User talk:John315

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, John315, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Anupam^Talk 22:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity: Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today!

Barbie plot details

@John315, the structure of the plot needs to be simple, concise and straightforward. Theres no need to add unnecessary detalis such as "with a swaggering attitude and "macho" dress style" or "are arrested after Barbie punches a man groping her". Just because you find it intersting that does not mean it is relevant to the story description. The plot of a movie does not have to contain these kind of small details. Also needless to repeat the meaning of a main clause with another clause, such as "Barbie tells Ruth she doesn’t know how or where her story ends, to which Ruth explains that Barbie's story has no set ending". Let's strive for the most essential expressions and avoid circular sentences when there is no need one. Ertonien (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right about the latter thing, about Barbie and Ruth and the clause (may not have noticed it), but anything less than 700 words in the plot is not necessarily excessive. The arrest in particular, and the sexual harassment/assault of Barbie, are not things just to ignore, even if we don't need to address Ken's dress style. I may weigh in more later. ...One person's "small detail" may be another's large detail, after all. John315 (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"One person's "small detail" may be another's large detail, after all." That's true and you're right about the sexual harassment/assault of Barbie is not something to ignore about the movie, but a Wikipedia plot does not have to take a stand on such a matter. If its already there that "the two get up to multiple antics", this clause includes everything that happened to them (including the harresment, the arrest, the clothes stealing) before their antics alarms the Mattel CEO who orders their capture. It's simple and concise. The reader will not lost in the details and the plot will not be unnecessarily long either. Ertonien (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Barbie and Ken Temporarily detained or arrested?

Hi, I just wanted to make sure you know that I mentioned you in a talk page discussion about this. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Resurrection

Hi, re this edit which I rolled back as "Good Faith", it's not that there's "no reason for this reversion", it's that I didn't explain it for which I apologise. Yes "Ezekiel and Daniel say what they say". You must also appreciate that this article "says what it says", and it says: "There are three explicit examples in the Hebrew Bible of people being resurrected from the dead", and it goes on to discuss the meaning of those examples as propounded by various sources, on the basis that these are explicit examples where it has been reported that these events actually occurred - not, as in Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones, a prophecy, nor, as in the Book of Daniel, a promise.

The third paragraph after deals with the wider concept of resurrection in Jewish eschatology, and it is here that your contribution could find a home. Note, however, that the facts are informed by reference to studies and opinions on the matter by reliable sources, and any addition would be expected to be similarly relevant and sourced. Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts that individual editors happen to know and shove in without regard for meaning and context. The place to simply record what Ezekiel and Daniel say is the article on Jewish eschatology, which is handily linked at the start of the section, and where you will find they are already well covered.

In closing, you say in your edit summary: "If you want to elaborate and lengthen what I said, that's possible, but to deny the information to people may not be transparent." Editors are responsible for what they write, and no editor is obliged to wrangle another editor's submission into a usable state, particularly when a barely-relevant fact is dumped into the start of a section discussing the previous section. The information is covered in detail in the linked relevant article, and could be included here if in context and with an appropriate, referenced, rationale for its inclusion.

I have reverted the edit again and I hope you understand why I have done so. Best wishes, Captainllama (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Made some modifications. Thanks. Have a pleasant weekend. John315 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

killers of flower moon plot

I am relatively new to this whole editing thing and I think this is where we communicate about the article? the plot points are wrong in multiple parts of your edits. I didn't realize how many words there were, but I was trying to edit the points as best as possible for the film. It is 3.5 hours long so it is hard to fit everything into a plot point in under 700 words.

Hale paddles Ernest after he gives Blackie his car, not after he botches the Roan hit job. It is also important to consider the fact that Hale is revealed to be the main villain about 1 hour into the film. Ernest is technically exonerated by the federal government because he testified, but is still prosecuted by the Oklahoma state government and this is important to include to avoid confusion about his prosecution. Mllrhgn (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia!" Let me know what points you think are wrong, though I included multiple things of yours in my newest version. (I'm not sure there's room to mention Blackie) Yeah, the 700-word limit is a little stringent! ...I am open to further communication with you, and further (limited) editing/clarification of the Plot, although, 700 words. Thanks for your attention to accuracy in this article. Have a nice Sunday. John315 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the first half of the plot summary looks ok, though the second half of the plot summary is starting to look like a list of sentences. With so many people editing the article, maybe you can try to make the second half of the plot summary look better than something like a list of sentence? HenryRoan (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I grouped sentences/paragraphs together a little more (coincidentally, including something about Henry Roan! wow), as explained in my comments at the article. Thanks. John315 (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes plot

@John315;, I understand that you are a new editor on Wikipedia and you must first read WP:PLOTSUMNOT before editing regarding a plot summary. As stated in the guide, the summary must include all relevant scenes instead of trying to stay under a word count. Please read WP:How to write a plot summary and make sure you understand what you are doing before making any further edits. Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} — Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you actually cut out relevant parts yourself with your version; and, 700 words is supposed to be the maximum, as Wikipedia states. Thank you. John315 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you watch the movie? Most of the edits I made were correcting information that was completely false or missed entire parts. I understand your concern about the word count (which as Wikipedia states there is no universal set length for a plot summary), but I was trying to make the plot correct. Redstar0005 ^{talk to me!} 23:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw the film on the first full day of its showing, I believe. I assume you saw the film as well. -- If there is still space up to 700 words in the Plot section, we can dialogue about additions you would like to make. (Again, I believe there is a consensus that on this article, the suggested 700-word limit is what people have agreed upon.) Even if I don't think such additions are necessary (?), you may have a different opinion, so, dialogue can occur. Have a pleasant evening. John315 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:PLOTSUMNOT

@John315:, you're a new editor and I notice that others have disagreed with your over-inclusive plot summaries. With regard to the above guideline, you'll see that there is more to it than simply keeping to the word-count. I challenge your emphasis of minor characters and incidents and stress on their ethnicity in Being There, among other things. Also, per WP:ES, I should point out that your edit summaries don't follow guidelines. If you want to argue your case after twice being reverted, bring the matter up on the movie's talk page and take a look at WP:TALK first. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

Your recent editing history at Dune: Part Two shows that you are currently at risk of violating the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Please be aware that violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Dune 2

There are 3 reliable sources now. HenryRoan (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning, though with the crowd at Dune 2, I don't know how far you're going to get... John315 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your idea of adding the parts of the edit which would fit into the Reception section was a good one. If you could post your version of what you would add to the Reception section then it might work better. HenryRoan (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at the crit reception section, and the cuts some people or person are/is trying to do. John315 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with MOS:FILMCRITICS, which prioritises English and Country of Origin reviews, stop Synthing review summaries, and most of all stop accusing actions being related to some form of bigotry. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dune: Part Two, you may be blocked from editing. MOS:FILMCRITICS clearly denotes the use of English-language reviews is standard given this is an English-language film. An offhand comment by Christopher Nolan is not suitable for inclusion as per MOS:FILMCRITICS. If you do not stop your repeated tendentious behaviour of repeatedly, with incredibly weak arguments, reinserting disputed material without achieving consensus punitive action is likely to be taken.

Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)