly what your comments are referring to; are you saying the film is not the primary source, or that the citation style (i.e. none) is insufficient? The "Plot" section is usually drawn straight from the primary source, the film, in the same way that something like United States Constitution cites the Constitution itself for a couple of points. Now, you will not find an explicit citation in the article text for this in most cases, as the use of one is generally considered redundant. For example, the plot section for Changeling could easily contain a link to the following reference after each paragraph:"Changeling (2008) [Motion Picture], dir. Clint Eastwood. Los Angeles: Universal Pictures. Retrieved on July 13, 2009"However, it is generally agreed that as every piece of information in this citation is already contained multiple times within the article and its infobox, it would be redundant to do so. Does this answer your question, or have I missed your point (for which I apologise in advance)? All the best, Steve  T • C 17:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'd like you to tell me where to look for the primary source material for Changeling in the article on Changeling." See, I'm note sure why "Plot" is not just that—a purely descriptive section on what the primary source "looks like" (i.e. a list, a paraphrase of the major incidents). Isn't that the same as a section that relates, say, the major points of the Constitution, or a specific passage? Steve  T • C 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Where in the film article for Changeling do you find the primary source?" You don't, in the same way that you don't find the Constitution of the United States in the actual article for it, even when it's being cited as the primary source. Erik summed it up nicely: "Very few Wikipedia articles show primary sources; exceptions include topics like short poems in the public domain... Wikipedia articles reference primary sources and secondary sources with emphasis on the latter. So plot summaries can reference primary sources. It is implicitly accepted that sections marked "Plot" or "Plot summary" are referencing primary sources when they provide a plot summary of the film. They don't display the primary source, nor do they display secondary sources in other sections." Steve  T • C 17:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the paragraph below the one that starts with "Primary sources". It has this sentence: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." This is using a primary source, in other words, referencing it. — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leave your comments here. I have your talk page watchlisted and will answer your questions to the best of my ability.  You are the only person who cannot grasp this concept; multiple other editors grasp it just fine.  Do not bring your singular concerns into a public forum and bloat a talk page for wider discussion. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you go to Philosophical Investigations to see what it looks like when there's a primary source in an article? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at the article, and it uses the primary source too much at that article. The topic needs to use reliable published secondary sources.  It references too much of Wittgenstein when it should reference sources like Kripke.  As you can see on the article's talk page, someone said, "Isn't this mostly original research?"  I have to agree.  You should go to WT:PSTS and ask your questions there.  Since you cannot seem to believe me or Steve or anyone else from WikiProject Films, you should ask the editors frequent that page. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you continue to be incapable of understanding that primary sources are not in Wikipedia articles, but are rather referenced to provide a description of the topic to the reader, I have asked editors who frequently WT:PSTS to weigh in. Most film articles have plot summaries that are basic descriptions of the primary sources, the films.  Please try to comprehend this. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, replying from WP:PSTS... Erik is correct that a basic descriptive plot summary of a movie or book does not normally need to be cited (as it is assumed that there is an unwritten citation to the primary source... ie the movie or book itself). Of course if someone writes something in the plot summary that is questionable, it is quite appropriate for someone else to ask for more information (such as the scene number or page number) so it can be checked.  That said, having looked at the Philosophical Investigations article, it goes well beyond a basic descriptive plot summary.  That article does need sourcing to more than just the movie. 20:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay where do I respond to you? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I appologize for not including my user name in that last comment (typed five ~ instead of 4)... I see you figured it out. On my talk page you commented: What Erik isn't understanding is that guidelines for the inclusion of primary sources don't apply to film articles because primary sources don't appear in film articles.  Not quite... the film itself is the primary source for a film article.  It can be cited in the article if needed (for example: ) What Erik is pointing out is that sources never appear in an article... what appears in an article are the citations to sources.  (reply here if needed) Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On my talk page you wrote: Again, I am NOT talking about citation. Please do not propagate Erik's mistake. I did not say citation. Again: guidelines for the inclusiong of primary sources don't apply to film articles because primary sources (i.e. films) never appear in them. It's really straightforward when you think about it clearly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What you say is not at all straightforward... What do you mean by "primary sources never appear in film articles"?  and if you are not talking about citations then what are you talking about?
 * The PSTS guidelines (and the other guidelines and policies) certainly do apply to film articles... they apply to all articles without exception. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit my talk page any further. It's clear at this point that nothing will result from this discussion. — Erik (talk • contrib) 23:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You obviously misunderstand what the policy is saying. When the policy talks about "use" in an article, it is talking about citation.  It isn't talking about physically placing words, images, or sound into the article... "using" a film as the source means "citing" the film in support for what you write about it...
 * To explain how the PSTS section applies to film articles, you can use (ie cite) the James Bond movie "Gold Finger" as a source for the statement: "The character of Oddjob tosses his hat at a statue and decapitates it". This citation is allowed since it is a basic discriptive plot statement that anyone can verify by looking at the film. However you may not use (ie cite) the film to support the statement: "The character of Oddjob is a typical example of a one dimentional 'Evil henchman'" because that statement requires more than just looking at the film to verify (you would need to locate and cite a secondary source that defines what is meant by a "one dimentional 'Evil henchman'" is, and discusses why the character of Oddjob meets that definition.)  Does this example help you understand what the policy is saying?  Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not mistaken about what the guidelines refer to. They refer to actual use of primary source material in WP articles. For example, Philosophical Investigations uses the actual primary source. That is what they're talking about. That is why PSTS discusses primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If PI talked about the primary source it would be referring to it and that wouldn't be under the PSTS guidelines for the use of primary sources. The only time you're using a primary source in an article is when the work itself appears in the article. Is that clear? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (copied from Blueboar's talk page)
 * I assure you... As an editor who has contributed to that policy for several years, and helped to draft that particualar section... I know what the policy is saying and is trying to say... you are absolutely wrong on this. When PSTS discusses primary, secondary and tertiary sources they are referring to the appropriateness of citing primary, secondary and tertiary sources.  "Using" a source in this case means citing it. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure I see the difference. According to your method, what do you call it when actual material from the primary source appears in the article? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (copied from Blueboar's talk page)
 * It's called "quoting the source". (or "adding a link to the source" if you link to a video or sound file). and when you quote a source you should support that quote with a citation to the source. Blueboar (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what Ring Cinema is saying is that he'd like to see some in-text attribution and some direct quotes from the primary source (the film, the book, or whatever the article is about). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing user comments
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Blueboar, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The diff of your deletion can be found here. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you think his comment is legitimate or not. What matters is that you do not remove comments made by other users on talk pages other than your own.  Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote. It didn't happen to you on Blueboar's user page. It happened to you on on Erik's talk page, and users can remove comments from their own talk pages.  Is this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if that is true, you would need to show me diffs. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI... This comment was originally added by you, not Erik, and he removed it appropriately. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

71.171.109.2...
...is taking umbrage at the starring and order of the actors on NCFOM. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men (film)
Since you reverted my first rewrite of the plot section on this article, your opinion would be appreciated at the discussion I started at Talk:No Country for Old Men (film). Sorry I didn't respond to this for so long, but I didn't put the page on my watchlist after cleaning up the plot summary so I did not realize it had been reverted. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

seriously
Dude, I'm not going to edit that page again man. "Too many errors introduced"? You seem to know what they are, correct them please. Those stupid names of the actors in the plot section, I hate that. I'm not mad at you or anything, but it's not the first time my edits are reverted for those reasons. I'm getting tired of that. I'm not a native speaker of English, but I did want to create a style that is very acceptable in Dutch. I figured it read OK in English as well, but that's because I'm Dutch, apparently. So I'm just saying: why don't you improve it yourself? Ciao Mallerd (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Avoid them? Do you think I make grammatical issues on purpose? Warned? I guess I missed something. --Mallerd (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not saying the same thing as I did. I is no written these way I am? Yes, I make grammatical errors now and then, but saying "expect someone else to come behind and pick up after you is selfish at best and adolescent at worst" is nonsense. I already told you I don't make errors on purpose. You could easily corrected them since you noticed them. I don't know what you were exactly trying to achieve with "If you're not smart enough to figure it out, maybe you shouldn't edit at all". I'm not calling you anything bad even though I find your arguments weak, am I? No need to reply anymore. --Mallerd (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Moptop
The "hair of death" page is what I found the first time I googled this a few minutes ago, and it's a blatant copy of the Wikipedia article. The original source I just found is. Feel free to put it back; it just should have had a source from the very beginning. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is not the answers.com page (which, by the way, is nothing more than a Wikipedia mirror..and, by the way, the Ian Nathan source only covers the final sentence of that paragraph, nothing else), it is the Guardian article; this is the edit a year and a half ago that inserted the information.
 * The entire quote is there; the mention of "it acts by itself" is lower down on the page. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LAT r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks
This edit summary is incorrect; punctuation-always-inside-quotation-marks is a standard in some settings (for example, most U.S. academic settings), but not worldwide; for instance, in Europe, they often use "logical quotation", or punctuation outside of quotation marks. See the very page you directed me to (perhaps you didn't read it before linking it): Quotation mark. Wikipedia's MOS guidelines also prefer logical quotation: WP:MOS.

Personally, I don't care which is used, as long as it's consistent. (In my real life I use American quotation, but on-wiki I use logical quotation.) So since you standardized it across the article now, I don't have a problem. But you should be aware of these policies before citing them incorrectly in other conversations&mdash;in other articles, there may be people who care more about this than I do. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

playing well with others
> ''Insults? Wow, I give you an F.'' Hi RC. If you really do know how to read, then please start reading people's comments before answering them. Nobody said anything about the Cast section being based on the infobox, and you explicitly ignored my criticisms of your numerical cast-counting rule. Ignoring people is not "playing well with others". I don't mind chatting with you here on our user pages, but it would be nice if you could figure out what the general discussion is about before participating in it. Have a nice day. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

> Collectonian's post explicitly mentioned the infobox Collectonian made one statement about the infobox, one about the Cast section, and one about both of them. No one said anything about one being "the standard" for the other. > Did you see that or not? I read the entire section carefully. I wouldn't question your literacy otherwise. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"I usually use the rule of thumb of headliners in the infobox, those who actually get mentioned in the plot summary in the cast section" > ''That's what Collectonian said. Do you see how she talks about how there's a rule of thumb on the infobox that she applies to the cast section ...?'' No. What I see is that headliners go in the infobox and anyone mentioned in the plot summary goes in the Cast section. I see no connection between those two rules, and I can't imagine how you could see one. They're completely independent. > your laughable rudeness You can laugh all you want, RC, and you can give me any grade you want. You're just confirming that you really don't know how to read. > What do you think she meant? The headline is the "standard" for the infobox, and the Plot section is the "standard" for the Cast section. Have a nice day. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

> Your reading is probably right. I'm sure it is. I don't think the Cast section has anything to do with the headline stars, except that it has to contain all of them along with the rest of the cast. > Not an excuse for rudeness. I apologize for "Please learn how to read." But it does seem like you were reading carelessly. In addition to misinterpreting Collectonian's post, you wrote "You are concerned about too few", which is incorrect, and you wrote "I don't know of a reason to avoid a numerical guide" right after I provided two reasons to avoid a numerical guide. Anyway, thank you for easing up on the heat. Hopefully we'll stick to discussing content in the future. &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Deathtrap
Thanks for the head's up on Dtrap, looks MUCH better! Good work! Tommyt (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: No Country
My pleasure, and thanks for motivating me to improve the documentation. Although I'm sensitive to not drowning the plot section with too many semi-relevant details, I think the footnotes provide a good place for this kind of stuff. I wouldn't just shove random trivia in footnotes, but in my view the geographical details enhance the sense that the action of the film sort of outgrows Terrell County and sweeps over a large part of West Texas. (But then, I've always been a geography geek!) - Cheers, PhilipR (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"bad idea to link to the book?"
In response to this: yes, it's a bad idea. See WP:OVERLINK. The book is already linked prominently in the article's lead. Furthermore, there's no reason for the text "Anton Chigurh" to link to the book; having a link on him is deceptive, as someone who clicks it would not be expecting to arrive at an article on the book in general. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Roll call
Please see the two notices above on your talk page. In addition, it has been advertised in several newsletters as well as the announcements page. This roll call is similar to ones we've had before and helps to ensure that active members are reached for project-wide issues/discussion as well as receive the newsletter. If you have suggestions for ways of expanding awareness, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I invite you to please read WP:AGF before responding further. I'm curious as to how you compare this to vandalism or that I'm breaking my word, so I'll clarify the above since there seems to be some questions about it. The roll call is something that the project (along with other WikiProjects) has done once every few years to remove editors who are retired, blocked, or who are no longer active in contributing to film articles or the various WikiProject departments. To prevent editors who are not inactive from remaining off the active list, we advertise through the newsletter (which you received), the announcements banner, the project's talk page, and possibly other pages (don't remember, it's been awhile). Then editors, who consider themselves active, simply move their name from one section to the other.


 * When we have a large proposal to change something or develop a project such as the Tag & Assess drive we may want to contact all members, as many members may not visit the main discussion page to be aware of the current events of the WikiProject. Also, when we hold the coordinator elections each year, notices are sent out to all active members inviting them to participate in the election. If we have members listed that are not active within the project, the notice would be unheard by retired, blocked, or other inactive editors. For the monthly newsletter, it is also sent out to active members. Instead of sending the newsletter out to 200 editors with over a 100 that are inactive, it reduces the time of delivery and ensures that those who are most likely to read it receive it. Instead of comparing it to breakfast and garbage, I would say that the roll call is similar to someone attending a college class. If the person signs up for a class, and then as time passes, does not indicate their attendance or always skips the class, the professor would believe the student does not want to learn the material and is not an active participant. Fortunately for us, we don't take attendance once a day, we do it only once every one or two years.


 * If you are worried about missing issues of the newsletter, it can always be seen at the outreach department. In addition, large discussions and events such as the coordinator elections are usually listed in a banner ad on the main project page or discussed on the project's talk page. If you are still opposed to the roll call, I invite you to bring it up at the project's discussion page in case there are other editors who feel as you do. If you would like further clarification, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot (or yet another spoiler talk)
I don't think we need to re-has the merits of spoilers, I was trying to say that the plot should be comprehensive because it is the first thing most readers look at, and that it needs to stay where it is but all plots should be as well written as every other part of the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: White Ribbon
Thanks for starting a discussion. I agree with your interpretation, but with the current structure there are two sentences in the lead that cover the film's content: first one that is a summary of the plot section, and then one that covers the meaning of the film (the Haneke quote). I think they should stay separated, without any analysis whatsoever in the first. But, rather than fighting over details, we should concentrate on expanding the article. Ideally we should be able to replace the quote with the summary of a themes section, since there shouldn't be any original information in the lead. There are lots of good interviews available online, and the section doesn't need to be fully developed immediately. Since the message seems to be the aspect of the film that you're most interested in it would be great if you wanted to contribute with this. (And you seem to be correct about the title, the German distributor includes the Kindergeschichte part too. Sorry about that.) Smetanahue (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I'm sensitive to the idea that interpretations should be out of the lead, which is why I cited it. Maybe that's still a problem. I don't think it should be intentionally bland or noncommital. We should strive for accuracy. Neutrality is run amok if we can't state what's obvious. Perhaps your view is that this village society is not sick, it's normal and that's human nature. I agree that's an argument that two people could go round and round about. 2. I'm comfortable with the Haneke quote because that is the director's analysis. Haneke might not best define the work for our purposes but what he thinks the movie is about is noteworthy. That's my view and I would allow for exceptions that I don't think apply in this case. He's not being disingenuous or evasive or cryptic or anything that would put me off about it for accuracy about his state of mind. 3. I'm open to the idea of putting the subtitle in another place. At least it deserves a translation, which will be tricky. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The summary today at Netflix seems unusually inaccurate: At a rural school in northern Germany in 1913, a form of ritual punishment has major consequences for students and faculty. But the practice may have bigger repercussions on the German school system -- and maybe even on the growth of fascism. Celebrated Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke helms this Golden Globe-winning, sumptuously photographed black-and-white drama that stars Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Tukur and Theo Trebs. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2010 Newsletter
The February 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

re: yesterday
Well I guess that I read your comment the wrong way. It came off has a sarcastic apology. Sorry for calling you a smart ass [and troll], obviously you weren't being one. — Mike   Allen   23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's going to take more than me to bring it back. LOL. — Mike   Allen   08:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

 * Resign from what? Erik (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you watch the Oscars last night? What did you think of the winners? Erik (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter
The March 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS April Newsletter
The April 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS May 2010 Newsletter
The May 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Kindly remember WP:BRD and do not edit war over your preferences in wording. Your disagreements over the MOS are all well known and documented on the talk page and you have made your feelings clear. Get consensus if you wish to change it now. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been around long enough not to get templated, but please be aware that is now your third revert per WP:3RR. Another one will be reported. Thank you. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not better than me by any stretch of the imagination. You've never fixed any "howler" of mine. You are not God, so do not presume to declare anyone should act with humility before you. In the future, just stay off my talk page until you can get over your love of yourself and learn how to actually speak to others as your equals, because they are whether you like it or not. If you can't get that through your head, then you are the one who needs to just "stay out" and find some other hobby. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

organization
> this article needs to be reordered for organization. Yes, but you didn't do it correctly (or with consensus from other contributors). "self-contained section" is a technical detail, so it shouldn't be in the first sentence. The first sentence should state the summary's definition (a short description of the story), and the second sentence should explain why it's important (complements wider coverage). &mdash;Codrdan (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: bad use of rd3
TFOWR</b> 09:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Babu Riba
Hello there. I had moved Hey Babu Riba to Dancing in Water as the commonly used policy here is to name foreign-language film articles using the title under which it was released or has become widely known in the English-speaking world (of course, there are exceptions to this as I've noticed that many French and some Italian films have retained their original titles). As for Yugoslav films, I'd say 90% of them are listed here under their English title. As for Hey Babu Riba, imdb's entry says Dancing in the Water was the film's international title, and allmovie.com entry lists Dancing in the Water as an alternative title. I have no idea whether it was released in cinemas abroad as Dancing in the Water but it was almost certainly titled that way when it was screened at various international festivals back in 1987. Cheers! '' Timbouctou (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS June 2010 Newsletter
The June 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Horror and Thrillers
If you chronicle the history of horror films and thriller films, you'll see that horror arrived on the scene first. When it came to films. One of the first thrillers was The Bells, a crime thriller. One of the earliest horror films is Le Manoir du diable, a French horror short which was produced almost 30 years before The Bells. A lot of the early thriller elements were also found in horror films; the thrillers were just glossier versions without monsters.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter
The July 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: bad faith?
I reverted my edit because the comment looked liked I was making a personal attack on DocKino (when I addressed his commenting). If you want, I can revert it back. Secret Saturdays  ( talk to me )what's new? 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS August 2010 Newsletter
The August 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A Prophet
I will revert in 10 minutes due to the fact your version has incorrect information. I responsed to your comment please discuss. I am making a revert, please contact Geoff B to do the final revert and let him decide which version is better. Valoem  talk  14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made another subsection in the discussion please respond. I believe we should revert to my version of the plot summary and if the general public believes your version is better than another editor should revert it because I have proven myself more knowledgable when it comes to this film. Valoem  talk  15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your right I didn't read the version very well, however I have updated my version and made grammical correction, please advise on any other mistakes you see. Thank you I am also trying to make this article as solid as possible. Valoem  talk  15:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No actually there were no objections and no lies whatsoever. It seems you only respond when a revert is about to occur prior to that there were no objections. You proclaim that your version is better which is merely an opinion but because I have proven a conflict of interest neither of us should revert only a third party should or until consensus has been reached. Perhaps he was held hostage, but other parts of your summary are far from correct and I have corrected them. I find it interesting that you are acting like the page belongs to you. I have been on wikipedia longer than you and having been edit that page long before you. You were actually not suppose to revert my edit without discussion since other editors did not seem to have an issue with it. I however chose to be the bigger man here and let your version stay until a third confirms which version is better. Ill give it 24 hours before I revert. Your version would confused any reader and is filled with plot holes and lack of explanation for motive. Also please stop saying that my version is too long that is clearly not the case. Valoem  talk  19:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your the only person that reject my version. Who else has? Please point this out to me. Valoem   talk  21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the personal attack but i revert you edit as it seems you are acting in bad faith. Geoff actually updated based on my draft also Millahnna revert to my version not yours. IT seems you made my case stronger. Once again who reject my draft besides you? Valoem   talk  21:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open
The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Link XS
I've never heard this complaint, although I admit I'm not as active as you are in the film project. I think as long as a wikilink can add further understanding of a theme or specific detail, especially for more challenging words, it is worthy of inclusion. Now, if you're talking about too many external links, then yes, there is a point where too many links diffuse the focus of the reference materials. With regards to my edits on A Serious Man, if you feel I've gone too far, feel free to undo anything I've done. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if I respond here. The issue of link excess came up when I was pitching in on Titanic's article and it got me thinking that it can be overdone. Obviously a judgment call and I didn't mean any disrespect! The word in this case was 'icepick', right? I thought the link might imply special usage since it's a common object. If someone doesn't know what an icepick is, well, there are so many things we have to explain to them. I'm sorry if I got it wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No wait you were in there on tenure, etc. Those were good, I thought, although I had some question if solicitation made a good link because the article on solicitation doesn't seem to include the element of prostitution which I assume is the case in the movie. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I kind of thought that was the point. Arthur was arrested for "solicitation", as stated in the movie, but it was never directly shown to be prostitution.  The solicitation article reveals that it could mean a number of things, giving more weight to the fact that the exact nature of his crime is not revealed.  I think it also gives a better understanding of culture in the 60's: what we think of today as prostitution (which I agree, most people will assume Arthur committed) was termed solicitation in those days.  Europeans will also get a better understanding of the specific US meaning.  I stand by my edits, but again, I don't care if you undo any of them.  Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mostly I agree. The only part that rings false is that I believe the Wikipedia article is too legalistic; the popular meaning of solicitation in America has to do with prostitution unless otherwise stated. My belief is that the Coens meant prostitution but I'd have to watch the movie again to confirm that. We don't have a disagreement, anyway. Just trying to get it right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Caché
Hi, Ring Cinema. I got the move reverted on the grounds that it was not uncontroversial, so it is back to status quo for the time being. I requested a move on the talk page so there can be fuller discussion to determine a consensus of whether or not the move should take place. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)