User talk:Arcayne/Archive 2.5: More CoM & Learning Curve

Nancy Reagan edit

Hi Arcayne. C-SPAN's book Who's Burined in Grant's Tomb is my source for my statement. While they do not have a statement that says this exactly as the organizational structure of the book is based on chronological arrangement of administrations, it is not new research for me to conclude that. So, no, not a singular unified source. But, from this source every U.S. president to die in the twentieth century (whose body went to the Capitol), beginning with Wilson, with the exception of Kennedy (St. Matthews), constitutes "most." Of course please feel free to edit if you like. Best, Jim CApitol3 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I just wanted to give you the heads up that you have reached your 3 revisions for this 24 hour period, just in case you weren't keeping track.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have? I am aware of 2 in CoM. Where was the 3rd?Arcayne 00:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first one (which is the one I think you are missing) is a revert. Even though you changed the wording around, you technically reverted the information back to the state before Viri removed it. In all intents and purposes, an Admin would consider this a revert. The others are obvious, because you labeled them "rv".  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This would imply that Viri is also at his limit, correct?Arcayne 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I've told him so as well. Now, other than blatant vandalism, if either of you revert ANYTHING on the page in the next 24 hours (really 24 from the first revert) than you could be subject to blocking. Now, I'm not going to report either of you if you do violate that rule (unless it gets out of hand and you both have reverted like 5,6,7+ times), but be warned that if you choose to violate the rule and revert, someone else (probably Viri, because I'm sure he knows you've reached the limit) can report you.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not planning on doing anything. If he reverts, i'll just report it. The lesson taught by 3RR was learned by me. Thank you for the heads-up.Arcayne 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's your right as an editor. My clock says 12:51pm was your first revert, so that means you have about 17 hours before you can revert again, but I'd would just ignore it. I don't know who, if anyone, was contacted as a mediator for this situation, but I'd wait till they came. I saw you were worried about them just looking at the plot and saying "it looks fine to me;" trust me, they will go through the history and see what was being reverted and look at the talk page too. Sometimes they may not do detailed readings, but they will, in the least, glance over all the available aspects of the page (article, history, talk page).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they were up awhile ago. They should have been up about 12 hours ago. I don't know if that means you are planning on starting the revert war again. Has someone been contacted for a third opinion yet? Let me know, I'm off to bed (it's technically 12:32 am here). IMO, I would just leave it, and when the third party shows up, then make it a point to say something to them specifically. But that's my opinion. I've gone through a number of edit wars over the smallest of things to the largest of things. Sometimes you win and sometimes you don't. As far as the talk page goes, I'd just leave it alone there too. You both have cited your sides, and I think since then it's been nothing but "you're wrong" on both ends, and the "this is why I'm right". Not trying to say anything bad, but that's basically what it boils down to. You both understand that it's your opinions and they differ from each other, but I don't think anything constructive is going to come from the talk page until you get some outside views. There's no real point bantering back and forth between each other. I would step back (ignore any future comments about the subject with Viri) and work on other parts of the page. I would work at getting the page to GA status, and worry about the Shantih thing later. It's such a small piece of the puzzle, that I'd focus on the edges first and apply that finishing touch last. I think that after you help to get the article to GA status that you could simply go, "ok, now since it's been awhile, I'd like to address the addition of the 'Shantih' quote at the end of the film". But that's just me, and you can handle it however you want to, just don't let the rest of the article suffer (and I'm not putting any blame on you, just in case you might be thinking that).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  05:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that I was sorely tempted to add it again, as whoever shows up to edit it will look at the past history, and (subsequent edits having pushed it down the history list) see that the version with the Shantih was 'stale', and simply shrug at my concerns. I still have that concern. I am inclined to add it once more, but not keep going backand forth, just to keep it current for when independent editorship shows up. I think offering to add it after the GA status is confirmed would be too late, as the issue of 'well, we got here without adding that, so why bother now?' I feel the article suffers without it. Since you and I have gone around and around before, and have found some middle peace (at least least, I hope we have), maybe I should ask what you think about the points made. Do you think it belongs?

As for the independent views, Erik sent posts to the filmmaker and Hal Raglan (I would have added the wikilinks to their talk pages if i could find them; I think I somehow must have screwed up my archive, as the conversations placed in there are no longer there...)

I do think you are right about Viriditas issue, though - nothing constructive is going to come from trying to reason with him. Nothing short of a 3rr block is going to remind him of WP:OWN. I will work on that and other issues and avoid his commentary. His behavior will cause him to self-destruct eventually. It's too bad, though; he otherwise has interesting things to add.Arcayne 06:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(heh - found it. Renamed an archive by accident, and simply reverted it. the independents Erik sought were: The Filmaker and Hal Raglan.)

It won't be too late if you reach GA status with the article. One thing that both GA and FA articles have, is a little note that says "if you can improve this article further, please do so." Even FA articles are not perfect. As far as my opinion on the word goes, I haven't seen the film (not really the kind I go to the theater for, something I usually wait for cable), and I've never read "The Wastelands"....well I have, but it wasn't T.S. Eliot, it was Stephen King. The only poet I read is Poe. But, I noticed it's already in the "Themes" section, so it isn't like it's been removed from the page entirely. Or did you add that to the Themes section just recently, and Viri hasn't reverted it yet? Since I haven't seen or read the two works involved, I can't make an opinion on something so subjective.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

That's not going to stop Viriditas from reverting you. Go ahead and re-add it, then -- we'll see if your objective re-inclusion has persuaded him otherwise. I really would suggest that you seek out a third opinion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The citations look useful. Unfortunately, I can't devote any major time to the article right now, as I have an onslaught of exams next week. Feel free to write and include information from these citations in line with WP:MOS. Contribute something beyond this "Shantih" business. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Erik, I would prefer if you reverted yourself. I would not like to revert two editors in as many days, and as you previously said you had wanted to stay neutral in this matter, this leaves it to Viriditas to evaluate the new, unreverted edit. Maybe Viriditas may find that which upset him about the entry gone now. He might still have a problem with it, but I did try a different, more thoughtful edit, using a better source for the word that might be unfamiliar to the Western ear and tying it better to dialogue between the major characters (Jasper having said in the movie, and Miriam in passing), making the statements not so anachronistic. So with you reverting it back, it gives Viriditas an ooportunity to see the changes with fresh eyes. I may be giving him too much credit, but I am going to err on the side that he is better, andnot smaller than he has come across.

I have been contributing more to the piece, Erik. That this piece sticks out is unfortunate, but misleading as it overshadows the smaller edits I have done. Good luck on exams. Remember, when in doubt, 'B' is usually the answer. :) Arcayne 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more people you can contact for an outside opinion. They are part of WikiProject Film, so they've worked on similar pages already. The JPS, Chris Griswold, Dark Kubrick and if you can't get a response from them, you can go to the list of WikiProject participants. Outside of that I would try Mediation or contacting an Admin. The Admin will probably say to try mediation. You can see all the steps to resolving the dispute at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 

I will do so. I replaced my main editorial additions as one edit (the prior one had been two), which will be easier to address as one edit. At this point, it won't matter if it is reverted again. I will contact the people you listed, and I appreciate the listing, Big. :)Arcayne 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope some kind of conclusion can be made to this discussion in the coming days.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 

God, so do I. Have you ever heard of WP:OWN? I am beginning to suspect that that may have something to do with the intransigence issue regarding my editsArcayne 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I've read it, and I understand it on both the "fought it" principle and "victim to it" principle. I'm not familiar with the CoM page on a whole to be able to make that accusation. You'd have to check out who wrote the plot and the majority of the sections.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  15:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've been wondering how to check that, although not regarding this article. Whoever initiates some of the movie articles has a pretty foul mouth. Would it be the first edit, or is there something else that identifies the creator?Arcayne 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd have to go back to the first edit. If you click the history, you can cycle back, but don't click "cur" because that will bring you to the current version. Click the first available "last", and then just click the previous edit button once the screen loads.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Welcome

Welcome!

File:Transparent film reel and film.png

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films 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 December has been published. January'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 Film Tasks 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!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

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! Nehrams2020 08:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Martian Manhunter

Taken care of. I can't swear it's his first appearance in that guise, but J'onn had a meeting with Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne in Tokyo in that identity in JLA #27 (w. Mark Millar, p. Mark Pajarillo). Bruce mentioned that he pegged J'onn right away partially due to the name.

Could you perhaps help me out with taking the "new messages" alert I keep getting off? 75.40.204.143 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ported over into Archive

Are there some good wiki essays on NPOV and RS? {{help}}

Smallville

He doesn't like that I've reverted him when he tries to claim that "Clark" has flown, and that "hovering" isn't an ability, nor an established power. The reason I've removed those things is because of their minor attribution, and that we can't detail every grain of salt from the show. Other times people have confused him jumping with him flying (i.e. like in Reckoning, or Mortal). I was going to leave it removed (even though I think it adds depth to the fact that they haven't really violated their No Flight rule), since that would end the argument with Fred, but since someone else agrees it should be there then I stand by that.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Him, and another user (called Researcher) whom I believe are probably the same person, believe that him jumping to catch the rocket was in fact flying (though the act of gravity on his jump says otherwise), and when he picked up Lana in Reckoning, that he was in fact flying to the top of the cliff. It's interpretations I guess, and some people get really giddy when they see him jump extremely high (like in the recent "Crimson" episode). My immediate reaction is usually, "oh great, now I have to defend against all the new 'yes he has flown' additions when they see him make a new jump."  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  20:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP takes all kinds. I think it would be nice if Gough or Millar just came out and clearly stated what I have alluded to (the metaphorical fear of flying) and stifle all the flying misinterpretations. I mean, the series can't really have all that much more in the way of steam - Clark needs to be able to distance himself from the non-bespectacled Clark so as to not be recognized when he finally goes Big Blue. The guys are slowly painting themselves into a corner, I think.Arcayne 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

and count me in on defending the non-flying thing if it comes up again. A question: how do you spot a sock-puppet, as you've suggested that Researcher is?Arcayne 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Gough and Millar, while addressing questions, have stated that when Clark does go to finish his training it will probably lead to years of solitude (e.g. Superman the movie), which would distance him from people like Lex. I mean, when you are 21 years old, and you see someone after 10 years (just a number) and you have glasses and are slouching all about (plus that nice little thing of "suspension of disbelief"). Anyway, to identify a sock the best resource is to look at their contributions. Researcher hasn't edited in a bit, and he was just created. The reason I suspect him as being Fred is because Fred came by right after I notified Researcher of Clark's lack of flying. Fred made the same edits. If there is a clear connection (which this wouldn't be the case) then you can report him on the sock puppet notice boards. As a last resort, if you think someone is a sock, but cannot prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt just by their contributions, then you can do a "user check" request. There is a page for that where (I think they are Admins) people will run the IP addresses (I think, could be more complicated than that) on each user to identify them.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, but I know for a fact that IP addresses can be faked or spoofed (been a victim of someone pretending to be me via IP address a few years ago). As well, to through off IP sniffers, can't they just go to a few different public terminals, like universities and net cafés? It all seems more of a gut hunch sort of method...Arcayne 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are registered, then I think they track every IP that account logs into. I know that when I was busted on a 3RR violation, that I was blocked at every terminal that I logged into my account from (I mean the IP's were blocked), even my work one which is a state sever. But, I'm not entirely sure how they identify the user, I think the page explains it but I can't recall the exact name of it. Erik might know if you are interested, or you could ask an Admin if it ever comes to that. Usually try and follow the contributions, and when you post on a Sock noticeboard the Admins doing the blocking will review and verifiy if it's legitimate.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You were nabbed for 3RR? Well, now I don't feel so bad about having screwed up with my own 3RR. I was thinking I was doomed as far as editorship or eventual adminship went because of it.Arcayne 21:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been nabbed a couple times for 3RR. When you get into heated arguments about things, it's easy to forget to pay attention to how many times you revert. I've even had contraversial blocks where some of the Admins disagreed with my blocking, because of the history behind the reverts, but to be fair I had to be blocked along with the other individual. There was one where an editor refused to discuss it on the talk page, but just kept reverting. He wouldn't acknowledge even personal talk page comments.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a toad. Who was it, so I can make sure to avoid that person?Arcayne 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't recall (either the other party involved or the Admins doing the blocking). It's in my archives somewhere. I don't think I've stumbled into pages that they were on since then anyway.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen it readded once in recent edits.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw you reverted it, but I just now went back and read it. Some people will write just about anything.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to which Smallville episodes is not where?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any difference. The episode links are still in the "powers" and "guest characters" sections. The season links are still in that section. Do you have some in particular that you don't see?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  11:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaah...you said "main" page and I thought you meant Smallville (TV series), not List of Smallville episodes. Well, that's an interesting observation. One of the users there, well some of the users, but one in particular (Peregrinefisher, believes that every episode should have it's own page and that the season pages should be deleted. It's his contention that the "List of" page is better, even though the WikiProject Television article says that you should start with a main page (TVseries) and then branch off into sub pages, like seasonal pages OR list pages, and the very last thing to do is create an episode page and that is only when you have all the information to support it as an article which doesn't include fancruft like quotes and lists of music to "fluff" the page up. He's gone out of his way to create individual episode pages and try to redirect the season pages. When he couldn't do that he tried to "fluff" the season pages with nonsense and then add a tag saying they were "too large" at 31kb. The hypocrisy is that the "List of Smallville episodes" is something like 70kb, which is grounds for immediately division of the page. I noticed that he started redirecting the titles to the individual episode pages, and I wasn't in the mood to fight him on it. They really need to be put on AfD. An individual episode page should look like this, but I guarantee you that none of them do. Myself and a couple of editors worked hard to expand that page.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Dr. Who series does a pretty bang-up job of that. From the series to the list of episodes and serials (each season is called a series in the UK and France) in that article, the viewer can go to the page and click on specific episodes say, for example, this one or this one. However, I think that this is the best example of episodic treatment of a series that i have seen thus far on WP. Then again, there are three or four generations of dedicated Dr. Who fans on two continents to work on it. Do you hink Peregrinefisher is trying to emulate that?Arcayne 19:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The plot on the first episode is way too long, it's longer than most film plots. Other than that it has some good information. Some of it seems to be fannish, but the majority is good for "out of universe" things that are needed. List wise List of The Simpsons episodes is actually featured. I think the problem with the Smallville List is that Peregrine as the others basically want it to have plots and stuff that are mini, and then have each episode have an expanded plot that is much too large for an encyclopedia. He was told by several editors to not make episode pages if he couldn't find the out of universe information to support them, but he didn't really listen. If you go through the first season on that list page, those eps are pretty bad as far as encyclopedic information goes.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I had another one, but it was a bit long and I just wanted to keep it simple (since it was vandalism). It was along the same lines just a little more detailed about the jealousy. I think we really need to find some sources for those allusions and definitely for the Chris Reeve appearance. The appearance is like the ultimate slap in the face allusion for the show, and we should definitely include it. I just don't want to bog the section down with more OR, because we haven't varified the other things yet.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Answers.com

Answers.com has not "answers", they literally take exactly what's on Wikipedia. I'll do dozens of searches for any number of topics, and I always get at least 1 "Answers.com" source, and it's the Wikipedia article. If you look, all the images will be in the same place as the WP article. I think I mentioned that to you once before with a source you provide for that rifle. Never use Answers.com, even if they aren't photocopying WP, you would need to go to who they do cite as their source. Now, they don't "steal" per say from WP, because they tell you where they get their info, and it isn't hard to recognize a WP page when you see one, as you did with Guy Gardner.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  05:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to know, and I am glad that it's them doing the "borrowing." What do you say we knock out the rest of the Manhunter article, and get it to GA status? It's currently a bit of a mess.Arcayne 07:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that much about him. It seemed as though you were familiar with the character. The problem with the article, and just about every fictional character article, is that it's all written like a biography (which is shouldn't). We need to model it after Superman, Batman, and Captain Marvel. It seems to have some of the format from those articles down, just no sources to back it up. Do you have a place for sources, or a collection of MM comics? We'll need the comics for like first appearance of a particular power.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Storm (comics) is another worthwhile article about a fictional character. I think it's undergoing FA candidacy at the moment. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Storm article is very well-written, and seems like a very good example to use. Most of my comic book familiarity completely capped off once I went into the military, after college. So I missedmost of the Crisis on Infinite Earths stuff (DC's way of retconning their entire universe into a more manageable thing,and to make the characters within them more approachable and less iconic). I certainly don't have all the comic books.

That being said, I can probably find the actual individual issues online. There seems to be a thriving community of folk trading e-comics. I am unsure as to the format for utilization. I will look at the Storm images, to see how they are licensed. That's rather why I thought our partnership would work well here. I know or can find the comics, and have some familiarity, but you know the rules and procedures a lot better than I (though I am learning). It's the same thing with the Nancy Reagan article. There are reference templates (at the very least) which make it difficult to develop the article, and I don't know how to remove them. the learning curve is indeed steep.Arcayne 21:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What are the difficulties with the reference templates that you've encountered? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

When I try to add a citation as a footnoted reference, the bottom of the page gets truncated, and the reference gets shown in it's entirety on the page itself. (Shrug) Maybe I am scripting the reference wrong. Meet me over there?Arcayne 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor dispute

Stop launching long diatribes on each other. I've advised him to do the same. Don't worry about the sockpuppet business; it was a poor accusation because of his apparent disdain for you. I've advised him to be more civil, and I advise you to keep your discussion limited to what fits Wikipedia's policies. I agree with what the other editors said about the "unsmiling" shipmates; better to leave it out than try to interpret it one way or another. I'm tired of this dispute; both of you need to get mature about this. It's Wikipedia, it's not a $10 million business deal. Just shrug off anything that seems inappropriate, and ask the relevant questions in the most succinct way. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

I forgot until now to mention that I went to the dispute, but I haven't seen the movie and didn't believe I could be of much help. If you have requests of this sort in the future, do let me know, and I will try to do my best with them. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: CoM question

Not sure what you want me to observe specifically, but "children" is mentioned as prominent by the reviewer. That would tie into this, which says: "Cuarón, who is 44 and has three children, says it is no accident that young people have been central to his work, in films such as A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter, because children are very 'important in my own notions of hope. And Children of Men is a film about hope'." Seems like something to explore for the Themes section, you could combine it with the "Shantih" paragraph, as it's sort of about the thematic ending. Hope you're not trying to make a new case for inclusion in the Plot section, dude. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I think Viri would have a stroke. No, even though the statement from there:

"At one point in Children of Men, Miriam comments how the voices of children are what keep the world from tipping into self-destruction. That sentiment is borne out precisely and perfectly in Cuarón's final scenes."

implies that the end part where the children are laughing (and therefore the Shantih) are actually considered scenes, something more concrete would be needed to warrant revisiting that particular subject. Actually, I was thinking about how to tie Jasper's statements of the Shantih as well as his comments regarding how Kee's baby was the miracle the world was waiting for' into the thematic statements surrounding the meaning of the Shantih. I think it would be hard to avoid OR.Arcayne 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if it qualifies as a scene, it's not a "plot driver" in any sense. It's a "theme driver" and could definitely be developed in the Themes section. Additionally, you should try to find some reference referring to Jasper saying "Shantih" and "the miracle the world was waiting for" to avoid original research. There's a lot of visible themes in the film, but citation's needed to make it verifiable. Viriditas has a lot of thematic ideas up the wazoo, and I'm sure he's trying to back all of it (such as adding the Nativity reference recently). Can't imagine what could be said in the DVD commentary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is going to be hard to find the Jasper statements (even though it is in YouTube - which is a pretty crappy source; it has an ending scene from CoM which is completely inaccurate), as it is to verify many of the plot points. I've noticed some of Viri's more....unorthodox thematic ideas, like the "mythic thunderbolt of fertility." I am sorry, man - that still makes me laugh. When he first put it out there, I was sure he was goofing off. It will certainly be interesting to see how he cites the stuff while avoiding OR. I don't think I'd be out of line making sure citations for such stuff be of the online, easily verifiable sort. He's certainly an odd bird, he is. Have you seen the movie yet?Arcayne 16:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, with all the cross-references the director threw in (Animals, for god's sake), I wouldn't be surprised by how many easter eggs were in it. Also, for citations being online or not, it's not always possible to find a link. Books are referenced, but these books are highly unlikely to be available online (if they are, probably copyright violations). Of course an attempt should be made to fetch a link, but sometimes these things are subscription-only or just aren't online (especially older sources). I haven't seen the film, so I'll probably have to check it out on DVD. It's not so bad to work on the film article without having seen it, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of the referencing of books is going to tie directly to the Wastelands stuff exclusively, which is good, considering all the online content for it that is already onle. I can dig the use of scholarly works for literature or more static subjects, but current film doesn't really seem to apply. Not even Brazil, which is sort of 1984 1/2. Also, one of the guidelines of the Manual of Style WP:EL specifically says to avoid Sites Requiring Registration (including paid membership sites). I think that applies much more in the case of an FA article, something that has to stand the test of time for stability.

I have heard that that CoM can be downloaded from some Torrent sites. Of course, that is just a rumor.Arcayne 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:) Appreciate the sentiment, but the reason I haven't seen it yet is I'm deaf, and I haven't been able to attend a captioned showing in the theaters. Torrents are useless to me without subtitles or captions. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, how do you see movies at the theater? I've never heard of captioned showings...Is there special equipment or do you pretty much have to wait for DVD? If the latter, it must drive you crazy to wait for movies that people rave about.

Check out Rear Window Captioning System and Open captions#Movies. But on occasion, I've gone to see films where I couldn't wait to see it, like the Lord of the Rings films. I've usually been able to go to showings of popular movies (Children of Men, as cool as it is, wasn't major enough to be captioned near me). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you remove sources just because they are not available online, then you will be reverted by yours truly. Viriditas and A Man In Black are right; offline citations are completely acceptable. verifiability does not mean being able to confirm the information with the click of a button. Citations, whether online or offline, provide the background to the information. If you can find an online citation to replace an offline citation while matching the content, then do so. But it is unacceptable to remove an offline source just because you want one that's online for you to easily verify. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Erik, I am not going to remove sources simply bc they are not available online. I know better than that. I have to admit, I simply got tired of Viriditas goading me all fucking day long, and blew a little steam. I don't throw that word around a lot, so you can guess how far I feel I have to get pushed to whip out that little nugget. Don't worry. I will get over it. Why is he like that, man? Polite doesn't work, being accomodating doesn't work. What will?Arcayne 04:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page banter is definitely not gonna help. All I can suggest is try to contribute in ways besides being critical of others' edits; that's probably what has rubbed Viriditas the wrong way. You exhibit a lot of persistence in your discussions regarding policies and whatnot, and I can't say it's very appealing after a while. If you can, add content to the article. Viriditas will probably copy-edit it, but he'll see that you contributed something. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I will do just that, and I will endeavor to keep my cool. I think I have been able to be helpful in my contributions and interactions almost everywhere else.Arcayne 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive 2.5: More CoM & Learning Curve

... was in article space. I moved it to User_talk:Arcayne/Archive 2.5: More CoM & Learning Curve before it got csd'd. Can you make sure it's OK? Mr Stephen 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. When you created your archive you put it in article space at Archive 2.5: More CoM & Learning Curve - you missed out the "/" which would have made it a sub-page of your talk page. I moved the page from Archive 2.5: More CoM & Learning Curve to User_talk:Arcayne/Archive 2.5: More CoM & Learning Curve and tickled the archive box at the top of this page. I did it so no-one would csd your talk archive. I hope that's OK. Regards, Mr Stephen 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

New page patrol. Happy to help. Regards, Mr Stephen 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir

I dont doubt he's a Sir, but here all academics or nobles are not call by their title, if not (somebody) in the beginning of their biography. Check WP:Manual of Style. Bye and good work!! --Attilios 09:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it by myself. I also wikified your page, sorry if your "errors" in format were intentional (for example, header must not be written in capitals as Ango-Saxons often do). Bye, thanks and good work. --Attilios 10:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

CoM revisited

Don't respond to him when you don't have to. Every time either of you launches in a criticism of the other editor, the downward spiral gets worse. I just suggest dropping it entirely. Respond succinctly and don't dredge up past incidents, like I've advised him as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you were trying to have the last word there, but I advise you to cease, or even go so far to withdraw your last comment that contributes to this unnecessary conflict. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok... can you not invoke the troll argument? It doesn't work for him, and it doesn't work for you. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:COOL. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. It is kinda frustrating that advice - even when offered by you - is simply ignored, still warrants better treatment than someone who owns up to mistakes when he makes them, and apologizes publicly for them as well (in the interst of proviiding a better working environment). I know you aren't playing favorites or anything, but his comments are not designed to be helpful, and haven't for awhile now. Look back over his edit history. Aside from yourself, anyone that has offered any edit change has been reverted.Arcayne 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. He's not a team player, as I know from our collaboration (or lack there of) on The Fountain. He produces good results, but his cooperation with other editors leaves a lot to be desired. Don't take personal offense at the stuff he says; he's not really scoring any points with anyone in the long run. Just remember to be curt with your responses; don't fight back, just ask if he could desist speaking in a certain manner and ask him to provide constructive criticism (as you did in a recent comment, I noticed, keep that up). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for noticing; it really is appreciated. Btw, I reworked the thematic statements. Perhaps this is closer to what we are aiming at.Arcayne 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it works... the context isn't like that. It's OR to make the jump from him being inspired by children, to the voices of children reference. Viriditas will probably say the same (but more meanly). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I had brought this citation to you in the first place, but in reviewing it, I realize I was reading it in a different way. He's not talking about how he used children to convey the message of hope; it's the other way around. His children help him convey the message of hope. Read it again with that in mind: "Cuarón, who is 44 and has three children, says it is no accident that young people have been central to his work, in films such as A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Harry Potter, because children are very important in my own notions of hope. And Children of Men is a film about hope." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that statement be saying that because CoM is a film about hope that it is about Children? I don't think he's talking about his children; that was an observation by the interviewer. It was not him saying, 'I am 33 and have three children, and they are important to my notions of hope.'He was instead saying that children - as a plural noun and as a concept - are important to his notions of what hope is, and what sustains it. This is clarified as he later in the article describes how "the prospective baby offers a small ray of hope for a new beginning."

It is accurate to describe him as using children to convey his message of hope. Otherwise, the sounds of children laughing and playing are idiosyncratic, and the insertion of the Shantih in accordance with those sounds are even more distanced from the point of the film. While I have come around somewhat to the idea that the laughter of children and the Shantih are not parts of the plot, they are without a shadow of a doubt a manipulation by the director towards an end. If not to give the audience hope, then what?Arcayne 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought I would also add that the statement by Miriam about children is not in the book, so it is specific to the movie. When we consider that this closely mirrors Cuaron's own views on children, and that he was heavily involved in the screenplay/script, there is further motive for using children as thematic pyschopomp of hope.Arcayne 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, I don't deny that there isn't a theme of children in the film. That's most obvious with the whole story arc with Kee's child. You're right, it's not his children, but the citation still says it's children in general that convey hope for him, and he produces that hope in the film. I don't think it belongs with the examples of children-related thematic examples. If he had went on to say that he did this and that to emphasize children as a vessel of hope, then it would work as a transition to the rest of the passage. I think that the construction of the two barely-separated notions is borderline OR, and I concur with Viriditas on the lack of meshing. If there was another interview in which the director emphasizes direct application of the children theme, that would work better. It's just too much, "Oh, oh, this is what he means," to originally clarify this vagueness with follow-up specifications. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, while it may borderline OR, I think that it is on the correct side of it. We cannot afford to submit an article for FA evaluation that sidesteps completely the thematic elements described above. Maybe you could ask Raglan or the Filmmaker what they think.

I am sure you have noticed by now that since he isn't getting his way, he's tried adding the OR tag to the article, to express his displeasure with all of us for being too stupid to follow his blueprint for the article. I know it was unfair to bring up in the Discussion area the accusation of WP:OWN, but I am not at all sure it was an inaccurate application of the term. His comment history for CoM and resistance to any change (and I am not talking about just mine) has been higher than anything else he has edited over the past 3 years. I know he contributes good stuff, but it looks like he is far too close to this for an objective handling of the matter.Arcayne 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just stop making accusations. It doesn't help the matter at all; he's just going to fight back. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the stuff I am saying here isn't going to be mentioned in the Discussion area again. The aforementioned observations were for you alone (and whoever happens to be watching my User Talk page). I want to turn out a good article that is also an accurate description of the subject of the article. I want to find an acceptable way to cover those points that should be there.Arcayne 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: That crazy German phrase

I think that the key reason for not having the "Shantih" phrase in the Plot section was its thematic nature, which was not suitable for the straightforward description of the film's storyline. I think the redundancy reasoning was invoked before when you had persisted on including the "Shantih" phrase and we said, "It's already mentioned in the Themes section, what's the big deal?" I'm not trying to be ambivalent here; there is always some redundancy to be encountered. If a key plot point mentioned in the Plot section also has some thematic weight, then I think the redundancy is acceptable so the reader can get all his/her information in that one passage. I admit, I didn't look at the reference for the song; I only removed the Nazi concentration camp mention because it seemed like an extended observation, which constitutes OR. Let me review the song reference again. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the song reference because the reviewer was not observing the bus's entry to the camp, but instead the stripping/beating that was encountered by the main characters. Hope my reasoning on the redundancy makes sense; the primary reason that the "Shantih" phrase wasn't included is that it's simply not a plot driver. It's insignificant in terms of the overall plot, but it's a definite thematic driver. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept and understand that. I had addressed it ouside of the Discussion area to keep blood pressures low. :)Arcayne 18:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely appreciate that. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Theresa knott

Why did you remove my note? Kamope·?·! Sign! 21:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When did I do that?Arcayne 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Less than an hour after I posted it. It must have been an acident. (diff) Kamope·?·! Sign! 21:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, coz I wouldn't bounce someone's comment off another user's page. Theresa's an admin. She doesn't need a shining knight like me to save her - she's got plenty o' tools to deal with nonsensical folk. I've been noticing that when I re-save comments after a Edit Conflict today, it's taken a preposterously long time for the page to load. It might have been an overlap skip or something. Maybe its just the Peanut Illuminati, working their plans. Fnord.Arcayne 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

I appreciate your request for me to remain with the article, but I must respectfully decline. What I enjoy about Wikipedia are two things: increasing my personal knowledge of films, especially upcoming ones, as a hobby, and to be able to present that same knowledge for an audience. However, I don't care to present that knowledge if it means dealing with a difficult environment. It's not worth the time or energy. I would rather build up articles on my own or in a cooperative manner with editors who are respectful and helpful to each other. I have other film articles in mind, articles to bring to life with in-depth information, and I want to do that without running into hostility. You can still ask questions of me, but I request that none of them be based on the circumstances at Children of Men. If you plan to get involved with any other film articles, I would gladly assist you in improving them. I'm happy that you've learned from me, and I hope you continue to do so. Let me know if there's anything you need. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I respect your feelings in this matter, Erik. I am pretty much to that point myself. People like Viriditas reinforce my earlier perception of Wikipedia being a stamina game. His incessant bitching pretty much drove away anyone who wanted to contribute to the article, and you were pretty much all that was keeping him honest. I wish there was a way to penalize him for his bad behavior. I am sure you aren;t the first person he has driven away.Arcayne 03:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men discussion

Arcayne, I do not feel you were in any way attacking me, and I also think Viriditas was somewhat rash in suggesting that you were. (We will have to agree to disagree, however, about his merit as an editor.) That said, there are only so many times that I will repeat myself, especially when it comes to guidelines and OR. You believe you're correct, I believe I'm correct; there's nowhere to go at the moment. I don't wish to remove myself from the discussion completely, but I do need to step away. I do urge you, again, to rethink your suggested thematic elements. Perhaps bring it to the attention of the Film WP and see what they think about its place in the article. María: (habla ~ cosas) 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)