User talk:Arcayne/Arc 1 10.24.06-06.31.07

Hello, Arcayne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  NatusRoma | Talk 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Duckworth & Roskam

I suggest that you discuss on the talk page before making major changes, such as deleting paragraphs, to controversial articles. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Goethean, you don't seem to practice what you suggest. The paragraphs, inappropriate 'controversial articles,' and statements I have removed through the editing process have been to preserve the neutrality of the entry. It is inappropriate to include statements not made by the person for whom the entry was created. It is highly inappropriate to include yellow-page ads of an entrant's law firm when there are public use pictures available on the internet, and you should know better.

My personal political opinions aside, Wikipedia does not afford us the luxury of posting anything but the NEUTRAL truth. Statements by campaign staff or national political organizations does not speak to the individual entrant.

The Illinois races are exceptionally ugly this year, and I will not allow Wikipedia to be used as propaganda. I am not suggesting that you are actively trying to do so, but I think it is clear to more than just a few people that you allowing a personal bias to influence your prodigious abilities as an editor. As a co-editor and out of respect, I would ask you to take a step back and recognize that your personal bias might be coming into play here. Arcayne 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)arcayne

There's Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Help desk. Let me know if you have any specific questions. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will likely take you up on that, Goethean. Thank you for your kind offer.Arcayne 08:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Arcayne, the vandal's name is User:Joehazelton -- lowercase 'h'.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at Tammy Duckworth. To revert a page, you can follow the directions Help:Revert. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Got here via the talk page for User:75.2.250.145; where you state that User:75.2.250.145 is User:Joehazelton, a "permanently blocked user with a history of unbalanced and flagrant violations of WP policy." User:75.2.250.145 is also causing a bit of a headache on the Talk:Neil Patrick Harris page. Can anything be done about a blocked user resurrecting themselves with an anon account? An RfC, or maybe some admin intervention? Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Children of Men

Sorry about that.72.196.213.82 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agent Cooper's addition wasn't worded as well as it could have been, nor did it appear in the correct section, and I didn't even bother looking at his cited source, however, this type of criticism has appeared and should be represented in the article in some way. —Viriditas | Talk 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel more comfortable with the re-wording of the citation? I've honestly never seen the film or the book, but I'd rather transform the citation into something useful than remove it entirely. Of course, I feel that the sole negative citation shouldn't be one of the few in the underdeveloped Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not very comfortable with it, Erik, and I will explain why. You are adopting a Defender pov which is not really conducive to neutrality. I would strongly recommend is that you read the book or see the movie before making an edit on a film. Otherwise, its like a person writing about the experience of piloting an airplane after having looked at a picture of one. We are not in the fair and balanced business; we are in the neutrality business. The two terms are not synonymous. :)

I understand your reasoning. It did seem to me that the edit was made with an agenda, so I tried to construct it so that wasn't so obvious. However, when I do get the chance to see the film, I'll explore both the positive and negative reviews to see if there was really a prominent issue with the theme change in the adaptation process. The article is in the history, so if it needs to be re-summoned for additional discussion down the run, I'll do that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. I've tried to remove all trace of my involvement in the article and its discussion, deleted my User page and am vacating my account. If you were to look at the history of my edits prior to October, you would see that I have fought mightily and with great difficulty for NPOV in articles that elicit strong opinions in others, and have generally been thanked for it by those more distant from the topics. This is the first time I've had what started out as a perfectly reasonable proposed edit suppressed for political reasons and then abused as a rightwing nutjob spouting paranoid nonsense for protesting POV-motivated deletions. The shame of it is not that the CofM article will be the worse without me; this film itself will be largely forgotten as soon as Bush leaves office. It's that you people drove away someone who has usefully contributed thoughtful discussion, cite-hunting, grammatical corrections, and informal mediation for months now. I guess the hive mind must have its say, but did you all have to be so fucking nasty about it? Signing off. Agent Cooper 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't working with any personal agenda, Cooper. You just starting blathering on about how it was some vast "political inversion conspiracy" to prevent your edits.

Your edits.

Specifically.

Are you aware of how friggin' loony that sounds? And then to accuse me of being a part of it when all I have done is to ensure that a NEUTRAL point of view is preserved. You needed to chose better citations, and not some over-biased nonsense that went far afield from the subject being talked about.

If you want to be gone, then be gone. If you want to be part of the larger community - a community that largely can't agree on the color of shite - then be the larger person and do that. But don't waste my and others' time by telling us we are all biased and you are the only one who can save us from ourselves because honestly, you don't have the bricks or the rep to to do so.

I will be entering this on my user page as well, since you seem all so very keen on removing comments that disagree with your own, delicate viewpoint. I actually think you can get banned for doing those types of deletions on legitimate commentary.Arcayne 22:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My intention was to only remove my own comments, not interfere with anyone else's. I have not deleted one single thing that directly expressed disagreement with me. I did try to close down my usertalk page as a part of a general attempt to withdraw, and that meant deleting what was on it, but as you can see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Agent_Cooper&diff=75382094&oldid=75226125

there was nothing unfavorable there that I was trying to conceal. I think it recreated itself when I logged back in to respond to some of these comments about me. I didn't think removing myself was vandalism, but I'm prepared to acknowledge that I might misunderstand the rules involved.Agent Cooper 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the history. Yllosubmarine restored the comments by Agent Cooper that were removed by Cooper himself. I don't think there's a relation between the accounts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i did misunderstand it. It apparently changed while I was looking at versions (kinda freaky how that happened, actually) seeming to appear as if Yllo had blanked the entries. I have already addressed the header and the topic. I will now go to Yllo's user page and remove the comment with an apology.

Please see my comments on the original article talk page, which you'll find are a sincere apology. I don't think I ever said that there is a conspiracy, though I did suggest that there may be unconscious bias. Surely that's discussable? There's a substantive question about what NPOV entails here, and if my interpretation of NPOV was correct, then unconscious bias would explain why you were violating it; I gather that what you think of me is something of the mirror image of that. And in the discussion there was a tone issue that I think neither of us were particularly sensitive to. I don't always hear how sarcastic I sound, and I think you may not be aware of how patronizing you sound. This whole thing was unexpected and exhausting for me, and I'd like to just let it go at this point. If you sincerely want to set me straight on the NPOV issue, I'll discuss it as best I can, but you should know that I really think that characterizing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Things as "over-biased nonsense" looks itself like bias, since this is a very prominent intellectual journal with a POV very different from your own (and from my own as well!); and that after reading the NPOV policy page, it seemed clear to me that reporting on a controversy is not the same thing as taking sides--it's part of the story of the film (even if it is true, I confess, that my personal response to the film was much like Sacramone's). When you leave up favorable reviews of a film that has been commented on by all sorts of "mainstream" venues as being a parable/critique of the war on terror and take down negative reviews by very prominent conservative commentators that regard it as a perversion of a fine pro-life Catholic novel critiquing the so-called "culture of death", and then lecture me on my lack of neutrality in a "let me explain to you how we do things here, little fella" when I've been contributing productively in other areas for quite some time, it rankles in a way that you really don't seem to have grasped. Now I'm willing to retract my earlier thought that you can't possibly believe that this is what NPOV involves. I see that you do. And in other contexts (say someone demanding equal time for Intelligent Design in a biology article) I would whole-heartedly agree with you. But this context seems really different. Both of the items we've been discussing are works of art with cultural-political messages. Liberal commentators do not have a monopoly on mainstreamness, and what they think of the world is not the only thing happening in the world. Now I don't want to waste your time or mine by having either of us go on and on about this, so you don't have to go into this in huge detail if you don't want to. I just want to make clear that I'm owning up to my own investments and shortcomings, and I hope that you will appreciate that. Agent Cooper 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Archivng

Per archive guidelines, I suggest that you archive all sections in which there has not been discussion for a while. Maybe what you can do is when you move the extraneous text to the archive, you can provide a link on top of the decent discussion to the original discussion that had been exported. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Smallville

I think what you don't like is someone much younger than you telling you what's what. I've been doing this a bit longer, and I've quite familiar with NPOV and RS, thank you. There is quite a bit of subjectivity to certain things. Also, what you need to be aware of is the Three-revert rule, because both you and I have reverted that page 3 times in less than 24 hours. 1 more from either of us and it will violate that policy. So I think it would be wise if we both stepped away. Bignole 17:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, your first mistake was just deleting information because YOU believe a source does not qualify as reliable. Unfortunately, nothing is that black and white, and I'm sad to see that someone with any degree (says how old you are) actually thinks that it is. If there was no source, I can understand removing information, I've done it myself. If you disagree with the reliability of the source, what YOU should do is go to the talk page and bring it up. Obviously, unless the information is brand new, others have not shared your concern or they would have done the same thing. The fact that MM was in Smallville is not new, that was something that was established by the creators early in the season. Phil Morris' attachment was also established weeks ago, before they show came back to air Justice. So, did you "make a mistake", initially no. I wouldn't say you made a mistake. I mistake would be a little greater in degree, but it's my opinion that you used poor judgement. Just because YOU disagree with a source does not mean that YOU are correct if you try and cite WP:RS. Unless I'm mistaken, and you are the individual responsible for outlining the entire RS policy? Again, not everything is black and white. But, enough said. Bignole 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that I am in fact older than you (as my having a degree apparently makes me much older than you). Perhpas I should make it clear that I (personally) did not disagree with the citation source. I disagree with its reliability as a source of factual information, and I purge information based upon the structure of the article statements and the citations upon which they are based. If a citation source is weak, then the article utilizing it had better make clear that the source is weak. If it represents itself as anything other than marketing conjecture or media hype, then it's going to get reverted.

Every. Single. Time.

If you wish to take the time and effort to write a stronger article, either draw attention to when the information you are citing is not from the best of sources, or go out and find better sources. It isn't hard to do, especially with someone as experienced with WP as you claim to be. Do the work, or don't complain when someone corrects all the sloppy.

You keep saying that MM's appearance was not new, that it was "established." I do not think you are using this word correctly, insofar as Wikipedia defines it. Unless it is from a reliable source, it is not credible. And again, no - the CW's own media team, comic book or Superman fanfic sites do not constitute reliable sources of information. Please re-read my posts on what constitutes a reliable source, as I should not have to repeat it more than 3 times.Arcayne 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't know how old you are, but you said you had a degree and your picture is that of someone much older than me. What exactly would be the "marketing hype"?? An interview with Phil Morris is marketing hype? He does an interview, in which he states he is playing Martian Manhunter. That's pretty cut and dry, why you don't like that is beyond me and I'm sure that if you were to take it to a third party they would agree. There is an interview with the creator, pretty cut and dry there too. Also, there's the producers of the show clearly stating the character of Martian Manhunter is in the episode, and he is played by Phil Morris. Now, if you don't agree because he doesn't look like MM, that's your problem. Any third party mediator would agree that all of those sources are reliable. The fact that YOU don't is irrelevant, because no one else shares your opinion. You were the only one disputing the reliability of the source. I agree, the original source was a weak one, but it was created (not by me) awhile ago. It's all irrelevant now since the CW lists the character as being there, and Phil Morris playing him. Your argument would be like saying just because the official "The Dark Knight" website says Bale will be Batman again, that's unreliable because it's just marketing hype. So, if the people that create the show are not reliable, then who would be? I think you should re-read that policy and consult another party, preferably an administrator. Bignole 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, I am going to archive this conversation after about a week, since I would prefer my talk pages filled with someone actually saying something of value. I keep saying the same thing, and you keep either sidestepping or utterly missing the point, so I am going to forego the politeness and use very small words in the fleeting hope that you will finally catch on. Ready? I don't care if I am the only person in the world who is suggesting that a reliable source be found, or at least a more reliable source than the marketing organ of CW. I mean, Jiminy Christ, they started out last season by suggesting that Bruce Wayne and Wonder Woman were going to be making stopovers in either Smallville or Metropolis, and that Chloe was an alien. Of course you won't see that now, because the marketing wonks received differnt marching orders from the producers, and pulled them from the website. To the marketing department, truth and news is malleable, something that can be spun to fit a situation. You give instance when Morris said he was Martian Manhunter, or when the producers suggested that. If it is true, why isn't it in the mainstream press that covers entertainment? Why isn't Martian Manhunter listed in either the opening or closing credits of Smallville? The reason is simple, and I would like you to try really hard and focus for the briefest of moments here: it isn't mentioned because it has not been made part of the mainstream press yet. For whatever reason, it has been leaked though less than reliable media because it can be denied or back-pedaled a lot easier than if it were released to the mainstream media. Morris is well aware of who signs his paychecks, so he will say what he is told to say. I meaqn, next you will say that he actually likes comic books. Shya, and if you pull the other leg, it rains beer. Please, wake up, sport, this is how marketing departments as media organs operate. It has happened before, and will likely continue to happen. What I find pathetic is how you tepidly agree that the source wasn't the best while simultaneously defending what essentially constitutes editorial laziness. It was the link you supplied and for whatever reason, you couldn't be bothered to put in the extra work to cite an actually relevant and reliable source until someone called you on it. How can you possibly defend that slackerboy nonsense? I will say it again: if you aren't prepared to do the work, don't act all surprised when someone calls you on your sloppy homework by editing you into oblivion.. Furthermore, to insinuate that I am taking exception to the casting of the character is pretty insulting. I actually think the casting was pretty good, as was the performance. See, this is where you consistently miss the point: you think I am making this a personal issue, and that I am against using any citation. This is absurd. It is not personal; I write for WP, and I take that responsibility seriously. It seems that it is an ego thing with you, sort of like the person who doesn't get to talk in large groups, and therefore does it online. I am not saying you don't have anything to contribute. I am saying that you don't seem to like being corrected. That, my friend, is ego, and it has no place here. Period. Arcayne 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your agrument about "why wasn't it mentioned in the opening or closing credits"?? Do you ever watch the show? Do they label Justin Hartely as "Oliver Queen" when he appears, at the beginning? NO. Did they do it for Lee, Ritchson, or Gallner? NO. As for "closing credits", this is how I know you don't watch the show, they don't have any. The entire "credit" at the end of the show consists of very quick acknowledgment to some crew that aren't mentioned in the beginning and it goes immediately to the studio trademarks. Tell me when you have ever seen "So and so as blah"? Did it say "Tom Wopat as Sen. Jennings", No. It just said "special guest Tom Wopat". Nice try. As for your "slopping homework" and "ego", it seems you are the one with the ego, because I believe several editors have agreed with ME, and not you. My ego is quite fine, cool breeze. Also, I didn't supply any link, I pulled a link from another article that was using it. Check the edit history of both Martian's page and Smallville season 6's page, and you'll find that I did not provide that link. The only links I have provided YOU were the two interviews and the CW website. But, if you want more that's cool IMDb,TV Guide, and TV.com. I'm sure you'll say they aren't reliable either, but you know what, that's fine. It's obvious you have two problems: your personal bias against these sites, and the fact that you have not correctly read Wiki policy, or had enough experience on Wiki to best understand how some sites' reliable can be ambiguous depending on what they are publishing. Publishing interviews, that's pretty clean; publishing opinion is another thing altogether. But, there's no convincing you of anything, just like you know there is no convincing me. I suggest you archive this now, because there will not be any further discussion of this matter on our respective talk pages. Cheers grease lightning. Bignole 06:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, BigNole, the do have the credits at the end of the show, however, those without Tivo might not be paying attention to the credits that are squashed into one side of the screen, and they do not consist of only crew acknowledgments (lol, what a maroon!). Maybe you were hyper-focusing on taking a bathroom break or some such. And it's kinda funny you mentioned Justin Hartley; his casting as Oliver Queen actually made the mainstream press, making for awesome reliable sources. Perhaps you glossed over that, or were on yet another bathroom break. Pulling the link,suplying the link - dude, are you tryng to now backtrack on your OWN admission of sloppiness? Don't get stupid on me now, please. Imdb is a good source, as is tv guide, but you didn't supply those. You supplied one from comic connection, and CW and Kryptosite. Please keep up. If you aren't going to bother remembering what you did, why should I? You need to garner just a bit more experience in the realm of editing, my friend. Perhaps you will learn the difference between reliable source and a verifiable source. You haven't commented that you know the difference, and I am beginning to realize that you just may not get it. And of course I can be convinced, Nole. In fact, were you actually reading up on the sites we have been back-and-forthing on, you would see that I caught one of my own mistakes, and took steps to correct them. That you think that you cannot be convinced is not a sign of maturity but that, too, is something you can only learn with time, experience and maturity. Good luck with that.Arcayne 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 28 2007 to Martian Manhunter

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I posted that report yesturday, during the beginning of our "tiff". I voiced that I wanted to withdrawal the report, since it was early yesturday and you probably were not aware of the policy governing 3 reverts inside of 24 hours. Bignole 21:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was unaware of that, as I've never reverted anyone before. I would not have violated the rules no matter how frustrated I was. I would like to request that this block be removed. the person I was arguing with and I have reached an understanding. In addition, now that I am aware of he rule, I don't plan on violating it again. Thanks. :)Arcayne 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you've reverted before. It's a matter of going back and forth ("edit warring") that the 3RR policy is built for. If Agent Cooper re-added the link, and you removed it, and he added it, and you removed it again, that would be reverting back and forth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men link dispute

I've requested arbritration concerning this. Agent Cooper 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, as I was mistaken. I am not saying that I have never reverted anyone before, or made corrective edits. However, not being aware of the 3rr rule, I didn't realize I was coming close to breaking the rules. Concerning AgentCooper and my edits, I was not the only re-editing his work, and he was edit-warring as much if not more as others. As well, the edits in Children of Man did not form the basis of my initial suspension. I am not offering this as an excuse, but instead as a factor in considering that I am not some scofflaw who doesn't follow any of the rules. As this is the first time I have broken the 3rr rule (or any rule of WP), I would think that a warning would be sufficient. I am not sure why arbitration is warranted here.Arcayne 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

He's referring to the Children of Men incident over the "POV" link, not the 3RR. You can see his request here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been to the link (thanks for providing it). I think that Coop has incorrectly assessed the situation. How do I address the issue in the context of the request for arbitration?Arcayne 15:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, re-checking it, the section's been removed, with an admin saying that it was not an arbitration matter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

oh. And here I was, composing a response to it Had you the chance to read it? I was pretty surprised at some of the accusations of anti-Catholicism, trying to make the article only positive. Admitttedly, I was ungentle with his comments, and could have been more polite, but I don't see how his commentary of everyone's inherent bias (that unconsciously opposed him on a cellular level, apparently) was at all conducive to a good environment for editing. Wikipedia is in fact "ours"; yours, mine and even Agent Cooper's. I think he missed the point when I said that Wikipedia is ours, and excluded himself from that ownership. He did seema bit paranoid.Arcayne 15:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My personal stance is that the link was acceptable, as I've identified similar reviews by "biased" film critics (such as at the film article for V for Vendetta). I don't think that there's an issue with inserting that kind of criticism as long as the reviewer's background is identified neutrally, and the reviewer's stance is presented neutrally. I think that since it's been addressed in the film article that the director was not aiming for Christian overtures as the original novel did, it's reasonable to include the Catholic review that Cooper linked to. If you're still in disagreement based on your interpretation of NPOV and RS, I've asked the admin who removed Cooper's request to see what the best course of action would be. I think both of you could have discussed the link in a better manner (as I don't care to be long-winded or subjective in these disputes), so I'm trying to be some kind of mediator, I suppose. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page matters

I don't know if you noticed, but you placed comments on Agent Cooper's user page instead of his user talk page. Just want to make sure you recognized the distinction between the two. I've moved the comments to Cooper's user talk page now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Aw crap. I thought I had put them on the user page (supposedly knowing th diferrence). Thanks for the assist. I owe ye a virtual beer.Arcayne 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never been to the article, so here's my neutral opinion. I see the question as one of whether the source is reliable (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources). For example, a Wall Street Journal report on the Catholic reception of the film would be a more reliable source, NPOV notwithstanding. Beyond that, I'm afraid I don't have time to devote to the issue right now. You may want to try WP:RFC too. Xiner (talk, email) 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

""Okay, will do.Arcayne 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

The Oddest Message

During my 8-hour block for 3rr, I received the following email:

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:29:46 +0000 (GMT) From: "Maurice Frank" <[email protected]> Subject: how wikipedia really works

(purged during condensing archival, as the message linked to a blocked spam site)

Answers to questions

First of all, it seems that the above message that you received was someone expressing disgust about how Wikipedia is run. You saw this on a lesser scale with Agent Cooper, who contesting the poor application of the NPOV policy on Wikipedia. I've seen a couple of these soapbox lectures myself, but I don't pay them much attention. I don't consider Wikipedia to be earth-shaking; it's not the end of the world if an article can't seem to adhere to all the policies. You can interpret these messages however you please.

I interpret it as the rantings of someone who is in desperate need of a hobby away from the computer.

I agree. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, you have the right to blank or archive your own talk page, although I'm not sure about warnings. Maybe they could be archived after a period of time, but if you receive a template warning and remove it from the talk page, that would be a sign that you're trying to hide something. I think, though, that when editors build up their edits, then generally, they wouldn't receive template warnings but instead a personalized message from the contesting editor. I like to let my talk page get a little long in the tooth before I archive anything; saves me a step in having to click into archives and just review the past month's discussion with other editors.

So, if I am reading you correctly, it is better to archive than to blank (even though it is okay to do so). The instance I refer to can be found here here.

I think it's a personal opinion regarding what to do with messages left, but I think it's easier to archive old messages rather than dig through history to find a specific old message. Also, for the linking, you don't have to do a forward-slash. Some URLs have them at the end, some don't. And if you want to link to Mikkalai's talk page, you would type [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikkalai here]. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a page-within-page link. Do you mean something like this? All you have to do (I'm using special code to show the implemented code now, check the underlying edit) is type [http://en.wikipedia.org/ this]. You can interchange the URL for anything on or off Wikipedia. If this is not what you mean, please clarify. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I was talking about (I noted the froward-slash and the additional space denoting the visible word in the text - sweet!). Thanks. How to specify a specific link to a post or header within an article (ie, posting a link to a conversation within a header, or a single post from an article).? As well, what are barnstars, and how are they earned?Arcayne 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You can target a link to a specific section of a page by typing # and identifying the section title after it. For example, User talk:Erikster#A Few Admin-Type Questions. You can pipe the link as well if you wanted to. Also, barnstars are just informal awards that can be given to other editors. I've never gotten one myself; some editors have 'em up the wazoo. Depends on the kind of editors you work with, I guess. The kind I collaborate with don't really swap barnstars. Check out WP:BARNSTAR. Keep the questions coming if you got 'em; anything to keep me from reading finance homework. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

The application of images, particularly in film articles, can be subjective. However, WP:FU indicates, "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." While the image isn't serving a purely decorative purpose, it does not contribute significantly to the article, as it's just tied into a single sentence. When you use copyrighted images, you need to write a fair use rationale justifying its usage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Which I did, upon uplaoding the image. Tell you what; let me send the images to you via email, and you can tell me what you think. Deal?Arcayne 06:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way: If you need to convince me, then it's possible that others need to be convinced on the particular model of the rifle. That's the point I was trying to make regarding verifiability. Something doesn't have to be subjective in nature for it to be questionable. I've revised film articles where I found that previously added information were merely rumors that were presented as fact, such as so-and-so being considered for the role. The uneducated eye can't tell fact from rumor without citation. That's why I'm advocating the backing of even minor details with references. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that present us with the original argument that the article is too long? It was a concern. I offered to send the pictures to you so as to put to rest the - and pardon me for saying so - ridiculous idea that the trivia points are somehow biased or skewed. They are plain observations, and not subjective analyses as to Theo's slumping meaning death or whatever. That particular argument arose out of the ambiguity of the scene. There is no argument as to the existence of a prop. It is either one thing, or it is not, and the word 'uprising' or 'intifada' on a wall, while open to interpretation (and note that a value judgment or backstory as to why it was there was not explored), cannot be questioned as to its veracity. It is, as you say the observer's obersations. Again, the pictures are not meant to be included in the actual article. Their sole purpose is to stifle nonsense about them being some sort of political implantation. We are wasting bandwidth arguing about this. Some trivia is going to remain in the article, and it seems an end-run to try an eliminate it because no particular reviewer has bothered to not the weapon used by the soldiers. Of course, this would be so much easier if Guns-n-Ammo magazine did movie reviews. If some readers want to know that the weapon wasn't invented from whole cloth like a ray gun, then it is our responsibility to add that tidbit.Arcayne 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC) As a side note, you are probably right about needing to covince others. If you were to see the pictures and agree that they were in fact simple, verifiable facts, it would be two voices,and not just one. This isn't some sort of crusade or anything. Frankly, I think most of the folk in WP can't agree on the color of shiote, and the CoM article can be seen as absolute proof of that. :)Arcayne 07:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the article being too long. Do you mean the plot summary?

Perhaps Theo's death was a bad example to compare to the trivia about the rifle. I'm not trying to suggest that this piece of information was implanted with some kind of agenda. I understand that the pictures are not meant for the article; I originally took it to mean that you planned to include them, as you asked about uploading images to Wikipedia. When you do that, the images should be worked into the article somehow, or they get orphaned/deleted eventually.

A concern regarding the bit of trivia is its notability. How far should one go in making general observations about the film? Should the type of tanks be noted by editors educated in tank background? The type of fashion worn by the main characters? That's why the trivia section is discouraged -- anyone can dump their observations in there. Trivia doesn't have to remain in an article -- take a look at any FA-class and GA-class film article that exist without trivia sections and have incredibly compelling content. Why encourage the existence of the section at all?

I know that you mean well in providing content for these articles, however. I'm just being critical because I enjoy reading articles at their very best, especially film articles. Wikipedia will always lag in the perfect-article department, but I try to be idealistic and provide what I can with certain film articles on my watchlist. Now, I'm going to retire for the night. It was interesting to debate with you, and I hope you understand my perspective. I certainly understand yours, though I'm not necessarily in full agreement with it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Erik. I am aware that you dislike any trivia sections, thinking it sloppy. I think that an article can be near-perfect and still provide for trivia, defining trivia as information not reflective of the plot of the film, but interesting from a viewer's point of view regardless. After all, this is why a great many DVDs come with bonus disks with deleted scenes, Making Of specials and various production notes. This doesn't detract fromt he quality of the movie (or an article about that movie); i rather think it adds dimension to the work. Now, where this argument concerns CoM grows ever so tenuous as people split hairs over what was written on a wall. As I consider it important, I will find a way to incorporate it into the body of the plot synopsis. However, if people want to know what weaponry (or duplicate mock-ups) were used as props, I feel that putting it into the main article is essentially crowding, and inefficient, whereas a trivia section (call it production notes, whatever) allows for the Irish Pennants of movie information to migrate to.Arcayne 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with trivia if the section didn't encourage further POV or useless additions by other editors. There's not really a structure provided for a Trivia section -- it would have to be a continual stream of consensuses over what should fit in the Trivia section or not. With the Production section, it's easier to implement because it's part of a timeline, where the Trivia section is like a grab bag. I would be fine with a cited mention of the XM8 as part of a paragraph in which the director or someone from the studio explains how they shaped the future aspect of the plot -- the technology, the politics, etc. Hopefully, there will be some further coverage about that on the DVD or in a magazine's featured article, but in the meantime, the information seems orphaned, and I wish there was a home for it, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Shanti

Good luck with keeping the Shanti reference. The person who removed it is an admin, and I doubt you're going to change his mind. I'm not in full disagreement with him, but it's better than nothing. What's annoying is that I looked on Rotten Tomatoes to see if that movie review site was on it, and sure enough, it was -- but it didn't have the Children of Men review listed. It even had other reviews listed by the same authors of the Children of Men review. That could help validate the reliability of the movie review if Rotten Tomatoes has used it in the past, but it could be called into question why there was no CoM review from RevolutionSF on the site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I pitched my argument at User talk:A Man In Black#Children of Men. Let's see how it goes over. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found the review at Rotten Tomatoes: here. I find it worth noting that User: A Man in Black, is also a contributing editor at RT. The revolutionssf link appears to be working as well: [2]. Lastly, here is a citation of the actual poem | here

Image copyright problem with Image:Image-XM8_CoM.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-XM8_CoM.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

{{help}}

Just let the image sit, and it'll be deleted in time. Nothing bad will happen as a result of this. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't actually looking for that, Erik. I wanted to know the proper tag to put with the picture, or if it is an unusable picture as per WP guidelines. If it is against the rules, i will remove it myself, and not leave a mess for someone else. As well, I mafe a comment about Viri's proposed removal of the Trivia section altogether. That seems kinda high-handed to me. Two people does not equal a concensus.Arcayne 20:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about images for articles other than ones about films, but I suggest you check out WP:FA#Media and look at film articles that have Featured Article status. Click on the images (poster and otherwise) and take a look to see how the fair use rationale and licensing is set up. Also, I think Viriditas is referring to WP:AVTRIV, which indicates that consensus was reached by many editors to create this guideline (which doesn't come lightly). You won't find an FA-class film article with a trivia section; things are worked into the article or eliminated otherwise. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will do that.New problem, though, I have been noticing that Viri has been moving through the article wiping out large amounts of the plot synopsis. I know we are supposed to be be bold in our edits, but this seems like he is fitting it to his own personal liking. That seems, well, uncool.Arcayne 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Plot section originally had a {{plot}} tag for the reason that the plot was too overly long. The word count is under 900 words, which is the maximum count in accordance with style guidelines for the film. If you noticed, Smokin' Aces was in definite violation of that as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know you've been watching my page, Erik. I am starting toget an idea as to who is watching my page; both disconcerting and flattering at the same time. Yes, I noticed the hell-on-a-pointy-stick that is Smokin' Aces. I retired from editing 'coz I had a date last night. I was planning on revisiting it again today, but was mostly unfamiliar with the style guidelines. I will check them out as well. Overly long is a bad thing, but editors and users are supposed to find a middle ground in their edits., Viri doesn't seem to be seeking this out before making his edits. I am quickly learning that most of editing in Wikipedia is a matter of simple stamina. I am here for the long run, Erik. If I disagree witht the edits, I will address them, correct them, etc. short of breaking the 3rr.Arcayne 20:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas isn't generally communicative about these things. He edited The Fountain (my pet project) for a while, and he and I never really had an open-end discussion regarding the article structure. I guess it's the same thing here, and he's just doing what he can in adherence to the guidelines. The plot was overly long, so he addressed that. If you feel like information is missing, feel free to re-edit the plot as long as it's kept under the 900-word count per the guideline.

I disagree that editing on Wikipedia is a matter of simple stamina. The "stamina" issue comes into play when there is content dispute. Children of Men is undergoing massive changes now 'cause it wasn't built up properly as there were no editors making the film article their focus at the time. We repeatedly take a page from film articles that have Featured Article status to improve the rest of the articles (hence the removal of Cast). If you have an issue with the edits being made, feel free to contest them on the talk page or directly with the user with the reasons why. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that we are in disagreement over the issue of stamin. Every time I make and edit, Viri (or someone else) removes it or substitutes something else. I change it back, and the circle goes on and on. Tell me how than t doesn't become a matter of simple stamina.I will contest them on the talk page and address them with the user inquestion, but if they choose to ignore the request for discussion, it becomes a stamina game. Allow me to be clear here: I am fully aware of your desire to make every article you come into contact with a good article, and am somewhat convinced that your methods are correct. However, the wholsesale re-editing of an entire article by one person, without article consensus from those performing edits in the article, seems the antithesis of concensus. It seems arrogant. Arcayne 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you mean about the stamina game. Viri and I went through that over The Fountain, but it tapered off. However, I don't see this issue as commonplace because editors come and go. The conflict can happen if more than one editor has an eye on a particular article, but sometimes they can form a "team" that can discuss easily. I'm on one particular team for Spider-Man 3. I'm not sure, though, what issues that you have with this film article's editing process, as we've been adhering to policies and guidelines. We make the changes because Wikipedia tells us to be bold. I'm not sure what you would consider an edit war in the edit history for Children of Men; I can understand your discomfort with the massive changes that have taken place -- the plot trimming, the content forking of the soundtracks, trivia dissemination, etc. Lack of communication can be an issue sometimes, but I don't see that happening here with this particular article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, I take exception to the idea of teams. Period. The idea that each member of a 3-person team can revert a single editor's work without triggering a 3RR violation, whilst the single editor has to scramble to reinsert his edits is unethical, at best. I am not saying that you are a part of that, Erik, but I am sure you can see the potential for abuse by a team. If you and other editors are of a mind on an isdsue, bring your concerns to the talk page, and talk them out. To do otherwise is stacking the deck against the individual editor, which seems to go against what Wikipedia is supposed to be. As for being bold, I have figuredout how to fix the copyright issues of the rifle image, and have decided to be bold and insert it into the article under production. After all, it belongs there rather than trivia, after all. A last point about trivia sections: while I have come around somewhat to the idea that trivia sections are lazy editing, it cannot be denied that their temprary presence serves as a clearing house for data to be integrated into the article. Data considered to be trivia should be found a home in the article unless it has nothing to do with the subject of the article, or is so peripheral so as to be distracting, don't you think?Arcayne 21:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that you have potential as an editor. Hence why I'm so responsive to you on your talk page and all. I understand the concerns that you've raised, and I think we're just making bold edits because we know what we're doing (or more appropriately, we like to think that). You're going to run into editors of various philosophies; mine is obviously be-anal-about-citing, which has worked out for me so far. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I appreciate that compliment, Erik. :) I would like to become an editor, but I still think I have a ways to go before pursuing that road. I still have difficulty holding my temper with fools (but I have learned through being chastened that there is worth in being far more civil). I also am still learning about how to accomplish simple tasks like adding pictures in, or finding wiki essays on how policies are interpreted (still having difficulties with that last one). I am not too proud to ask for help when I don't know something. Anyone should feel free to offer a suggestion, or a link (explaining what the link is supposed to provide me, info-wise). And I appreciate neat-freaks, Erik. So long as the baby doesn't get tossed out with the bathwater. :) Arcayne 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that teams could potentially abuse their collaborative advantage, but in my case with SM3, we've generally taken it to the talk page before the risk of 3RR violation arises for either side. I think my teammates and I are honest enough as not to slip into groupthink. I'm sure Wikipedia's encountered issues with team abuse. However, I think teams can work when each individual has a good grasp of the guidelines and policies, and is willing to listen to how others perceive them. If you'd like to develop your editing skills, I'd suggest finding an article that has low traffic and is underdeveloped. I could answer any edit-related questions as you work on improving it but be hands-off of your project. I'm not suggesting that you stop editing Children of Men, but I think it might be easier to learn the technical process separate from the bureaucratic process. I noticed you're learning both at the same time, which is probably overwhelming to you. I started with the former, being more of a WikiGnome, then acquired the latter by being more bold and interactive with articles. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I myself started that way, and quickly fell into it as I saw some of the nutty edits being performed on some of the articles for some political candidates. I started actively contributing then, aware of the potential damage of a team of editors changing data in one candidate or another's article to create a viral conception as to that candidate's actions, positions or words, resulting in a skewed voter perception. I still find that a terrifying concept, one for which Wikipedia has little in the way of guidelines and/or protections. Btw, thanks for the wikignome template. I've added it to my own user page. I've noticed that their placement is somewhat problematic, much like the picture of the soldier in the article. Are the guidelines about how to place a picture, or its it pretty much trial and error?Arcayne 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've generally stayed hands off with articles that have a high risk of NPOV violation, such as politicians and controversial issues. I don't think Wikipedia should be approached as the ultimate source for these things, as it should be recognized by visitors that "anyone" can edit Wikipedia, potentially creating a POV slant. I like working on film articles, as they're more focused on the descriptive side. I'm actually amateurish in one aspect, though, writing Reception sections. It's just hard for me to determine how to best present different reviewers' opinions in an encyclopedic manner. But I definitely can do Production sections. Liked your All your base mention, by the way -- haven't thought about it for a while. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation

I wanted you to know that Answers.com references Wikipedia on just about everything. That articles on Answers is the same article on Wiki, so in essence you are citing Wikipedia as the source of information for itself.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  20:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nifty. Thanks for the heads up. I will find another one. I would like to point out that I think your edits are bit too sever, and I think you and I have some pretty different views on the word concensus. You refer to it as one of policy, whilst inferring that it was one within the community of the article. I will be watching the edits, and correcting them as necessary.

Not sure which you are referring to.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. There are more specific templates, but if you are just going to do a reference note, then make sure to add a "/" on the end (like "</ref>")  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  22:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you offer an example of what you mean there? and how did you change your sig line to include colors? I canna ken how ye kitted that out. lolArcayne 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you click the link to the templates you can scroll down and see different kinds "cite news", "cite web", and they provide examples of how to fill out the information. It would look like this <ref>{{cite web | url=www.wikipedia.org/whoknows/blah/example | title=For you help | publisher=Wikipedia | date=This would be the date it was published | accessdate=the day you read it}}</ref>. For colors in your sig, go to your preferences and where it says signature you put in your code. Then make sure you have the little box below that clicked. If you aren't familiar with HTML enough to do it on your own (i'm personally not), I suggest taking my code ([[User:Arcayne|'''<span style="background:Maroon; color:Gold">  Arcayne </span>''']] [[User talk:Arcayne|<span style="background:Gold; color:Maroon"> '''(Question?)''' </span>]][[Special:contributions/Arcayne|<span style="background:Maroon; color:Gold"> '''(What I do)''' </span>]] I'll stick in your name) and replacing the colors and words to your liking. You can get colors here. For images, it kind of is trial and error, just use the preview bottom to get an idea of what the picture will look like.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

XM8 dispute

I noticed that you insinuated to A Man In Black that Viriditas brought him into it. I would caution you against such accusations; people aren't out to get you. Like we've talked about on the talk page, the trivia point about the XM8 is original research. You do know that you can check out the contributions of other users? Every act is public on Wikipedia. Go to Special:Contributions/Viriditas and choose "User talk" from the drop-down menu. You'll see that the last time he talked to A Man In Black was January 18th, and it was about the Pink Floyd reference. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 06:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

hmm. okay. It seemed a bit odd that right after I replaced the item afer Viri removed it, A Man in Black reverted it. A suspicious mind would think that in order to avoid running afoul of the 3RR rule, one might involve an admin, maybe through another ID or via non-Wiki email. Maybe i am being a bit too suspicious. It just seemed damned odd.Arcayne 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Image-XM8 CoM.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-XM8 CoM.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Project

Whatever you decide to do, if you want me to impart advice, just let me know what article you're eyeing and I'll watchlist it to follow your changes. You can contact me on the talk page if you have any questions, technical or otherwise. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest using colons at the beginning of your comments to indent them? It helps determine the different directions that the discussion is going, as we're kind of talking about two things. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I was aware of how to indent, but I didn't want to indent ad infinitum. Most of the places where i did not indent were areas that wer already indented, and I didn't want to continure shrinking each line. Is there protocol for when to indent and when not to in the middle of a longer conversation?Arcayne 08:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There's not really protocol for it -- it just helps organize back-and-forth responses. Obviously, you shouldn't venture into indent hell, with ten colons to push it over. When it gets to be too far to the right, then you can usually start over with a new, non-indented line. Look at the talk page -- I asked about the production/theme with a single indent, and you replied with no indent. However, Viri put his comment between yours and mine with two indents, where if you had yours indented like his, his comment would probably have been placed after yours. Hope that makes sense. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 08:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Midnight Hobo

google is your best friend. `'mikka 06:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok. Nonsequitur much? (dude, I have no idea what that was about...)Arcayne 01:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh>. It looks like I have to feed raccoons myself... I thought you remember our own edits. Campbell does have a short story "Midnight Hobo". ("Midnight Sun" is his novel). `'mikka 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was almost a year ago, and I was new. I might have made the deletion based on Jeph's commentary as to how he invented Midnight Hobo from whole cloth. He might have absorbed the Campbell title in passing. I should have retained it anyway. Thanks for reminding me. :)Arcayne 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit

He added a slash (/) because the link in your talk page was to an article in the mainspace, not in your userspace as you had intended. He found the archive while new page patrolling, realized it was created because you forgot the slash, moved the archive to your userspace, and corrected the link on your talk page. I'm pretty sure anyway :p Leebo⁸⁶ 17:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(dawn breaks over wooden head...) Oh, I see. Sorry about that. I guess I am still making some significant mistakes. Thank you for explaining things out. :)Arcayne 17:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Citation

It was at the end. There should be a frontslash in the last ref>. Also, it appeared as though you inserted the same citation twice. When I looked at the bottom there were two for the link you just added. Was that your intention? If so, there is a better way to re-use the same source material. If it wasn't, then I guess you just forgot to remove your other citation.

Not it wasn't my intention to add it twice. I thought it had been removed for some reason (as opposed to not showing up bc I had screwed up the original insertion), and I was adding it back in before heading to the talk page to send up a flag. I will go and fix it now, unless you already have.Arcayne 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't removed it, because I wasn't sure if you were intending to use it twice. It seemed to be at the end of two different sentences. Oh, and yes, I was referring to the </ref> on the second (technically the "third" if you look at the citation numbers at the bottom) references.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it. On a side note, have you seen this review? It seems to be one of the few negative ones I've seen for the film,Arcayne 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find more negative reviews here. Also, I'm confused about the so-called "anonymous" person you were talking to on the CoM talk page. The talk page history doesn't reflect anyone but you, me, and Viriditas discussing the article as of late. I hope that wasn't a poor man's sockpuppet. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I was referring to the lack of a sig on the talk page, which didn't let me know who I was talking to (I think it was Big, as he and I have talked a bit about some citation errors I made, and there was no sig on those, either). While I have heard of sockpuppets, I am not sure I would know one if I saw it.Arcayne 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at the talk page's history. You were the only person making any comment since my "Animals" comment before I commented again a few minutes ago. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen the film, and have not read reviews for it either. My interests was initially only about how and if to use the rifle info, but since it was on my watchlist I've just been watching for copy-edit things (and the occasionally suggestion of better structuring). Like Erik provided, Rotten Tomatoes is a good place to find both positive and negative reviews. They catalog so many critics that it's a good place for diversity. As for the lack of sig, I don't recall making the comment (but I do remember thinking the same thing). I'll go back through the history to my edits and see if it was me. If it was then I apologize for the confusion. (BTW, that is two edit conflicts in a row..lol)  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am taking a break from Indent Hell, and starting anew. :) I would recommend the movie, you silly goof - how else can you comment on a movie you haven't seen? lol! As for the rifle info, my goat was effectively 'gotten', so I put in a call to H&K this morning, to their media department. My intent is to verify that the weapon mock-up used in the film was in fact the XM8. I am still figuring out how to get something citable that folk can see, although literature and news reperts are not always online (as Erik has mentioned). Any tips on what to ask for from H&K when they call back? On a last note, did you actually go to Stanford, too? The sig colors...Arcayne 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is why I've kept my opinion to myself for the most part. I've tried to only edit objectionably, and not about how to interpret things. That's why I didn't remove the trivia, just cleaned it up (the same for the rifle thing when you inserted the image). I'm not sure how to address the H&K thing, because they could see an image and say "yes it is", but there's no proof or verifiability other than that. Now, if they could verify that they provided the guns for the film (which seems more likely than the producers going and buying brand new ones). I don't know, like I said before to Erik, it seems like something that could be verified on the DVD in a "making of" documentary. As for my colors, they're not Stanfard (not intentionally). I believe Stanford's colors are "Cardinal" and "White". My colors are "Maroon" and "Gold". I was attempting to find "Garnet" but we don't have that available color here, so I had to find the next closest thing. Garnet & Gold are the FSU colors, hence the name Bignole (Seminoles).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 

Children of Men redux

Are you not able to read where I mentioned that the director did not want to glorify violence and thus did not equip the "hero" with a weapon? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry; I must have missed it. I will chack the article again. My question wasn't meant to be anything other than an inquiry, not a challenge.Arcayne 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. I'm kind of throwing in bits and pieces here and there, but ultimately, I'm hoping for the content to tie together instead of having handfuls of sentences here and there. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the relevent passage in the Production Header. The HIS had it placed in the Theme header. My bad; I must have read it wrong.

I know you are working hard at it. Please understand I am trying to add constructively to the article as well, Erik. I am not trying to be a pain.Arcayne 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. You do occasionally raise valid points. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I still love you, you anal-retentive bastidge. :) Arcayne 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask if you plan to help add any sort of content to the article? There's a smorgasbord of links to draw from. I found that the Animals and "Shantih" reference were already around in January 11, when you apparently started getting involved this article. Feel free to contribute content-wise; build some credibility that way. Not sure if Viri's too hot for you since the points that you've raised are on the nitpicking side. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What sort of content do you feel it still needs? I have been adding a little in the way of content, mostly in the way of a few citations here and there and gnereal grammar and itsy stuff. I am not tryng to be nitpicky at all. I am sorry that Viri is upset, but he hasn't made himself all that easy to work withArcayne 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(Whoops, I didn't see your recently added comment. Read on.) I'd like to follow this up in case you get defensive. I don't know if you recognize this in your comments, but they sometimes lack a serious tone. That's why I thought I misunderstood you when you asked about where I integrated the information about the futuristic vehicles. Also, Viriditas had even gone far enough to slap a {{TrollWarning}} template on the talk page, though I've removed it. I'm just requesting, step back and review how you've been commenting. From where I'm standing, Viri's a fairly serious editor, and he probably doesn't take your comments in the best light. I also mentioned contributing some more information to the article. While you've done reverts and clean-ups (and the clean-up part is appreciated, haha), it's still minor compared to what Viri and I have been adding to the article. Of course, you're not required to do this, but like the real world, being contributive gains you a bit more respect. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would add more, if I felt a bit more confident about what to add, Erik. I do admit that sometimes my comments are indeed sometimes light-hearted. I take my editing seriously, but that doesn't mean I cannot take some enjoyment out of it. Viri is not my marionette; I cannot control his actions any more than I can control how he feels. The fact that he hasn't bothered to deal politely with me (and ignoring someone is not the equivalent of civility) and this recent tactic of calling me a troll makes me care a great deal less for his pov. I know that he contributes more than me; that is to be expected, he has been here longer than I have and knows the ropes somewhat more. Also, my job (the one that actually pays my bills) is such that when bad weather or natural disasters occur, I am busier than a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs. I am not proffering that as an excuse, Erik but as a reality. It's intermittently very slow, and then crazy to beat the band. I am trying to learn about how to do things correctly (so they don't get reverted 5 minutes after I put them up) in the time I have available. Sometimes that means my time and focus are a bit divided. Maybe you could suggest some areas of the article that need work or development.Arcayne 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why I suggested separating the learning process of the technical work and the bureaucracy. There will be some overpowering editors on Wikipedia; Viriditas is hardly up there. :) Since you're still learning the ropes on Wikipedia, and it's been showing on the talk page, I have to admit you don't appear to have the greatest credibility as an editor. There are different types of editors you have to work with, and you have to conform to a different kind of relationship with each one. To be honest, I think that the "Shantih" reference in the Plot section would have been long gone if I wasn't around to present a valid argument or two. I don't want you to stop having fun with Wikipedia. I like working with upcoming film articles 'cause most of them have low traffic, but I keep my eye on a few "busy" articles (and this one snagged me).

So I think you should choose an article on an upcoming film. Take a look at my list of release dates. I would recommend Stardust or Jumper, as both need to be re-structured and cited badly. I have headline archives for both films, so let me know if you have a preference, and I'll dump a smorgasbord of links on the talk page for you to work on. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask, did you see the words after the credits yourself? I'm sort of doubting the validity of the appearance. Also, if it did, how it did appear -- "Shantih Shantih Shantih" or "Shantih! Shantih! Shantih!"? Apparently, the two citations that you were using before seemed to be talking about the chants that took place in the film, with no mention of the line after the credits. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I did in fact see the last line right after the credits after the movie the first time (quite by accident, as I was wanting to see the counties of England it was filmed in - I used to live in some parts that seemed familar). The words appear by themselves, white text on black background: ""Shantih Shantih Shantih", no italicization or punctuation whatsoever, and in larger type than any of the credits. In the film, people were chanting those words, most notably by Miriam and Kee.

I think you misinterpreted what I said. I consider the shantih's to be a part of the movie (ie, part of the story and in the movie) and not like outtakes or blooper reels or whatever. Is that what you were thinking? I am sorry if it had been unclear.Arcayne 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's fine -- I guess I doubted the imagery because the two cited reviews were mentioning the repeated "Shantih" phrase in a way that it sounded like part of the film, and not after the credits had rolled. I really need to get around to seeing the film -- might help me figure out this long shot business, too. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

well, perhaps they consider it to be part of the story (as opposed to the credits or whatever). Concerning the long, uninterrupted shot, I thought it was real. There was 'blood' spattered on the camera lens during the running gun battle, and that spatter didn't change during the entire shot. However, with the level of advanced CGI out there, nothing can really be believed anymore. If it was faked, I was fooled. I actually thought it was a editing mistake, jarring the audience out of the story, making them realize they were watching a movie.

And yes, you should see it. It's actually really good. The ending was a little creepy for me, but notreviewer has caught it yet. As the fishing trawler Tomorrow approaches, no one on the boat is smiling. Maybe they are4 concentrating on finding her amidst all the combat going on beyond the shoreline, or maybe it is about to turn into a horror movie. lolArcayne 01:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm mixed about how much of the "Shantih" reference to use. I wish that it was pointed out more frequently by reviewers, but with all the cross-referencing the director seems to have done (especially with contemporary imagery), this one seems to have been relatively minor. Who knows, maybe the DVD commentary will delve into all these themes and more. Also, for the long shots, I'm assuming for some shots it was natural, but for some others, they were takes stitched together. About how many long shots do you think were in the film? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know enough about Hinduism (like most Westerners) to comment specifically about it. I imagine that once CoM is released in India, some Indian publications will publish reviews (translated online into English). As there is a gi-normous Indian population in the UK (there is a saying that the most authentic place to have Indian food...is in London), this might have happened already. The translation process may be slowing down the internet appearance. However, it seems to have a lot to do with the Upanishads, which I read back as an undergrad.

I think there were two long shots (the ambush and then the military running battle). Honestly, I am not sure that the blood-spattered shot was real. I think it was preserved because, as it stands, its a pretty nifty accomplishment. Cuaron and the cinematographer may have simply been bragging a bit by keeping it is, because it doesn't fit the rest of the movie.Arcayne 01:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Shantih revisited

I contacted a couple of editors who have done worthwhile work with film articles -- The Filmaker and Hal Raglan. You can see the credentials on their user pages, and my message to them on their talk pages. I have a feeling that Viriditas is going to disagree with you, anyway, and this back-and-forth issue needs to be resolved. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Viri would disagree with me on the color of grass; I have tried to find some sort of middle ground with him, and its quite useless. I am not at all surprised to find that it was him waiting to remove the reference yet again, just biding his time to do so. I know I am supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he's since used up that particular reservoir with me.Arcayne 18:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it's difficult to compromise when it's only a matter of a sentence. It's not like you can just make it a fragment and everyone's happy. A single sentence can expand the content of an article, contributively or unnecessarily. I understand both of your reasons for it, and I have to say that it's not an easy call to make. I'm surprised you're both so divided and sure, honestly. It's not fun to tangle with other editors; one of my least favorite parts of the editor's job. But in a lot of cases, ideas can be shared if the discussion is appropriate, even if there is no final decision. I mean, we have the reference in the Themes section, and I think that particular section will be attractive to a lot of readers. There are things in the film, examples of imagery, that aren't detailed in the plot section, but they're emphasized in the Themes section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your point, Erik; tangling with an editor, esp. one who is nowhere near as willing to share his experience with a user as you are, is a sticky affair. I feel I am right here, despite my inexperience with WP and the lack of credibility that implies. The Shantih is a part of the story being told, simply put. The thread of the children laughing and playing from immediately before the screen fades to black and continuing whilst the credits roll and concluding after the three words are on the screen says to me that the 'story is still occurring, put down the coat and sit back down, there's still more to be seen'.

The shantih is different from your examples of imagery in that none of those images are specifically stated, ie. this is my slightly futuristic weapon, or gee, aren't there a great number of pets here? Those are solidly thematic subject. Shantih is actually stated; that no character in the film actually states them - and states them in a plot-progressing way like a car chase, or a line of spoken dialogue. I am not arguing over its superior thematic value. I am saying that, as it is actually an even in the movie and can be tied to the movie's progression of plot, then it is in fact a part of that movie's plot. Making the notatin brief in plot is appropriate, as its appearance was brief as well. The thematic elements can be discussed at length, I think, but there isn't a lot of other stuff going on, research-wise, to develop it out.Arcayne 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I think both of you have valid points. Let's find out what kind of independent opinions we can get. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

okay.Arcayne 18:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They haven't responded to my inquiry on either my talk page or theirs. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

the shantih edit

Jasper's house with Kee and Miriam. At Jasper's, Miriam explains the rendezvous with the Human Project's ship Tomorrow is scheduled at a buoy offshore from the Bexhill refugee camp. Upon discovering Kee's pregnancy, Jasper tells her that her baby was "the miracle the world was waiting for", and recites the words, Shantih, shantih shantih. Jasper hatches a plan to smuggle them into the camp w

...the boat as the Tomorrow emerges from the thick fog, unsmiling people on her decks moving towards Kee and her child. As the screen begins to fade to black, the anachronistic and disembodied sounds of children laughing and playing are heard. At the very end of the film, the words "Shantih Shantih Shantih" briefly appears onscreen. As the words fade, so too the sounds of children.

Request for comment

WP:RFC. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, read WP:DR first. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for commenting yet again... but WP:DR suggests a third opinion for a dispute between two editors. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I know. I have tried the avoidance and disengaging and talking it out. There seems no resolution. It isn't that I don't respect the guy's other edits - I do. Fact is, were it not for his utter intransigence and name-calling, I would probably be learning from him just as I am from you.

this is how I view the issue, metaphorically. Let's compare the statements at the end of the movie to the Sun on a sunny day. The sun is high in the sky - an observation (as the sun is in fact there and part of the day). To comment on the heat or light or other radiation that it gives off is akin to thematics in that the sun's presence has an effect on the sunny day, in the same way that a plot issue can have an effect in the theme. Some things are simply theme, like the wind, or humidity or odors in the air affecting the perception of that sunny day. To deny the sun's existence when it is an observational fact is illogical to me. That an editor who claims to have seen the film multiple times seems keen on doing just that is unfathomable to me.Arcayne 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

I just finished politely requesting that you avoid my talk page and work on keeping the discussion on the article talk page, and right away, you leave me a comment on my talk page. This is the kind of trollish behavior I am talking about. I am willing to chalk it up as an innocent mistake on your part, but for now, please respect my wishes and leave my talk page alone. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

sigh...very well. I did try to resolve this conflict through talking with you about it. If you choose not to even try, then you only have yourself to blame for the results.

I don't have a personal conflict with you. I have chosen to resolve a conflict about article content on the article talk page. If you think you have a personal conflict with me, or believe that I have a personal conflict with you (even though I have just finished explaining to you that I don't) then I suppose you should talk to someone about it, preferably an administrator or a mediator. —Viriditas | Talk 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR reports

3RR reports from 4 days ago are indeed "ancient history" in Wikipedia terms. WP:AN/3RR is intended for current revert-wars, not ones from days ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

An appeal process for rejected 4 day old 3RR reports? No. You can always take any complaint to WP:AN, but I don't predict a very positive response if you do. Just a word to the wise. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR reports that aren't acted on are typically those that are seen as problematic for one reason or another, which is why they aren't acted on. Complaining about a 3RR days after the alleged violation is looked on poorly by admins, which is why I don't predict a positive response on WP:AN, but you're free to do what you wish. I'm not sure why you continually delete my comments from your Talk: page, but I assure you that if you do it again I won't bother responding in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussions are typically held on the talk pages of both editors having the conversation. I don't see what additional input you need at this point, but if you repeatedly solicit someone's input, then delete it once given, it's bound to be taken badly. I recommend against it in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncited info

If the information about a person is uncited and controversial then it should be removed right away. On the other hand if it is uncited and along the lines of "Nancy Reagan is a woman" then there would be little point in removing it. Take a look through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for some better ideas. If the information is uncited but fairly neutral then you could add a {{fact}} or {{cn}} tag next to the uncited bit. Give the other editors a few days to find the reference. As to seeing them quickly it's because I now seem to have 7,000 pages on my watchlist (plus my sockpuppet has about 6,000 slower editd pages). I do quite a bit of Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and when making manual edits most everything gets added to the watchlist. Because I can edit at work I am able to update my watchlist fairly often. By the way I do a lot of edits to pages releating to him who must not be named and he's creepy but for total creepiness you just can't beat the man. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Project

Got a film article in mind or anything yet? Doesn't have to be a film article, either, but at least that's what I profess in. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Both sound interesting, but I haven't made up my mind. Got pretty swamped with work today. Threats of bursting water mains here in Chicago kept us a bit more than busy in the subzero weather. :)Arcayne 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy one first

What you wrote "wreaking havoc upon the fabric of reality" and what I changed it to "wreaking havoc upon the fabric of reality,". Ohh, that makes me look really smart but it was just luck really.

The picture issue. I looked at the page and in general there dosn't seem to be too many but I did notice that several of them have no licence (license) information and will probably be deleted in a while. There is a bit more information at Wikipedia:Images but I think it really runs to editors choice. One problem is that a lot of pictures in a large page slows down the load time. It's not helped when people think that the thumbnail should be 300px or larger. I will reduce the size to "thumb" and let user preferences set the image size. We need to remember that there are still a lot of people who use dialup and we should have some thought for them. Here's an example of Montreal, before and after. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

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)

---

Reference Nuts-n-Bolts

The issue might be that you do not have a closing tag. With some coding, you have two fairly similar tags -- one at the beginning, one at the end. For example: <ref>http://www.cnn.com/</ref>. The <ref> tag initiates the use of the coding, and the </ref> tag ends the use of the coding for that instance. If you neglect the slash, it confuses the program that compiles the coding, because you'd essentially be trying to initiate the coding twice, without ending the first initiation. Is this helpful? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So, if I am to understand you correctly, the first reference I want to have as an endnote would be "<ref" open-ended, and the conclusion of the cited would have carrots on both ends of the "ref", so (substituting & for < or >) &ref& chicklets.com/yummy&ref&. this was the style I was using. I am not getting how the forward slash comes into play.Arcayne 22:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

(conversation removed to archive)

A Fine Line

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

Interesting and funny

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

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

Re:The Man in Black fled across the desert........to help with some references

I took a look at the reference and went ahead and corrected, and left an edit summary to show you what you forgot; also, there's the "diff" version that will illustrate it for you. I wouldn't mind getting those comics, but I have a lot on my plate now with school, work, and trying to read these two official making of books for Friday the 13th (for the Jason Voorhees article and the films).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, Freddie isn't going to be too happy when he sees you've reverted his removal of Kal flying, yet again..lol.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Freddie could talk about his proposed changes instead of getting all het up when concensus gets reached without him. I hope he posts something amusing on my talk page. Viri is annoying, but not amusing. :( Arcayne 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be cool. You can send it to ... As for Freddie, I told him that I agreed with the removal because it was kind trivia type information. I'm really indifferent to whether it's there or not. Originally, it was placed there to compromise with all those people that say he's flown, but then Freddie removed it and I really didn't want to get into an argument about it's placement. You should leave him a message telling him to address it on the talk page, no..second thought I'll leave the message. You two can give your reasons for cutting/keeping it and I'll lay my decision based on the best argument. Hopefully others will see the debate and cast an opinion as well. My apologies for just siding with its removal, but it was past 1 am where I am, and I wasn't going to continue an already exacerbating argument about Clark's powers that had just ended. In regards to Nancy, I'll look through the whole article and see what is wrong with the templates. I have an idea, but let me look to make sure.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked, other than it containing a lack of citations, I saw that 8 references where just in a "hidden link" form, and not in the footnotes form. Also, the <ref> form is a basic one that most reviewers will want updated. These templates will be what they want in the end, because you can add detailed information about the source, like publication date, access date, publisher, whether you got it from a website or the news. If you think you aren't comfortable working in those templates just let me know and I'll help, and I'm sure Erik would help as well. He's really good with determining if it's "news" or just "web". If you want to practice with them then you could get all the sources and work on the templates in your sandbox (just add that "reference" section from Nancy's page so that you can view what they look like).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that is an awesome little link! (Btw, that file, Dark Tower_01.pdf, should be winging its way to you now) I wasn't excluding Erik from the process, as he's already let me know he would help. He seemed pretty trundled with exams, though and I deeply sympathize, being an MBA student while participating in the cubicle rodeo. How did you spot the hidden link stuff? Simple exposure to it before, or are you one of those Save the Cheerleader, Save the World-types?Arcayne 13:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I was "Save the Speedster, Save the World."..lol. I would like to get Heroes when it comes to DVD. I got the email, and it works...thanks a bunch. The "hidden link" I'm talking about are ones that look like this, except they don't have "this" as the link, they have a number. If you look on the page there are 8 internet sources that are, in the least, not footnoted. It's not "bad", but it's not "neat" either, and that is what reviews will point out. They want editors to use the "{{cite web}}" type of templates.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in the comic. Care to send for pick-up by spambox1231 at yahoo dot com? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I hope you like it. I also have a copy of Lex Luthor: Man of Steel. I consider it to be one of the best Superman GNs written so far. Let me know if you are interested.Arcayne 02:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, I did, and I liked it as well. :)Arcayne 02:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nancy Reagan

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

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

Smallville Edits

Thanks for catching the vandalism. I have been warning him, and a look at his history says that someone is up a little past their bedtime. Maybe an editor needs to be brought in?Arcayne 09:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given him the final warning template, and he's since attempted to repost the information. I definitely think it's time to inform an admin. Locriani 10:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'd like to instruct you on how to deal with vandals. If you encounter a case of vandalism, the first step is to review the editor's talk page (if one exists) for any previous warnings issued by other editors. Make sure you check the talk page history as well; some vandals will blank their talk page. If there is no warning, then you can issue a {{uw-test1}} template on the editor's talk page. For the subject, have words that briefly address the situation. For example, I would put, "Your edit to Children of Men". Now, with the aforementioned template, you should issue it as {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. The reason for this is that "subst:" will generate the full coding on the talk page. If you just saved it as {{uw-test1}} instead, the actual text would be seen, but the underlying edit coding will just show {{uw-test1}}, which makes it clear that it's a template. Using "subst:" somewhat provides the illusion that it's not really a template being used. Now take a look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (might want to save the link on your user page); there is a list of different warnings to issue based on the situation at hand. If the vandal is persistent and/or has a back history of vandalism, then the warnings do not have to be issued level by level. To report a vandal, go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and follow the instructions there. Remember that vandals should only be reported when they have received a final warning saying that if they continue, they will be blocked, but commit another act of vandalism anyway. Any questions, let me know. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The Fountain

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

I'll be happy to do so tonight. Arcayne 18:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Abusive email

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

Image tags

Hi, hmm, what's your question, I will do my best. I've only been doing this since last summer. But, if I can help, I'll try. Best, Jim CApitol3 01:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. yes, pictures need licences, or fair use declaration. I remember a challenge of one picture there, I think of Mrs. reagan with Mrs. Thatcher. I think it's gone now. I don't know exact wiki policy on numbers of pictures. There a few there. I tend to lean towards more is more in images. the discussion page might be a good place to talk about this. Best, CApitol3 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Interlude:_Textboxes

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

nancy reagan edits

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

Arcayne 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fountain

Well, I hope you like it. The movie turned out to be a bit different than I first expected, so I guess I'd suggest to go in without expectations. What is GN, though? Hope this means you can take a look at the film article and offer any insights on the wording or the flow of information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

GN=Graphic Novel=comic book. And watching it preparatory to giving the article a look-see is exactly what I intended.:) Arcayne 13:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

And I'd like to check out the GN. You know how to get it to me. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The same Pitt and Blanchett that instead did Babel? Odd how that particular pairing would be used in a completely different film. I will send it along after I finish work.Arcayne 14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Have you had time to take a look at The Fountain? Also, a funny thing yesterday... I was driving to a Habitat for Humanity worksite, and I saw an Indian restaurant called Shanti. The thing is, I've eaten there before, but didn't make the connection until now. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the Shantih is everywhere. I was going to write the heads-up yesterday, but I headed up to my parents' place to help them with their piano, and Wisconsin was subsequently buried under a big bucket o' snow. I have not forgotten about it, and it is high up on my to-do list. Stay warm. How did Finals go?Arcayne 16:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Re: The Dark is Rising (film)

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

Take a look on the film article's talk page. Is the premise the same as the story, or are there any differences? I noticed the most recent citation doesn't say "immortal", so it might've been an assumption made by the previous citations. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the refernce where they are referred to as immortals...pretty glad that was corrected later on.The premise is pretty vague, but it seems to cover in broad strokes the story. It might be noted that this movie differs from the Potter series in that it has a darker tone and deals with a lot of Celtic myth and Arthurian legendArcayne 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Nancy Reagan edits

Thanks very much for your message. I'm fairly new here, and I don't know a lot about Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could help me out. I happen to know a lot about Ronald and Nancy Reagan, though, and I've met Mrs. Reagan a few times, but I don't know how to cite my edits. If you could help me out, that would be great. I'm looking forward to occasionally adding new things, but I guess the right thing to do is cite them. Once again, please get back to me. Thank you. Happyme22 .

One more thing: i noticed that you deleted everything that i wrote. i know it to be true, but how do i cite it? i think that the paragrapgh on the assassination atempt needs to go farther in depth than what is currently written, because it was a major event in Mrs. Reagan's life. I got all the info from Nancy Reagan's personal memoirs, My Turn. Again, I don't know how to cite websites or books, so please get back to me, and we can work something out. Thank You. Happyme22 .

Sorry it took a bit of time to get back to you after removing the data. If you visit your Talk page, you will see that i added a lot of info about how to get the most out of Wikipedia - using it, editing in it, etc. Maybe after you get through that stuff, you can do - -for starters - a Google search for the info you need a citation for. There is another editor on Wikipedia who is awesome at this stuff - he sets his Yahoo to search for news articles with certain search terms. I am sure you probably know a bit about that. I removed the infomation because it needs to have a verifiable, reliable source, and I have learned the hard, frustrating way that if you cannot cite it, you cannot - for the most part - include it. If you have questions about that stuff I sent you, I am here to help. :)Arcayne 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Arcayne. that helped me, and I'm looking forward to a fun time here at Wikipedia! Thanks, Happyme22 04:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

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

Nancy Reagan edits

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

Will do.Arcayne 05:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan edits

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

Ronald Reagan Freedom Award

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

Braveheart

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

Ok, go ahead and change it back --AW 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

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

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

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

Helen Mirren Edits

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

More on Helen Mirren edits

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

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

Helen Mirren Succesion Boxes

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

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

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

In regards to the MiB discussion

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

Answers

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

Helen Mirren picture

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

Braveheart editing...

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

Re: Spidey 3 image

It was discussed on the talk page a while back that when we put up an image of Venom that it would be one of a full body shot (or as close to that as possible) because we will need it for comparison purposes. This character has never been in a feature film, only comics and cartoons, and so it will probably be that we will compare the design of this Venom to the design of his counterparts. We can't do that with a half a head shot, even if it's clear quality. That image is being used for nothing more than eye candy. It's the same image that has been removed before, just of better quality.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They probably didn't see it, because I don't recognize their name as one that frequents that article (in the editing sense). Full body, like the concept image that was leaked of Venom months ago, an image that shows almost his entire body. Comparison to his other incarnations. We have a Venom for film, but there was one in TAS and the comics, and each had it's own look. In the production section, when we start breaking down into subsections, we'll probably have a section about special effects or designs or something, and there we'll talk about the filmmakers decision to alter his design one way or the other. Also, we have no need for that picture right now. Images (yes, in essence are eye candy) need to provide a fair use rationale for this encyclopedia, and just sticking a picture of Venom into an article willy nilly, because you know people are going to want to see a picture of him, is not providing that rationale. I'm telling you, if I didn't remove it either Erik, ThuranX, Ace or Wiki probably would have, and under the same reasoning. If you want to bring the discussion back up that's cool. It probably shouldn't have been archived because it would be an ongoing direction for new editors. Oh, and we have a fansite already on Smallville. We probably shouldn't even that that site, but Kryptonsite is more highly regarded than the others, and literally get first hand interviews with cast and crew. Other than that, Devoted is pretty much the same website as Kryptonsite. Unless they offer something else that Kryptonsite doesn't, that was my reasoning for removing them.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do) 

As you can see, There has been ample discussion of this issue before. All current images aren't Fair Use, and we've been waiting for a long time for a good, clear, fair use image. Please check the archives instead of asking me to give you a full repeat of the rationaleThuranX 03:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You brought it to my talk, I replied at yours. Talk pages are for replies. If you don't want replies, don't use talk pages. Finally ,as I said, go review the archives at the talk page. Thank you. ThuranX 03:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I suggest, however, that before provoking a new conversation on a talk page, check the archives. YOu my find that the existing rationale for consensus is clearly spelled out. Then you can either decide to agree with the consensus, or formulate a cogent reply touching on multiple points. Instead, by directly demanding of established regular editors that they drop everything and explain it separately to you, you immediately set them on edge, as you did to me. Thanks, and continue this on the talk. ThuranX 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Smallville links

Wiki is not a repository (#1). This should address the situation. If you disagree with the denotion of Kryptonsite as being "the major fansite" for Wikipedia's external links, just start a discussion on the talk page.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We used to have tons of fansites, and really 1 is a stretch. I just follow the "repository of links" policy, because "what wiki is not" is a policy and not a guideline. I've been to Devoted before, and unless they have changed their website around, they were generally a mockup of Kryptonsite, just reorganized and differnet background.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I only see one. There are two sites listed in the "fan site" section, and one is really a Wiki that is devoted to the show which I think Smallville has as well.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of what the image is showing, which is basically nothing at all, atleast nothing that helps support the article. The promotional poster with Eddie is for the marketing section, the Sandman/Spidey image is for the special effects, every image needs to serve a purpose greater than just "people want to see what this looks like". All the images do that, except I don't really know what the image of Topher alone does, I've personally wanted to change it to one of Topher being directed by Raimi, but that's just me. That particular image doesn't provide anything to the article. Maybe, something like that would be good for the plot, but we don't have a large enough plot to support any image. Also, the legality of said image is in question since NBC removed the 7 min clip at midnight on May 6. Obviously this isn't something that Sony wants swishing around the internet, which is why they gobbled up some really awesome, and most article benefiting pictures that were leaked earlier today. If you didn't see them I saved them on my computer (at work) just in case. There were several in that bunch that were full shots of Venom, not just a frame of him morphing, and of Topher in the Venom suit that would have been great to have.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all about image selection and placement, and generally that's ruled by a consensus. The consensus was that that particular scene doesn't provide enough notability to be used, and you can't really make out anything that benefits the article. Someone uploading the image is only uploading it because it's "VENOM!!" and not because of a disagreement to the consensus. If you check the contribs of the user that uploaded it, you'll that's all he was doing was trying to upload an image of Venom, because it appeared on TV. Also, being promotional for 24 hours doesn't mean it's fair use forever. What exactly is your reasoning behind keeping it.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  04:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: 300

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

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

Re:They'll never take our freedom!

Here is what I personally saw, but everyone's different and I believe second and third opinions are great resources for this kind of thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OED, reply

OED is the Oxford English Dictionary. Plot summaries as a whole do not technically require sources because they are concrete. Comments such as "All goes blank and zebras are heard neighing and then credits roll for five minutes until Ooga Booga Booga is seen scrolling across the screen" do not pertain to the plot. They do not further character development or the story as a whole. You can argue that it symbolizes something, but again, that is not plot. It is unrelated to the plot and does not belong in the plot section. PS: you forgot to sign your comment. María: (habla ~ cosas) 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You've also just violated 3RR. Be careful where you tread. María: (habla ~ cosas) 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The OED reference was for your lack of knowledge of the term and was not meant to insinuate that the OED has anything to do with wikipedia or WP:films guideline, both of which I'm aware of. You still fail to grasp what constitutes as plot, and for that there's nothing I can or wish to do. You may believe that because another editor erroneously agrees with you, the reference is in the right; however, you forget that two or more editors disagree. Therefore, there is no consensus. I believe it should be pulled, but I'm not going to be the one to do it. For now this should be discussed on the talk page if it is discussed at all. As for the 3RR, you did, in fact, violate it, but I doubt you will be reported. It was merely a warning to watch how you edit in the future. María: (habla ~ cosas) 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free

I think that you should feel free to remove the unsourced data from Anti-Iranian sentiments. It generally draws a lot of POV editing & dubious assertions, but now is as good a time as any to cut this out. You can expect my support in this effort. Don't give up! The Behnam 02:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Consider this [3]. I believe it may tie up some loose ends on some of the CNs you added. The Behnam 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

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

Just don't get mad for a second!

I saw you made an edit on my user page and fixed that grammar error and I wanted to thank you for that. --Arad 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Reply re Anti-Iranian sentiment

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

Re:Silly rabbit, fair use images are for kids

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

Children of Men

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

Children of Men/talk

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

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

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

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

Additional Resources

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

300 edits

Hey thanks. It's a pretty good movie, it should have a good article. I guess the plot summary is too long (you added that tag?) but it sure is harder to shorten rather than lengthen an article. Critical Info 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I didn't perceive any disrespect, plus, I didn't write the bulk of the article, I just made several changes. And added a pretty awesome picture if I do say so myself. Critical Info 09:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: 300

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait a second... (regarding Children of Men)

Maybe I totally misunderstood the talk page conversation, but didn't Viriditas want to have the childrens' laughter mentioned in the themes section of Children of Men, but you wanted it in the plot section? I was coming in with (the third opinion that we mention it in neither place, given the lack of sources that commented upon it, since that seemed like the neatest solution. This is the source of most of my confusion regarding your accusations of taking Viriditas's side; I was under the impression I was taking no side, offering the solution presented by the sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas thought it might be better off in the Themes section, but without citation, he knew it could not remain there. Knowing that to be the case, I wanted the mention of the laughter mentioned in the plot, as it seemed to be the denoumént of the film.

I am sorry about accusing you; it is clear from your talk you don't seem to be blindly accepting his state of affairs, which was my greatest concern - well, that and the whole WP:OWN thing (he has pretty much reverted anyone from making changes to the article that isn't following his instructions). You are now experiencing some of that heavy-duty back and forth that drove me and two other editors away for a time.

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

Understood. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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

What I mean is that is meatpuppetry equal to sockpuppetry?

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

Children of Men

Arcayne, I'm concerned about your edits to Children of Men, which seem to be causing some disruption. You said you were going to stay away from it. Did something happen to make you change your mind? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I kept an eye on the page, watchign Viriditas revert anyone who offered any new edits, and decided to reinstore a plot point her reverted, seeing a new potential concensus in the article. I had forgotten how vitriolic the guy can be. I've since withdrawn again.Arcayne 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran-related editing

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

Regarding reversions[4] made on March 12 2007 to 300 (film)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 31 hours. Alex Bakharev 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I have unblocked you. Indeed your reverts were not opposed by other editors and can be considered as one large multi-stage revert (in team with other users). Still, please take into account:

• You have violated the letter (if not the spirit) of WP:3RR. When undoing the work of others, please at least count reverts
• Removing of sourced info might be seen as vandalism
• Some of your comments upset some Iranian users and might contibute towards the bad faith to your edits.

Please in future be more careful with your edits Alex Bakharev 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Um, how long after removing the block should I be able to edit again? I still cannot edit, and am beign given a notice that I am still blocked...Arcayne 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are autoblocked still. You may need to request that the autoblock be removed from your IP. The Behnam 06:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have cleared the autoblock. Sorry, about it Alex Bakharev 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Plot

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

Vandal warnings

Typically it is up to the person who reverted a vandal's edit to leave a warning on their talk page. You rather just stepped on my toes and caused an edit conflict, though I know it was unintentional. It's merely annoying. María: (habla ~ cosas) 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the way you handle yourself on Wikipedia, yes, but that is neither here nor there. I double, and sometimes triple, check myself before doing anything that may affect another editor, even if it's just a revert + vandal warning. Perhaps I'm just paranoid, but I highly suggest the practice, if you think it could help you in the future. Everyone makes mistakes. I apologize for not assuming GF. María: (habla ~ cosas) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

300

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

Please be aware of this thread and editor: Talk:300_(film)#Any_info_re:_Snyder_and_Miller.27s_religion.3F. ThuranX 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was merely going to look for some online images that I could post a link to for comparison of this "color" theory. Here is one that I did find, but I don't know (having not read the comic) who he actually is, but he darn sure isn't black or white [5].  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably needs that.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. My suggestion is to rewrite the critical reaction in a prose manner. Describe:

• Those who felt the film was groundbreaking.
• Liked/disliked it as nonsensical.
• Dismissed it as racist.
• Liked/disliked acting.

WikiNew 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gorgo, planter of coins

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

Re:Temp Page

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

I am, in fact, playing God. :) Just taking a break from my break. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah!Arcayne 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I KNEW IT!! Anyway, I hope something out of all that helps Arc, I'm off to bed (it's almost midnight here). Oh...sorry...Goodnight lordly watcher.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Sleep well, East Coast Prince.

Well, i am sure you've been reading up on the big ol plan. Most of it is on Big's page. I am not sure a sandbox will do the trick, as some uncivil soul might simply delete it. A Temp Page might serve the needs better, but as always, you opinion is helpful.Arcayne 03:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong "warning"

I am not vandalizing anything. I just rearrange the subtitles of one article and add some more information. If you are not agreed with my information you cannot just label me a "vandal". Take back your warning.--Mani1 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also did nothing to the PageName as you said. You must have mistaken me with some other user.--Mani1 14:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(his edits showed differently)

Blind revert

Why did you remove all of my edits here, which were sourced and I had spent hours formulating? --Mardavich 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was reverted back to a point before it fell victim to rampant vandalism - which I will point out you did nothing to stop. If you feel the edits were removed incorrectly, I invite you to resubmit them. If any authentic, RS and NPOV additions are made, I promise to not remove them. If any such were removed in the reversion to a prior article version, you have my apologies, as it was not my intention to do so. As well, I believe I asked you to never contact me. I do not like you and do not - in the slightest - condone your vile and abusive behavior here in Wikipedia.Arcayne 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do feel that cited edits were removed incorrectly, but it's not my responsibility to correct your mistake, it is your responsibility not to make disruptive sweeping blind reverts of dozens of editors, instead of detecting and reverting the "rampant vandalism " you're speaking of. I urge you to revert yourself to restore all the cited edits made by me and others, and then go through the individual edits to remove the "rampant vandalism" you were supposedly after. --Mardavich 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What part of 'never contact me again' was unclear to you, Mardavich? You have no coin with me. I assume no good faith concerning you or your edits or motives. You are not a nice person, and I am being tame, as I am sure you will find a way to attribute this as some sort of attack on yourself. Go away.

And no, I will not revert my reinstatement of the previous article which would restore rampant POW-pushing and vandalism. I have offered you the opportunity to re-submit your edits. I am currently looking through the edits prior to the reinstatement of the prior version, and will resubmit those edits which represent NPOV, non-OR edits. Its rather tedious, but worth it to salvage good edits from bad.

Allow me to be crystal clear: do not contact me again. You have nothing to say that I want to hear. Life is too short to be wasting it dealing with lowdown dirty dogs such as yourself. I have no time whatsoever for you.Arcayne 15:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting and vandals

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

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

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

The 300 controversies

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the whole 'critic' section (including Persian controversy) or just the Persian controversy? If the latter I don't think it is even large enough (yet) to warrant a separate article. Also, some users may question the branching, or continue adding information to the main article anyway. While it definitely seems to be distracting the development of the rest of the article (based on the edit history), controversy tends to do that and we shouldn't necessarily move it because of this because those distracting editors will think that we are trying to suppress the controversy. While I obviously need some more specifics as to what you exactly mean, I think you should propose it on the talk page so that we can discuss this with the other editors too. Also, I couldn't figure out where the V for Vendetta subpage is. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the page and we can discuss the idea further on the talk page. Thanks. The Behnam 16:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think that if you explain that it is a division of efforts with a final goal of reintegration, then you should post it on the talk page. It just needs to be clear that this is a temporary solution to streamline the editing of two different aspects of the move (plot versus persian issues). Unless there is something in the WP documentation against this sort of thing, I think it sounds like a good idea to clarify the issues in separate places, so I recommend you post your proposal to the talk page. If it passes we can just include a link to the subarticle for that section until the final product is made. Reintegration should be the goal. Also, I still don't know what V for Vendetta page you are talking about; mind pointing it out? Thanks. The Behnam 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, VforV's is very well written and focused on significant reactions. I think we should aim for the same with this movie, and perhaps the separate "controversy development page" is the best way to do it. The Behnam 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted

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

I was waiting for you to make a comment that we're on good terms now before I could make a concluding comment. It's not necessary though, an admin has archived it already. Please let User:Bignole know that as well. Cheers :) --Mardavich 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Temp page

You can create a temp page in the same way that you create any page. I don't believe there are strong naming guidelines in place, as long as it relates directly to the article it correlates to. So you can simply write a link (or use 300 (film)/Temp or Talk:300 (film)/Temp), click on it, and then edit and save away. I'm guessing it's for 300? María: (habla ~ cosas) 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have little interest in contributing to the Controversies section, so I fail to see why I should create a temp page for it. Since you seem to be the one calling for such a page, why not create it yourself? It's a valid enough idea. María: (habla ~ cosas) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Talk:The Prestige (film)/Differences from novel for layout suggestions. WikiNew 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Arcane randomly deletes well sourced findings

Arcane just tried to delete my finding in the 300 article about Xerxes' Jewish wife. He just deleted it! He completely deleted it off of talk. It's as well sourced as you're going to get. IT'S IN THE BIBLE. Despite Miller and Snyder's portrayal of an androgynous homosexual king, Xerxes was married. I spit on you, you information censor. --Wavesswung 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold the spit and go back to the Discussion area, Wave. You post so fast, I hardly have time to respond before you got all het up. Please relax, buddy.Arcayne 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop it

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

Temp page

Hi. I appreciate the effort, but I think that you would be better served doing whatever cleanup you think the rest of the article requires, since you're worried about that, and leaving the protection of the criticism part to the many editors interested in that. It's a sprotected article anyway. Hornplease 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive had a little experience with things like this. With a two sentence summary, even if theres a subpage, people add information to the main page anyway. It doesnt solve the problem. Also, if it involves removal of material from the main page, its a little objectionable when people will be coming in droves to the webpage of the no1 movie in the country. Finally, as I said before, if you aren't interested in the controversy itself, ignore that part of the article and the discussion!

Note that an article on the controversy itself will not survive AfD, with a 'merge' vote likely, so that is out as an alternative. Subpages were deprecated as an alternative many years ago. Hornplease 00:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't Temp Pages different from regular article pages in that they aren't subject to AfD? As I said before, the Temp Page is a workspace - a place to knock out the controversy section without interruption. the way it is, we have two groups gridlocked, and very little is getting done, and taking a long time to not get done.

Redirecting contributors to the Temp Page is a lot easier than dealing with each and every edit and complaint that comes ringing into the Discussion Page. By providing a specific area for those edits to happen, it becomes a lot more orderly.Arcayne 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I say above, if those complaints and edits are about the parts that dont interest you, ignore them. Let those people who do think its interesting or important handle it. Hornplease 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

300

I have no problem with a temp page. I would suggest, though, that you make it known on the 300 talk page. No secrets. Otherwise, I think it's a good idea. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well. If you need any assistance, let me know. I myself am battling lots of vandals on the American Idol season 6 articles. It's a joy. Basically because it's not just 1 article. It's 14 (12 finalists, the season itself and semi-finalist Antonella Barba). --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 13:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Main article is here. You can go to the finalists and go to whichever ones you want to and watch them. Sanjaya Malakar and Antonella Barba are the main focal points, but all are getting hit...especially with fansite links and the like. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's all over the map, honestly. Some of it is "Sanjaya sucks!" and some of it is unsourced fancruft stuff. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of the stuff I'm talking about. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello

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

300

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

Talk-war?

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

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

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

Children of Men lead

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

your complaint on my talkpage

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

First, you fundamentally misunderstand what the point of Wikipedia is. This is awfully disappointing. "I ask you to try and accept that, for a majority of the English wiki, the concerns of the Iranian cultural brigade is not going to really matter. Not that we are insensitive to your concerns, but rather that they carry less weight here than they would in, say, the Iranian wiki (if there is such a thing)." This is not a wiki for English-speaking people. It is a wiki in English. If that is not clear to you, I suggest you read WP:BIAS and sit this one out.

Second, I urge you to re-read WP:RS. We have wasted over a week arguing about two reviews - two. At Rotten Tomatoes, there are gathered at least two dozen articles. There are reviews, and reviews. Some are from some chap with a website, and are listed at rottentomatoes. Others discuss solely the visual experience, and can be quoted as ssources for that. Some others - including the 'two' you mention, which presumably are slate and the New York Times, for heavens' sake - have discussed the historicity, the nature of the enemy, etc etc. Those have been almost uniformly negative. My hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe, made that point. So did, incredibly, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. Clearly among sources of a certain standing, these matters are of near-universal notability; regardless, indeed, of the politics o the source. Research, anyone?

Thirdly, Polar Express was quite as visually interesting as 300. But that's just my opinion. Hornplease

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

Your complaint on my talkpage (continued from archive)

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

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

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

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

---

Donorman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE:the 300

Your edit looks fine, I just wanted to include the info that they called the film "psychological warfare" - the previous quote of his comments had not included that.

--Wowaconia 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

300 updates

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

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

By the way, I don't know if you've read it, but Nehrams2020 posted on the talk page about nominating the article for GA status once it calms down a bit. [6] María: (habla ~ cosas) 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not worthy of a nomination yet, as well, but it's something to aim for; perhaps in a week or so when things stop being all crazy-like.

Also, I would love to see something from the GN on the article, just to make some of those "it's not accurate, it's not accurate!" folks shush up. I hate uploading any picture that isn't either a movie poster or a bookcover, for fear of violating copyright, but doing a quick Google image search, I came across this: [7] and then I drooled. I have no idea if any of it is fair use, though. I really, really want it to be.

Oh, and not just toys: dolls! Okay, action figures. But they're really dolls, you know. [8] María: (habla ~ cosas) 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awesome! I just love the comparison pic; it's cropped perfectly, so great job. Now I'm trying to search for Gorgo/Theron pics, but it's difficult when all that comes up is pics for Gorgo (film). Er. I'll comment if I find anything useful. María: (habla conmigo) 21:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the anti-300 site is already mentioned in the article, and others who are reverting it and its friends don't want the article to be overrun; the site that I recently reverted, however, (and I think Bignole did before me) is a fansite, actually; submitted fanart with an Ancient Persian theme, probably inspired by the movie, but come on, people. Speaking of the calm before the storm, I wish fansites were the only reverts we had to look forward to, heh. María: (habla conmigo) 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

3RR

FYI: 3RR applies in all contexts except for the removal of blatant vandalism—"good faith" edits, if they revert material more than 4 times in any sort of conflict, violate the 3RR. If they're simply to remove what is generally agreed to be vandalism, that's an exception. The Jade Knight 02:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how justified reverts may be, the 3RR is there to encourage people to discuss and try to see things eye-to-eye, rather than simply constantly reverting eachother (often both sides in a revert war feel that they are completely justified). It also helps ensure that consensus will be maintained even in the face of vocal opponents to the consensus. The Jade Knight 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR & Zionist thing

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

As far as the Zionist thing, that is the state media, which of course is can't exactly be called the thermometer of the Iranian people. But if you read the transcript itself, it is just another Iranian conspiracy theory speculation. (In case you didn't notice, conspiracy theories are fairly common with Iranians). I believe it was 'commentary' by the IRINN, and hence speculation, probably the opinion of one or a few commentators. Anyway, I addressed this earlier. I felt that Mercenary's initial inclusion [9] had a bit of an anti-Iranian tone to it (it was the strawman), so I adjusted the sentence to be more specific, accurate, and less vehement/POV-toned [10]. I hope that improves it. It is fairly easy to 'milk' a MEMRI transcript to portray something very negatively but I believe I have corrected this, and that my rewrite is more accurate. The threat always exists with MEMRI reports; for some reason they manage to translate things from the negative side of the Islamic world almost all of the time. But if you can make it even more accurate and neutral, please do.

Anyway, I think I've tied up all of the loose ends needed to start a wikibreak. I'm rather busy in the next few days, but I'll be back by 22nd if not earlier. Keep up the good work. The Behnam 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

TheBehnam based on that comment I see why you are doing what you are doing. You are obviously a biased party here and I really don't think it's appropriate for you to stalk me on me edits. Mehrshad123 10:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

300 Edits

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

300: "Production" sub-section

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

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

Outside opinion for 300

That may very well be the next step. If you'd like, I could put it up for Peer Review at wp:films; they're very responsive and detailed in their responses most of the time. María: (habla conmigo) 15:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This will be my first time, but the guidelines are listed here. Very cool stuff. I'm in the process of doing all of the necessary steps for 300 as I type this. María: (habla conmigo) 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image

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

No, I just think it's pointless. Not as iconic as pushing Persians over the cliff certainly. WikiNew 16:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I was especially prouf of that and the GN-film comparison - they were my very first successfully-added images to WP. :D

I still think he image represents one of the more identifiable images from the film, along with the cliff thing and Xerxes. Arcayne 16:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Time quote

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

Wait, I think I understand. The previous text was

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

which I replaced with

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

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

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

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

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

FYI

I'm letting you know that I removed that "Zionist" bit. What some random and unknown commentator has claimed on an Iranian TV channel about the movie, in a political commentary, is neither relevant nor significant. If it had any real News value, the news articles reporting the controversy would have cited it. Until then, I believe we should keep it off the article. Cheers. --Mardavich 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I did bring it up in the discussion, you didn't reply there, instead you blindly reverted my edits. I am sensing bad faith again. If the quote was relevant, it'd have been cited in the news reports. --Mardavich 21:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not cited in news or by any news agency, it's insignificant trivia. --Mardavich 21:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Ugh, that's just messy with semantics. Think I'll stay away from that one. On an unrelated bit, are you watching the peer review? A user brought up a point about the comic/film comparison pic and how it may need to mention its source for better protection. Thought you may want to look into it. María: (habla conmigo) 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought, re: images for the marketing section: why not a still of the video game? It'll be less cheesy than the dolls, and more relevant than another still from one of the trailers. Using an external link listed at the VG article, I found this: [11]. The game looks horrible, but some of the images aren't half bad. María: (habla conmigo) 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know you were having some difficulties; tough luck, man. I'm glad to see everything's cool, though. Still haven't heard back from you about the images, so I was wondering if I should just bring it up on the talk page; I understand if you're indifferent. María: (habla conmigo) 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather chew my wrists through than be an admin; far too much pressure, and when you make a mistake, it's a mistake. Life is complicated enough when you work with demanding patrons all day like I do, ugh. Anyway, I agree that the fourth pic is the best. There's a fair use rationale for VGs in the drop down menu that says "Computer game or video game screenshot." Looking at a couple FA game articles, they all look similar to this one, with a simple explanation and such. Not sure what you mean by formula, though? María: (habla conmigo) 02:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Well, looking at the MOS, I didn't see any specific rules for the number of images in one article. I also didn't see anything at WP:films. Film FA seem to vary, however; Boondock Saints only has two aside from the infobox image, but The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) has nine. 300 has six so far, so I'd say we're safe in adding one or two more considering how important the look of the film is. Placement is key, and the lower half of the article is greatly lacking. María: (habla conmigo) 02:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

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

"May I ask why I have been blocked, seeing as no 3rr complaint was filed accusing me of such? All of my edits have been in good faith and reverting vandalism. I have looked over my edits,and while I have had three reverts, that does not violate 3RR. My other edits were preventing POV vandalism.

Original edit: [12]. Reverts: [13], [14], [15]. The edits you reverted do not constitute vandalism. --Coredesat 23:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the removals performed addressed the numbers of Iranian MPs who called for the film's banning. In all but the last revert, pov-pushing edits claimed that 4 out of 290 persons contrituted "several". Not even the dictionary does that. When I opted to be more specific and stating that "four MPs (out of 290)", so as to allow the reader to make up their own mind about what word best qualified, someone changed that to 'some', which is still considered by dicitonaried and most folk as more than 4/290ths. What I reverted were attempts to make the support for banning to appear grater than what it was.

If however, you are considering the reverts of the statements concerning zionism, I had been reinstating edits that blanked them repeatedly, despite the statements having reached concensus days before. the reason the POV-editors wanted the statements removed was rather succinctly put by one of the ones blanking the statements here; they felt that arguing the reliability of the statements and dismissing the reliability of all Iranian TV and Fox to boot (here) was the only way to maintain any valid defense of the Depiction of Persians section of the article. I personally don't think the statement's inclusion would have truly hurt that, but it would have balanced the Iranian-as-victim stance that had been adopted by the POV edits. Arcayne 23:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Core, but are you aware that the last "diff" you provided wasn't a revert but a rewording, based on the contents of the actual source itself? How can you classify wording a sentence to reflect the contents of its source as a revert, just because someone wrote it in a manner that was inaccurate?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The fourth diff wasn't a revert. Unblocked with apologies. --Coredesat 00:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after re-reviewing WP:3RR, it doesn't have to be the same thing - all reverts in a 24-hour period are counted. I won't reblock you, but you are advised to avoid edit warring in the future. --Coredesat 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

---

Profile

I love the new profile, it's pretty nice. Now I'm jealous.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - All "liquor" believed owed, but in actuality none at all because I don't keep score, should be turned to Dr.Pepper, as I can't stand alcohol. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Buch's profile is insane. It should be a FA user page. Unadulterated cocain? I can see, you being a writer and all. Then again, I think opium was the fav. of most writers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but remember, most of the famous ones didn't get that way till after their death.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's always good. Just beware of rabid animals, check for diabetes, and make sure you don't develop alcoholism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that, Poe being an editor. Coming back time and time again, violating Wiki rules and editing his own page. Probably adding things to the articles on adaptations of his stories :"my book was better".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Finally saw 300, just got back matter of fact. It was pretty good; kind of like watching a documentary on the history channel, minus the authenticity part. I did see where Persians had their issues, but I saw things in the beginning that Greeks could hold offense to, but no one seems to be saying too much about them (though for NPOV it would be good to have something in those sections).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The infanticide is probably one the clearest. What culture wants to be reminded, or accussed of tossing babies off a cliff in search of that "perfect" one? Plus, Leonidas kills the messenger because he doesn't care of his choice of words, but was just finished preaching to his son about respect. That's rather barbaric, don't like the news so kill the messenger. I probably would have done the same, but still, not the image of civility and posh that Iranians are claiming wasn't giving to their people in the film. Also, all that outcry about blacks and bad, but did you notice that the "guards" that accompanied the first messenger were white? The hunchback traitor, Ephialtes, was technically white also. Both Ephialtes, and Theron, were bought out, what does that say about the "whites"? Maybe that they were easily swayed by money, they have no integrity? Who knows, but no one seems to be bringing these points up to keep a NPOV.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have to read through the "outcry" sections, but I can be almost certain, based on the discussions beforehand, that there is nothing in there from the Greek community. Even if there is only 1 source of angst against the film, from the Greeks, to be NPOV it should be there. Also, I'm sure there is probably some Greek interpretations of the depictions of Persians which would be nice. But again, I haven't read it yet. Since I've finally seen the film, I can go through the whole page and bring any concerns to light on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a badass snyopsis. I don't see why anyone would object to that one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me we have a new MOS for WikiProject Films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't have one. It's one thing to embellish, but it's another to try and convince people of faux credentials in some lame excuse to win arguments. From what I've read, he tried to flash his "cred" during arguments to get people to stop. I don't care if he's right or wrong in those instances, it's just uncouth. I've been around people that, when confronted with opposition, can only throw the "well I'm a ......" to try and win the argument. Other than that, I wouldn't care if he got to keep his job, or if he was still an editor. Even hearing some of the bad things, I also heard he was a good editor and administrator. I think I may have come in contact with him once, but it may have been more in passing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, not every pensil. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well true, Mister 'pensil' lol Arcayne 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Guide me!

Dear sir, I didn't know why my addition didn,t updated in 300 movie External links. So I tried many times and I didn't mean Vandalism as you said. It was just trial. I think adding a link wasn't damaging the hard work of others, is it? so anyway I'll stop this way of editing. But I just wanna know, how will be my edition accepted? I though I did as its written in tutorial, maybe I was wrong! So as a friend you'd better guide me, cuz I'm ready mixed up!--Lord kavi 18:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lord Kavi, tell me what difficulty you are running into, and if I don't know the answer, I promise I will try to find someone who does.:) Arcayne 18:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont know how should a external link be, for its acceptance, or How should a website be to proper a Wiki link?--Lord kavi 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, don't be frustrated by this, I learned how to do that only 2 or 3 months ago, so the learning curve is easy. Here's a way to do it:

1. First, open another browser page (keeping this one open in the bacground) and go to your Wikipedia talk page. Click the tab at the top where it says "Edit this page".
2. Now, go back to the page where these instructions are, and highlight the address bar (where it says http..., etc). Copy that link.
3. Afterwards. click on your Talk Page (below the rest of the text already there, like you were going to type something new), and type: "This is where I learned how to link externally".
4. Hit the return key, taking you to a new line and PASTE the copied link from my page. You should now have a full, prety long web-address there.
5. Highlight the whole link (make sure you get it all, from first letter to last), and then move your cursor over the tool button icons at the top of the editing window. These are your most commonly used tools in Wikipedia (after your brain, of course). if you move your cursor over them slowly, their names will pop up.
6. With the written link still highlighted, click the tool button that has the earth in it (external link). This will put two brackets '[' on either side of the highlighted link.

You have just made an external link, or hyperlink! When you click it, you will note that it automatically takes you to this page.

• Sometimes, you might want to make a word the external link to a page, like here. All I have done there, if you look at the link through the "edit this page" window, all I've done is enter the link, put a space and then the word (or number or multiple words) I wish to associate with the link.
• Note that internal links are different in that they point to pages within Wikipedia, like WP:IMAGE, or WP:BOOT. By going to the latter of those two links you can learn more about getting all fancy with your links.

I hope that helps. :) -Arcayne 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dude, it was useful, however I knew it to some extent! Thanks!--Lord kavi 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Xerxes

Absolutely -- that particular string of footnotes isn't mine. If I'm remembering correctly it was added today by NikoSilver, and presumably because of the previous controversy regarding the fictional Xerxes's sexuality. But that seems to have died down, so one or two ought to suffice! --Javits2000 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, have done.--Javits2000 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shya - that seemed to be all about WP:POINT...Arcayne 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note

I noticed something. While you probably have realized this since you posted on Mardavich's page, MEMRI is not the Iranian government. The IRINN is an Iranian state channel. The Behnam 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This I knew. I will head on over to Mardavich's page and correct my error. Arcayne 18:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

300 (film)

Hello, I actually didn't protect the article; I just changed the notice to make it less visible. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User page

Hey, have just seen your new user page; nice look. Seems to have a few issues with HTML, though, including the extra closing "gallery" tag (mid right) and the userbox alignment. HTML is such a bitch. María: (habla conmigo) 13:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can fix what I stated above; I'm efficient in HTML, but too lazy to use it most of the time, heh. And here's a helpful tutorial on learning HTML color codes [16]. Most of it is just sheer memorization. María: (habla conmigo) 13:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've fixed the code for the userboxes and the signpost; HTML and Wiki don't mix well, which was the problem with getting things aligned. I just used the Help:Table page for a quick help. Also left a note for you in the code in case you want to add more userboxes. I've being doing HTML off and on for ten years now, but it is fun once you get the hang of it. Kind of like learning a different language; use it or you lose it. María: (habla conmigo) 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

300 again

Hullo -- now that we're getting down to the fine points, a quick query: you've added in "plot" the phrase "(whose bloodline would continue absent them)" to describe selection of the 300. I think I understand, but it's a bit confusing -- would "who already have children" be better? Best, --Javits2000 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dimitris is just informal or a nickname for Dimitrios (or Demetrios). The other edit I made was a matter of NPOV. It is almost implied that the makers of the film and the comic had intentionally wanted to be racist against the Persians, which is not at all the case. Miskin 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm quite on a wikibreak and I don't want to be dragged in. But thanks for being cooperative and civilised, both rare qualities nowadays. Miskin 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart

Sure, no problem -- I'll probably want to watch it again, so it may take me a bit of time to get around to it. But as you may have noticed I claim Scotch Scots heritage, so it'll be more a pleasure than a chore. --Javits2000 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, next you'll be telling me "kraut" is just a cabbage! --Javits2000 08:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

300 & the 300 info

No, problem. I totally understand. I am not very experienced with this yet; I tried to read the archives and actually left a comment after you. Thanks for the encouragements. --siavash 04:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

While Rc patrolling, I came across this user page. It has five final warnings of you in a row. That seems a bit excessive? Why don't you just report the ip at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sander123 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC). I think you mean, "by me", and not "of me". I am the one who reported them for their repeated vandalism, noting each new instance I came across Arcayne 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Martian Manhunter

The Rei alternate name wasn't actually vandalism. There was one small appearance where he did use that as an alterego. (albeit only in name and vaguely in appearance)--Marhawkman 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's Hino Rei from JLA: Justice For All.Grant Morrison and Howard Porter. Brian Boru is awesome 01:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

[17]

You can do it that way. It is simplier if people can see exactly how you plan to use them. The explainations are already up for anyone that wants to see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, you got off worse. At least I was just gay. WikiNew 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Initiate:Largetown

I figured it was just a typo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dilios

Go for it! --Javits2000 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It can probably stay as it is in "Production," but we could use it again under "Historical Accuracy" after the current quote -- for example the part about "a guy who knows how not to wreck a good story with truth" is illuminating. --Javits2000 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas....

I just saw your edit summary of your reasoning for having placed the "Trolling" template on Viriditas's talk page - you really shouldn't have done that. However, I also saw that you stated that he may have violated 3RR - did you report him in? Booksworm Talk to me! 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Books, it was a while ago, and the lad just rubs me the wrong way. It hink its notable that in almost 6 months, I've only met one editor with whom I cannot find anything nice to say about. I did repoirt his 3RR, but the Noticeboard was apparently busy, and didn't get to it until it after it was archived. He knows he did it, and that I caught him doing it. I've since moved on, and I think the article is less than it could be. It's supposed to be fun to work in WP, and that cat just sucks all the enjoyment right out of it. After all, I don't go calling people meat-puppets unless I can prove it. Speaking of which, has Sarah written to you since you decided not to report Viriditas? I would lay odds she hasn't.

On a side note, your page is looking pretty nice. Take a look at mine, which I've redone recently. Arcayne 21:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

---

300 historical partisanship and authenticity

First of all this does _not_ fall under historical fantasy. If you think it does, then you need to come up with an official source/description, it is as simple as that. Secondly, I find it ridiculous that this other guy is trying to hide that historian's nationality. No matter how credible he is, he is partisan, and it has to be mentioned. I'll revert back, those are straight-forward concepts. Miskin 04:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So Americans aren't allowed to comment on American culture objectively?71.170.48.116 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to force an unsourced POV over another unsourced POV, all I'm saying is that all unsourced POV should be removed. I don't think that these elements that you mentioned define historical fantasy. Your reasoning can be easily refuted by having a look at Alexander (film). It uses the same kind of narrative, fictional dialogs and events, but it has never been regarded as historical fantasy or anything like that. Both historical accuracy and the fictional depiction of the Persians have their corresponding sections, so I really don't see any room for POV-pushing in the lead. This article is being clearly POV-pushed and I find it annoying, an Iranian editor has been reverting my NPOV edits for no reason. Also the comment of the Iranian scholar is not a neutral point of view. He accuses Snyder for things that he took from Frank Miller, for things that were attested in Herodotus. I don't want to make OR by answering a scholar's POV, although he's clearly biased, so I prefer to mention his background. Herotodus writes about a Persian "army of slaves", "lead into battle with whips", this was not made up by Frank Miller nor Snyder as that scholar implies. He also states that Greek democracy applied only to a city's citizens, a small fraction of a city's total inhabitants, implying that it was unfair. Of course it is unfair for modern standards, but for 500BC standards the very existence of democracy was the more advanced political invention ever made. The figures provided are only misleading to someone who isn't familiar enough with the topic. Therefore it has at least to be mentioned that he's a partisan, in the same way it is done for the Greek journalists and the Iranian government. I added fact tags for the edits in question, if nobody finds a source I'll remove them. Miskin 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You introduced a number of very interesting points, and I am hoping that I can address each of them to your satisfaction, Miskin. If you will recall, I have been fairly intolerant of the POV-pushing and politicization of this article, and I consider myself rather vigilant in smiting it wherever and whenever I see it. While idisagree with the Daryaee statements, I think he is addressing them from a point of view of his occupational specialty, and not of his ethnic background. I think that if you disagree with his statements, it is not OR to use the source material of Herodotus to dispute them. As the Daryaee statements are verified and RS, they are open to dispute as to their authenticity. That Herodotus was himself quite biased on the part of the Spartans is clear (being part of the Classics doesn't remove ancient authors from charges of bias, and Simonides, Aecshylus and Herodotus were all terribly biased).

As Daryaee is addressing history, it is clearly in our best interest to refute it historically, To address the matter by inserting their ethnic origin inferring their partisanship is the very picture of POV, to my reckoning. The mentioning of Greek ethncicity is to state that the reviewer was reviewing for a Greek newspaper. I don't really think it belongs (as the sentence can be re-worked to simply denote that they were writing for a Greek newspaper). That said, a representative for the Iranian government needs to be mentioned as such, as the source of the noteworthiness is the fac that a member of a government is commenting.

As for the arguments of historical fantasy, I truly understand your points there, and must confess that I was a little surprised at your suggestion that the application of the historical fantasy descriptor was in fact POV-pushing. The comparison between Alexander and 300 is not a valid one, personally. In the former movie, they dealt with all mamer of opponents, but I don't think that 12-foot-tall giants were amongst them. Neither were there any horror-faced Immortals (and I refer to the face under the masks). Xerxes is portrayed as a literal giant of a man (the tallest man on record was only 8'11, and that is withmodern nutrition). As far as I know, neither Rodrigo Santoro nor the actor portraying the misshapen warrior were nearly that tall.

These alterations do not represent a simple, point of view alteration to the events; they represent an intention to add fantasical elements into a historical narrative. That it is accomplished by Dilios is immaterial. There were no such elements utilized in Alexander. The usage of fantasy elements in a historical narrative fits the criteria of historical fantasy. It is arrived at from a point of reason, and not partisan sentiment. Frnakly, I am a little surprised at the accusation being leveled at myself. Arcayne 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As a notable professor I don't see any reason for the inclusion of his ethnicity. He specializes in the topic and so his ethnicity isn't important; his reaction is not noted not for his ethnicity but for his academic authority. It is telling that Miskin describes being Iranian as "partisan," as if Iranians are not capable of an objective approach to anything pertaining to Iran. Miskin's POV-derived addition of the ethnicity is completely inappropriate and will be kept out of the article. The Behnam 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to accuse you for pov-pushing Arcayne, I'm just against your support of unsourced information and personal conclusions. Why were my fact tags on the 'historical fantasy' claim removed? I haven't checked who did this but it is absurd. Removing those tags is like saying "hey I own this article, I don't care about sources". The film contains many fictional elements and events, that is undisputed, and they are all treated in detail. However, it contains many historical elements and events, faithful to the primary sources. I think we should leave it at that. Making personal interpretations and using terminology such as "pseudo-historical" or "historical fantasy" falls under original research. As for the Iranian scholar, I don't know how credible he may be, but he is a partisan nonetheless. Herodotus was biased and fallible, and I never supported the opposite. However, accusing Frank Miller and Snyder for using the information provided by Herodotus is simply out of order. It just belongs to a different article. Behnam, this is not what I meant, I don't think it's insulting to call a partisan view 'partisan'. A Greek scholar would also be a partisan in this case. Even the most credible sources can have biased POV as long as they are partisans. An relevant example would be the claims of encyclopaedia Irannica regarding the "peaceful unification between Persians and Medes". This is something completely refuted by western scholarship, which regards the event as a conquest. Please don't remove the fact tags. Miskin 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate you intention to not accuse me of POV-pushing. I am the one who removed the fact tags, because the Lead statements of an article are supposed to summarize - just like in a paper encyclopedic entry or journalism article - the body of the article below it. I care very much about sourced information, and don't think I 'own' the article at all, That said, I am pretty interested in seeing it make it to FA status and consider working with other people interested in the same thing to be a positive experience (I have worked on articles wherein someone would obstinately argue points for days and days, unwilling to work with others, and it almost killed my interest to contribute). I am not inferring that you don't want that as well, but I am suggesting that you are going about this the wrong way. While I am not the contributor who first added the descriptor of historical fantasy, I support it, because it is correct. There are citations within the article, specifically here that discusses the fantasy elements of the film. I myself added the term pseudo-historical because, as it is only partly historical, meets the definition of the word. If you are objecting to the usage of this word, I will happily find another.

I agree (from my limited exposure) that Herodotus was biased towards the Greek civilization, and that slapping Miller and Snyder around for bias is unfair. But there are other ways to refute Daryaee's obvious lack of comic book knowledge. As well, I think that to call Daryaee a partisan is insulting, Miskin; the inherent implication being that they cannot present their subject objectively because of their own bias on the subject. Daryaee's books are used as college texts, so the man's scholarship as far as I am concerned is above reproach. Do I think he's wrong about his assertions about 300. Yes. But attempting to identify someone primarily by their ethnicity in an attempt to discredit or marginalize their informed opinion is just wrong on so many levels that I need a calculator to count them.

I suggested before that you might better spend your time seeking out informed scholars to contravert what Daryaee says, I will suggest it again. It shouldn't be too hard, as History professors love the sounds of their own voice, and get little enough opportunity to speak on such matters outside the classroom.

-Arcayne 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I'd like to point out that Behnam has been pov-pushing about this in several other articles[18], how on earth can a rational person deny that the event has gave birth to many cultural references? I watched the movie for the first time last night and I have been editing articles related to Sparta, Persia and the Greco-Persian wars for over two years. I've never seen you there before Behnam. You saw a film that you didn't like and suddenly decided to insert your pov in all related articles, I find this very unorthodox, and you're not the only one to be doing this. Ever since the movie came out new editors came and assumed WP:OWN over articles they had never cared about before. I also agree that this movie is degrading the ancient Persian civilisation, and by consequence it may annoy all modern nations which claim its heritage (such as Iran). However, I don't think that introducing unsourced POV and making disruptive edits is a solution. Also I find the behaviour of the pro-Persian side to be at the extremes. Films like Braveheart and the Patriot were like a million times more offensive to England than 300 was to Persia. After all Persia doesn't even exist anymore and England does, yet no pro-English partisan ever made such a fuss out of it. Criticism on this movie is becoming like the Mohammed caricature issue, trying to put a ban on the freedom of speech and promoting anti-western feelings (my POV). Miskin 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read the edit diff, and personally I agree with it - Benham removed unsourced, POV info. However, this is all overshadowed by your very incorrect asserions about me, and I will (briefly) attempt to correct them.

"I have been editing articles related to Sparta, Persia and the Greco-Persian wars for over two years. I've never seen you there..."

This implies that you are some sort of professional editor of Wikipedia, and consider your viewpoint more important than others who have not contributed as much. This is a fallacy dismissed by numerous Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

"You saw a film that you didn't like and suddenly decided to insert your pov in all related articles"

This is entirely incorrect. I actually liked the film's action stuff. While I thought the entire thing rather shallow and testosterone-infused, I thought it was a good semi-historical romp. As well, you level the accusation of OWN at me, which I find particularly offensive. I spent the better part of three months dealing with an editor (almost said something clearly uncivil) who had some serious OWN issues with an article, so I know that particular policy backwards and forwards and in Braille. I want the have the personal accomplishment of having an article I work on make it to FA status. Note that I clearly said work on, instead of "an article I made".

I can understand that working on an article where your opinion doesn't fit the wider concensus can be frustrating, but I think it is unfair to suggest that we are trying to lock you out of the article. I have already made some changes that you noted that I felt were improvements to the article. That is my sole goal here. I am not here for the Iranians, nor am I here for the Spartans or the Americans. I am not blind to the wider world beyond the movie's parameters, but I am not going to allow what is essentially partisan noise from any side to interfer with the steady improvement of the article. has this meant I've dealt with the various colorful characters that sometimes pop up in WP? Sure. That's part of the price we pay for an inclusive community. There are quite a few more stupid people than smart people on the planet, and that's just a fact. I don't consider myself one the side of the smart (or you to be stupid), but I do know that I make an effort to work with others, the level of which might be a method of transition from one state to another.

Your edits have been a little unreasoning, Miskin, in that you have been asked (I even provided you sections in Talk to voice your concerns) to discuss your opinions before acting on them. Every article works off of a concensus of editorial agreement and opinion. That you seem to want to circumvent that process gives the appearance of POV-pushing in and of itself. When you use tags to express your opinion rahter than discussing your concerns, that's disruptive. When you make the same edits over and over again, that is the very definition of edit-warring. this won't end well if it continues.

As I look over your talk page and look at the various RfC complaints you have either filed or threatened to file, the same issues that tend to bother you keep coming up time and again. I would like to suggest that you avoid these sorts of issues that tend to upset you. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, Miskin. You aren't getting paid for this, so why do something that doesn't bring you any joy or payment? Perhaps you would find some more relaxing fulfillment in working on articles where you don't see thoise annoying OWN or POV-pushing issues for a while, and charge up your 'happiness battery', as my nephew calls it.

I do care about your well-being as an editor,and I certainly feel that you have a lot to offer as an editor. In this situation, however, I think you are making some significant mistakes that will affect how others work with you in the future. Please take care. Arcayne 22:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne I know this is confusing, being in your Talk page and all, but you weren't supposed to reply. Everything I said was referring to Behnam and his activity in several articles. He was the one supposed to reply. I never questioned your good will on the subject, maybe only your judgement. I'm sorry but I can't participate any further right now, I need to remain faithful to my wikibreak. I'll get back to you as soon as I'm back to editing. Miskin 14:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that your post is just a blatant violation of AGF that assumes Iranians cannot be objective about articles related to Iran. As a matter of fact, I've never seen the movie, and I became involved in editing the article primarily to moderate the coverage of Persian criticism. And as far as your talk about your two years of experience, I have to agree with Arcayne that you don't seem to be in the spirit of WP assuming that you are a better editor because you have been here longer. The arrogance is not appreciated. Your example of my "POV-pushing" is completely bogus. I am simply removing an uncited statement that is POV anyway. I get the feeling that an anti-Iranian bias is clouding your judgment on this issue and recommend that you avoid the topic until you can approach it with a cool head in a manner that does not disrespect other editors. You really owe me an apology, though that may be asking too much. The Behnam 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To Behnam: I'm sorry if what I said insulted you but I've been having difficulties assuming good faith lately. I didn't imply myself being a better editor, I was merely trying to point out that my participation on Greek and Roman related articles is not the result of a recent film. Maybe that's not the case with you either, and I may have wronged you, but I've dealt with too many similar cases lately and it's been difficult for me to assume good faith. Like I said, I watched the film recently and I do find that it demonises ancient Persians. However, I also acknowledge this film being an adaptation of an artistic work, which does by no means imply any offensive connotations to modern cultures. Films like Braveheart, The Patriot or Alexander, can be offensive to English and Greek crowds, but I don't see a reason to focalise their respective articles on POV. In the case of 300, I don't see a reason to start passing judgement on ancient Greek culture and make historical comparisons like the Iranian scholar does. He's motivated by the film but his comments are not directly related to it, and IMHO they belong to a different article. If you insist to keep them there you might as well mention his partisan status. I also find it wrong to coin names such as "historical fantasy" or "pseudo-historical account" unless they come with a source. For the time being they are clearly personal interpretations and unsourced POV. I also find it irrational to deny that Sparta and Thermopylae have had a great impact on cultural inspiration. The very existence of Sparta in popular culture verifies only a tiny portion of that influence. Do you find that the cultural influence mentioned is exaggerated? I think that this is POV is the result of a personal agenda, and I don't mean that offensively. Despite what you may think, I don't have any anti-Iranian agenda, I have an anti-bad-faith one. Miskin 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Fountain (film)

Did you ever get around to seeing this? Any thoughts, suggestions for the article? Wiki-newbie's interested in nominating it as a FAC, though I'm not sure if it's quite ready. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The film article's talk page would be fine. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't notice, I responded to you on the film article's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was talking about when Viriditas and I tussled a while ago. He's moved on, though, rest assured. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

my edit

hi, Thanks for ur comment. If you think that it needs wording clean up. plz. feel free to do it. however, it is almost a quote from an American professor(check the source). --behmod talk 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that my quote does not reflect the citation plz edit it instead of reverting it! I do not think my quote was wrong, i did not want to add repetitive things! Maybe u did not read the whole article!--behmod talk 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, regarding to ur suggestion. I have some articles (they are in the format of pdf). Actually, I do not have time these days, but if you are interested in this topic. I can email them to you. For the time being, you may like to look at this: http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/KavehFarrokh/300/index.htm--behmod talk 15:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Daryaee

Understood. He actually gives his source for claiming that the Persians paid their "employees" -- "cuneiform documents from Persepolis." I'm sure the proper interpretation of those is likewise open to question, but in general I'ld wager that he's got sources for all of his statements. It is in some sense a "biased" article, insofar as he's clearly advocating a particular position as vociferously as possible, but for that matter so is Hanson. I don't get the sense that either are straying over into fabrication. --Javits2000 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club (film)

Not sure if I ever talked to you about Fight Club, but I'm a pretty big fan of the film. I've had a subpage project to redo the entire article in terms of production details and themes. Recently, I've begun importing production information into the actual film article. However, I'm still stuck on how to tie all the themes together into a cohesive package. I've requested similar advice on Bignole's talk page as well. Do you happen to be a fan of the film at all, and if so, can you add your $0.02 at my subpage's talk page? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Farrokh alternative to Daryaee

To be brief, not everything about Farrokh's article is sound. He makes a lot of assumptions about Achaemenian religion and Zoroastrian practice of tolerance that isn't at all certain and in some cases contradicted by actual information. It seems to be usual nationalist platter; Cyrus was sooo great, he made the "first human rights charter", he had to be Zoroastrian, etc.

Anyway, as far as the actual 300 criticism goes, the military section is the bulk of it and appears to be good work. For example, his discussion of sword size is on the dot, and fortunately he provides a real image to back it up. He also stays away from glorifying Iran's military by acknowledging its weaknesses, adding authority to the section. Another useful part about the military coverage is that he discusses inaccuracies of the Greek portrayal as well. It should also be noted that he doesn't appear to contradict Herodotus on these matters, so that is a plus of Daryaee. Overall, the military and army size section is good.

As far as 'race' portrayal goes he is right on one thing: obviously real Persians weren't African. But his claims about Hollywood weren't reliable, and bordered on yet another conspiracy theory. He speculates, cites unnamed witnesses and personal anecdotes, etc. We shouldn't use stuff from that section.

The "note" on ancient Iranian women is also unreliable. He falls into the revisionist pattern of exaggerating the role of women in ancient Iran. Ignoring the fact that women were indeed part of harems and that the Anahita he mentions had cult prostitutes, he goes on to advance the whole Iranian military women thing based on minor references. I've seen this exaggeration of women's role a lot in nationalist-type works on the internet (including other Farrokh works) and it is generally rubbish. I suspect that this revisionism may be a symptom of the current state of women in Iran, but I won't go on about that. Anyway, IMO that section isn't reliable, and for a final example, compare the illustration Farrokh included [19] to the real thing [20]. What happened to the woman "officer"?

In sum, I believe that only the Greek and Achaemenid military discussion is worth citing for the article. I'll keep looking over it and tell you if I have something more to add on the matter. Please tell me what you think. Thanks. The Behnam 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Further on this: 1) he consistently draws on Sassanian evidence & late antique authors, to what end I'm not sure (both he and Daryaee are really Sassanologists, but at least Daryaee sticks to the point); 2) there are endless digressions that make it difficult to extract the meat of the argument (Plato in Egypt). I frankly don't have the slightest problem with the Daryaee article, and his main point (the critique of the "freedom vs. slavery" theme, which is what we've drawn on for the article) is also made by Farrokh, but not as effectively. If Farrokh's section on military garb is indeed solid -- I have no idea -- then we should probably use it, but ever so succinctly. I had a brief talk-page exchange this morning with an editor who had introduced some similar observations, which I deemed to be "OR," but it seems to be on folks' minds. And at least the Naqsh-i-Rustam (coloring book) is good for a laugh! --Javits2000 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I asked the two of you because I don't have a lot of experience with both fellers (aside from knowing one from universtity and having read the other at another university, which is to say not very much at all). I wanted to give Miskin every chance to present his point of view, so that if he went the RfC route with our editing of the article, we were covered nine ways from Sunday. As well, some of his observations were spot on, so the less reliable-appearing accusations deserved a look-see. Thanks for weighing in. I'm satisfied we've done our due diligence. Arcayne 23:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Hi Arcayne. I've been doing a lot of good to Ronald Reagan's article, and taking a lot of heat for it. As you witnessed, I got mean messages on my talk page! Thanks for being there, and I'll let you know if it turns really bad. Ronald Reagan's article, on the other hand, experiences large amount of vandalism every day! Is tehre any way to stop it, because it's really starting to interfere with how we edit. Thanks, Happyme22 06:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Arcayne, but how do I find an administrator? I'm going to take your advice, but I don't know where to find an administrator. -- Happyme22 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees

Hey, could you go over to Talk:Jason Voorhees and read the current discussion? It's just me at the moment but I have a guy who's reverting me and trying to say I'm vandalizing the page. It's about the inclusion of height/weight in the infobox for the character. I don't you don't have a lot of experience working with fictional character pages, but you do have plenty with reading guidelines and MOS and interpreting them correctly. This guy isn't even reading it, he's just reverting. I've cited Wiki's MOS (writing about fiction) for infoboxes as the reason I removed it. The funny part is, I'm the one that put the information there in the first place, but I did it with references. This guy is reverting me and doesn't even have the decency to put the references back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW...I reformated the List of Smallville episodes page, and then nominated it for "featured list". You should check that out too.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

There's not much we can do with the wp:films peer review, aside from wait. As for a secondary review, I'm not sure there is such a thing. The next step, I feel, would be a nomination for GA status. I think it would be a good idea to post the criteria on the talk page and have everyone go through that step by step, and then we can begin the nomination process. María: (habla conmigo) 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Vandalism is a disease, and page protection is the treatment. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, you sounded just like Sylvester Stallone as Cobra (film). I got the shivers - not from how manly it all was, but that I know enough about a Stallone film to quote parts of it. I weep for my childhood...Arcayne 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Worry not; John Rambo is on the way. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no God. Arcayne 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

300 ready for GA?

Well, I saw it. Had a bloody good time. Now if you don't mind me saying so, is the article ready for GA? I mean, the only issue is the stability criteria but I think we can easily combat vandals who don't count.

I do feel like rewriting the Plot though. I don't know why, but when I write plot summaries I like to sneak as much things as possible. The action is impeccable and I think a reader deserves to know when friggin elephants, rhinos or giants pop up. WikiNew 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: 300 edits

Let's continue this on the discussion page. I have started a section on the discussion page. Thanks. --Aminz 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranian v. Persian == mess

There are a lot of issues there that I can't really detail. There may be a WP article on the topic. But basically, your version seemed to suggest that there are no longer Persians, only Iranians. "Iranian" is used to refer to the wider or culture or specifically to nationals, but "Persian" is still an acceptable name for nationals, though it is probably more commonly used in the ethnic sense (Persian). Some of this is touched on in Iran naming dispute, Iranian, and elsewhere, if I am not mistaken. In any case, the normal lead seems better, and I don't think Aminz would be happy with yours anyway, so things should be alright where they are. He seems to advocate placing undue weight on the criticism. This may be motivated by his own POV on the film, but hopefully if we explain enough he'll stop trying so that the article can become stable. The Behnam 09:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, another reason those people may have preferred Persian is simply because the media was using the term "Iranian hostage crisis," so people heard Iranian, not Persian. The Behnam 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it is even more odd if you consider that "Iran" was made official under the first Pahlavi, Reza Shah. So really the people are either emphasizing the ethnic Persian part or they are just choosing the less prevalent alternate name 'Persia,' which Mohammad Pahlavi only accepted after scholars complained. Of course most people I have met in the US at least have the idea that Persia == Iran, but maybe it prevented immediate anger or something. I have seen articles discussing this topic online. I will link you to them if I ever come across them again. The Behnam 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr T pic

I agree with you, but it would look a bit odd. And where could it go in the First Lady section? Happyme22 04:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edit

Thanks for the acknowledgment! I do enjoy copy editing from time to time. As for the talk of the 300 article being ready as a Good Article, it does have a lot of good content, but I think could still use some fleshing out and more wordsmithing. --dinomite 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

For that one, that it's very likely the same editor, but blocks for the disruption have already taken place since the sockpuppet case was filed. Given that, further blocking would probably be counterproductive-hopefully, the message will have gotten through. Right now, I'm trying to clear out the stale cases so that we can get a quicker response time. If Rbaish or the IP continues to engage in disruptive behavior, though, please do report them. I'm not sure that's a sockpuppet violation per se. It's not against policy to edit under an account sometimes and anonymously sometimes, so long as doing so isn't abused to, for example, vote-stack or break the 3RR. Of course, disruption and harassment is another matter, and that's not allowed whether it's done under one account or a thousand, but generally better to take that to WP:ANI. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the IP user who never signs.

I find that patience and persistence are the only think that works. I keep a careful record of all rule violations. I don't know if there is much else that can be done. If you ever need any help let me know. futurebird 17:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User:71.112.7.212

My experience with the above-mentioned user isn't as egregious as some others, but this user continually takes down a good, open-use photograph of afro curls off the Afro page. A couple of editors have reverted, but I think relented since it wasn't worth the fight. I have now taken it up with them, only to have the User remove my comments from their talk page (their history shows this is a pattern). Then left me an unsigned comment on my page. On the Afro talk page I've posted links to outside references to afro curls. Like I said, it's not egregious, but instead of engaging editors about the photograph, the user keeps taking the photograph off. That's all. And I love Strange Days - no shame there as there would be with, say, Steel Magnolias. ha ha. Thanks for the compliment, too. I'm supposed to photograph John Lithgow at 3:00 today. --David Shankbone 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This IP user seems to do a lot of POV pushing on race-related issues. futurebird 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed. He doesn't seem to hide it, although I am not really sure which-race he is POV-pushing. People are convoluted and strange. Arcayne 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more or an arrogance "I know what an Afro is, you don't" issue. I'd be happy to give Lithgow your "howdy" - will he know who it is from? [email protected]. --David Shankbone 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the user has been blocked for 24 hours. Since you asked for advice, I'll offer it even if it may not be immediately needed:

• There is no limit to reverts if you're doing so because of WP:BLP. Just make sure you are; saying

per [[WP:BLP]]

in your edit summary can be helpful.

• Asking other users to help, as you did, is also a good idea. So is posting on the article talk page.
• For biographies, you can always ask for help at WP:BLP/N
• Finally, at some point you just have to trust the system, if it's just a content dispute and negative, unsourced info isn't involved (not the case here, but I mention it for the sake of completeness). If no other editors are willing to immediately help, then probably the point isn't that important (at least for the moment), and you can follow the (slower) process of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes (third opinion, RfC, etc.). Whatever you do, don't get into the mindset that you have to "defend" an article by violating WP:3RR; getting another block isn't really what you want. Wikipedia has been around for years with bad information in articles, and it will continue for years with bad information in articles. With WP:BLP, it's easier to remove the libelous stuff, and the rest (again) isn't worth throwing yourself in front of the machine for (in my opinion).

Hope that helps. I've put the two Reagan articles on my watchlist, for what that's worth. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up. After the nonsense with CoM, I picked up that neither it nor the editor-in-ownership was worth all that much of my time and energy. Karma is the toughest bitch of all, and what goes around always comes around. So, that said, not looking for any 3RR blocking. They are really busy on the ir noticeboard, ans sometimes miss the finer points. Best to avoid the accusation altogether.

I am sure that the editor who asked for my help in the Reagan articles will appreciate the overview. He's kinda new but seems to have a good heart. He will likely thank you himself at some point.

As always, I appreciate your advice. In service,Arcayne 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bleep

I'm moderately neato. How be you? Chickenmonkey 19:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Feelin' fine, Billy Ray." (bonus points if you know where that line is from. Hint: It came from the 80's) Arcayne 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Trading Places? That's literally the only movie I can think of that has a "billy ray" in it. I assume you were talking about a movie. If not, I have absolutely no idea. Chickenmonkey 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Spot on, Mister Clevers. Arcayne 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It sure does pay off to watch movies older than I am. Chickenmonkey 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is a charity gig. :P Arcayne 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitty Kelly Book and Nancy Reagan

Thanks Arcyne. You've really been a big help! Hey, I know your not a fan of the Reagans, but since you are an experienced editor, it would be great to get your comments on Ronald Reagan's peer review, if you have any extra time. Happyme22 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arcayne. I just checked out Nancy Reagan's page. I see that you added a section at the bottom: Books about NR. To tell you the truth (and from what I learned with Ronald Reagan's failed FAC), it's good to incorporate the things mentioned in little sections (like that) into the body of the article. I do not consider Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography to be a fair and reliable source, nor do I cansider any of Kelly's books "fair," (see: [21] and [22] and [23]), so I personally think it's a mistake to devote an entire paragraph to books on Nancy Reagan. I would rather devote maybe a line or two to Kelly's book, and give both sides of it, IF THAT. So, I'm going to delete the section. You can put it back if you want, but, again, I was told not to clump facts into little sections, rather put them in specific places of the article. I know you have been very nice to me, taught me A LOT, and I thank you for your help. Oh, and when you added that section, all of the references went away. Again, thanks Arcayne. All my Best, Happyme22 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it sounds alright, but I'm still a little uneasy. As you pointed out, her claims are mostlikley false, so, well, I guess we could give it a sentence, or two, but I'm going to check out that weasel words page link you gave me. You can put it in, or I will. Happyme22 02:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph in NR's later life section, and I cited it. Tell me what you think. Regards, Happyme22 03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I know a little bit. I'll look it up, though. With all due respect to you, I think my last line was better, though (the current one says 'likley' too much, and is a bit confusing). Oh well. I'll look it up, and let you know. Happyme22 04:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Children of Men

I just rented the DVD, which I'll be watching tonight with my housemates. I also checked the special features -- they're subtitled! I'm gonna have a field day with this. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, oh jeez. Actually, the DVD doesn't have audio commentary. The special features are separate from the film itself, though they're interlaced with scenes, from what I can tell. So it's not like the ending's gonna come up and the commentators will say, "Ah, yes, the most fundamental part of the film, the children's laughter and that reverent Shantih reference." Maybe it'll come up in one of the features. Guess we'll see, eh? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a most enjoyable piece of cinema. My expectations were thankfully exceeded, and I enjoyed the film a lot more based on what I had learned from the film's Wikipedia article. I haven't checked out the Special Features, though; I have exams coming up, so I'll probably rip the sucker and watch it after the flurry of exams pass me by. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart Cast

Hi I'm going to go ahead and cut down the list to about 6-9 of the most important cast members and put them in the infobox. There's really no need to list every major character and the actor who portrayed them as links are included to do that (IMDB). For a reference, take a look at the featured article Casablanca. Thanks Rtcpenguin 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to create a little table in the main section of the article but still try to limit it to around 10 names Rtcpenguin 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

John Lithgow

"Arcayne, your acting talent frightens me!"

Hey Arcayne - would you like to choose the photos for the Lithgow page? The lead info-box photo is pretty bad and needs to go. I typically put on 2/3 photos on a page. If you'd like to, choose the ones you think are the best and put them up: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:John_Lithgow. I put the one I like on my User page, but the ones I like never seem to be other people's favorites, so choose on your own volition; I'll agree with whatever you like best. --David Shankbone 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The only thing I don't like about 8 are the shadows on his face, but he would only pose for so long for me. I reverted you just to get rid of that bad--but well-intentioned--photo. It's totally your choice. So many of my photos don't look good on the shrunken resolution; I'm wondering if I reduced their size if they might look better...? It's a theory I've had. Anyway, the Lithgow photos and the page are yours to play with. Have fun! --David Shankbone 02:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I used to date the photos in captions, but as time wore on I felt they dated the pages, giving them a less "timeless" quality. You can date the caption if you want, but keep in mind that as time wears on, it can make the page itself look dated. I stopped doing it. --David Shankbone 05:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Kraków pogrom

Arcayne 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (for parties to express crux of the disagreement, and not respond to each other)

Talk: Kraków pogrom - I would like to get third opinion on revert war at Kraków pogrom. The core of the conflict is the deletion of some information that does not suit certain point of view and inserting of facts that can be considered irrelevant. The subject of this article deals with very sensitive issues - pogroms against Jews in post World War II Poland, so people with some academic background in Holocaust, nationalism, or general history studies, can contribute a lot to this discussion. Thanks in advance. M0RD00R 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(Momentarily forgetting what the article was called) but anyway I'm glad to another user in, conflicts between two well education users both making edits that are difficult to class as "unhelpful" are the more difficult kinds of conflict, I'd welcome your input. All I've done is attempted to get the two to talk to each other (one had reported the other to AIV before even trying to talk) and it seems to have worked so far. This debate over where this source-author got her PhD seems a little... too much? Tbh I can't myself see the severity of the question... SGGH 19:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I did not see many, any to be exact, articles about Historical events in Wiki, discussing the biographies of Historians that write about these events in such a detail - what was the Uni historian went to, what was historians Master Thesis. Also I can't understand why criticisms of her book are discussed in smallest details, while positives reviews are deletad as having nothing to do with this article. Also deletion of facts with summary (style) was strange as was a deletion of entire section. That's my point of view in short. M0RD00R 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No she didn't have an article on Wiki M0RD00R 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for taking your time. The question is how to properly intorduce one person in the Wikipedia article "Krakow Pogrom". The person is Anna Cichopek. She is Polish, she is a historian and probably with doctoral degree (I am not sure). One would intorduce her as: "Dr Anna Cichopek, a Polish historian." However, in the context of the article, calling her "DR" would be misleading. The article is based on her findings from her early years. She published her Master Thesis in the form of book in 2000, when she was a graduate student from the Jagiellonian University, Poland. She published her article in 2003 when she was a post-grad student at the Michigan University. Also calling her a Polish historian would be misleading. You will not find her name in the Polish database of scientists. I think that in the context of the article which is based on her early findings introducing her as "Anna Cichopek, a graduate student from the Jagiellonian Univeristy" is right. Best regards, Mynek 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I've posted two quick notes could you please state your opinion on my arguments. Thanks. M0RD00R 20:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being a neutral observer with me, a good lesson for me in dealing with such issues :) see you around soon! SGGH 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope you'll have patience to continue this discussion on weekend. It was quite an experiance I must say. Thanks. M0RD00R 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's part of the responsibility of 3rd Opinion volunteers, and I don't mind helping out. We're all in this together. :) Arcayne 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Possible but not necessarily so. The user's talk got protected for posting a nonsense unblock message, that's why you couldn't respond. I'd just tend to ignore it, and report any further vandalism to your userspace etc. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion

Oh, if you get the time, could you head over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (second nomination). I'm curious as to what more editors think. The page was nominated before, but no conclusion was drawn from the votes, they were too close.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you voted in a discussion that was already closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene. I've reverted you, but make sure you read the top of the AfD page. Usually if it's got the bluish tint to it, it's said and done. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

Would you care to read this new article and make sure that everything's in order from your perspective? The title of the article is Kupa Synagogue. Thanks. --Poeticbent  talk  06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[You wrote] The article looks nice, and the grammar is good. The sentences are a little long, and I would suggest that some of them be broken up a bit. If you are actually in this area, some pictures of the interior, or pictures of what it used to look like might add to the article. As well, if you can (find) historical references to it, that might add nicely to the article as well. Overall, it's pretty snazzy. I like it. :) Arcayne 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of pictures like you suggested including a few more facts from its history. Thanks for the feedback. --Poeticbent  talk  23:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility

While I realize that sometimes other users can be frustrating (try the admin thing sometime, no matter what way you go on something you fucked it up), please do be civil. If someone else is not being so, there's no use in both of you ending up in trouble. There's really no need to throw around "sock" and "troll"-with those terms, either it becomes obvious without using the word, or it can be offensive. Thanks! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Sorry I let myself get any further into it with him, when I should have been remembering to simply not feed him. I will be removing my response on my talk page as well. He will either hang himself or learn. Arcayne 06:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Farrokh discussion

Aminz wants to know where we ruled out Farrokh. On your talk page, right? The Behnam 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. The Behnam 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks. I was afraid that might have been a bit harsh, but I really don't get the sense he wants to contribute anything, just getting something off his chest. --Javits2000 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No kiddin'! It's extraordinary how much talk-page ink we've spilled over, what, 5% of the article? "Marketing" must feel left out. --Javits2000 08:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake :) [24]. Cheers, --Aminz 08:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arcayne, I am currently busy in real time for a few days. So, please feel free to archive discussions in which I was involved. I can restore a shorter version of them later. Cheers, --Aminz 05:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was very incivil to be honest. I am sorry to see that. We can ask an admin to watch over the conversations. --Aminz 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find the sections in which I, alone, was presenting one side of the discussion and archive them. Cheers, --Aminz 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How is my idea of *semi-archiving*. [25]. I think it addresses the points of all parties. --Aminz 06:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to correct me (no need to discuss them first:) ). I don't think my summaries are by any means accurate. Cheers, --Aminz 07:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re

No, it wasn't concluded, and there were other sections that weren't concluded as well but you prematurely archived. And I don't have to add anything to it, you have to allow exposure to other users for further discussion to achieve consensus. --Mardavich 21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not archive ongoing discussions, that's against wikipedia policy on archiving, consider this a warning. --Mardavich 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Look at this...

Look here at who is crying out for help...lol.--David Shankbone 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. To be honest, the User did exactly what I wanted them to do--suggested they do, as you can see from an edit summary in their history--which was to go look for help. Seripham did what I hoped he (or anyone else would do), which was to show this user that they are, effectively, alone on here until they improve their behavior. It was worth it; they are now ignored. Have a good night - I'm off to bed. --David Shankbone 06:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

another 300 post

Sorry for being late on this response. Regarding my change from Outcry in Iran to Depiction of Persians, I like to note that Dimitris Danikas, Dana Stevens and Steven Rea criticism in that section have nothing to do with the outcry in Iran and are in direct connection with the Depiction of the Persians. Also the Warner Bro response is regarding the depiction of the Persians in the movie. Klymen 07:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Absacker

Sorry, that was completely without merit or significance. It's German for "stirrup cup." --Javits2000 10:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

After I translated the page, it looked like the German wiki origins of last call. lol. Arcayne 19:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A Question

I was wondering, I wasn't watching Wikipedia's main page on Christmas or Halloween, so I don't even know if this is possible.I have an idea regarding April Fool's 2008, but I was wondering if I would gmail the convo about it. Arcayne 13:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail me. —David Levy 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Er. I don'tsee a link to yupr WikiMail. Being a bit new, forgive me for asking if there is some place that i should be looking for this? Arcayne 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you've provided and confirmed your e-mail address, you can follow the E-mail this user link (in the left-hand sidebar if you're using the default skin). The link that I just typed will work too. —David Levy 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalk

Hey, please don't accuse Agha Nader of 'stalking' because he looked at your user page. While his comments and general style have been a bit rude (I mean, what does your user page have to do with the situation?), it is very extreme to accuse him of stalking for that. Thanks. The Behnam 04:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will withdraw that particular accusation via strikethrough. Arcayne 06:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

300

Hi, I had corrected that word and added more references:[26]. I agree on discussion in the talk page instead of editorial war. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit- and revert-warring on 300 (film) (violating the three-revert rule) for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of violation WP:3RR: 19:40, April 1, 02:54, April 2, 06:28, April 2, 12:43, April 2. -- tariqabjotu 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A word of advice: Placing "Please discuss on the talk page before making any changes" comments within the article and enforcing that so-called "rule" is a pretty strong indication of WP:OWN. As you know, 3RR applies to all cases that are not vandalism. The comments should only serve as a recommendation for incoming editors. Please remember that it's not required to ensure perfection in the article 24/7; you can always revert edits once or twice a day. Just space out your reverts, but don't worry if there are periods of time where the content has yet to arrive at a consensus. Ah, if only Viri could see you now! ;) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the situation at Children of Men in which you came under fire for a possible 3RR violation. :-P Welcome back, Kotter! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arcayne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

third instance not a violation of 3RR

Decline reason:

You have three unique blocks for edit warring at 300 (film). You have not learned your lesson, it seems—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, that also indicates that Arcayne has contributed much to that article ;) Even though, I usually disagree with Arcayne on that article, but he/she is a reasonable and hardworking editor. I suggest the block would be revoked and instead Arcayne promises not to edit the article 300 until the 24 hours expires. --Aminz 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I realized that the block is almost over. --Aminz 11:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? I had not intended to violate 3RR, working only to ensure that POV-pushing didn't occur within the article. My attempts to keep the article itself stable from the POV debate after the admin - coincidentally the same one who blocked me - removed all protection from the article - is now seen as edit-warring. The third instance cited for the 3RR was my porting over from the article to Discussion remarks that were the source of contention and heavy edit-warring. It was added to Discussion here, with a full explanation of what had been done, and with the full cooperation of the author of those comments (as seen in the section immediately above this one and by my comments on his talk page here). As can be seen, the ensuing discussion cited has borne fruit on the subject....
I would argue that this revert was not in fact part of an edit-war, but an act to prevent precisely that, and that it accomplished that task. Had the author of the info ported over argued the point, I would have moved it back. Arcayne 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

Might I be unblocked now? The block duration has expired. Arcayne 13:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you might need to bypass your cache. -- tariqabjotu 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my first thought. I even cleared out the system cache of the machine and restarted. No dice: no page can be edited outside my own. The problem is from within WP. Since you were the one who blocked, could you be so kind as to find a way to now unblock me?Arcayne 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Try now; I removed an autoblock that seemed to have been triggered at 23:12, April 2. -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed to do the trick. Just so we're clear, while I did revert three times, I don't think the edit war comment was warranted or accurate.Arcayne 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart

Psst! Regarding the peer review of Braveheart, A-class is higher than GA-class. Check out Template:Grading scheme. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not loading too well for some reason. It's happened once in a while for me; maybe high server traffic? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this page: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace? They're template messages for various incidents -- vandalism, POV-pushing, spamming, incivility, talk page abuse, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I saw it when i first started learning about WP, but the templates looked like gobbledy-gook to me before I knew about templates. It's good to have a reminder. I'll spend some time with it. I think I know why, but what brought this up? Arcayne 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw this in your contributions and noticed the vandalism template. I looked at your user page but didn't see the full template page, so I provided it. Good rule of thumb for using the template is to go with a template that ends with -im if the user has a history of vandalism. An example would be {{subst:vandalism4im|300 (film)}}, which issues "the only warning you will receive". Just different degrees of application available from that template page. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I preserved it bc the wording was rather nice an concise. I hope I never have to use it, but it looked different from other warnings I've seen, soI assumed it was a crafted one. Still trying to learn all the html stuffs. I have this pretty nifty idear for the April Fools front page look, but haven't the foggiest how to put together the look inside my head. Arcayne 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: 300

Well, when we're right, we aren't really good about quitting, Tariqabjotu. I won't waste my time or yours correcting your misinformation. Yes, I violated 3RR, and I sat out my break. You're also right in that we are wasting our time trying to point out where you might have been mistaken. Forgive us for expecting a bit more wisdom from an admin than you were apparently able to muster. Speaking for myself, I will be sure to avoid making such an assumption again. Of course, I will be removing your comments from my Talk Page, as I have asked you on numerous occasions to not comment on my talk Page. As we don't really have anything further to say to one another, I don't imagine you'll have much problem with that.Arcayne 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm usually better at responding to comments on my talk page, but I have not been so good at that recently, perhaps due to my desire to bring Jerusalem up to featured status (that's basically all I've been focusing on for the past few months). I'll try to get back to responding to talk page requests as soon as possible. Is that a reasonable concession? I have fully-protected the article again and left a note on the article talk page in the hopes this matter will be resolved once and for all (without me participating in the discussion, however). -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

ARCAYNE!!!!

I left a note on Khorshid's page but you should probably know as well. Really he is OK for using the bold text the way he did, but not the YELLING in CAPS. He has de-capitalized the words so it is probably best to drop the subject at this point. GOT IT?!! The Behnam 04:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

THIS... IS... SPARTA!!!!!!!!1 Sorry, too many Honey Browns! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

rotfl! OKAY!!! I GOT IT. I made the comment on his Talk Page with a little Civility tag. If it's isolated, it's no problem. If it isn't an isolated problem, they escalate, and he'll end up paying the piper. I wasn't planning on helping him stay polite via editorial assist. I tried to help the chap. Arcayne 05:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I am going to assume you are referring to beers.

You're a good man, son! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So are you, Mister 'Finance-Sparta-degree' Man. Just a hint, if you are getting tipsy - if you start seeing triple, talk to the girl in the middle. Arcayne 05:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I was fine, just a little hyper. Had three bottles' worth of Honey Brown. Doesn't mess me up, but it makes me rather quirky, as you discovered. I was celebrating after my finance exam -- this one went better than the midterm. Got an operations exam to go tomorrow night. Did you get to see my suggestions at the peer review for Braveheart? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did. I was going to knock it out this weekend, when I'v egot the time to devote to it, propoer-like. It also give other editors and contributors time to pipe in. I felt that you presented some very good suggestions. Arcayne 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I would hope my suggestions are decent after dealing with film articles for a while now. :) As for the content fork, it's a matter of creating Braveheart (scores) or Braveheart (soundtracks) (since you might want to put both track listings in the same place), moving the listings over, then making a link to the new article on the film article itself. Actually, you could go as far to just plain delete the track listings; the track names and times don't really contribute to the encyclopedic nature of this film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park FAC

You wouldn't mind being an additional opinion here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jurassic Park (film). I wish you best of luck with Braveheart: I've not seen it so I'm a bit, you know, wary of working on the article, although I can help out with formatting. Alientraveller 17:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear God, you haven't seen Braveheart? It is the penultimate guy movie (alongside such films as 13th Warrior, Conan the Barbarian and of course, the 300). Dude, run to the video store and rent this right away. It is nine kinds of cool and whike it doesn't have as much nudity as 300, it does have some of the best choreographed battle footage ever put to film. David O'Hara's protrayal Stephen of Ireland is worth the rental alone. I kid you not - not seeing this film is leaving an enormous gap in your guy education. :)

And yes, i would be delighted to offer an opinion on the FAC.Arcayne 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No Merger

Sorry, small misunderstanding. I would never merge this film with it's book. I was talking about the historical fiction/historical novel misunderstanding

If you go to historical fiction it redirects to historical novel. If you click the "redirected from: historical fiction" link to see historical fiction article the history shows that deb performed a merger without seeking concensus on it. She cited that it would be good to merge those two conflicting articles. This causes confusion because it implies that all historical fiction can only be presented as a novel rather than other types of literature.

I was wondering if it would be useful to reverse this. Move the content of historical novel to historical fiction and have Historical novel redirect to Historical fiction. I'll go back and clarify myself in the 300 talk page. Let me know what you think. Hewinsj 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, sorry about breaking chronological order, I just wanted to follow the train of thought that refered to these two articles. Hewinsj 20:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Project

Check out User:Bignole/Future films and reference guidelines. Bigs and I are working on a project to address the various nonsensical claims made about using sources like novelizations and IMDb. Basically, just guidelines that can't quite be addressed by policy but more by film history. For example, film articles shouldn't be created until production is ensured -- Halo and The Hobbit are two such examples of articles that shouldn't be existing because production hit a brick wall. We'd like to extend the history to show just how often projects get announced and how few of them actually get pursued. We also want to make counterpoints to points made in AfD discussions. We lost the one at Jurassic Park IV despite the lack of information of production actually taking place. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:300 Devaluation

Since it's no longer a GA, it has to be a B-class article. If you disagree, ask for a review. --Crzycheetah 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He's right. The scale runs B → GA → A → FA. It's a step backward until the film article stabilizes in regard to the demonic hordes... the ones from the film, or the ones on the talk page, you may ask? I leave that for you to decide. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol. No, I don't disagree; I just didn't know the protocol. I don't think anyone is a demonic horde. I just think we're dealing with a group of editors who think their past dictates their future, and anything that challenges how that distant past is viewed is attacked ferociously. Frankly, that nonsense is usually seen in cultural articles, and not in a film. Thank God Xerxes didn't open mouth kiss Leonidas, or you might have heard the pissing and moaning from the Moon.

Demonic hordes, no. Petulant, vengeful children, yes.Arcayne 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you hear about the uncut DVD? They're going to have that kissing scene included... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Christ, at least wait until Bush is out of office.Arcayne 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was nothing :) Goodjob on the article though, imo it satisfies all GA and even FA criteria (except stability of course). It came out here today and I'll be seeing it this Saturday, should be good :) M3tal H3ad 04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you should probably enjoy it, except for the space ships. It kinda made me think the whole thing was a work of fiction. (maintaining a straight face...trying...trying...failing...failing) -Arcayne 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Petulant, vengeful children", eh? This is the most hypocritical thing I have read, given that you asked Khorshid "why not find a way to work with your fellow editors? Why not accept that your point of view may not be the correct one?" Is calling "your fellow editors" "Petulant, vengeful children" civil? This is unacceptable, please do not snipe editors in talk pages. Calling "your fellow editors" "Petulant, vengeful children" is tantamount to personal attacks. Agha Nader 04:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Um, Agha, I wasn't referring to Khorshid, and I wasn't referring to you. Why do you assume that - when I am talking to my fellow editors (and only in my Discussion page or another's, which you wouldn't know - about unless you have been watching my User Talk page), I would be talking about you or any of your co-op? If anything, I would probably just call you paranoid. That Khorshid has been uncivil to various editors is a matter of record. My efforts in asking him to be more civil have been nothing but polite, while he remains uncivil and assumes bad faith. I am willing to wager just about any amount of money that he has since removed the third warning for uncivility, which he isn't really supposed to do. That he's removed them means he is aware of them, and further uncivility will be acted upon appropriately.

I guess I have to ask, why did you come to me with this? What is your interest in the matter? Arcayne 04:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not Khorshid, I am Agha Nader, do not complain about him to me. Who were you referring to as ""Petulant, vengeful children"?--Agha Nader 04:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

You state "I just think we're dealing with a group of editors who think their past dictates their future" do you have an evidence for this accusation? I find it very insulting. --Agha Nader 04:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Addressing both of your non-AGF queries, Nader: I never presumed you were Khorshid. As for who I talk to or about on my Talk pages is really none of your business, as I did not invite you to participate in the conversation. That's like someone eavesdropping at a large public gathering, coming in halfway through the conversation and thinking that any laughter is directed at you. If I intended my statements to specific editors to be directed at you, You are the only person who said I was referring to you. What makes you think I am interested in talking about you at all? If I meant you, I would have named you. If you personally feel that my comments were about you when you are neither named nor identified by any characteristic you have yet displayed, then that actually says something about you, doesn't it?
Maybe you shouldn't listen in on conversations that don't involve you. You know what they say happens when you assume, right? While you may address any comments I direct at you personally, please do not take up space on my Discussion page with your suspicions. Please note that this request was a civil one.Arcayne 05:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (Agha Nader post a question in bold text, which i consider to be akin to shouting, so I have simply removed it.)Arcayne 11:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not adulterate my edits, but I will comply since this is your talk page. Agha Nader 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Who were you referring to as "Petulant, vengeful children"? Agha Nader 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Not you, so it doesn't matter. Please stop assuming my conversations are about you. What I choose to write other editors on my talk page is directed towards them. If you choose to apply them to youseself, there is very little I can do about that. Maybe you would be better off if you stopped looking at my talk page for imagined slights. There are so many other things you could be doing, any of them constructive. Arcayne 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Talking points

Hi Arcayne, I know the talk page atmosphere at present is a bit combative, and one's first impulse is to respond directly to posts on their own terms. But I wonder if we shouldn't try to stay on topic and, instead of engaging in further discussion of the "semi-historical / fictional" divide, direct users to the current compromise alternative ("historical fiction"). This discussion could continue endlessly (it seems like it already has), and if we don't settle on a new formula (it's obvious that there is enough significant opposition to both "fictional" and "semi-historical" to render both impracticable), we'll stay under full-protect forever. --Javits2000 09:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the edit that Maria put together? I can't find it, but there's such a thick forest of words at present I wouldn't be surprised if I were missing something.--Javits2000 09:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

that the last time I help you out! lol Got my head bit off for compiling them through 3 archives' worth of fun. Arcayne 13:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold

I think we have already been over this, so I'll try to be brief. Yelling is usually when someone writes in ALL CAPS, not in bold text, so it remains silly to characterize bold text as such. Sometimes people use it in a similar way, but this isn't as straightforward as CAPS, so I'd recommend against removing posts just because of possibly yell-like bolding. I myself avoid this problem by only bolding specific words that need emphasis, as over-using bold text can border on incivility. Anyway it seems Agha Nader has reposted without bold so the problem should be resolved. Just in the future try not to be so picky and judgmental about bold text; if it is truly uncivil it will count against them anyway. Cheers. The Behnam 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I am allowed a bit of control over the sort of rudeness I need to tolerate on my talk page. the post of the user in question was essentially yelling questions at me, and while the bold text may make their volume debatable, their tone was not subject to interpretation. The questions seemed to assume facts not in evidence, and was clearly spoiling for a fight. I wasn't about to mix it up with someone over what they think I am saying to other people. When I removed their question, I gave the user the opportunity to reframe the question more politely, and repost. They did, and I answered their question. Arcayne 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mediating between the opposing views. I'm sorry I couldn't reply earlier, I just provided my opinion in the corresponding section. Miskin 00:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries. We're all in this together. :) -Arcayne 01:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I've been wikifying pages for a while, I might have found your name Wikiproject Films. I worked on updating a couple of movie pages such as A Cold Case and Proud. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 04:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Getting It

Could you please give me diffs of when he has been uncivil after you warned him? Thanks, Khoikhoi 08:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

Hey, how'd that thing come that you emailed me about?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to wait and see if the situation simmers down. If it doesn't, i can always act on it. Arcayne 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. I'm glad to see that you are waiting it out. Generally I find that once something, always something, but let's hope that things do change. Have a good day.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have found that to be the case as well, too. However, I am trying to AGF, which I'm hoping in this case isn't akin to asking my Dad's fuzzy-faced GI Joe™ to up and starting singing showtimes.

Another thing, I was meaning to ask - I wanted to change my sig look. Is there some sort of turotial for that? I have an idea for what I want to do, but am unsure of where to change it so it isn't a one-time occurrence. Arcayne 12:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What I did was find someone else's sig, and copied their HTML code. Once you have a code it isn't that difficult to tweak it here and there and make it completely different. Then just go to "my preferences" at the top, and on the first tab (User profile) you will see a section called "signature". Just paste your HTML code in there and you are set to go. Also, if you are just looking to do something simple then it's even easier.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Redirect

I went to WP:TMG, looking for the right template for disambiguation redirect. I'm working on the Googoosh article, and apparently, there are different spellings within different ethnic communities. I want them to be able to find the article if they spell it the way they are familiar with. Where do I find that template? Arcayne 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need a disambiguation for different spellings? Do the different spellings all have the same meaning?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

yep. -Arcayne 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Googoosh, and Gogosh, and all those other spellings are meant to go to this one person, then you'd just type in each and make that name redirect to the correct page. No need to have a disambig page that just lists the various spellings of the same person's name. You just create a redirect to that correct page. They'll notice the "redirected from ..." below the name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a tag that I need to add to the non-existent page, or just w wikilink? -Arcayne 14:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any tag you'd apply to the page. Just a simple redirect. It won't be hard to realize that the page you get is the correct (or more common) spelling of whatever you typed in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, now I am confused. Went here, but am not if I put the "R from alternative name" tag on the actual article page, or not (t'ain't all the clearness, me boyo). If so, where does it go in the article? At the very top? -Arcayne 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The page should have this on it "#REDIRECT [[Googoosh]] {{R from alternative name}}" . So it redirects, and if someone says "why", then they can see why on the redirect page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sig Question

Noticing your sig, how do I go about changing the appearance of my sig? i know what I want to to do, but am unsure how to test it out or make it the default. Arcayne 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You go to "My preferences" then (under the "User profile" tab) type your new signature, with all the links you want included, in the Signature box. Afterwards, uncheck the box next to "raw signature". -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. It's your's and Bignole's I am copying anyway. Last question: I tred to test out how it would look in my sandbox, but I couldn't see the resulting code come together through preview. Am I doing something wrong? Arcayne 14:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Man is known by how he deals with his mistakes." [[User:Arcayne|<font color="black">Arcayne<font color="gray"><small>(^{cast a spell})</small>]] 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

damn, not working. Could someone take a look at my sandbox and tellme what I am doing wrong? 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Message from Preferences: "Invalid raw signature; check HTML tags." the box by raw sig has been both checked and unchecked arcayne 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC) , Arcayne 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On your sanbox it shows up like mine. The code isn't visible. What is it not doing that you want it to do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See the quote above for how it turned out. From what I understand, I copy the edit page form of the sig (with all the code) and paste it in the Signature box, and make sure the checkbox for raw signature is unchecked. I'm thinking my code is screwed up somehow...Take a look at the edit page for the sandbox? Arcayne 14:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Make sure the "raw sig" box is "CHECKED". You're using a code, so you have to check it so that it reads it like a code.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to take a gander at my Sandbox and tell me what I am doing incorrectly? Arcayne 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a change that probably took care of the issue. -- tariqabjotu 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that and checking the raw sig box appeared to have done the trick! So, it was all about identifying the text as font characteristics? Arcayne(^{cast a spell}) 14:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, The sig part, 'cast a spell' is supposed to redirect to my talk page. The whole sig just directs to my user page. Arcayne(^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, not that I'm all keen to open my contribs up in my sig, but if I wanted, how would I do that? Arcayne(^{cast a spell}) 15:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Use the sig that I gave you, I made the "cast a spell" go to your talk page. As for the contribs. Do everything the same, just add [[Special:Contributions/Arcayne|contrib]].  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wicked. :D Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Now, I'm all man-style. lol Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the big leagues. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww crap, does that mean I have to actually know stuff now? I've been using the Force up 'til now: 'These are not the citations you are looking for.' Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, like the sig! You can change the fonts, as well, and make it a little more magicky if you wanted. Mine is in verdana. María (habla conmigo) 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. A couple of folks were kind enough to lend a hand. Dunno how to change the font for just the talk part of the sig. In fact, I don't know where to find those fonts which would work well. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just go to WORD and look at the list of fonts. I'm sure most are HTML savvy. As for incorporating it, just add <span style="font-family:arial"> at the beginning of your "talk" code, and </span> at the end of it. So it would look like <span style="font-family:arial">[[User talk:Arcayne|code code code code]]</span>.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I just tested, they all seem to work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Or just look at Nole's sig, or mine, for that matter, here on this page. Tempus Sans ITC is very nice, as well. María (habla conmigo) 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

300 talk

I had indeed contributed to the article or it's talk page before and I keep a very close eye on the article and it's talk page. Regards, --Rayis 18:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think I need to explain why I haven't edited an article to anyone! 300 has enough contributers. I believe the same applys to how I get a long with Behnam, I think it is rather rude of you to investigate in to my contributions for your personal commentary; for your information me and behnam get a long fine, there was just one incident where we had some problems but we got over it --Rayis 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Rayis and I don't have very many problems despite some apparent differences of opinion. It isn't surprising that an Iranian editor ends up editing 300 (film) anyway. There is no reason for you and Rayis to fight about anything. The Behnam 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To do list

I suggest throwing out the template and make your own list. Alientraveller 08:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of Stalking

Please don't accuse me of stalking, as it is considered acceptable to monitor users who seem to be making bad faith edits. It seems that you have made several bad faith edits in which made personal attacks against me and fellow editors. Furthermore you have deleted some of my edits, and those of Khorshid's in several talk pages. As you must know by now, ill-considered accusations are not tolerated on WP. Cheers. Agha Nader 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Hmm, I'm not sure what edits of yours and Khorshid's I have deleted, Agha. Perhaps you could provide me Diffs for this (excluding your uncivil remarks to me on my Talk Page which, which were removed as per the instructions of the text box at the top of this page).

Perhaps you could point out these edits that - in your opinion - are bad faith edits. Just provide the Diffs please. As well, if you could cite a Wikipedia policy that excuses stalking behavior under the pretense of monitoring so-called edits. I eagerly await your response, Nader. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You bastardized Khorshid's edit in this edit [27]. And you admit to removing a comment I made on this talk page because it was in bold. Various users have called this "silly". You have called me a "Petulant, vengeful children", which is a bad faith edit. In this discussion [28] you have sniped me, and Dmcdevit admonished you: "Please do not refer to other ediors you disaree with as vandals, as this is uncivil". Furthermore, to your accusations of harassment he responded "The proper response to harassment is not response in kind." As you can see you have made many bad faith edits. You said I "work to undo edits that that challenges [my] nationalist view". The accusations go on and on. Including the accusation of stalking. You accused me of having a "merry little band", You accuse me of having a "frail post-Persian psyche". Obviously these are bad faith edits. Even though I have not edited on other article that you edit, you say I stalk you. This will not be tolerated. Cheers. Agha Nader 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Gosh, so many accusations, and yet, so few diffs. Let's look at these individually (for the sake of the viewing audience), shall we?

• The first instance is when I removed a bold-text formatting to comments that were unmistably uncivil. When the editor chose to renew them, I didn't argue the point, as other editors did it for me.
• The comment I removed from you on my talk page is entirely within my purview, Agha; had you sinply followed the instructions at the top of my Talk Page (wherein I state the at rude or uncivil posts will be delected immediately), it would not have been removed. I am not the only editor to do this. Consider yourself fortunate that my tolerance for rudeness is as high as it is, as I could have simply decided that you had nothing constructive to offer, and simply write you off as strident noise. I allow your posts to remain on my page, because I keep hoping you will finally grasp the concept of good faith far better than it would appear you have done to date.
• I have not called you a "vengeful" or "petulant child", Agha; the reason you did not present a diff for this accusation is that you could not find a single instance of when I referred to you - or anyone else - as such.
• The last diff you offer is a statement to request a review of a block of a highly skilled editor. You were the one who submitted the 3RR complaint, so naturally, your motivations are going to come into question. As you have had some issues with assuming good faith, and had violated the Assumption of Good Faith to the point where I could not excuse bad conduct, the comment was warranted.
• (no Diff provided) "work to undo edits that that challenges [my] nationalist view". Did I say tht about you? Did I accuse you of posessing a "frail post-Persian psyche"? I think not, and your failure to provide a Diff indicating such means you know how weak that accusation is. I don't even know what nationality or ethnicity you are, and quite honestly don't care. To assume that I base my edits on ethnicity is ferociously bad faith, but as usual, I will fogive you your insult. If you didn't make mistakes, how would you ever learn?
• (again, no Diff provided) As for the "merry little band comment", that was intended for those editors who appeared to have almost extra-sensorally addressed and supported each other's edits, leading a great many editors to wonder if the effort was coordinated outside of normal channels say, by private email. I am not saying that this is necessarily true,Agha - I merely reflected upon what other editors had observed.
• Lastly, you yourself have admitted to following my edits around. You say you are making sure that my edits aren't tendentious (or some such thing), again an assumption of bad faith and a contentious remark. My properly identifying this behavior as stalking is an observation, not a contention.

So, all these bad faith edits you say I make about you, and all you have are three diffs? Please feel free to respond with better examples of how I have personally insulted you. Be advised, though, that when you do so, I will have prepared a fairly comprehensive list of your contentious, bad faith remarks. I am guessing my list will be somewhat longer than yours.
-Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

N.B. User Arcayne has changed the header of this section, even though I created it. The original header was "Stalking". Please see [29]. His edit summary was "May talk page - if I wish to change contentious edits, or headers, I will." This is another example of a adulteration of my edits. This is very misleading since I never accused him of stalking me, which the changed header "Who's Stalking Who?" implies. This is another bad faith edit. Agha Nader 19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

To quote imaginary character Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." You might want to revisit the article on bad faith edits. You come to my page, makes scads of either unsupported or nonexistent accusations, add a header called stalking, and expect me to simply expect me to accept its implied accusation? I think not. Now, I am going to politely ask to simply go away now. You've already had one RfC blow up in your face, and you are within a feltch-monkey's whisker of being on the recieving end of one yourself. Take the hint and kindly go find someone else to pester for mentoring. I think we're done here Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Arc, I've asked your "friend" to stop re-adding the information when you delete it because it isn't very productive for either of you. I told him I'd ask the same of you, even if he re-adds it again, to just ignore it and let it go. If he adds it, then just archive the entire section. There's no point is berating each other with this. Shake cyber-hands and just say "farewell". Otherwise, I fear that this personal confrontation with leach itself out to other articles that you come into contact with this individual and it could have some unfortunate consequences for one or both of you, and you know I'd hate to see that happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am not really interested in dealing with my "friend", and have said as much. There is nothing so dull as to try and explain something to someone who is just using the time I am explaining to craft a response (rather than actually reading what I wrote). He may simply avoid me from now on. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Carried Over from Arc 007

• Shankbone got to see chickens come home to roost
• Apparently, the germans invented "Last Call for Alcohol"
• I got some crazy notions about AFD '08
• Some editors of 300 think I am the Big Bad Wolf, and others just think I am amusing
• I was blocked for 3RR (still don't agree with the basis for it, but who ever does?) and had a dickens of a time getting unblocked
• I learned about some nifty incident templates
• Braveheart got a Peer Review, and needs a bunch o' the TLC
• Alientraveler needs to expand his Guy Education
• Bigs and Erik are making waves ([30])
• Edit-warring in 300 (imagine that - an edit war about a war) led to it being downgraded from GA to B class, and getting locked until Monday, April 8
• In 300 Leonidas and Xerxes do not kiss. However, there is a Busby Berkeley dance number, which is something new for people to yell about.
• Apparently, THIS IS NOT YELLING.
• I receive help from a stranger (no, not that Stranger)
• I also receive html help from new friends, old friends and potential drinking buddies
• [ WP:Disambiguation|Disambiguation] and Redirect are two separate things
• I have a new crop of admirers.

300 talk

No it's not at all surprising that an Iranian editor ends up editing 300, this is why we may have a problem on reaching a "universal" consensus. Miskin 12:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think identifying folk by their national origin and attacking them on that basis is a hop,skip and a short jump away from racism. I don't condone it. While i feel there is a pro-nationalism edit Thing going on in 300, I think that addressing the nature of the edits is far more productive than slinging comments like that around. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

may I?

May I use your penguin picture and caption on my userpage? Ootmc ^{Signme!Talktome} 16:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thnx Ootmc ^{Signme!Talktome} 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem.

Lucy Deakins

That's great info you added to the Lucy Deakins article. I've been wanting to fill out that article for quite some time now, but been having trouble finding bio info. Where did you find all of the info you added? Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Devil May Cry

Regarding your concern on Devil May Cry's Featured Article nomination page, the article has been copy-edited heavily, since the other users that declared concern about the prose have already retired their opposision can you please take a look at it and reevaluate the article, thanks for your time. -凶 20:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I was considering simply taking out the first line on the Gameplay section:Devil May Cry is an action game where the player guides Dante through an ancient castle on a remote island, fighting groups of demons and other monsters in fast-paced combat. wich seems kind of illogical to have since most of these aspects are explained in the plot and when the stylish fighting system is described and simply start with a modified version of the second line:Devil May Cry consists of levels called "missions" where players must fight numerous demons, perform platforming tasks, and occasionally solve puzzles to progress through the story. I believe this is the first sentence in the section that actually talks about the game's gameplay, what do you think of this change? -凶 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Getting It

Hmm. While I guess I can see how this might be considered uncivil, because it's an accusation, I'm not sure if this is really as bad. Also, in my experience, the one thing that makes a situation worse is when someone gives another user a standard template warning. It's best to express your concerns about their comments in your own words. About AFG: it's important that both parties always assume good faith. If I asked Mardavich to assume good faith towards you, I need that same promise from you as well. I noticed your comment here where you said That I don't automatically assume good faith with Mardavich is based upon my (and others') very similar experiences with him, wherein he has not bothered to demonstrate AGF even once. I think it's important to start trying again, if you don't want him to assume bad faith towards you. Khoikhoi 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich was warned on several prior occasions about his lack of civility and accusations; he is more than aware of the rules of user conduct, having utilized them on many, many prior occasions. In fairness, my warnings to him of such prior to these current occurences were not as polite as they could have been, and I have not included them in these instances, save for the enduring impression that these prior actions leave me less likely to make the assumption of good faith of his edits. Please not that in my prior post to you (as now), I do not say that he won't get the assumption of good faith from me - he will, but will usually have to earn it with me, as I will be wary of his intentions. The lad did file a baseless RfC against myself and several other editors, after all. Getting over that particular hump is going to take work, and not just on my part.

I thank you for taking the time to address the situation with Mardavich. I am curious as to when your admonition of his bahavior might show up on his Talk page. Something like that shouldn't really be limited to private yahoo email - indicating a non-partisan relationship and all. Using private email to voice complaints to admins and the like is often perceived as a conspiratorial sort of behavior, and not really in keeping with the open policy of WP. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, I'm not going to give him a warning on his talk page until you look into your own actions. Comments like your self-worth as a country bad enough, your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits are not only inappropriate, but also offensive as well. Ditto for And do I think some of the vandalizing editors and the POV-pushing editors were posting to simply make themselves feel better, ergo the mommy comment. If you think he needs to earn AFG from you, please consider looking at things form a different perspective. Khoikhoi 05:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I owe my friend Mike $5. He said you would find some reason to berate me for giving Mardavich civility warnings and not him. I lost the bet.

I might suggest you take a closer look at the edit that someone just happened to come across. I did not say anything about, and did not refer to any individual. The exception to this is that I did suggest that people who are unwilling to set their bias aside shouldn't be editing an article which is going to bring that bias to the front. Someone had been asking me to explain my comments from weeks ago, oddly assuming that the aforementioned comments dealt with them specificially. As I explained in the post you evidently did not read closely enough, the comments were not directed at them, but instead at vandalizing posters and POV-editors determined to edit their viewpoint into articles. I was not referring to the editor in question.

As well, taking my post out of context is at best misleading. I was referring to the state of Iran's feelings of self-worth in the infinitve third person, and not any given individual. None of these comments deal with any individual, and I am fairly confident that if you actually read the the edit again, you would see I am correct.

Consider this my "looking at my own actions", Khoikhoi. When I refer to two general comments about general situations, I do not once refere to a specific individual. My AGF for my fellow editors does not include excusing bad behavior when they vandalize or push their own bias. I have warned editors who have made critical comments about Iranian editors, both in the article talk and here. As I have 'looked into my own actions', you can go ahead and warn Mardavich now. Thank you for the opportunity to point out where you misunderstood my post. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to Talk:300 (film)

There are many job opportunities in the US and A. For men, construction worker, taxi driver or accountant. For woman, prostitute. What is this word block, I not understand your. Yes I like a Maria very much, She like Stalin, she no like you she will crush you! Manic Hispanic 18:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. I wouldn't really throw comparisons to Stalin around like that, as people might take offense - something I've already commented about on your discussion page. Persoanlly, I've found that once you prove yourself to Maria, she is very helpful. You might want to make that effort. As for what Blocking is, I am surprised it has not come up even once in the 5 months you have been editing. Follow the link I have provided. Good day to you. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Aww, it would seem I hit a nerve! Or pride. You know, something. Now if you boys would excuse me, I've gotta go turn my red light on... ;) María (habla conmigo) 19:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And remember, one light is illumination, while a million lights is a statistic. :P Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What wrong with Stalin? He communist legend. He save jew from destruction, and kill many Nazis on way. Very Nice if you ask me. You liberal. He one of you, no? Gulag shmulag! Manic Hispanic 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay. I appreciate your very interesting worldview, as I hadn't experienced a belief system like that outside of a history book. However, I am going to simply wish you adieu, so you can be on your way. I think you experiences here are going to be rather exciting for a time. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you're meeting some very interesting characters through your interactions. Hope you're playing nicely with others these days... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, well you are certainly free to look at my recent contributions and see for yourself - all my recent fans seem to be doing just that. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In the future, you might want to stay below the radar. I can't imagine that you're having much fun dealing with other editors like this; I know I wouldn't. I've taken 300 (film) off my watchlist; the situation's getting under my skin like the one at Children of Men. I explained my stance to Miskin, which you can see at User talk:Miskin#300 Talk. I've got better things to do with my time. Oh, and check out the potentially controversial Valkyrie -- maybe if you stick around for that film's release, you can combat some German editors as well. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks, but the everlasting hatred of one or two groups is about all my social calendar can handle at the current time. I do thank you and Bigs for the advice; it is always of value. How would you suggest I stay below the radar? (rp via email, pls). I'm still anticipating for the pro-viking response to Pathfinder as to the negative portrayal of vikings. The trailer for the film is heavily memorable of Frazetta art, and seems to bear a lot of stylistic resemblance to the 2001 French film Le Pacte des loups (aka Brotherhood of the Wolf). (written before the Wikipedia meltdown, added after it cam back up). Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm going to focus much energy on Pathfinder -- it strikes me as too much of a Hollywood "romp". I do try to dump any Pathfinder citations that come up, as you can see on the talk page. I'm trying to be more choosy about film articles to focus on -- the well's kind of dry for future films at the moment, hence all my projects on my user page. Oh, and Brotherhood of the Wolf was incredibly good fun. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to your blocking warning, WHATEVERS! OK so I said the word idiot and fool, omg how nefarious! Big deal! I would erase my comments to appease you and the other chick but that would violate WT:IAR and WP:NOT#CENSORED, the policies you posted on my talk page are superceded by these as they carry more weight. I will not be bullied into acquiescence. Stop taking yourself so seriously and being so politically correct, I was having a little fun, you should too, too paraphrase King Jimbo, I'm just trying to make the internet not suck. Wikitruth is right! Manic Hispanic 05:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

DMC

Me, Boradis and Deckiller have done some rewitting and tweaks here and there, I personally fixed the worries that you expesed on the FAC and the Gameplay was rewritten heavily so I think that most of your worries have been taken care of, if I'm wrong feel free to comment any other worries, Peace. -凶 23:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually that only applies if you were a big time contributor to the article before, you know to avoid having all of those that worked heavily from posting a lot of empty Support votes, but if you oppose and you only edit with the intention of improving the article you certainly can vote afterwards. If you can polish the article I will be deeply grateful, nobody can know what your concerns are better than you, Cheers. -凶 20:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah

VERY. ;-) Tomer^talk 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rude user

Looks like he's already been blocked, but in a case like that, just warn the person and report 'em to WP:AIV if they keep it up. If there are few or no positive contributions, that'll get it taken care of quickly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Braveheart

Hmm, do you need to say what film it was? I don't think it's necessary to say it, especially if the Spielberg article doesn't mention it. If you want to name it, then you have a source (is it reliable) that says "it was this film". You'd only have to worry about whether or not he did it on more than just 1 film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. The source cited just indicated that the Irish Army had been provided before, not that Spielberg specifically chose them for that reason. I guess I have my answer. Thanks, Big. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I've created a new template, and I'd like for someone, either myself, or you, or someone else to attach it to the top of the 300 talk page. It's called Template:Becivil, and you'd put {{Becivil}} on the talk page. I'm hoping, if you think it is a good idea, that it will help reduce or eliminate some of the incivility on that page..  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was a problem with its final appearance. It should get squared away before I add it. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you put {{Becivil|[[300 (film)]]}} then it's fine. You are supposed to add a little message for the specifics. I just added the film's article name so you can see how it would look. You don't have to put the article name, you could put "placing all caps", or "sarcasm"...or whatever people feel is causing some angst among you regular editors of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is how it would look:

(a big ol' template removed by me but which was quite pretty, and would have had a nice little shrubbery, had Wikipedia been a garden, instead)

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke. It is now added. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice template Arcayne. The Behnam 17:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot take credit for it, as the aforementioned convo illustrates. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is still nice, though I wonder if someone will say that it is 'yelling'. The Behnam 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, isn't it odd to have a template written entirely in caps that says comments "that appear in all CAPS may be considered uncivil"? Kettle, you is black. María (habla conmigo) 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the irony was not lost on me, but apparently, that sort of thing is okay as a template, but not convo punctuation. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right-o. It's still an eye-sore, but it's definitely a much needed notice. By the way, I added up the votes as of now on the talk page. María (habla conmigo) 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, and commented. Thanks for doing all the math. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in all caps so that people see it. Templates like the Template:Notaforum also appear this way. It's to catch the attention of editors. Plus, I tried to word it to such a degree that it isn't abusive, with things like "may be deleted" and "pleases".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I altered it, how is it now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope it helps.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So do I. The article needs a break from the nonsense. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Immortal

I reverted another one of those 'immortal' picture caption changes since I saw you or on the other regulars do the same thing, but I haven't seen the movie so I don't really know. You mind taking a look? The Behnam 18:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. The giant was not an Immortal, but the confusion likely was arrived at as they employed him as their "tank". I've also corrected the cast section entry for the giant as well. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation, it appears that Robert Maillet's character was indeed identified as such in the credits. Although he technically edit-warred, it could be considered a single edit, and I'm not going to get on his case about it. He was right.

Block duration

24 hours as of 10:29 UTC. They might switch IP addresses though. I've been blocking and protecting the talk page on sight, since this is obviously the same person, so maybe that will finally dissuade them. WP:RBI seems to be the way to go here. Natalie 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, User:Bearcat has been tracking them for awhile, and posted a request for help about the articles they target to WP:ANI a month ago or so. Maybe two month ago. I put the articles Bearcat mentioned on my watch list, and noticed the vandalism stepping up in the last few days. This person has been vandalizing in this fashion for close to a month, and it sounded like they may have been doing this before that, stopped for awhile, and then started up again. The problem is been that they're using a huge IP network, so it isn't apparent in the contribs log of one IP that the person has been a big problem for some time. So a new IP appears, people give them the full series of warnings before they're blocked, and the vandal gets their opportunity to be hugely abusive, which they seem to enjoy. Then they get blocked for 24 hours of so, reset their IP, and start abusing the blocking admin. Hopefully more admins will become aware of this and just start blocking on sight, which I think is the best way to handle it. Natalie 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like All The Fun. :| Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Clan Wallace article

I actually didn't add any new information - I was just cleaning up what was already there. I agree that this page could use a "Does not cite sources" tag. Bgwwlm 02:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tally

Three more days? S'right. That should give enough time for it to dwindle down. I'm fairly positive that the tally is correct as of now, but I'm hoping someone else takes over; numbers are not my strong suit, and I did miss a vote the first time I counted. María (habla conmigo) 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a missed vote to your tally (from a user who had been signed out, and then came back and added his sig). I'm not sure if it would be entirely fair to discount votes from editors with no prior history to the article; surely that seems somewhat picky? That would bring the tally to 8/8, anyway, so what's the point? This is all getting very WP:SILLY and I'm becoming bored with it, yawn. María (habla conmigo) 14:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm long past arriving at that conclusion, looking at this as an administrative exercise in removing argument posts from dissenting folk. Only those folks who edited prior to the announce,ment of the vote will be counted. I think that's fair, and avoids the puppetry issue.

Googoosh Edits

What Do you mean it is from National Geographic, not her website. (Arash the Archer 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Sure, I can do that. But not today, I am afraid of becomming addicted to WP. (Arash the Archer 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Lol, I have no idea what you are talking about. I can stop anytime I want. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not. "Hello, I'm Arcayne, and I'm a Wiki-Junkie." -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I did some improvements to Googoosh Article. I think we can delete peacock and Unreferenced tags now. What do you think? (Arash the Archer 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the encouragement. It is nice if you can suggest a better structure for the article. I am thinking of having personal life and awards sections. Moreover we lost an image of her childhood. There are good images here for rewards and here for her childhood. Most of them are newspapers, album covers or movie posters. I don’t know how can we use them without violating the WP policies. (Arash the Archer 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Do you speak Farsi?

I ask because there are a number of terms in the filmography of the Googoosh article that could use some translation. If you don't, could you recommend some who are? -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't speak Farsi. Native speakers of Farsi will often put themselves in Category:User fa-N. Of the names there, User:Tajik, User:Behnam, and User:Sa.vakilian look familiar and may be active. -- tariqabjotu 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you suggest that I post a message in the WikiProject Iran for assistance? Frnakly, I wouldn't know where to start. I have already posted a messgage to Sa, but they may be too bsuy to follow up. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Googoo gaagaa

I'd remove it on peacock reasoning. If it's true, then it shouldn't be hard to prove, you'd just need to provide verification of how she was celebrated and probably add a comparison to another celebrated individual for a proportions comparison. Also, I noticed there were citation tags in the lead. They should be removed. The lead should contain nothing that isn't already talked about in the body. If it isn't in the body then it shouldn't be in the lead. That said, if it's not cited in the body then it should have the tags there, not the lead (or both places, if that's the case).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

don't mean to be rude!

I didn't mean to cause confusion, just thought we are re-counting again. Thx. --siavash siavash oh and Thx for the support.--siavash siavash

They already took the matter to the AnI and you saw what happened. I don't understand why you left me this message. I haven't brought up anything about partisan partipation in a long time. And don't worry, none of what you said would ever happen, not by my comments anyway. There's nothing racist about suspecting a group of people for having a biased view, in certain occasions it's only too obvious. I would ignored it, had it not been for the group's numerical superiority and its effect on consensus. Miskin 10:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I understand. I was surprised when you said "Miskin and Agha stop it" while I hadn't even addressed anybody at that point. Don't worry, I'm not affected by such provokations. I wasn't even affected when I was called diseased and a few other names [31]. Miskin 10:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has got to know what happened in AnI so that the matter will not be brought up again. You may be displeased by my last edit but in my opinion it will help for the best. Nobody was rude to siavash, I merely pointed out that his number of edits won't permit him to count in the vote. It appears that some people have too many buttons all over them, so there's not much I can do about it. Miskin 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I think the better criteria should be is to prohibit folk who did not edit the article or post something in the discussion area prior to the annouincement of the vote. Asiavashj has posted before, so he should get to vote. I have taken the time to go through the votes, linking them to their dates of voting, and the ones who have not voted prior to the vote are marked with asterisks, indicating that they cast votes, but that those votes will not be counted. This ensures that the folk voting are doing so unbidden. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for your message. I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly. Reliable sources all point to the fact that the film is fiction, and not "historical" fiction. I'm not sure what the dispute here is. I note that you claim yourself to be politically left-of-center, just as you note that I am Iranian. Myself, I find it unusual that someone who subscribes to progressive politics and culture would find anything redeemable in this despicable film. And yes, from an academic point-of-view, this film is despicable. Have you ever watched historical epics from the golden age of Hollywood? If you have, one thing you'll note is that they take great pains to present the history fairly and reasonably as possible. One exception might be Ben-Hur where they present a black man among the Three Wise Men, but we can forgive that due to the politics of the civil rights era. However, in this film, there is nothing redeemable. Glancing through the discussion, I find it appalling that people support tagging such a culturally and historically offensive film as "historical" fiction. You realize, don't you, that Frank Miller is admittedly opposed to non-European culture, and especially to Islamic civilization? At any rate, we must take a step back and look at the facts, and the facts, from an academic perspective, are clear. This film is not, in any shape or form, historical or authentic. Sources have been provided from reliable sources to support this argument. I trust, as a reasonable person, you are willing to acknowledge this and begin accepting what we both know to be true. Best regards, Khodavand 11:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to write to me, and being polite about your concerns - a very welcome change. I certainly both understand appreciate your point of view. This has come up in the Discussion time and again, about how the film is very inaccurate in how it depicts ancient Persians. No one - at least no one with any semblance of reason - is disputing that. It does unfairly depict the ancient Persians as freakish clowns, and everyone agrees that it does this. No one is suggesting that it is a documentary, but that it is a fictional retelling of a historical event - the Battle of Thermopylae.

The issue instead turns on the issue of whether this depiction, in and of itself, relegates the entire remainder of the film to an utter fantasy. I don't think it does, personally. The historical events are essentially preserved, with the sole exceptions being how the Spartan soldier Dilios - who is the narrator of the tale - describes those peoples who killed his king. That he would disparage them is of course natural - such events happen even today. For that reason alone, an understanding eye should view these particular characterizations for what they are.

I don't recall seeing any referenced quote that says that Miller is opposed to Islamic civilizations (outside of statements made after 9-11, when anti-Islamic sentiment was understandably - if inappropriately - high). I think he is a comic book writer, who uses his imagination for a living. As wel both know, artists pull their inspirations from every corner of their lives, and while writing the 300 graphic novel, he perhaps drew on the American apathy and vague disgust for the endless fighting in the Middle East. That that sentiment took on new meaning after 9-11 and with the current events surrounding Iran is neither Miller's nor Snyder's fault.

I think it is important to remember that this is a movie; the same sort of historical fiction that I am sure is filmed in Iran or other places. I would even guess that there might have been made a film that depicts the ancient Spartans as monsters - a direct flip of 300. No one is considering 300 a documentary, any more than they consider The Patriot to be an accurate depiction of the American Revolutionary War, or any war movie, for that matter.

As Miskin inappropriately mused, there does appear to be a very significant number of pro-nationalist editors (many of whom have significant edits in the Iran Project or Islam-related edits) showing up to ensure that the film is protrayed as utyter fantasy. While I think that he should have shown a great deal more restraint than he did, he was addressing a concern that many other editors have implied. As soon as the vote was announced, people who had never posted to the article's discussion before started showing up to vote. What was odd about this was not the sudden interest in the 300, but that the effort seemed quite coordinated. It did not help matters that all of the editors voting for a single choice all seemed to have past edits in common. This has raised concerns and accusations of meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry.

I personally feel that there might be something to these concerns, but I am going to set the idea of vote-stacking and the like aside for the moment, as that is not the crux of these concerns. Editors with clear bias should avoid those articles where that bias is sure to come to the forefront of their edits, as it becomes implicit that they will present their opinion as fact. That is not NPOV, and cannot be tolerated anywhere in Wikipedia, be it here, or Denmark, Japan or Iran.

I hope I have addressed your concerns while iterating my postion on the matter. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical Fiction

I didn't mean to step on anybody's toes with this one. I attempted to check around some parts of the literary portal for precedent. When I found none and got no response to my inquiry over there, I decided to go ahead with it. I really needed to get away from the discussion on 300 so this was just something to do on the side.

I didn't announce what I was going to do at 300 because I wanted to set the ball rolling so that there could be a collaborated effort later on without the emotion carried over from that discussion/argument. I used the only definition I know, which I obtained some time back from a former professor and attempted to put into my own words as best as I could while taking into account the two sub-genres as they already exist on Wikipedia. I know it's technically original research, but everything has to start somewhere. Hewinsj 15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC) You didn't step on my toes, Hewinsj. I understood that what you were doing wasn' some sneaky nonsense - you were attempting to fill a gap, and that's commendable. I would suggest working with Khodavand to tighten up the new article. I am sure he would work with you on it, if you asked. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

voted

Hi. Thanks for your inquiry. I did vote/ --alidoostzadeh 16:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: 300 vote

Tally the votes without the ones that are italicized. If there is not a solid consensus, you should look at the italicized votes with caution. I'm wary of votestacking. I would recommend seeking advice from editors who are familiar with the process, as I have not had much expertise in these manners. (Tend to stay away from the controversy, ya know?) Good luck working it out. — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erikster (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

300 vote

It seems the rules are a little overly restrictive. (Remember, votes are never strictly binding anyway. They're one useful tool that can sometimes help gauge consensus, not a definitive answer.) This being said, it would generally be inappropriate to exclude those who hadn't participated in the article before, especially if they're established editors. If you can show that such editors have been inappropriately canvassed, or they have few or no other edits before voting in the poll, that would be a reason to give their opinion less weight, but editors have every right to weigh in wherever and whenever they happen to like, and to jump in at any point. Keep in mind that the rationales given by the voters are as or more important than the numerical vote count, so an opinion like "Support, this is fine" or "Oppose, this is idiotic" would matter a lot less than a well-reasoned rationale as to why the person supports or opposes. If someone can jump in who hasn't participated before, but offers a well-reasoned explanation, it should certainly be considered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. However, there isn't really a way to check for meat-puppetry, as communication via non-wiki email might be taking place, as has been evidenced by some users in the past. More than a reasonable number seem to be coming from a certain cutural or pro-nationalist pov, and I am disappointed that the editors felt it necessary to play it like this. Since the vote is about gauging consensus, there doesn't appear to be any. Even excluding the questionable votes, neither side has anything approximating a mandate. I have the sinking suspicion that the vote is essentially moot, and that the losing side (as it appears) is going to RfC, as they have been threatening for over a week now. Thoughts? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, votes aren't binding. Consensus generally is, of course, but you're certainly welcome to try to form a different consensus. Has everyone involved considered mediation? Usually, that leads to a better outcome than a vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally pretty easy. :) You can ask for an informal mediator through Medcab, or there's a more formal process through the mediation committee. (If it's a pretty involved dispute with a lot of people involved, you may want to consider doing it through Medcom). The first thing to do is ask if everyone involved in the dispute would be willing to participate, since it's a completely voluntary process, so if anyone doesn't want to do it then it can't go ahead. What the mediator will do is help everyone talk out their differences and come to an agreement everyone involved can live with. I've been in mediation twice myself (once on a very tough topic), and both times had very positive results. If you get the go-ahead from everyone involved and need some help in filing your case, I'd be happy to help. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I admire your tenacity with the 300 article, but I wonder how much positive change can actually occur. It appears factional viewpoints are rather deep. Even a simple vote has gathered you few accolades and many headaches. You are handling yourself admirably in a difficult situation. Bbagot 21:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

I have been working on the David L Cunningham article. I noted that you had an interest in biography and Npov. I am interested in getting that article in better shape. I believe that some of the director's attributions may not be correct, but I am hesitant to just edit them out.

my personal bias coming out: admit that my connection to this was reading about this director and his connection as a son of a very successful evangelical christian missionary with a big following and big organization. In addition it appears that this director got his start through this organization, and that these goals are a part of his work. I found some references to this in print - and I added one quite a long time ago.

anyway there has been a battle - I did some initial edits on the article quite awhile ago, now, many months later I checked in to look at it, and saw that others got involved.

It appears to me that friends of the directors have been trying to remove christian references from the article. I believe as this is an influential part of his work (stated in his own words) it should be included.

I also am wondering whether all of his filmography is accurate. he is in his young 30's and the bio says he has made 40 documentaries. I find that hard to believe, and in fact there is no source for this info.

I guess I really should make an account. I used to have one, but I dont know the password, and forget my exact username.

could you respond by looking at the article and making comments on the talk page? thanks. 66.167.133.84)

LOL

That was hilarious. I think that the comic "nerd" should pass their wisdom to the less fortunate, namely those that think the same rules do not apply to going to the beach.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Secret identity

I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I agree with Mardavich and others; this is bad news. It makes you and The Behnam appear highly hypocritical to accuse users of sending and receiving super secret emails, and then not only admit to doing the same yourself, but to refuse to give the identity of whoever tipped you off to that forum. Put yourself in their shoes; they have every right to demand who sent you that email. I for one am interested in knowing why you're so protective, and it only makes matters worse to elude the question and play mind games with everyone regarding the person's gender. You're losing a lot of credibility. Just some friendly advice, yeah? María (habla conmigo) 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See, i think the difference here is that when Benham and I email each other, it isn't about how to organize a response or whatnot. As well, our email contacts are kinda friendly, and have less to do with WP than it does just RL.

I cannot speak for who contacted Benham, but the person who contacted me told me that they faced personal safety issues in relating the links that - understandably - we might have never come across ourselves. Do I think I am getting played by a disgruntled person? Honestly, I don't know, but it doesn't appear that such is the case, That the person sent me diffs and links instead of some tirade added credence to their words. I don't know why they contacted me or Benham, but I am guessing that they don't like the partisan editing, either. I didn't hold back anything from the links that were provided, instead placing them right into the article discussion. It does look damning, indeed. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of identities, I'm User:Erik now. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the change? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I always signed my comments with "Erik", so I figured that I'll seal the deal. Plus, I guess the -ster seemed to make my identity unprofessional. I guess I would prefer to be identified in an original way and be reputed by my edits? Something like that. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Just stay away from the honey brown when you edit, and you'll be dandy. :P Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Change in 300

I edited the 300 (film) article because the article doesn't point the differences between the film and the graphic novel. Like I pointed out in the discussion, there are no monster-persians in the original material. In the comics they are black, slaves, relentless and decadent, they are legion, and, most of them, nothing more than cannon fodder, but not they are never depicted as monstruous. In fact the only deformed character is Ephialtes.--Gonzalo84 00:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that, but don't you think that might be something better addressed on the Discussion Page first? If even one person wants to argue it, it could go back and forth for days or weeks. Why not address it in Discussion first, square away any debate and go from there? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:We are watching you

Yeah, I tend to watch a few peeps pages. Where is he adding that speech? In the plot section? -P.S. Loved the Highlander quip.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Checked it out for myself...Plots kind of fall under "fair use" because they are copyrighted material. Quoting speeches from them, verbatim no less, can easily be found to be a copyright infringement (which is what you warned them of). Also, it could fall under other guidelines and essays like "not an indiscriminate collection of information" or "not a substitution for watching the film". I'm not on the up-n-up of any policies or guidelines that specifically address quotes in a plot. There could be, which I'd love to know about for my links collection, but there's probably a good chance that it's been brought up on the WikiProject Films talk page. But they have so many archives it could take some initiative. Hmm..Let me check that out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a section that mentions quotes, Another. I just went through the first two archives of Wikiproject Films. They might help you better understand how some other editors feel about it. There are 10 archives, so if you think you need more you can look there. I just went in and did a "find" with the key word "quote". You have to pay attention and make sure they are talking about the plot section if you attempt that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

What is your question? Please provide it when placing {{helpme}} on your User talk page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tellyaddict (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC). My apologies. I wanted to know how one can look at all the new pages that are created on a given day, ie, that which new page patrols use to make sure all the new pages are in line with Wiki policy and so forth. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re

Don't make baseless accusations. I didn't alter anyone's post, I was removing the spaces and adding * to each entry for clarity. --Mardavich 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits like this should not be called vandalism. I caution you against making that kind of bold claim over a minor change. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, it look like that last Diff was different from all the others. My apologies, Mardavich. However, I think Khorshid and Agha had something to say about altering the posts of others. Either way, I just thought that if you were preparing a Diff, you could change it back after creating one. Again, my apologies for calling it vandalism, when it was clearly not that. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tools

Yeah, I thought it was a nice find. Check out 300 (film) using its statistics... the editor formerly known as Wiki-newbie and I are the top contributors. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I can't tell if Norton sold out or if he sees something in this project. Of course, he's done stuff like Red Dragon and Death to Smoochy, so he's not perfect. Ang Lee's interpretation will probably be thrown out of the window, but think of Norton this way -- thin scientist with lab coat, tiny glasses, sullen expression. I think it works. What I'm not sure about is how or if they'll capture a resemblance to Norton in the Hulk's face. Bana's face worked for the Hulk, though I didn't see Bruce Banner at all in Bana.

Funny coincidence, though, I just watched Layer Cake last night. I actually saw it a while ago, but wasn't in the best mood to enjoy it. So I re-watched it and liked it. I've got Saw 3 on the way from Netflix. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not that big of a fan of horror movies. I've liked the Saw series so far, and I'm most likely gonna watch it for the over-the-top scenes instead of any real resolution. (Not too crazy about the philosophy that the killer preached.) I tend to like films of a thriller nature, such as Fallen or Frailty. I did like John Carpenter's The Thing, though. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

300 reply

Going on record as stating that the area which I added the tag, which I see was already removed, was stating fact which could be questioned, not an "overview". It may be needed to be removed since it should not be included in an overview in that case. I see you are having trouble with me doing anything to this article and taking issue with my actions. I will leave it to other people to decide. It does seem like everyone who has contributed greatly to an article, really doesn't like other people "messing" with it. Jokerst44 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(reiterated on the user's talk page)

I don't have a problem with you adding info to a page, Jokester44. As I said in two previous posts to your talk page, you are improperly utilizing the citation tag, as it doesn't apply to Lead Statements. The reason for this is that the statements made in the lead remarks are referencing data already referenced within the artilce. I have suggested that you read WP:LEAD, and the fact that another editor removed your remarks for precisely the same reason that I suggested that you revert yourself should clearly tell you that this isn't a conspiracy to remove all your edits. Please read the wikilink provided and you will see that what I say is correct. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Annoyance?

Awwwwww, what have you ever possibly done to offend me? And no, I've not seen Braveheart, or The 13th Warrior. I'm pretty slow when it comes to seeing new films. Alientraveller 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

well, I am imperfect. I might up and hurt someone's feelings on occasion. I'd feel bad if one of those feelings happened to belong to you. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL OMG K

Arc, I speak Persian, but I believe a user should provide translation or some sort of conclusion regarding what a source refers to in the talk, when they are asked about it as this is an English Wikipedia. Thanks for your concern, --Rayis 19:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

sure thing

sure thing. sorry.

Some advice

Don't use warning templates with established users such as you did here [32]; it's considered provocative. I got into an conflict before because I didn't know this, so I figure you probably just aren't aware yet. There is a specific page about this but I don't remember its address. I'll lead you to it when I find it. Anyway, just giving you a heads up. The Behnam 02:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up, and would love to see the page if you find it. That said, I won't tolerate personal attacks by anyone, and Mardavich should know better thant to do so, as many times as he has called others on their supposed incivility, bad faith and personal attacks. I gave the tag because it was a personal attack. I didn't supply the provocation; I was merely responding to it in the proper way. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DTTR, though it doesn't say much more than I have. The point is that getting the standard template as an experienced editor is maddening. The Behnam 02:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what you are saying that if he's doing these things as an "experienced editor" he doesn't need these warnings? I've kinda fond that Mardavich isn't really one for informed discussion. However, I see the point, and will act accordingly. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you just give 'personalized' warnings. Approach it editor-to-editor. Don't use the template. The Behnam 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy candidate

Yep, that one was definitely a blatant ad, and that is a speedy criterion (G11). Just for reference, you can use {{db-spam}} to mark blatant ad pages for speedy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was my very first call for deletion. Thanks for acting on it. (I feel pretty nifty now. :) Ma, ah dun got me un o'dem ad arty-culls!) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As to semi-protection vs. blocking, we'd much prefer to block one IP from editing than protect or semi-protect a whole page. The only time we really use semi is on pages that are very high-profile vandalism targets (e.g. George W. Bush), or for whatever reason are getting vandalized by a ton of IPs or new accounts. When we block an IP for vandalism, it's almost always what's called a "softblock", which just prevents anonymous editing from that IP, and generally prevents account creation. However, someone can create an account somewhere else (or may already have one) and can still edit with that account from the blocked IP. We do end up blocking a decent number of schools and the like, as you might imagine, a lot of the IPs pulling childish vandalism backtrace to a school. (Of course, some very good edits do as well.) If you see someone vandalizing, just warn them on their talk using {{uw-vandalism1}} up to {{uw-vandalism4}} (you don't specifically have to use all of them, I'll often skip 2 or 3 depending how bad the vandal is, or even right to 4 if they have a long history already), and if the vandal keeps going after you give them the final warning, report them to WP:AIV and someone will block them. (Of course, make sure it is a vandal, which generally means a relatively new account-established editors will get a bit touchy if you leave them "vandalism" warnings when they're removing sections as part of the cleanup process or just screw up an edit!) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I had never considered that weight of soft protect vs. just blocking the IP as a means to promote registration. Thanks for the knowledge. Is the IP blocked, or should I just use v warnings as they occur? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That particular IP was already blocked by Alphachimp at the time. (You can check to see if someone is, just hit "User contributions" on the left menu from their user or user talk page, then the "Block log" button at the top. That'll show you when the person has been blocked, so you can see if they already are.) It's not really a means to promote registration, per se, we just do that so that good editors who already have accounts don't get hit by a block because some idiot was vandalizing from the same IP. If a user account is used only for vandalism, we can block it indef, unlike IPs which of course we block for limited time periods. That's pretty much the reasoning behind that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Heya

I've been offline, too. Finished my semester, so I took a little vacation to NTID/RIT. My wiki-activity's been low, but I'll be back in action by Wednesday evening. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Carried Over from Arc 008

• Carried Over from Arc 007 - What has gone before...
• 300 talk - discussion with Miskin re: pro-nationalism vs. Iranian editing.
• may I? - someone wanted to steal a pic that I myself had stolen. :)
• Lucy Deakins - where does he get all those interesting facts?
• Devil May Cry - a review of the article for FA standards.
• Re: Getting It - a discussion w/Khoikhoi re: his apparent bias towards some users.
• Re: Your edits to Talk:300 (film) - some people just need more lithium in their diet.
• DMC - more discussion on Devil May Cry (not Run DMC).
• oh yeah - discussion w/ Tomer about another person's failed RfC.
• Rude user -bad users, and how to use AIV
• Re:Braveheart - clarifying connections betw Spielberg's and Gobson's use of the Irish Army
• Civility - Bignole makes a new template to stop All the Violins in 300
• Immortal - apparently, there is an über Immortal in the Persian Army, according to the credits of 300
• Block duration - slippery vandals and sock-puppeteers
• Clan Wallace article - re citation tags
• Tally - discussion on end date fro vote (was rejected until Rove-style nonsense was complete)
• Googoosh Edits - discussion with Arash about how to improve the article
• Do you speak Farsi? - looking for farsi speakers
• Re:Googoo gaagaa - reasoning for removal of peacocking
• don't mean to be rude! - discussion with someone who wasn't rude at all (quite refreshing, actually)
• Your message - Khodavand and I have a more intellectual convo re historical v fictional that was decidedly missing from 300 Talk page
• Historical Fiction - more discussion on the topic and a solution to a feeder problem
• voted - someone who wasn't a meat puppet voted
• Re: 300 vote - discussions as to how to handle the various problems with the suspect votes
• 300 vote - more discussion about the matter with an admin
• hi - request for assistance with a content dispute that I did not involve myself in due to a conflict of interest
• LOL - discusssion regarding conventions, costumes and a realistic assessment of one's own body-image
• Secret identity - the difference between using email to discuss RL with plotting out group moves
• Change in 300 - discussing using Discussion as opposed to bold editing in a contentious article
• Re:We are watching you - Big and Erik watch over me, imparting good advice about Fair Use (1, 2)
• Question - using help
• Re - Mardy caught making idff changes for his own purposes
• Re: Tools - checking out edit stats on articles
• 300 reply - helping a newer user learn some of the ropes
• Annoyance? - AlienTraveller (aka, the editor formerly known as WikiNewbie) is a neat-o person
• LOL OMG K - Rayis speaks Persian. Yay.
• sure thing - agreement
• Some advice - warning templates for new folks, personalized warnings for established users.
• Speedy candidate - my first time having an article deleted
• Re: Heya - Back from an offline distraction

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan China Pic

Hey Arcayne. Nice to talk to you again. I think we actually got the China Pic thing resolved on Nancy Reagan, but I do agree with your assessment that the article has improved. Any Questions, please leeave me a message. Happyme22 22:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Did you know?

The page looks fine on my computer, can you show me a screen shot of how it looks to you? --Mardavich 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

300 (film)

Hello. You have reverted multiple times at 300 (film) in the last 24 hours. Please refrain from engaging in edit warring and instead pursue dispute resolution for your disagreements. Excessive reverts are less likely to cause a resolution, since it will make collaboration less likely. Repeat offenders may be blocked from editing if the problem continues. Thanks! Note that this message applies to everyone at 300 (film), and all three users with multiple reverts at the article in the last 24 hours received it. Dmcdevit·t 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Crikey, I can't believe y'all are still embroiled in 300 discussions... don't you get sick of it? Especially considering that the article's content is well-rounded enough that 98.7% of readers won't bat an eye toward certain wording in the lead? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Heck yes, I do. I go to Virginia with the gf to bury her brother, and when I come back, the vote is magically over and people start throwing the word consensus around like it were a protective mantra. Frankly, I am not going to belabor the point any more. I'll just wait for others to weigh in with their votes and change the lead when it does. Of course, that might simply spark the threatened ArbCom that some editors have been threatening. Sigh. You would think that people would have a little more fun.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fun? Wikipedia? Nahhhh! This is serious business, college students are relying on us for successful papers, especially about violent, controversial films and the mainstream media in an article like 300! We must not fail 'em. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't cast aspersions. As I said, "all three users with multiple reverts at the article in the last 24 hours received," and still you make a thinly veiled accusation of bias. If you, Alientraveller, and Miskin happen to be on the same side of a conflict, that is entirely a coincidence from my position. If I have missed someone with multiple reverts on the article, please let me know, otherwise, please read WP:AGF; I would have hoped you would respond by indicating you understanding of my concerns, not in the way you did. Dmcdevit·t 02:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I commented on your talk about this. I reverted three times about an obviously clear grammar edit clarified here and here. Maybe I am a bit tired of admins not taking a longer look at the edit history before commenting about three editors who aren't coordinating their edits. Call me a bit of a grouch when it comes to that.
So maybe I took out on you some of that frustration, Dmcdevit. I do appreciate you pointing out my three edits. I was well-aware of them, and do not consider it an electric fence. Often, I don't even revert once, instead contacting the editor to point out their mistake and allowing them to revert themselves.

Robin Hood movie poster

Actually, I wasn't the one who brought the image to wikipedia, I merely used the same image from the article for Robin Hood: Men in Tights. I didn't read the image description page until just now, and it doesn't look like the person who uploaded it provided any detail on fair use policy. Should I take it away from the Robin Hood article then? --PericlesofAthens 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(I don't know if you are watching my page for a response, so I'll put this on both my and your Talk page). No, don't pull it right away. Go and check out a few pictures from the WP:FA#Media list. Take a look at some of pictures there, selecting a picture or two (looking specifically for posters) to see their Fair Use rationales. When you find one that looks about right, structure the rationale for the Men In Tights poster similarly. That should do the trick. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-English links

Hi, there's nothing wrong with having links to non-English sources, if the source is relevant to the article. It's somewhere in WP:ATT#Language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me check it out. If I am wrong, i will revert myself, and save you the trouble. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You might still want to consider reverting yourself, at least before Dmcdevit jumps at you again - this might be seen as a slow continuation of a revert war you were already warned about. And people might be getting the impression you are developing an unhealthy "ownership" attitude compounded with a tendency towards know-it-all pedantry. Just a friendly word of advice. -- As for the matter itself, I'd planned to leave it alone, but as you insist on discussing it further, I'll reiterate. There's nothing wrong about that expression. Neither the reviewer nor the translater made a mistake. The Greek author said "chaidevo", 'stroke, caress, titillate'. He was using a metaphor. It's not the conventional metaphor you expected, about fires, it's a different one. Not being conventionalised to the same degree, it won't be found in dictionaries, but it works nevertheless and is perfectly correct and understandable. To "caress" somebody's feelings in the sense of: to stimulate their feelings in a way that they will find reassuring and pleasant, and thereby reaffirm these feelings. The English translator rendered that metaphorical expression as faithfully as he could. "Stroke" is what the author said, it is precisely what he meant to say, and it is precisely what the translation says too. Therefore it is correct. The problem about the expression is not that it is "incorrect", the only problem - if anything - is that a few readers (including you) apparently failed to understand it. They confused the intended metaphor with another, different one, which just happens to sound similar in English. I and several other users had no problems understanding it. You are the only editor who wants that "sic".

I'd have no problems with the "sic" if its effect was just to say: "yes, reader, he said 'stroke', because he actually meant to say 'stroke', it's correct." But the "sic" can also be understood as saying: "this is a mistake, he is saying 'stroke' but he should really be saying something else." This second statement is plain wrong (and incidentally it's also "original research"). So, not only is the expression itself in its English translation liable to create some confusion, the "sic" isn't making it better, because it is itself ambiguous and adds to the confusion rather than clarifying it. That's why I proposed to simply paraphrase. I have no idea what you could possibly find objectionable about the paraphrasis I suggested (you said it was "problematic"?) - what I proposed was a neutral expression that was in a way covering the meanings both of the Greek metaphor and the other one that you were thinking of, and as such should be uncontroversial.

Oh yes, and as for the two links, it should be a matter of common sense that (a) an original quotation is always superior to ta second-hand quotation, (b) especially if the second-hand translated quotation is problematic, confusing, dubious (as you apparently find it to be) it is all the more useful to add the original so that people can check. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now here i was, being pleasant and polite while taking the time to carefully explain my point of view, and you go and accuse me of ownership issues and being a know-it-all. In what world is that AGF or civil? I took the time to point out not one but two sets of definitions that clearly indicated the word used was incorrect. I wasn't insisting on discussing it further; it's called being polite. When i don't know something, I shut up. When I do, I pipe up. Having a degree in English kinda means that I know from whence I speak. As for edit-warring, it usually takes two to make that sort of thing happen. Perhaps following your own friendly words of advice might work wonders as well.

You say that the original Greek article was translated incorrectly, and that the metaphors used are different in other countries. That may very well be true. However, this is the English language Wiki, which means that stuff translated into English gets more weight than, say, stuff that might be better suited to the Greek Wiki. I don't have any reason to think you would lie about the Greek translator being wrong, but frankly, no other newspaper or reliable source has stepped up and said - 'hey, the translator got it wrong'. Not even int he Greek press. Not even the reviewer. So, what you are saying is that we should rely upon your interpretation/translation of the article. If you read either of those sources I was polite enough to provide as basis, you would have seen that secondary sources of translation trump primary sources of wiki editoral translation. It's Wikipedia's rule, not mine. If you have an issue with it, you can take it to the Village Pump and lobby for a different standard. For someone with a self-admittedly less than fluent knowledge of the Greek language, it might be considered reckless for you to consider a directly (and not second-hand) translated newspaper article "problematic, confusing" or "dubious". I utterly disagree with this assertion. The article appears to be fairly clear, save for the incorrect word use. And let's simply face the fact that for the English language, it is the wrong word to use. You may not choose to accept that, but there are too many English dictionary entries that agree with my assertion. I have sourced my objections.

As well, I considered your edit problematic in that you read more into the statements than were actually stated in the cited (translated article), to whit: "Film critic Dimitris Danikas has suggested that the film portrays Persians as "bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies," and that it appeals to racist instincts in Europe and America". That is not what the article says, and neither 'stoke' or 'stroke' makes it such.

I disagree as well with your assertion that the inclusion of a foreign language link is "all the more useful". I consider myself a fairly well-read individual, and I haven't spoken Greek since high school, alongside Latin. I am not so sure that the average reader or scholar is going to find the benefit that you seem to think the original article in Greek is going to impart. You might want to to read those links I courteously provided to you before; a translation is not a "second-hand" quotation, and while the intended semantical barb is not lost on me, it is inappropriate for the purposes of this discussion.

Lastly, you will note that I have still been polite to you, whereas good yet harsh editors like ThuranX would have editorially torn you to shreds for being uncivil and calling them a moron. I don't mind having a civil discussion withyou regarding the mertis of this or that. I can disagree with you without being a fool, and you can disagree with me without me considering you a petulant simpleton. That said, if you write me another nasty little post like you did here, that exchange of ideas will come to a screeching halt. I won't deal with rude folk on my Talk page. I hope you understand that, and adapt your behavior accordingly when discussing matters with me. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm at a loss to know how to respond without getting rude (which I don't think I was last time). You quote me as saying "that the original Greek article was translated incorrectly"? Good grief, I was saying the exact opposite! Did you even read what I said? I'm utterly at my wits' end here. One of us is clearly being obtuse, and I would still like to think it's not me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Only one

It's "series" because it also includes the television show and other adaptations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. But if it was only the films, you'd say that. Unfortunately, you can't pull a Star Wars, and just use the name (it's disambig). Friday the 13th (series) & A Nightmare on Elm Street (series) are examles of the same. Once you start including other mediums you expand your topic, and your name needs to expand. Since the television series was a big part of that, you have to include it. You could go to the page for Wikipedia:naming conventions, see what they say. Maybe there is a better way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Various Edits

Hi, and thanks for talking to me.

As for whether Braveheart was popular in Scotland or not - I'm not denying that it did well in Scotland. I just thought it was rather strange that the opening lines of the article drew so much attention to the popularity of it in Scotland when it was actually far more popular in America. I remember quite a few Scottish people criticizing Mel's accent, the depiction of the Scottish as primitive cavemen, and other stuff like that, and of course the complaints against the infamous statue. Also, like you said, there was no citation of such a bold statement. It just seemed more reasonable to remove it altogether and replace it with something more general and neutral.

As to Dracula - Stoker lived in England for over two decades, wrote the book when he was living in England, had English main characters (aside from Dracula obviously) and it was first published in England. Also, at the same time Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. The only connection with Ireland was that the author was Irish. Simply because he was born in Ireland doesn't make the book itself Irish - because Tolkien was born in South Africa, does that mean The Lord Of The Rings is a South African book? Of course not. That was the reason for my changes. What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kohran (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I think that's a reasonable explanation, and good enough for me. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Highlander

Sorry, Arcayne... your comment totally slipped under my radar on my talk page. Been cleaning up a few film articles today, you can see two of them on my user page. You can take a look at Help:Moving a page, and Highlander (franchise) sounds like a more appropriate article title, since not everything is in line. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, Arcayne... maybe if you can get Braveheart to GA status, I'll consider it. :) Honestly, though, in the scope of film articles (where my respect really lies), I still think you can improve in terms of contributions. I think for both Children of Men and 300, you've usually been focused on discussions to resolve issues. That's not a bad thing, but I don't see it as an "obvious" contribution like what Alientraveller and Bignole have done. We watch over a lot of franchise film articles, with our own side projects -- me with my lesser films, Bignole with horror films and The Detective, Alientraveller with Tranformers stuff. I'd be glad to assist you in doing more for film articles -- remember my outreach back then? I'm still willing to do that... right now, I'm working on Australia (2008 film). There's a lot of links, but they're not really built into the article in the best way. Take a gander if you like, ask me any questions you want. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:??

JSTOR? What's it stand for? I could have, but I may not know the acronym you are using.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You made reference to it in the 300 article at the inclusion of a scholarly work. However, I already founf it. T'would appear I have an awesome library system here. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall, at least not that particular system. Though, it could have been Erik, as he usually plugs the academic search engines in conversations. It's a good system, I just generally don't think to mention it, because I don't generally use it all that much (don't think to till afterwards). But, you said you think you found what you were looking for, so it's all gravvy now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Hey Arcayne. An IP added on Nancy Reagan's page the word "deceased" next to President Reagan's name in the person box. Is that ok? On Lady Bird Johnson's page, it doesn't say that, but on Betty Ford's, it says President Ford died in 2006. I might be making a big deal out of nothing, but can you clarify? Thanks, Happyme22 23:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey I looked at some featured articles, and none of them list the death of the spouse, like someone added in NR's. I'm going to remove it, ok? Happyme22 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Carried Over from Arc 009

• Carried Over from Arc 008 - What has gone before...
• The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007 - found here
• Nancy Reagan China Pic - discussion as to the value of Nancy's White House redecorating contributions
• Re: Did you know? - Mardavich responds to my concerns about html issues on his user page (see below for continuation)
• 300 (film) - another admin considering me the Big Bad Wolf, and failing to realize the lions all around
• Robin Hood movie poster - discussion regarding fair use of the image
• Non-English links - a continuation of the stoke vs. stroke padiddle from the 300 article. Discussion of including original non-English citations, as one editor thought the translation was incorrect
• Only one - discussion of renaming the Highlander (series) to something more appropriate; check out Naming Conventions for instruction
• Various Edits - discussion about the Braveheart article and some fun about Bram Stoker tossed in
• Re: Highlander - More advice on Highlander naming conventions and how I am not worthy just yet ;)
• April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter - to be found here
• Re:?? - response to my inquiry regrading JSTOR and scholarly research
• Nancy Reagan - apparently, no one needs to know that Ronnie is dead. :)

DR

I'm in the middle of looking for a mediator, I'll be keeping you up to date. Miskin 09:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Citations

I'm going to have to go with the former. They are most likely offline sources. Like the Variety source is probably from the actual magazine, instead of the website. I don't know what that other source is, but it's probably a literary source as well. If it's a magazine then you wouldn't see the obvious trail of ISBN numbers to indicate that it was a book. That's what I have to assume. Otherwise, if they used the template "cite web", then maybe they just forgot to include the url for the website. But my guess is that they are both the physical magazines being cited.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem. Heck, ALL my production information for the Friday the 13th movies are from two books that you cannot find online. They were first-hand interviews conducted specifically for those books. I actually like book sources. Internet sources are easier to verify, but they are also easier to go dead. It's a little harder to wipe a book off the face of the Earth (not saying it couldn't be done).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Subpages

You can have multiple subpages, absolutely. Obviously, like your user page, it should be more focused on Wikipedia-related topics. Take a look on my user page, if you see a "guide" next to a film title, that's a subpage of mine at which I dump links and such to make work easier. So just create something like User:Arcayne/Braveheart on your user page, click on it, and add the content. Definitely a useful technique for article-building! :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Subpages may be worth reading as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just making sure that you noticed, but I put an interview with Mel Gibson from Films in Review at the end of your Braveheart subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks., The more the merrier. After looking at all the articles, you now have some idea of what's taking so long. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of Internet sources on the older films tend to lean toward reviews. Kind of why I like future films -- I'm a bit hung up on tracing production histories. You should check out American Gangster -- that was a fun puzzle to put together, haha. Anyway, I don't know if you noticed my other contribution, either, but if you go to the talk page of that same subpage, I dumped some references that I found from a film database. Might point you in the right direction for more articles. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Googoosh

The new image in info box is cool, Thanks. Do you think we should sumerize the fimography too? you can respond in the article talk page. (Arash the Archer 12:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Highlander controversy

Hi, I am the user who updated the Highlander page with the French link. I apologize I am not accustomed to Wikipedia and I believed I could add the story with a link for proof. Unfortunately it was hard for me to find an English website since Quebec has two main languages and this story is important to the French speaking community a great deal more. In any case, I do not wish to bore you with details. I am providing you with the link for an English newspaper in Montreal which deals with the story. I prefer if you could add the link and modify in whatever way you see fit what I wrote concerning the event. It is mentioned in one paragraph only, it is the best source I could find. The Gazette is one of the most respected newspapers in Montreal, and I hope it will be enough.

Thank you very much for your help

link:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=de688461-5394-4d0e-a1b4-6538a339de88

You needed {{reflist}} added. Read Wikipedia:Footnotes for more information. :) I would also suggest using the Cite news template for that new reference, so additional information can be shown. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I reformat the reference as it appears in the article? The template page neglects to mention that. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see Erik got to ya. Let me know if there is something else, and as usual..."we are watching you".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, could I toruble you to show me by example how you would set up the reference listed using the template (using a nowiki to show process)Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can visit the template via the link that I provided you. There are different ways to organize the attributes. Alientraveller does it one way, I do it another. This is how I would write out the canada.com citation:

• <ref>{{cite news | author=Gaetan L. Charlebois | url=http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=de688461-5394-4d0e-a1b4-6538a339de88 | title=Artists split on election | publisher=[[The Gazette (Montreal)|The Gazette]] | date=[[2007-03-18]] | accessdate=2007-05-02 }}</ref>

You can usually search on Wikipedia to find the right publisher, especially with a generic one like The Gazette. I would suggest having <ref>{{cite news | author= | url= | title= | publisher= | date= | accessdate= }}</ref> ready to copy and paste, so you can fill out the attributes. Myself, I type it straightaway, having written quite a few in my time. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems Erik's on top of things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much on the example. I was executing something wrong, and it kept looking manky when I would look at in preview. I think it will just take some getting used to.

On another note, did you happen to see the extended shot discussion in CoM that I brought up in WikiProject: Film? It was the discussion regarding intro paragraphs in subsections. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really; I really did just drop by and didn't look at all the discussions at hand. I'll take a quick look and see what I can suggest. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Category location

They're at the very end of the article, after the External links section. If you want to add categories, check out Category:Films and add them, like I did here. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that I knew how to do. I was thinking about how Hungary shows up as being a category for CoM's Discussion page. That's what I cannot figure out how to remove. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the issue. I explained what I did in the last section. Whenever you link to a category like that, it'll put the present wiki-page in that category. Pretty annoying. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. However, when I went to the Hungary category, I couldn't find CoM anywhere in the various sections, and I couldn't find a tag for it in the discussion page. How did you find it too remove it, or find the entry inthe Hungary area? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the category on the talk page by searching for Category:Hungary, but I'm not sure why it didn't show up. Sometimes categories can be tricky... so, like, watch out... :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Like, okay, dude. Fer shure. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan Lead

Should we expand the lead in NR's article at all? Maybe mention her drug awareness campaign, popularity as First Lady (see this site for lots of polls on Ronald Reagan, and a section on Nancy), and a brief bio of her. I'm willing to do it, but what do u think? Happyme22 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

xxxxx stuff

Hey, thanks for keeping watch and all, but considering Jimbo Wales himself downright blanked an entire section about this [33], I think it is best that 'xxxxx' is used for now. I'm going to email him about this because I know the 'right to vanish' is simply a proposal and I don't see why this user should escape from her abusive record just because she represents a supposed 'agency'. She made an ass of herself on WP, but this doesn't mean that she should be wiped from the record. In any case, for now this seems to be WP:OFFICE stuff so I won't oppose them. My guess is that they fear her for some reason. Until further notice I'll restore the 'xxxxx' format, including for the section Jimbo blanked. Thanks anyway. The Behnam 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, can you explain the background on this a bit more? I was just responding to someone blanking XXXXX. I saw the link that you provided. Feed my brain, please. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can. Unfortunately they are letting her 'disappear' so I'm not sure how many of the previous conversation exist intact at this point. In the meantime I suggest you retract your call for an immediate block of that Wikimedia Foundation intern. The Behnam 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do - was XXXXX a company or a female? I still donna understand you. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime I'll give you a quick summary. Basically an IP was making inappropriate edits at the Mukhtaran Bibi page, and when User:Bakasuprman and User:Ragib noticed and made appropriate changes, the IP attacked them (and me) with racist insults. This continued under that IP and another, and this IP eventually revealed that she was a regular contributor under a 'professional' account. This piqued my curiosity, so when she eventually began carrying out her fight under her 'professional' account, I took a look at her 'professional' article. As she was editing her own organization's article, it was a blatant violation of WP:COI. Furthermore, it did not appear to hold real notability, so I nominated it for deletion. Things happened, and after an incredible number of socks bombarded the AfD and many personal attacks later, this user and her socks were banned from Wikipedia, in addition to the article being deleted. However, during the process, she convinced some uninvolved users to let her change her names, which messed things up a bit. Since then I have opposed the supposed right to vanish proposal. In any case, she is completely blocked, but I guess that she (a former UN worker) has been threatening the Wikimedia Foundation somehow and this has made Jimbo Wales scared. Hence, the deletion of her user page against regular practice, and removal of mention of her from various pages. OK that wasn't really that quick but there you have it. Hope it helps a bit. The Behnam 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking another look I suppose I don't entirely oppose WP:Right to vanish but feel that it has been misapplied here, as it indicates "The right to vanish should not be extended to users who have been abusive or disruptive, who left when they lost the trust of the community, or who have been banned." The Behnam 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't too long, and it explained things enough for me. Sounds like a manky little pit you found yourself in, bud. Glad it all worked out...um, when you say "an incredible number of socks", just how many are we talking about here? 4? 6? an-angry-mob-with-torches-storming-the-castle's-worth? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure, though it was definitely a lot for the situation. It included both user accounts and IPs, including one that actually resolved to the UN office! The Behnam 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Benham, this is is apparently not factual. The user has complained that you're distorting the events. Please stop adding insult to injury, by continuing to discuss the matter. Thanks. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And please stop adding the Organization's name with regard to this matter--Note, I've replaced it with X's once more. TheBenham. Don't assume anything. Half of what you say is completely untrue, and adding comments like this elicit more response from the user. It's over and done with. I'm personally tired of this matter altogether and would like to work on building this project rather than get involved in petty disputes among users throwing around accusations. So enough already. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud! All I did was revert some apparent vandalism that higher ups failed to let us Wikipedians know was not vandalism at all. I have seven different emails in my mailbox, and at least two of them appear to be coming from the subject of "Whatever Is going On™" , with the other half blaming me for even discussing it like I was exposing state secrets or whatever. This seems precisely like one of those matters that bore/annoy/insert-adjective-here the living crap out of me. I am simply going to archive this conversation shortly, and be done with it.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "liar"

I responded to your latest comment on WP:AN. -- tariqabjotu 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Images

Well, Fur has agreed to hold the deletion of the image per an IfD, if you guys want that. I don't know if you do, but if you think that will be better then you need to do it fast, because I assume that if one isn't started before the 48 hours is up, then he/she will delete the image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean which of the regular 300 editors were silent? No, I didn't. I could probably guess by just looking at the rest of the talk page discussions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it for you, just follow the link in the caption of the picture.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, w/e the case, the image is on the IfD noticeboard, so all you have to do is go there and scroll to the bottom for the discussion. I swear this article draws more controversy then the debate on same-sex marriage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've initiated a discussion here. If I get a similar response from others that the admin has given us, then I will be summoning the full force of the WikiProject Films community to address this issue. Are you ready to get your Wiki on!? :-D —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:

I am OK with that wording, you should also ask Miskin and some of the people who voted for option "7" to see what they think. --Mardavich 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Welcome Home

I'm home with parents after finishing my junior year, and I'll be here until the end of the month, where I'm going to New Jersey for the summer to do an IT internship. So expect a lot of wiki-editing in the coming month 'cause I really have nothing to do until then... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think a Sandman would find love in a sandbox as much as a normal human would find love in a pool of blood or a pit of body parts... :) Anyway, I'll see your Spidey image and raise you this. That should conclude all disputes till the end of time. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying how it may seem to be. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nan's POB

Haha I'm glad you read the book. I got mine signed by her a while back....Anyway I have 3 or 4 books on Nancy, and I'll look through them, and cite them on the talk page sometime later. Be sure to check! Thanks, Happyme22 16:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

I am the Director of the WP:WPChi. We have recently begun tagging articles and I have reassessed the priority scale. You can see our newly revised guidelines that are open for comment here. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get that Nan might be of a lower prioity and importance to Project Chicago (I live in that area, btw), but how is she under that particular subset? She has never been there for any notable period of time. If anything, she falls under the aegis of Wikiproject: California, if there is such an animal. You might wish to remove your evaluation of the article's importance based upon basic jurisdictional concerns. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

N.B. the WP article says "she grew up in Chicago". Feb 2007 Chicago magazine cover story about the high school lives of 17 celebrity Chicagoans before they were famous they say she graduated from Latin School for Girls in 1939. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps her high school years of almost 70 years ago aren't of striking importance, but perhaps evaluating the larger scope of her life might be of more practical use here, wouldn't you think? I mean, she did accomplish a wee bit more than the rest of her graduating class, in that I am guessing that none went on to be film stars of note, or First Ladies, or philanthropists - you get what I am talking about here, right? I still assert that the involvement Reagan had with Chicago is but a smaller subset of her larger involvement elsewhere, and that it's a bit od a stretch to re-assign her notability and importance based on a 70 year-old high school education. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not reassigning her as an individual. I am reassigning the entire class of individuals who had non-notable Chicago roles, but rose to national or international prominence. The question is whether you think this class is appropriately accorded a mid rating in the grand scheme of ratings. It seems this is what other regional WPs do. For example, WP Hawaii assigns Barack Obama a mid. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinda illustrates my point. While Obama's importance to WProject: Hawaii is as notable as Nancy is to WProject; Chicago, it would seem that the more notable category wherein these people are noteworthy is not the one assigning them less importance. Would you concede the idea that Nancy Reagan might be better included in, say, WProject: California than in Illinois, and that your stated example of Barack Obama belongs more appropriately in WikiProject Chicago (or Illinois) than in WProject: Hawaii? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that we do away with importance ratings and only assign tags to articles where the project considers them important or are you suggesting that only one regional WP should tag an article. Nancy should be tagged by Chicago, NYC, and CA from my perspective. She should have a higher importance to CA. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we do away w/Importance ratings. I am noting that your assigning the article mid importance affects the overall importance of the article.

Having said that, I went to the article again, and it looks like the only WProject it is contained in is Chicago's (and not California). So I guess the question now becomes, if two projects assign different levels of importance to the same article, what happens? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no conflict with multiple projects assigning different levels of importance. That is what the parameter is for. In this case, a controversial editing decision should be determined in favor of the more important projects. Most people will have varying importances to different regions (like Obama). The overall importance of an article is not relevant to a project's parameter choice. A biography may be an extremely important Bio to WPBio and not important to several regions. Alternatively, a bio may have a higher importance to some regions than it does to WPBio. In short, with respect to your question of what happens. Nothing happens. It is just duly noted that the projects to seek out for guidance on cotnroveries are those who attach the highest priority to it (in general). This is not always the case. In the case of Obama, it is monitored so closely that the ongoing editors should be sought. Within a project the rating will hopefully influence time contributions. You would hope that eventually all your top rated articles would at least get cleaned up enough to be GAs. Similarly, you would hope people would get most high importance articles fairly clean as well. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. WP is not developed enough with respect to assigning priority/importance ratings to draw meaningful inferences from project ratings. Some time in the future, one might go to a talk page and assess an article's importance based on the various project parameters. We are not there yet. In the future when you could go to a typical bio and see tags for most of the regions a subject has lived in, fields she impacted, and general topics with ratings this may be the case. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Cotcha. Thanks for explaining it to me. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay

Clearly, we misunderstood each other. I posted in AN, as I've come to expect Admins to have picked up a bit more in the way of a neutral mindset and some skill at diplomacy, and I kinda feel betrayed when one of them comes up short in either category. It was lacking today with FutPerf. Realizing that even you guys have on days and off days is part of the education. I need to learn how to express myself clearly, so that I am not misinterpreted. Pax nobiscum. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, were you thinking to respond at some point? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No. To what? -- tariqabjotu 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Third Opinion

Hey Arcayne. I need a third opinion here if you wouldn't mind taking a look. The phrase was: "Reagan's policies consisted of large tax cuts, moderate deregulation, robust job creation, reductions in inflation, but soaring budget deficits." Yesterday, User:Info999 removed the phrase "reductions in inflation" because he/she said that the reducing inflation was not part of Reagan's economic strategies. I argued, saying the sentence stated "the economic policies consisted of........" and reductions in inflation was part of that. It's kind of been going that way, and the user pretty much says that since inflation went up, it was bound to come down, and that's what happened during the Reagan years. Anyway, I could use your opinion if you have the time. Thanks, Happyme22 23:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arcayne. I think Happy's got two separate questions here: the first is whether or not a goal, such as reducing the rate of inflation, can be a policy; the second is whether or not to include in the lead part of the Reagan article the fact that the rate of inflation decreased during the end of the Carter presidency and the early part of Reagan's first term. The first question is simple: you can construct policies that you think might reduce inflation, but the actual reduction can't be a policy per se; it can be a goal. Deregulation, tax cuts, changes to monetary policy - these are all strategies or policies that attempt, among other things, to lower inflation. But reducing inflation, by definition, cannot be a policy. Now that I go back and read the paragraph, neither can "robust job creation" be a policy - that, too, is a goal, not a policy. I think you can list policies that Reagan attempted to create jobs, but job creation cannot be a policy. The problem here is, I think, a misunderstanding of the term policy, and how it differs from policy goals.

The second question is more complicated, and easily slips into areas where POV often lurks in a less-read wiki article. I made what I think are changes we can all live with, but I think that's where another opinion might be helpful too. Thanks. Info999 05:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it's resolved now. Happyme22 18:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3

I assume from your edit that you've seen the new film? If that's true, could you go look at the plot? There's a discussion on it in the Talk page, and he keeps reverting and I've used up mine. I'm not going to list the problems in case you haven't seen the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, and was just editing over grammar and flow. Imeant to see it today, but I saw the waiting line and decided that Sunday is as good a day as any other. I'll take a look at the chit-chat, as I don't mind knowing the plot. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it resolved itself. I would have said something, but it was going on 3am and I just went to bed. The only real issue now that we have is the names of the characters in the plots. But, once you see the film I'm sure you'll see the argument (or just look on the talk page..lol).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Carried Over from Arc 009

• Carried Over from Arc 009 - What has gone before...
• DR - Miskin seeking Dispute Resolution regarding 300 dispute.
• Citations - Offline sources, citeweb templates and bears. Oh,my.
• Subpages - Disc. on creating subpages as work area (guide) (assembly).
• Googoosh - Comment on new infobox stuff.
• Highlander controversy - Finding an English language equiv cite for a plagiarism story, more on citeweb referencing and reflist tag.
• Category location - dealing with all those wacky categories that find themselves attached to articles. The postman swore in Hungarian, so it must be part of 'category: hungarian films'. Sheesh.
• Nancy Reagan Lead - Disc. whether artlcle lead requires expansion (I think so).
• xxxxx stuff - Some stuff that I cannot really relate here without the Powers That Be scampering in and putting 'x's on the relevent text. In truth, it's a boring little dispute that I have no involvement or interest in.
• Re: "Liar" - Why do I keep assuming the worst form this guy? He's nice enough and smart enough; we just keep ending up on opposite sides of disputes. Kind of a bummer...
• Re: Images - Activist admins axing article attributes sans asking (lol)
• Re: - Only Nixon could go to China, and only I could work with Mardavich to find a workable solution.
• Nan's POB - Disc. re: citing better sources as to NR's place of birth
• Nancy Reagan - Disc. re: Nan's relative importanc ein multiple projects,a nd my misunderstanding of a category/wikiproject protocol (ie, live and learn).
• Okay - Apology gone sideways, as the admin didn't really seem to care one way or the other
• Ronald Reagan third Opinion - a content dispute that was apparently resolved over the weekend with no input from me (I was playing frisbee with the dog and the gf).
• Spider-Man 3 - Disc. about content edits in SM³, again resolved while I was away in the Real World.

Braveheart Edits

Sure if you feel that some of the information should be covered in a production section feel free to start one and put it there. The issue is of course is that this is a movie that quite literally had a cast of thousands - and that the extras were not just "extras" eg (out of work actors) but part-time soldiers who were coached by teams of stunt-men and then came up with their own routines. Killing each other convincingly for a whole 30-40 second take can be quite hard to maintain. I happen to know, I worked for 8+ weeks on Braveheart. I dont believe actors could have done it --Sf 22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, you can see how it might be inappropriate to cite yourself as a source, or give yourself credit in the Cast section. You will also have to excuse me if I do not take your claim of having worked on the Braveheart film on its face. Ever since the Essjay nonsense, it has become extraordinarily difficult for a person to retain their perfect anonymity while being able to make extraordinary claims, like you made (claiming to have actually worked on the movie). If this is in fact the case, bravo; the movie was wonderfully entertaining. If it is not, then you might wish to explore the extraordinary penalties placed upon those who falsely claim expertise.

That said, we don't really mention extras - even large groups of professional soldiers - in the Cast section. I've been knocking out the Production section in my guide area (but as work has been kicking my arse something fierce lately, I've not had time to take it from guide to assembly), you are welcome to contribute. I've got references already set up; I just have to assemble them. I certainly meant to include the Irish Army reserves there, speciically as Spielberg also used them for Saving Private Ryan.

If you have pictures made whilst on the set, you might want to consider addign them in on the Discussion page, and since you yourself took them, there's no worry of copyright infringement. As well, if you can speak as to your position in the staff, you can address and clarify such matters (of course, you will need to cite them, as primary sources of information are always less "verifiable" than secondary ones).

And welcome to the article! Cheers! Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I ache to smash you out of existence! To drive your cursed face from my memories forever!

LOL, yeah, fur speedos are kind of creepy. I think though that seeing Gerard Butler, or even Pitt as He-Man will cast too many Leonidas and Achilles(sp) shadows. They need a no-name. No-names a generally best for these franchise parts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

I have blocked both you and Viriditas for 24 hours for edit warring on Children of Men. Heimstern Läufer 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

((unblock|I would submit that i have not edit-warred. I am the one submitted a 3RR violation because the violater had reverted/undone previous edits, reinstating uncited statements. My edits were well-cited, and I did ask for mediation, which the other user refused. I did look for ways to resolve the matter (even suggesting that an impartial editor weigh in to resolve matters), and the other editor repeatedly refused to even consider it. As well, my edits maintained the article in its current state, which is the supposed purpose of blocking (as opposed to punishing editors). I don't feel that I have earned this block, and would ask to have it removed.))

The block has expired, before I was able to review it; I haven't spotted any related autoblocks. You should be able to edit, but feel free to post another unblock request if you run into any trouble. Sorry for the delay in replying. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

300 soundtrack

Yes, as you can see from my edit summary. The debate is about deletion, not removal. Regardless of it I will enforce the policy as it always has been enforced, that is not to use covers at any mention of the album. ed g2s • talk 11:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no reference to the uber immortal in the text, and no reference in the caption to the point being made. I imagine, given a slightly better written section - it would be possible to justify its use. ed g2s • talk 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't be able to edit on 300 (film) today. Reached my 3RR limit last night, as you may have seen from the page history. If Ed is persistent despite the nature of film articles to have images just like these, I'll be summoning the full force of the WikiProject Films community upon the article's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed didn't violate 3RR. He knew when to stop, as you can tell from the page history. His first two edits today were not undoing recent edits; they aren't categorized as reverts. I recommend that you withdraw the case but keep the text handy in case he crosses the line within the next 23 hours or so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see what the admin would accept as an appropriate way to describe the screenshots. It's a direct conflict; we're supposed to summarize the plot, yet we're supposed to detail the specific scenes to warrant the screenshots? The result would just be weird, fluctuating writing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want my personal opinion, I think it's not so much a "description" of the image that would do the trick, and also not its place in the plot. The mere event as such, as part of the plot ("Leonidas fights immortals", "Leonidas meets Xerxes"), isn't in need of an image to be understood. But what if you had an image caption describing what particular characteristic of the film's style or characterisation is illustrated by each image? Like: "Leonidas fighting the Persian "immortals". Fight scenes in the movie have been described as “a ballet of beautifully choreographed martial arts sequences”, unrelated to attested historical fighting styles ([34])". Or whatever else it is that people think this image shows best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, we are getting somewhere. The main point, for me, is that it should be demonstrated how the image supports the analysis of the film, i.e. that it shows something specific about the film that is of particular interest. Not just an event in the plot but something relevant in the "critical analysis". Like: the martial-arts like fighting scenes, the unnatural computer-generated colouring, the surreal/effeminate physical appearance of Xerxes, the contrast between him and the stereotypical masculinity of Leonidas, the monstruous appearance of the "immortals"... just anything. But just say it explicitly what it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think another important thing to do is leave captions that reflect the critical commentary. Instead of just saying "this is Xerxes talking to Leonidas"...say something like "Xerxes is depicted as overly tall (<-think of a better characterization though), and effiminate, as compared to Leonidas' masculine build, going against historical records"....that's poorly worded, but you kind of get what I'm talking about. The same goes for the fighting image. Bignole 13:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes,I see what you are getting at. Let me work at this, sifting through the sources to find the right, citable text.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Yes, let's make this page a precedent: a showcase on what you can do in order to keep good imagry. As for the position with respect to the text, I'd not bother too much, personally. The suggestion I sketched above for the battle image would still work for me if the image was left in the "plot" section. It can serve there both to give some visual candy to the plot element and to support a caption hinting at an element of critical analysis, which then might be elaborated further down in the text. Or you move the images further down into the more analytical sections. By the way, I wouldn't personally insist that each of the captions needs to be individually cited too, the way I did it above, as long as what the caption says is somehow supported by sourced discussion elsewhere and that link is somehow reasonably transparent to the reader. (Oh, and by the way, I'm in Europe, UTC+2) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Consider it done"

I still don't see any commentary on the appearance of the Uber-immortal, or text in the caption relating to the controversy. This should be made more clear... ed g2s • talk 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The conversation in the article Discussion page seems to think that the present commentary is sufficient to retain the image. You might wish to discuss this matter there. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

300

However fictional this film may be, Xerxes could not have possibly marshalled 1 million troops. I know the film is a work of fiction, but it should be made clear to todays ignorant Americans that there were not 1 million Persians on the battlefield. Suggest that this the included in the article. And if you ever try to contact me again, you'll get a face full of BOLT 2.

Fair images

There is too much to read on the article's talk page, can you summarize the problem for me? This is a movie, a commercial product, which the company wants to promote, so I doubt they would have any problem with their pictures being used under the fair-use rational to make the article more illustrious so to speak.--Mardavich 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out Non-free content. The rationale is mostly about the images not being pertinent (I believe decorative was the term initially cited) enough to the article to remain. There's more to it than that, but its worth taking the time to read, so as to better understand. If it can happen in a film article, it will spread to a great many articles. Best to buy a surfboard or move to higher ground; the wave is coming.

I've extended an olive branch. While his approach may be brusque (as he's apparently the topic of an RfC), I'm hoping to find a middle ground in using non-free content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy's Place of Birth

What do you think of this-I posted it on the talk page. Happyme22 23:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. There has been some confusion about where Nancy Reagan was born, of all things. She says in her autobiography, My Turn, that she was born in Manhattan, New York (pg. 66, 67, and all of Ch.5), plus these 3 web sites say that she was born in New York City (these were the first three I chose).

• • http://www.aboutfamouspeople.com/article1088.html]
  • http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/nrbio.html
  • http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/nancy/nancy_bio.asp

Judging from these sites, and the knowledge of the person we are writing about, it is not accurate to say that Nancy Reagan was specifically born in Queens, NY. That's like saying Jennifer Aniston was born in Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA, when she was really born in Sherman Oaks. I'm going to revert back to Manhattan for now, but if you guys think that New York, New York is better, do that. Any questions or concerns? Send me a message. Happyme22 23:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just to let you know, Nancy Reagan is now a Good Article :-) Happyme22 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

300...... Again

Yeah, alright, it was a joke. I guess you've never played FF. Anyway, if there's anymore stuff you want to kick my face in about, don't make it so snappy. You work pretty fast.

By the way, I have the $200 JK DF2 and Mysteries Of The Sith expansion, so expect a couple of my awful edits on that page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HMSvictory (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Orphaned fair use image (Image:300 cliff.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:300 cliff.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's one thing I hate, its me when I'm sitting on the floor. And speaking of long (well, long-ish) words, you can just buy yourself a sub-thermal neurophone and produce a cornocopia of antidisestablishmentarionism and some weird diseases. (INSERT LAUGH HERE). The longest word that can be attributed to the English language actually has 1072 characters and is the scientific term for Tobacco Neurone Disease. It's true!

Sorry about all this. I hate pressing backspace.

The longest word is actually smiles. There's a mile between the s's! =)—Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Between you and the nut, I'm trying to figure out who to tranq first... ;) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Third Opinion (again)

Can I get your opinion here Arcayne? User:Pablosecca removed the third paragraph in the "Marriages and children" section, it saying:

"From the start of their marriage, Ronald and Nancy Reagan were "soul mates." He often called her "Mommy" and she called him "Ronnie". This deep relationship was with the Reagans throughout all of their married life. While President and First Lady, the Reagans frequently displayed their affection for each other in public, and in private. Even when the President was debilitated by Alzheimer's Disease, Nancy Reagan reaffirmed their love for each other, stating: "We were very much in love, and still are." President Reagan's death in June 2004 ended what Charlton Heston called "the greatest love affair in the history of the American Presidency.""

User:Pablosecca replaced that paragraph with: "Their relationship was considered close by many observers." Close? Every relationship is close, but if you ask anyone who was around the Reagans, or covered them, their relationship was special, and very, very close. Each describes in their memoirs that they cannot imagine living without the other, and so forth. User:Pablosecca called the paragraph "POV."

Now, I know that you are not a fan of either of the Reagans, but you give great, valuable, and non-partial opinions, so I wanted to get your opinion before saying "ok" or "revert". Thanks, Happyme22 21:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S.--Nancy Reagan is now a GA. Happyme22 21:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I think that we've got it solved--again haha. Happyme22 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

I saw your comment on User:David Gerard's talk page. I am puzzled by your use of the word "required" here. How are these tags required? There is, to my knowledge, no policy regarding them one way or the other. In what way is it required to have a spoiler tag for a 12-year-old movie based on historical events that are several centuries old? Phil Sandifer 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there is some policy that you can cite that defines a specific cut-off date wherein spoiler tags are no longer necessary for a film article? I would contend that there might be folk in the world who haven't seen the film, and the intent of the spoiler tags has been to preserve the plot for those who would rather not have the story given away without undue warning. I didn't have David's page set to watch; I do now, and remarked on his page, asking him to cite a policy in regards to the issue. If it hasn't been formalized, it might be important for someone to create such policy, gaining insight into the topic by discussing it witht he good folk over at Wikiproject Film. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler

Sorry, but nannies really hit a hot-button with me. I've seldom seen such an attitude here, so blatantly lecturing the readers on how they "should be" using wikipedia. It's offensive in the extreme. It's fascistic. Now, will you help me revert his nannyistic changes? Or is there a convenient admin that we can consult and take that guy down a peg or two? Wahkeenah 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Arcayne,

I do hope that there hasn't been any problems with Viriditas lately - I noted with surprise that apparently you had been blocked for violating 3RR!

I also hope that you will be able to cast your vote for my RfA (access it by clicking on "Vote! Vote!" below, on my signature...).

Again, I hope that one day you and Viriditas will be able to be in peace with one another and stop all this warring... Thanks,

Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} Vote! Vote! 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as per WP:CANVASS I have striked the above message. I am not allowed to remove it however, that is your choice if you wish to do so Booksworm ^{Talk to me!} 09:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosling

Thanks, I'm still working on it. I was reading Half Nelson's article (just saw it the other day and I cried and cried), and you know how Wiki-journeying works -- I ended up at Gosling's page just in time, it seems. Seems the fangirls have done a number on it, and there's several key points (high school drop out! that's important!) that are sorely missing. As for me, myself, and I, things are great, I'm just taking it a bit slow lately. Work and graduate school are killing me. As for the rantiness on my talk page, and silly, silly paranoid Kiwis, jesus wept. Thanks for the giggle, though, it was most needed.  :) See you around! María (habla conmigo) 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

BWP comments

Thanks for getting in touch with me on my Talk page about Blair Witch Project. I've responded to you on my own Talk page - I know some Wikipedians copy these conversations to both, but that seems to me to be arduous. Barnabypage 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Of no relevance whatsoever

I just stumbled across your user page (from the 300 article, I believe), and I must give you thanks for making me choke on my Pepsi, causing it to shoot out of my nose. Wait, I don't thank you. That hurt, dammit! However, the link to the Stephen Hawking edit just completely made my night. Sam42 08:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

300 FA nomination

I am beginning to wonder. It's been a few months, all the irate people have calmed, would you be willing to do a nifty archive like you do on the talk page so I can have more space to start the suggestion to more people? Alientraveller 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I posted the topic at the talk page. I really think the article is worthy of FA. Alientraveller 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR Report

At times you are a delightful and helpful chap, so it sometimes drives me crazy how you sometimes take a very short view of edit histories. The edits Viriditas was incrementally reverting were edits of someone else, not his own. The young man has some rather significant OWN issues, and I think it is in everyone's best interest to take a closer look at the violations. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, its a fair cop. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Nancy

Hey don't you love the Nancy Reagan article? I'm glad we were able to work together, and get the article to GA status.

In answering your question from the talk page, having personally spoken to Mrs. Reagan (not that that has to do with this at all, but I like bragging about it), I no quite a bit about her life. The astrology thing wasn't released until 1988, having been leaked in Don Regan's memoir, so during the early years of the Reagan Presidency (1981, 1982) Nancy's criticism was mainly (and majorly) because of the china. Happyme22 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you go ahead and do what you have to. Happyme22 23:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan Signature

Hi again. I noticed that on WikiCommons Nancy Reagan page, there is a copy of Nancy Reagan's signature. Is there anyway to put that in the infobox, like President Reagan's, or Hillary Clinton's? Oh, speaking of Nancy, she on Larry King Live right now! Happyme22 04:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nancy's article looks great! I'm glad the signature is in there now. I think it looks a lot better, and it's good to have her signature on the page. Happyme22 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sig

Is there an available section for that in the infoboxes for real people?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't add anything to an infobox that isn't part of that template (because you are using the standard "Infobox Person" template, which has set identifiers for each item).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the infobox template needs to be replaced with something more malleable. Any ideas? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can either try Template:Infobox President (which is partially true, cause she was the First Lady), or you could go to InfoBox Prez and see what they are using (because there may be more things that you'll want to include that are not included on the standard template), and then go over to Info People and add those sections yourself. If you think it would be best to stick with the "People" template, but that you may mess it up, then I'll help you by inserting the sections over there... just let me know which ones you want over there (if you go that route).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use the Prez infobox, and delete those parts which are not germane? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You could do that. If someone questions it then just say "Hey she was the First Lady, there is relevant sections in this template, that are not in the "Person" template, and there is not a "First Lady" infobox for us to use".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I will give that a whirl, copying the template into the article, and porting over the info. I appreciate the info. Learned something new today, i did. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, so did I. I knew I had seen sigs in infoboxes before, but I had to go through some featured articles on people (finally got to FDR) until I found one. Then I realized that it was a special template. There may be others that have special templates that are closer, are there any featured articles on First Ladies?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's Hillary. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

She uses the Senator template. If you want, I'll see about creating an infobox strictly for the First Lady, unless you only interest in Nancy and no other articles about the First Lady.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my interest was solely in helping out a friend with a problem,b ut maybe creating a template for future use might be A Good Thing. Certainly, there will be one or two First Ladies who need articles... Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see what can be done. Right now I'm fixing some banners for WikiProject Superman. If you could, give me a list of things that should be in the infobox, so that I know what to remove or add. I'll most likely use the "Prez" template, so you can look at that and let me know what isn't necessary for a First Lady box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tried to apply the template, but all that showed up was the name of the template. As for the info on the 'Infoboxx_President_FirstLady' template, I would probably include all the info on the President template, as all of it seems appropriate (especially since Hillary, a prez candidate, has a political life all her own). Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to simply cut and paste, because they have the president stuff merged in with every political office. I'm going to have to just add on to the Person template. So, what should be added on?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The following:

• nationality
• image
• birth_date
• birth_place
• death_date
• death_place
• spouse
• children
• occupation
• party
• religion
• website
• signature

-Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I tried. The signature section just won't work. I adjust the Nancy page to be able to use it, but I can't figure out how they got it to work on their template. I set up the First Lady template the exact same way, but it won't recognize anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Okay, I will figure something out. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan third opinion (for real this time!)

Ok I need your opinion on something. User:Griot added in a removed phrase (suggested for removal from the old peer review) which stated:

"In 1983, and again in 1984, Reagan told prominent Israelis and American Jews — notably Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir of Israel, Simon Wiesenthal, and Rabbi Martin Hier of Los Angeles — of his personal experience vis-à-vis the Holocaust, saying "I was there" and that that he himself had assisted personally at the liberation of Nazi death camps; in fact, he was in a film unit in Hollywood that processed raw footage it received from Europe for newsreels, but Reagan was not in Europe itself during the war."

Ok, well where the statment is placed (here), I find it to be very random, not serve a decent puropse, and slightly extend the article longer. Plus (this was also mentioned in the peer review, now archived #3), Reagan didn't go to Europe and free any Jews--he edited raw footage of the camps, so mentioning that in the article is a lie, is it not? When I told User:Griot that, he responded by saying: "I don't understand what you mean by "very random." How was this incident "very random." Griot 23:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)....It was an odd event -- therefore it's hard to find a place for it. You're wrong about Jewish leaders criticizing Reagan. They were just suprised and let it be known what he said. I have heard some people say it was an example of Reagan's Alzheimer's. You could put the event in the Alzheimer's section of the article, but I think it's better where it is. In any case, the event was odd enough that it should remain in the article. I don't believe in white-washing. Griot 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)"

Odd enough to remain in the article?!?!?!

I know that you of all people, Arcayne, are not biased when it comes to these kinds of things, so please take a look at it if you get the chance, and reply on my talk page or the Reagan talk page. Thanks again. Your friend, Happyme22 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A small problem

I ran into an issue, detailed here here. I am thinking that the entire article was a template, infobox included, and that is preventing any other infobox from being added. Your thoughts? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what's going on. You all are trying to make a template specifically for First Ladies? Where was this attempt made and what seems to be this issue with it? If whatever you're doing doesn't work out, there's always Template:Infobox Officeholder which should have enough fields to suit your needs. -- tariqabjotu 01:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Were you talking about the infobox issue here? If that is the case, the problem may be clearer looking at the difference between that and the following version; you put the closing brackets in the wrong place. -- tariqabjotu 01:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the initial problem was placing a signature field in the infobox so that NR's sig could be added at the end fo the infobox. We tried it a number of different ways, but without success. One of the other users suggested creating another template.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the initial problem was placing a signature field in the infobox... Which infobox? -- tariqabjotu 01:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart plot

I think we both realise the existing discussion is going nowhere. As far as I see it we have two options: 1) Go through the disputed sections word by word and attempt to find a compromise version acceptable to both, or 2) seek a third opinion. Your thoughts please? Kanaye 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[35]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[36] or History of Northeast China[37][38] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. The discussion is being held at template talk:History of Manchuria. Cydevil38 21:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If Third Opinion doesn't work out, I'm planning on pushing this to Wikipedia:arbitration. While Wikipedia:mediation is the next step, previous attempt for a mediation on a related topic, Goguryeo, has met with much delay in time and failure in achieving a consensus(it's on hold due to lack of participation). Hence, I want to skip that process and go straight to arbitration. Cydevil38 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is that you not skip that step, Cy. I've read a few ArbCom dealios, and they seem to frown on anyone coming to them if they haven't exhausted every other means of resolution. Either way you go, I wish you luck. I must say that the arguing there, even from the more...shall we say, passionate...contributors dodn't swerve too far off the path of civility. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'll file for a mediation. Cydevil38 06:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have filed for the mediation and notified User:Naus and User:Assault11, but they are still reverting the template to their preferred version without participating in the mediation. Would these circumstances satisfy the condition for an arbitration? Cydevil38 05:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there something like an arbitration on the content itself rather than users? Anyways, thanks for the advice. I'll start collecting evidence for a RfC on user conduct and possibly an arbitration on User:Assault11 first then perhaps User:Naus. How good may this case be? You might be interested in User:Assault11's first contribution to Wikipedia. Cydevil38 07:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Truth, Justice, and all that wiki stuff

Amused by what?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. You know, I thought you just accidentally reverted my revert, and had just caught yourself. I didn't read it so I didn't realize you had actually written something different in there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not saying it wasn't funny. But I think having to go back and view it made it lose the uniqueness it once held. My bad. lol. Good effort. How's 300 and Children of Men coming? I assume you are still working on those articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mostly circling the periphery of CoM, making sure it doesn't get outrageously manipulated again. The owner of the article is rather difficult to deal with. One of the other editors once privately referred to him as "The Cure to Wikipedia Addiction". Can't say I altogether disagree.

I am waiting to hear back from Alientraveler regarding 300. There appears to be an issue as to the inclusion of Daryaee's statements; it was argued rather effectively by three other editors that his statements were based more upon his position as an immigrant than as a historian. So far, I think the article is rather close to FA, which would be a relief.

I haven't heard from you or Erik in a while, making me think I had been shunned for some reason. Likely, it was eitehr that, or you guys have just been too busy to give a shout out to the next best barbed wire commentator since ThuranX. Howz trix? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just busy. I can't handle being over at 300 for too long, so I try and make sure I keep if off my watchlist unless specifically asked to give an opinion. Too much drama over there most of the time. I've been pretty much stickin to getting Smallville in shape. Speaking of which, you haven't commented on the proposed merger, or the new season page formats.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think it happens when you fill in all the information, but instead of typing the copyright tag you select the tag. Selecting a copyright tag automatically generates a "Summary" header.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't moving away from that. There's the main page, a list that shows all the episodes together, and then a new season format for more detailed information (I linked to the new format in my sandbox). Then, if need be, there's the individual episode. Take the Dr. Who episode you linked on my page. Did you see that plot? It's longer than what goes on a film page. Not only does that violate every plot guideline and policy on Wiki, but it's a violation of copyrights, big time. The page is crammed with things that are unnecessary. Even the guidelines for episode articles state that not every episode will be able to support a page, let alone is notable enough to warrant one anyway. What I'm proposing is a clean up so that we can have the most respected series of articles on television shows out there. I guarantee, that I can get more Smallville articles to FA status with this new format than any other television series. I could get every one of the season pages into FA status, which is something no one has been able to do. The only season page on the FA list is season 8 of the Simpsons. It keeps all those non-free images in check, satisfies the guidelines for television episode articles, and Wikipedia's FA requirements (once it's complete). I know it's nice to read a bunch of that stuff, but we have to separate our encyclopedic selves from our fan selves. Most television articles have a respective Wikia that holds the type of information that is generally considered unencyclopedic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't move, I dropped my brain!

Seriously, I don't recall whether I wanted to remove his comments, maybe I just felt his opinion was overexposed. Definitely not fully removed, the Historical Accuracy section benefitted. Alientraveller 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely wanted to remove his additional quotes. I have a rule that even a professional critic is just an opinion, and I often edit one sentence per critic. Alientraveller 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That fella was removing all his comments, which I opposed. Alientraveller 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, so you were simply advocating the removal of the multiple commentaries, not the large block of statements? Just making sure we are on the same page here. The fella was acting on what he thought was a consensus that you agreed with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Alientraveller 21:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart

So how's it coming with Gibson's Scotsman? Alientraveller 21:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, what I wanted to know. If you have the DVD, you could use Gibson's commentary and the making-of, which provide many nice facts after you learn context. Alientraveller 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart plot (take two)

Alright, let's take the easiest two first.

• Wikilinking to William Wallace. As you correctly state it is already linked to earlier and later in the article, however Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) states: Duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article, may well be appropriate. Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.
• Avoiding redirect on Robert the Bruce. If you click on Robert the Bruce as it is, it redirects to Robert I of Scotland, his more official title. By piping the link like this: [[Robert I of Scotland|Robert the Bruce]], we avoid the unnecessary redirect but the link appears unchanged. e.g. Robert the Bruce

Do you agree with these changes? Kanaye 14:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that will be easiest, I'm watching this page. You thoughts on the above? Kanaye 15:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(caught in edit conflict-lol)

I think it would be best to wikilink Wallace in the Lead statements, and get the subject of the article wikilinked right away. If there will be a 'prosified' historical inaccuracy section (and not the wikilinked page which is made up mostly of unsupported, unreferenced OR), that would be an ideal place to re-link it again. However, I think the MOS was taking into consideration those articles which are a great deal longer in content that a film (ie, as opposed to, say the article on nuclear physics and whatnot).

As for the link to The Bruce redirect issue, I can see what you mean. That may have been an oversight on my part; I may have seen an intent that wasn't there to introduce a title that was never offered in the film. using the linkage to more appropriately redirect folk to the right place is a Good Thing. I agree with you on that. :)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm prepared to accept that. I'll get back to you later. Kanaye 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Manchuria template

I hope you aren't tired out by this.

Is there anyway to reach a compromise with the other editors. Third opinion doesn't seem to work and I am wondering if there is a higher level of dispute resolution that can show them that Manchuria is the most commonly used word.

Clearly, it is the most common, since you and another third opinionist commented about it. Good friend100 19:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Northeast China

Since you read my conversion with Wiki pokemon, you should know the reason why. In case you still didn't get it, "I'm quite busy ATM". I am still going over possible solutions to the naming problem and will commit myself to the mediation when I feel I have made a clear stance on the issue (and when I can devote more time towards the mediation).

Also, please do not revert my user page. I have been cleared of sockpuppetry accusations three months ago (see the sockpuppetry case/checkuser page for more information). Thanks. Assault11 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sure that is in line with the facts as they exist. Perhaps you are not interested in committing to mediation becuase you are aware that your past behavior would have significant consequences for yourself. You've had ample time to make your point, and people do not agree with it. Sounds liek the perfect definition of a situation requiring mediation or arbitration. As for the accusation of sock-puppetry, could you please provide a link for the diff wherein you were cleared of that particular accusation? Without it, I am afraid I will have to reinstate the accusation until and admin chooses to remove it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not obliged to commit myself towards any event that I do not wish to participate. Frankly, my personal reasons is none of your business.

See for yourself [39]. Assault11 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a closer look would help

Hey, I was asked to render a 3rd Opinion on the Manchuria debate, and dealt with some pretty uncivil behavior there, specifically from Assault11. This argument appears to be identical in form and pattern as that of most other articles relating to China that he has contributed to. Anotehr editor pointed out to me Assault11's first contribution to WP. In itself, that sort of attitude bears closer scrutiny of the user, as one's first post is likely an unguarded view into what makes an editor tick. I am not saying you are wrong in your current navigation of the subjects you have spoken on. However, I think that Assault11 has pretty much painted himself into a corner with his behavior and has made no attemtp to rectify the situation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have previously admitted to my uncivil behavior in the past[40]. Truth be told, my first edit - before committing myself towards editing Northeast China-specific articles - was a direct response towards the anti-Chinese response made prior to that, aimed to inflame the offending party. Of course, granted that my reply was of equal caliber in terms of its offensive nature, many people were clearly offended by my unfortunate choice of words. Clearly, my emotions got the best of me and my subsequent behavior was unacceptable. To this, I stand corrected. Again, apologies if you felt offended by my past behavior. Assault11 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure to what this is in response. I was thinking that maybe I rejected one or more of the 3RR notices posted to WP:AN3R, but I don't think I closed any of the reports involving Assault11. -- tariqabjotu 01:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo

Re: Assault11, Cydevil38 (formerly Cydevil), & Good friend100

FYI: The RfM Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo is still ongoing, albeit put on hold....

It appears that a few editors from that RfM are sidetracked in Template talk:History of Manchuria, where you appear to be now involved. However please understand that the main sparkpoint of all these disputes continues to be at Talk:Goguryeo. (The dispute at Template talk:History of Manchuria continues to be debated only by the editors from Goguryeo, and none of the regular editors from Manchuria appear to be present like they should be.)

WP:CIVIL, of course, is important in Wikipedia. However, if you look carefully at the relevant discussions and edit histories, you will see that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are frequently violated in the articles related to Goguryeo. If there are any WP:NPOV cops and WP:V cops among the Wikipedia admins, this is where they're needed right now.

It would really help if you can bring back the involved parties to the RfM (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo) without taking sides at this time. (Perhaps you may even want to join that mediation in progress.) Thank you for your consideration.--Endroit 02:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ALF vote

It didn't have an ending date on it, but the vote reached a consensus according to admin Stemonitis, who had closed the discussion 2 weeks ago. There's no reason to reopen it in a case like that, instead of making a new one. You are free to restart discussion, but I will move your comments to a different section, where they belong. Also, please sign your comments. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, right here. I'm in the process of fixing the discussion page right now. As I said, you're free to start another poll, but you shouldn't add comments to already closed polls. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I commented as such on the talk page. As you said, though, consensus is an ever-changing thing, so there's no reason to put a note that consensus has been reached at the top of the talk page, since anyone's still free to challenge it. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but here's where the problem is. That was a requested move that was closed by an administrator, which means that it did in fact expire. There are two ways for a survey to end, expiration (end of time limit given) or being closed by an administrator, steward, etc. In this case it was the latter, and any further discussion should take place outside of the requested move survey and its discussion section. Instead, open a new survey for a requested move back to ALF (disambiguation) or, better yet, start a discussion to try to reach consensus so that an admin can make an uncontroversial move (or vice versa, leave the page in its current location). This doesn't mean that you can't question comments made in the earlier survey, but it does mean that you can't vote/give your opinion in that particular survey. There's really no point, anyway, as the whole requested move process put in action has passed and been completed (the discussion was closed, and the closing admin made the move). Adding your vote wouldn't make any change to that, since an admin has already made the move based on past observed consensus. If you want the page to move, you have to demonstrate that consensus exists that it should be moved, which you cannot do by adding your 2 cents to a closed survey. I will wait for your response, as I don't want to start an edit war over such a trivial matter, but if you do not object, I will move your comments to a new section (or you can do so yourself). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Look more closely at his edit. He closed the discussion here and subsequently moved the page. Admins are only supposed to move the page after discussion has reached some sort of consensus, which he saw and therefore did the move. No problem on being polite. It would be a pretty ridiculous issue to get angry about. I'd appreciate it if you move your comments, or I can do it a bit later. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

About List of Tributaries of Imperial China and Template:History of Manchuria

I understand, you are right about the weight of an editor's comment according to his/her history. As for myself, I got 4 blocks under my belt. I got filed again, but I'll try to not edit war, thank you for the information.

I have viewed the discussion between you and Assault11. Clearly, he is not giving into a compromise. What do you think we should do now? I do NOT want to go to arbitration. It would be ridiculous that a minor problem like this should be taken to arbitration.

I have requested for a comment about the list of tributaries, but I don't think any administrator has commented.

Frankly, I do not know how to solve this problem. Good friend100 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC User Conduct

I have filed for a user conduct[41] on User:Assault11 as the next step to resolving the dispute on template:History of Manchuria, and User:Endroit has made an "Outside View" which I don't think doesn't fit the criteria. First, he was directly invovled in the consensus of creating the template at talk:Goguryeo, and though his comments on "Manchuria" was made at talk:Goguryeo, it was later moved to template talk:History of Manchuria when the entire section on Assault11's objections to using "Manchuria" was moved there. Thus, Endroit's comment is also in template talk:History of Manchuria. And second, the gist of his view is that if Assault11 is to be put on RfC, I should be too. However, the RfC can't cover multiple users. And third, Endroit conclusion is that it's "best to force them to pursue WP:DR". But this is part of the WP:DR, and I've been following the steps closely. So it just seems that this so-called "Outside View" is just a manifestation of personal grudge, nothing more than that, and holds no relevance and substance. I'm tempted to just delete it or move it to discussion, but I wanted some outside opinion on this first if I have the grounds to do so. Any advice would be appreciated. Cydevil38 19:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you said. I did file the RfC User Conduct on Assault11 regarding Manchuria. And I think Endroit has mislead you - my incivil action, which I regret doing, that he set an example of isn't the cause of mediation's closure. That was LONG TIME AGO(relatively), but I eventually came back and comrpomised on numerous issues, template:History of Manchuria being one of them, under User:Nlu's informal mediation. It is the consensus and resolution of initially disputed issues from User:Nlu's informal mediation that made the formal mediation stale. Currently, the discussion at talk:Goguryeo and improvement of Goguryeo is going smoothly. Cydevil38 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes

Maybe I should put that little icon on my userpage, but the userbox renders it superfluous. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice on the "is" in the infobox, it searches through listuser to find and confirm my admin status. An impostor placing it on their user page wouldn't have anything in that link. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

I am warning both you and Viriditas to cease sniping at one another, stop altering, refactoring or removing each other's comments (except yes, you may remove such from your own talk page if you really must), and desist from giving "official warnings" to one another. I really don't care which of you started this; this behavior from both of you is not helpful and frankly more than a little childish. I'd suggest both of you simply ignore one another for the time being. If the other says something you believe to be rude, you can prove your maturity by not responding to it. >Radiant< 09:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hmmm. I think your refactoring actions were the best thing to do, and in line with WP:NPA as well as WP:DENY. As far as the attacks starting to creep you out, that's a bit tougher. I guess it depends on both why they are starting to disturb you and where they are coming from. But really, the nature of the internet and of Wikipedia is such that you probably can't do anything but WP:RBI and perhaps raise the alert to other admins of your problem. If attacks are regularly happening on the same few pages maybe having some other people watching those pages would help. Natalie 09:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want, you can follow dispute resolution (WP:RFM or WP:TINMC would be my suggestion). However, if you are offended by him calling you a troll, calling him a pariah in response is really not helpful. Don't call the kettle black, don't accuse people of namecalling when you've been calling them names as well. >Radiant< 09:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the description wasn't used in the Discussion page, but rather in a User Talk page, and the editor not mentioned by name? I wasn't about to use it in a live forum.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia is a live forum. >Radiant< 10:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

True dat, but I was expressing an opinion to another user, not a room full of them who happened to be focused on something else. Seriously, man - how do you deal with these types of people? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your other message, the attractions of Ireland currently consist of temping as a receptionist in an office that doesn't deal with the public. So for about 4 of my 9 hour shift I have absolutely nothing to do, and would gladly poke me nose in at that talk page. I can't necessarily say I'll come to any helpful conclusion, but I'll give it a shot. Natalie 06:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Usage

I based it on common sense (what people are most likely to arrive at the page looking for); the posts supporting that order on talk; and the MoS, which says, "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." [42] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that. Look at the section immediately below the one you cited, though (overlooking for a moment the "in most cases" qualifier) which states that for longer lists a sectional method is better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on talk about how the most commonly used ones should be on top, whether the others are in sections or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you read it, it gives Aurora as an example of ordering that's rarely necessary. Our list isn't long enough for that. But I think we should avoid sticking to the MoS unless it makes sense; it's just a guideline and a controversial one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am satisfied with your edit. Thank you for explaining your position to me. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice

This dispute is really not going anywhere, and I can't say I'm overly impressed with the WP:LAME edit war on the ALF talk page. Really now, if another editor cites your opinion incorrectly, is it that difficult to add a statement underneath that the above citation is wrong?

Both of you are hereby banned from the page ALF, all articles on anything else that happens to be called "alf", and all corresponding talk pages, for the next three days, i.e. up to and including saturday. There appear to be sufficient other people on the ALF page to find a reasonable compromise. Please step away from this dispute and find something else to edit. >Radiant< 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am aware of the differences between your actions, but edit history shows that both of you were edit warring. At any rate, this is not indended as a penalty, but rather as a chance for the other people at Talk:ALF to work something out. >Radiant< 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

3-D

It isn't illegal today, what they did for that film was illegal. They bypassed certain sanctions and created their own projectors for the theaters to project the 3-D images. It was cheaper for them, but they also charged the theaters for it, which they weren't allowed to do. They were forced to destroy all the projectors afterward. I'll have a lot of info on 3-D tech. for F13 part 3...when I get a chance for it. Bignole 11:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was less that films don't have themes, because I understand they do, but more than film scholars could care less about some uptenth sequel in a series they mostly hate anyway. I believe you won't find that much, if anything on some films. Bignole 11:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean for an entire article? It was only used once, for that film. After that, from my recollection, everything went back to the way it was. I'm not sure is that much for an entire article, but we'll see when I get to it.

I have no problem with a guideline that talks about how to properly do a themes section, but I feel that not every film will have that information, as people don't write about every film in existence. And I also do not believe that the fact that a film was not written about in that context should not be a deciding factor when up for FAC. Bignole 16:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. :) Although, that user's taking this all rather personally. Bignole 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny because he/she was constantly misquoting me, or putting words in my mouth, but the second I do it he/she has a conniption. Bignole 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Themes

Check out what I said on Bignole's talk page. I am re-evaluating my perspective, especially since the editor's proposal coincided with my slow approach to films that are thematically heavy -- Fight Club, Road to Perdition, and whatever else lies ahead. I read the essay about American Beauty, and I have to admit it was a unique perspective (from an attributable source, no less) that warranted inclusion in the film's article in some capacity. Maybe some kind of Themes in American Beauty article, depending on how WP:CFORK would apply after the staple sections have been filled out. I wasn't too crazy about the editor's tone, as I was willing to listen to what he had in mind, but I can see what he was trying to say. It matters that the enlightened perspectives of people who are experts in their fields are included, otherwise we're an idiocratic society that is receptive to reviews like, "Oh yah Spidey kicks serious butt in this one!" It would be interesting to see a more critical mentality can be introduced into the 2007 FACs. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I found three critical essays regarding E.T., but I haven't had a chance to read them closely. I don't believe that Alientraveller has access to these resources, and I wish it could be shared. I may try to implement the essays' perspectives myself, though the essays (drawn from databases) are on my home PC. Right now, I'm focusing on Road to Perdition, though I think I will have to revisit Fight Club based on this critical premise. Not so sure about The Fountain, as it was rather little-received and too recent to warrant a pile of critical essays. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:300 Edits

I was literally about 10 seconds away from posting in the 300 talk page when you posted on my talk page. --Ted87 07:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC) :o :)

I don't really care how it is said. The only reason why I brought it up was because the order of events were wrong. As far as the grammar if it's subpar then it's subpar. When something is broke, it should be fixed. I like your edited version. --Ted87 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ALF

the page is divided poorly, I don't think the subsections are necessary at all and many links don't belong there. There's no reason to have a "military" heading for one link, and the classification of some items by field (health) and others by type (Institutions) is confusing -- where does a health organization go? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Braveheart

My pleasure. If he or someone else removes the template (which is allowable), then I'd probably proceed to AfD. Hopefully that won't be too rough of an experience. How's the life? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm interning in NJ for the summer. NY is an hour away, so I've been visiting the Big Apple the past couple of weekends. Will be here till August. Internship's not keeping me that busy, though... as for the proposed deletion, if five days pass without anyone removing the template, the article will be deleted by an admin. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Arcayne, please see this. When you introduce unexpected format changes, the tool's parsing fails. This is used as a report by many users, as ElinorD noted, so you break a lot of reports when you change the format. Crum375 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I know you were trying to help, and that's very much appreciated. Crum375 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Catwoman stuff

Yeah, I've kinda noticed that civility thing, too. If you are findingyourself getting piqued at folk, you might want to step back from the keyboard for a bit. As well, rahtr than removing info that you don't thinkis sourced well enough, I'v efound that removing it to the Discussion area (where it can be preserved) until which time the infortmation can be eitehr cited or removed to archive. Simply cutting it can sometimes mess up more than a bit of research, and it also gives folks incentive to actually do the work and cite material. Just cutting the info with little in the way fo helpful advice serves no purpose other than to turn off newer editors. Just some friendly advice. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK first of all, who the hell are you?

2nd, why do you butt into a debate that's been dead for 10 days now and that had nothing to do with you in the first place? I mean what do you do, click on some random page and look at disputes? Don't you have a life?

3rd, if you're gonna post something in my talk page, copy and paste from a text editor and check the spelling and grammar. Couple of typos are one thing, but the abomination that you wrote is where I draw the line between typos text messaging. I'm not even going to try to decipher what you wrote and hope your articles here aren't written the same way.

4th, the only difference between me and most editors here is that I don't play hypocrite and use the rules to remove stuff butt then turn around and brake them to put in my on stuff.

Here's how my game works. I add something knowing that someone will remove it for some personal reason. I start the debate, the person will start listing all these Wiki rules which in turn will backfire because this gives me the green flag to remove a bunch of stuff from that page and the best part, that other person can't do say anything.

Consider the last thing I said to be a "friendly advice" in case you wish to play my game. Oh and don't give me those Wiki rules about being civil and crap, I really couldn't care less and I don't have the patience to waste if someone doesn't have the balls to reply without quoting the rules.

Duhman0009 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you find these people, Arcayne? ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

My vote, his computer is somehow emitting some form of magnetism that draws them. That, or all of them are really attracted to him and this is their way of flirting. ;) Admit it Arc, you've got the Kavorka. Bignole 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey that person came to my talk page, so if anyone is stalking anyone, it's him/her. Duhman0009 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's my special brand of hyper-intelligence, awful wit and vicious editorial baseball-batting. And I indeed have some kavorka, why can't I be pursued by say, Natalie Portman or Diane Lane, or even Salma Hayek? No, my luck is such that I get Thuran and someone who actually calls themself the Duh-Man. Life is unfair. I will respond to these gentlemen on their own talk pages.
Oh nifty. Yet another clever little fellow with jiggy little eyeballs who thinks I am stalking them... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Wikipedia way of insulting without directly insulting, best way to bypass the rules. I love this place. The ironic part is your kind goes around telling people to be nice. Duhman0009 12:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to fight the Kavorka, you have to put garlic around your neck and bathe in vinegar. Beware, as smell could burn off all nose hairs, and possibly head hair as well. :P  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gee, deal with unwanted affection or become an anosmotic Telly Savalas? Hmm, I think I'll opt for dealing with the attention. :D - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Learn to pay attention.

Your imperious editing on the talk page at Catwoman is unneeded. The entire conflict about the parodies section has NOTHING to do with citation, and everything to do with a tendentious IP who insists that any female character anywhere, who uses a whip, is a derivative homage to Catwoman. The clarification regarding Black cat was the easiest to cite, and worth it's position there. Debunking an assumed homage with citation is perfect for that section, and once I have time to cite the rest, will fit in context there better. Instead of spending your time Filling the page with clause by clause CN tagging, go look some up and fill them in. ThuranX 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I noticed the entire Parodies section went away. See now this is why I love this Wikipedia, this place is chaos! Sure the rules are there, but the average Joe as control and can apply them how he/she feels. This entire concept of open source encyclopedia is contradicting itself in the sense that yes, you're free to edit, but no, you can't edit. Well, I'm going to enjoy the chaos while it lasts, I'm giving it 2 years top before other encyclopedias come along and turn this one into the next Yahoo. Duhman0009 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, your contribution, and subsequent actions on the sectino, were a POINT violation, plain and simple. You wanted your 'all women who use whips are derivative' based theory included. I objected. When I began to provide sources, you got even MORE POINTy and pissy. It's that simple. Arcayne, in the future, you should ensure that you pay attention to the background for a problem, read through the relevant edits, summaries, talk page info and related user talks. Had you done so, you'd have seen Duhman's POINT vio plainly. Finally, Arcayne, running to Duhman's page to talk about how you think i need a wikibreak isn't much good either. I talked to you, you talk to me. ThuranX 05:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I would ask that you fine young gentlemen take your argument with one another to some place on the internet that happens not to be my User Talk page.

Second of all, allow me to wade through all the rhetoric and cut to the chase, which I will do on each of your Discussion pages. I don't mind you responding to me in mine, so long as you remain relatively polite. I am not here as your punching bag, as this particular punching bag is rather good at punching back much harder, faster and more pointedly. So, keep it civil, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're a fine one to talk, butting in on some topic that had nothing to do with you and posting it on my talk page. Face it buddy, you're the one who started this. You think you're something special, news flash, you're not. This is just a website, committing yourself to this like you're doing won't bring you anything, you're just wasting time. What, do did you think that you could put "I was a top watchdog on Wikipedia" on your resume and that it will get you somewhere? Nope. When this Encyclopedia craze dies down (or the site all together), what will do, where will you get your jollies from your artificial power trips? Duhman0009 12:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could just continue to prove my innate intellectual superiority over you, but after that mostly tepid fifteen minutes, I guess I would go out and read a book. Perhaps you might want to read a book, too. Maybe even read a few books and then seek out some therapy. Anyone who seems to dislike WP as much as you, yet continues to edit here might have some Inner Squirrels to vanquish. And no, you don't really need to respond. As amusing as it is to continue to editorially and repeatedly knock you to the mat, I kinda think its unfair to have a battle of wits with the woefully unarmed. Run along, now. Find some other place to be all nihilist-y. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you're starting to crack already, I expected you to last at least another day. Oh well, another one bites the dust. Oh and "you don't really need to respond", what hell, are we back in the year 1999? Duhman0009 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad that such disrespect can be exercised because one uses an alias online. Gives the person a sense of empowerment, I guess. I would imagine that it would be a superior effort to consistently show civility to everyone encountered, not just other editors on Wikipedia, but across cyberspace. I would suggest ignoring the editor with poor manners in entirety, good sir. Nothing good can come out of this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Erik. This chappie seems pretty much set on a course of self-destruction. No need to kick him along that path; he will get there on his own steam soon enough. Of course, not feeding the trolls has its merits.

Books

Got any good books to read? I'm finishing up F. Scott Fitzgerald's This Side of Paradise, and I'm catching up on a backlog of New Yorker magazines. Any particular recommendations? I wouldn't mind reading more classical literature, but there's too many to read all at once, especially with my to-read list of contemporary literature. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I finished reading some prety different books - the The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series by McCall seems like a break from all the heavier stuff I usually find myself reading. I had just finished Rochefoucauld's Maximes (having read Memoirs while at university). I really liked it, and I agree with the oft-repeated recommendation that its a book you will always learn something new about every time you read it. I think that sort of statement always reminds me of Richard Bach's Illusions in that a book can be opened to any given page and offer you the answer you are seeking. I am not sure of the universal truth in that, but it feels true.

If you are looking for something a bit darker, I would recommend Shadowland, by Peter Straub. I don't want to ruin it by telling you about the plot, but I found it really good (and I don't really like Straub's style of writing). Of course, since you are working on the Dark is Rising cycle, it might be useful to read (or re-read, such as the case may be) the series by Susan Cooper. I still get a kick out of how Cooper blends Celtic mythology without being too trite.

There is another book I would recommend, but I cannot remember the title. It's about Native American/Central-American myths that are all woven together in a sort of novel that prety much defies categorization. If you happen to know the name of it, let me know. It's actually quite awesome.

Of course, there is always the 9/11 Report, if you are interested in what some call high fantasy and what others call the final word on the subject. I call it a clusterf***. It is a pretty good exercise in critical reading. Speaking of which, Writing Analytically by Wasserman is an awesome text that anyone can learn something from.

If you choose any of these, let me know what you thought of them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I will check out your suggestions. I enjoy literature that can alter your perception about the way things work, such as Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. While I'm not in total agreement with what the book said, it did open my eyes in a way. Also, the book about myths in a novel, is that American Gods by Neil Gaiman? The myths aren't totally American-focused, though. I've had a hard time finding reading to do, being a big multi-tasker (jumping from one thing to another), so it's hard to sit down and read something without doing anything else unless it's an assignment. There's too many things to do in life, haha. I've gone to book fairs and gotten a bag of novels $0.50 each, but I almost never touch them. Trying to get back into the reading game these days, I guess. I think the next serious reading item for me would be Guns, Germs, and Steel. If I like it, I'll probably move on to Collapse. After that, who knows. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read American Gods, but I enjoyed Anansi Boys. I listened to the audiobook version, with Lenny Henry's excellent narrative. I do that a lot - get a few audiobooks from the library and listen to them while I am commuting or traveling. I am the same way, multi-tasking, and I find it helps when i set a schedule of things I want to do and stick to it. Beingout of school, there's more a tendency to slip out of that, but it just takes discipline. Plus, my gf thinks its cool when we have reading time set aside, what with her equally busy schedule.

And Diamond's stuff is quite good, though he makes some jumps in logic that I wouldn't think all that sound (kinda like Cahill's How The Irish Saved Civilization took some of the same sorts of leaps). Of course, none of them are as crazy as the contrafactual stuff, like Sobel's For Want of a Nail. I do like a good biography or military history book.

It just occurred to me that you might like to read Art of War or the the Book of Five Rings. Excellent books on gaining a good mindset for business (and, well, life). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Countdown

No, the forerunner is the "tool". Oops. --EXV // + @ 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: There can -never- be only one -source for an article-.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. I'm sure they're loaded with fancruft, trivia, and other pointless information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a lot of removal to the discussion page of uncited crufty stuff. I expect the hatemail to come in a steady stream now. yay. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ready the vinegar bath and the string of garlic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What can i say? I must be a Love Machine. :D - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WhoWhoWhooooooYAY! ...lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

template:History of Manchuria

Wiki pokemon is now trying to replace template:History of Manchuria with template:History of Northeast China, so I have nominated template:History of Northeast China on TfD(Template for Deletion) for POV forking here. Please help reach a consensus on this issue. Cydevil38 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In that regard, User:Nlu, who's been very much involved in this dispute, is also an administrator. Would it be hard for him to intervene because he's involved in this dispute? He has been informed as well. Cydevil38 20:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would think so, as there is a conflict of interest. You might be better off asking them to find a good admin to lend an impartial hand. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha...there is a policy regarding this? I keep finding new policies even after joining wikipedia a year ago :) Good friend100 20:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Such is Wikipedia. (and just how many people watch my page? Am I a rock-star or what? lol) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've informed Tariqabjotu about this. Thanks for the advice. Cydevil38 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shhh

Can you revert your comment on my talk page? It doesn't really help matters... and I've already explained to ThuranX my perspective of your nature. He's got his own personality, and if both of you are going to clash, just steer clear of each other. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not worth advancing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem - it was reflexive reaction to being kicked by someone who I've defended numerous times. I dislike rude people; I despise ungrateful ones. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Logan Marshall-Green

Aw, shucks. As for your comments, I acknowledge that it may take longer for {{references}} tag to be removed than a {{fact}}, 24 cite needed tags after every single sentence on a stub article is insane. The references tag covers everything because it states "This article does not cite any references or sources." Trust me, people can see that there are no references and that the entirety of it needs to be sourced. If you're that concerned about the material, perhaps you can do a little researching and referencing yourself? C'mon, get your hands dirty, it's fun! You may also want to reconsider your stance on IMDb as an external link. An external link is not a reference. Most of all films, television shows, and actors and filmmakers list IMDb as an external link, including FA articles. See Eric Bana, Miranda Otto, and Sharon Tate for examples. It's perfectly acceptable. I suggest you revert your last edit at the page, if only because I think you're being a bit pickier than even WP:EL is. Personal opinion should not get in the way of such things, regardless of how sucky IMDb tends to be. Take care, María (críticame) 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I hate IMDb as much as the next geek, but it is useful for actors and filmmakers as far as the exhaustive lists of their works. It's also better than a girly fansite, you have to admit. I did a little preliminary research on the OC guy and I found an okay interview here, which also has a small amount of info on his background and family. Maybe that'll be of help? María (críticame) 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to share my $0.02 about IMDb, I believe that the only appropriate information on that site is the cast/crew listing after a film's release. This is because the listing is basically an electronic copy of the post-film credits. (That's why you'll see the IMDb listing arranged alphabetically or by prominence -- it depends on the film.) Obviously, as a result of that, the filmography for individual cast and crew members are acceptable. Outside of that, though, I would not attribute IMDb for anything else. (Maybe the company credits, which would probably be copied from the film's credits as well.) It's not a bad starting point for some bits of information, though -- some of its trivia hold some truth, and you can use keywords from the sentences to track down an attributable source (like Mel Gibson was considered to play this role -- you'd look up both the actor and the film to see what results you can get). IMDb is pretty well-known in the mainstream, so it's a staple external link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will utilize that reasoning in the future. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nancy - working with even-tempered editors has its benefits
• Nancy Reagan Signature - Findingthe correct template that allows for signature example in First Lady articles
• Sig - further exploration of the aforementioned issue
• Ronald Reagan third opinion (for real this time!) - weighing in 3O on the Reagan article
• A small problem - admin assistance on the infobox stuff
• Braveheart plot - working to resolve differences in Braveheart plot section
• Request for Third Opinion - Asked to weigh in on the Manchuria/Northeast China debate; people there were too set in their ways to consider a compromise.
• Re:Truth, Justice, and all that wiki stuff - discussion w/Bignole re: lotsa little issues, from CoM to the restructuring of the Smallville episodes and the comaprions betwixt them and the Dr. Who episodic list
• Don't move, I dropped my brain! - discussion w/Alentraveller re: comments about inclusion/exclusion of Daryaee statements in 300
• Braveheart - advice from Alientraveller on how to develop out the Braveheart article
• Braveheart plot (take two) - tackling some of the plot interpretations between myself and another editor, point-by-point (with some success)
• Manchuria template - request for advice onhow to escalate DR, as resolution wasn't being found (or, in my opinion, sought)
• RE: Northeast China - one side in the debate tells me they have no intention of participating in resol;ving the issue, content that their position is the only one that matters. Yes, I found it pathetic, too...
• [[Archive_9#Perhaps_a_closer_look_would_help|Perhaps a closer look would help] - bringing an admin in to help address a particular editor in the Manchuris debate who had some deeper issues at play
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo - and of course the resulting RfC (that I really wanted no further part of)
• ALF vote - I voted after the vote had been de facto ended by admin decision. My bad...
• About List of Tributaries of Imperial China and Template:History of Manchuria - more advice requested on how to proceed down the path to ArbCom
• RfC User Conduct - news fromthe front regarding the RfC of Assault11, who in my opinion is the editorial equivalenty of Monty Python's Perth Pink
• Yes - discussion regarding an admin using an infobox instead of the little icon at the top right of the user page (as is usual)
• Warning - Radiant warning me and Viriditas to stop butting heads. Of course, Viri disregarded, as is his wont
• Your message - discussion as to how best handle uncivil and personal attack posts; refactoring, RfC, AN/I, etc.
• Usage - discussion on which template to use for Alf
• Notice - the nonsense reaching a head, Radiant tells Viriditas and I to stay away from the Alf article for a few days. I follow this caveat, whilst (of course), Viri doesn't.
• 3-D - some little-known history of the 3-D movie industry not found in an article
• Themes - discussion re: Wikifilms Project discussion that all films should be templated with a Themes section
• Re:300 Edits - discussion with a pretty reasonable editor re: plot progression accuracy
• ALF - discussion re: cleaning up subsection in the Alf DAB page
• Re: Braveheart - Erik set up an AfD for the historical inaccuracies subpage which is largely uncited and OR by synthesis
• Your note - learning some of the unseen tools that tabulate voting in RfA's (I was setting up subsections, which disconnected the tabulation tool - oops)
• Catwoman stuff - an uncivil editor vents, Big, Erik and I are amused
• Learn to pay attention - two editors who choose to butt heads, using my Talk page as their battlefield (tsk)
• Books - discussion betwixt Erik and what books are good summer reads
• Countdown - discussion as to synthesis edits in the article, and edits
• Re: There can -never- be only one -source for an article- - exasperation at hoiw much fancruftiness there is in some articles, specifically the Highlander-related ones
• template:History of Manchuria - others seeking advice ont he same Manchuris vs Northeast China debates. It looks less-inviting all the time...
• Shhh - - an editor who I respected destroys that respect through his behavior. It's what I get for respecting folk who have people issues
• Logan Marshall-Green - discussion over excessive 'cn' tagging of articles, and a request to get my hands dirty doing some of the cite work, too (less of a foreman, more of a workman, I am thinking).

---

hey

I can see you recently had trouble with thuran and while i was banned at the time i can now tell you that i wouldnt let him bother you to much. Ive had my share of battles with him and his friends and you cant ever win but just letting you know you have a ally if you need one. TheManWhoLaughs 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. I love Wikipedia! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I know. I kind of wish people would stop taking this so seriously. I appreciate the both of you sticking up for me when ThuranX got all snarly and whatnot, but after perusing the sorts of things he was involved in (there was this pretty icky AN/I going on wherein some user was being threatened in real life, and the 'Office' wasn't acting fgast enough for Thuran, apparently) during the time he was flipping out, makes me think he had just a bit too much going on, and he lashed out at me, coz I was there. I found this out after filing an AN/I on ThuranX myself, as I didn't think that getting treated like that was very cool at all. Maybe he just needs someone a bit higher hup the food chain to tell him to dial it back a bit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest letting the matter slide instead of resorting to an AN/I. The confrontation's tapered off, and I think that the AN/I option should only be revisited if things flare up again. And believe me, if you thought ThuranX was snarly, it's good that you never met Ace (who is MIA these days). While Ace was a competent editor, every comment he made sounded like he was having a bad day and was willing to take it out on someone. But yeah... it's my opinion that the AN/I won't help matters (as you noticed there and elsewhere, there's plenty of red tape to be found). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have been willing to do that, but you may recall that he said that this was something "that had been building for a while". That tells me that while he may have gone off somewhere, the behavior is likely not going to end if we run into each other again. Even if the AN/I goes nowhere, there will be a record of reporting the bad behavior, which goes to precedent if (and probably when) it happens again. And it shouldn't surprise you that ThuranXand Ace consider each other to be friends, so that may say something about why they feel that sort of behavior is acceptable. They may eben think they are 'cleaning up the town and taking out the trash.'

Like I said, I used to like ThuranX, because his edits are usually tip-top, but (like Ace) it's uncool to treat others like trash whilst doing so. And he certainly isn't going to listen to you or I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I understand your reasoning. I hope the report doesn't stir things up again (that was my concern and the reason for my advice); he may take it as an insult. Anyway, from my collaboration with both ThuranX and Ace, I never really saw any tag-teaming between them regarding the appropriateness of their attitudes. I actually recall ThuranX telling Ace one time to take it easy. Bignole and I have spoken to both of them on occasion when we notice too much biting. I've blown up a few times myself, but I like to think I keep myself in check. I think that the main reason why we sometimes bite (not trying to justify here, just provide some insight) is when we deal with editors who don't have a clear understanding of policies or if there are a series of independent, anonymous, and incorrect edits which we constantly have to revert (like the Scarecrow rumor). But basically, I hope I was able to provide some form of mediation; I would like to think that ThuranX would hear me in some regard, and the same for you. The reason I laughed above was the taking of sides -- on a website! I mean... it's a bit silly to say, "I got your wiki-back." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the feller is already insulted, and it wasn't like I was accusing him of something that wasn't the case; one can only be insulted when accused of something they didn't do. And I've never met Ace before, and wouldn't think that he and ThuranX would would tag-team folk; that's not the read I get from ThuranX, at least.

As for bitey-ness, yours is not a name I would associate with that. In fact, you and Big are exceptionally even-handed when dealing with folk, even those who are truly deserving of a verbal beat-down. I think that trying to remain polite allows rude folk to either realize they are being a Dick and calm down, or failing that, protect yourself so they can kick themselves out.

And I knew what you were laughing at. I don't expect anyone to have my back, wiki- or otherwise. I would prefer my back didn't need watching, in any case. It's nice to have some encouragement, so I know I am operating in a vaccuum. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey man guys like us are constantly fighting on here and i got peoples back because i got noone watching mine so i want some people on here who will give some damn respect which you cant get much of on here.TheManWhoLaughs 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted a fairly long post with some advice on your Talk page. For the record, I don't think I am constantly fighting. Some people I work with better than others, and some people can't really be worked with at all. and just like business, where you gotta spend money to make money, you gotta give respect to get respect. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Movies

So like with books, got any movie recommendations? Lately, I've seen Pirates 3, Knocked Up, Blood Diamond, 11:14, and Dark City. (I've been looking for thematic citations on the latter; see here.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of movies, as I don't usually have a lot of time. The ones I see are when I am on the plane or whatever. Pirates was fun, but a bit disappointing to me (though not nearly as disappointing as Batman & Robin, Highlander 2, Highlander Endgame or the last Matrix film). I did see Knocked Up and 11;14 and wasn't all that impressed by them. Blood Diamond was pretty good. I liked The Illusionist coz Ed Norton is friggin' brilliant, and he usually ends up in good films, which Illusionist certainly was (much more than the less-than-satisfactory Prestige - I like having someone to root for). When I have the time, i usually watch some science show or read a book. I get recommendations from a couple people before I commit to seeing a movie, since I tend to be insulted by stupid movies or those films that specifically try to manipulate my emotions (Lifetime is never on in my home), and I end up in a crabby mood the rest of the day. I will be going to see the new Potter film with my nephews, as I promised them, even thought they are too young. It is part of my job s an uncle to fill them with sugar, caffeine and scary movies before giving them back tot heir parents. Uwah hah hah, and all that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerks II?, Just Cause?, Goodfellas?, Dollars Trilogy Maybe you don't want to worry about remembering the main character's name?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I did like Clerks 2 coz we saw the same zany antics, but there was a point to the story that sometimes seems missing with a Kevin Smith "slice-o-life" film. I remember seeing Just Cause many years ago, and only recall that I was please that Connery wasn't cast in another bomb (it almost seems to be an unfair Holywood legend that Connery had the worst possible instincts for which roles to take). I liked Gooffellas, even though I don't really like Liotta. The Man With No Name films I do like, even though I often dislike a lot of movies from the late 60's and early 70's. Maybe it was some weird cinematography thing, but it always looked like people were wearing really uncomfortable clothing, and were sweating all the time, and I tend to sympathize with the characters.

My tastes in film tend to be pretty odd. I liked the 13th Warrior, even though it had Banderas in it. Strange Days, and The Long Kiss Goodnight were also pretty good. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember watching Just Cause with my parents (mom's a big Connery fan), and I remember liking it so I Amazoned it. But I found it at Wal-Mart on Friday so I bought it there. I watched it last night actually. I laughed harder at Clarks II than I did for the first one. The Dollars Trilogy is probably one of my favorite set of movies. The soundtrack is killer. I have just about every Eastwood western, though some of them I don't like the character; he basically raped a woman in High Plains Drifter. I've never sat through all of The 13th Warrior, and never seen Strange Days. I like The Long Kiss Goodnight, not a great movie, but entertaining. What about The Ugly?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of The Ugly. I recognize that you are far more a connoisseur of horror films than I am. Part of my personality is understanding function ove form, and so many horror films don't make sense to me, and that ruins the enjoyment of the plot for me. Primal fear films work for a while, but I get bored of the unrelenting gore and manipulative usage of low frequency rumbling (which activates the caveman in all of us afraid of getting trampled, the trampling stampede-y sound being a low frequency transmitted through the ground); next time you see a particularly scary film, pay attention to the usage of low frequency sound effects used to heighten your fear. It's really quite manipulative.

The reason I like the 13th Warrior is the fact that it's cast is made up of essentially the leading men from a number of different countries largely unknown to the American audience. It's a total guy film. Stange Days is dated, being set right before the Millenium. It would have been better had they not done that, but Angela Bassett kicking ass in a chauffeur's uniform? Priceless. As well, that's probably why I like Kiss Goodnight as well - no one would cast Geena Davis as an ass-kicking government killer, and she pulls it off really well. the bad guys and the plot is pretty believable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I agree about Pirates 3 -- I enjoyed it, but wasn't truly satisfied in the end. I liked Matrix Revolutions in some regards, but it was flawed. (They should've stopped at the first one, basically.) I didn't like 11:14 that much, either -- it just seemed like a movie to show off the intertwined storyline technique and nothing else. I did like Knocked Up, though, more because of the contemporary references (I foresee the movie getting dated fast, though, for that reason) and because one of my roommates of the past two years basically had a lifestyle like the main guy's friends (except for that celeb porn site biz). I liked The Prestige more than The Illusionist (saw the ending coming from a mile away) because the concept was chilling to me and reminded me of The Butterfly Effect. And I gotta say Blood Diamond was weird for me to watch -- it was like one of these action romps but with too serious of a background (the carnage in Africa) to really appreciate. I think Fernando Meirelles' City of God and The Constant Gardener delivered more strongly using similar premises. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to see Clerks II via Netflix, but the DVD was scratched up. I haven't gotten around to seeing it, but I generally enjoy the crude nature of Kevin Smith movies. I need to get around to seeing The 13th Warrior, as I've heard good enough things about it to check it out. I need to check out Strange Days, though -- I'm a sucker for sci-fi, even the soft variety. The Long Kiss Goodnight, I'm interested in checking out because I saw and loved Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which had the same writer (who also directed the latter one). I have a ridiculous amount of movies on which I'd like to catch up -- my Netflix queue, at last count, was 452 movies. I'm wanting to see The Lives of Others and Downfall (Alientraveller's recommendation). Kind of hard to see many movies nowadays, though... with my internship, it's a full work week, and I'm socializing with other interns during my free time. I don't cross paths with too many film aficionados. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Ugly is less horror and more psychological. The leading man won a best actor award in New Zealand for his work in the film. It's kind of like a Silence of the Lambs in that respect.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

TheManWhoLaughs

Should be noted that he just removed the warnings. Lord Sesshomaru

I didnt remove them i archived them for some reason this guy has a personal grudge againts me and what he doesnt understand is hes about to be blocked for it.TheManWhoLaughs 15:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your advice worked, Arcayne... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that it did. Maybe he will read it again in a few eeks or months, and it'll sink in then. Crap, and I spent some time thinking about how to best say what I did, too. :( - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, he'll have all the time in the world, because Yamla gave him the indefinite for sockpuppetry.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I just saw that. What a waste of advice (guess he can't have my back anymore - hur hur). I kinda feel sorry for someone who cannot get out of their own way. He didn't even know how to say he was sorry, or thanks. Sigh... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

RE Braveheart Edits from user:J.A.McCoy

Sir Arcayne,

Regarding your inquiry into the unlockable Braveheart-themed video game sequence in the game Daxter, I have no earthly idea. I am no gamer, I do not even own a console. I was just wikifying the term "unlockable" in the Braveheart spoof section. I did however find this:

• A Daxter "cheat" page that includes information on the Braveheart unlockable

• And the PDF download page of the guide in question

I hope this aids you in your quest, my friend.

JAM

Blair Witch Edits

I wanted to let you know that I reverted your recent citation addition to the article. Imdbis not considered a reliable source by WP for articles. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that I may have misunderstood the reason it said "citation needed" when I went to the Blair which page. I thought it wanted proof that the mockumentary "Curse of the Blair Witch" existed. I know that it did as I watched it on the Sci-fi channel. If I was correct and the difficulty just is that the IMDB can not be used as a source, what internet source could be used for such a purpose?--Macindan 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)