This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A transponder is a TRANSmitting device that resPONDs to an interrogation. In aviation a secondary radar sends out messages, sometimes to individual aircraft, asking who they are. Primary (simple) radar doesn't always give a strong signal and cannot easily measure altitude. The reply to the secondary radar query comes from a transponder. It can therefore both receive and transmit giving information about the identity of the aircraft and (in Modes C & S) its altitude. What distinguishes it from any radio is that it automatically replies and only does so when it is asked. I do not know the film so I cannot say whether the word is correctly used. JMcC ( talk) 08:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
...'s plot is still 30% too long. The film is not complicated and 900 words is the upper limit for a complex plot (say Magnolia). 500-700 is the recommended length. No Country, as I write this, is 1099 words. If you are dedicated to it you could lose 399 words, or around 30%. Then remove the plot tag. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Says 500-700 words, 900 for a complex film. And for a start the paragraph about the opening narration could be lost. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
...that you look at The Simpsons Movie for how a plot summary should look. The goal of all article is to reach featured status, and those who assess and pass FAs generally pick up on long or tonally inconsistent plots. The Simpsons Movie was passed as FA. The plot does not need to dwell on the thoughts of characters, sub-plots are not usually important and the tense needs to be the same throughout. If you have seen the film Seven Pounds I would also recommend that, it does two hours in under 700 words (although if you have not seen it do not go there as it is one massive spoiler). Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
...give it a rest. Darrenhusted ( talk) 16:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
...stop putting comments on my talkpage, and move on and do some editing. You have 44 edits and with 8 on my page alone. I am fully 18% of your edits. I have 417 pages on my watchlist, I suggest you expand yours and stop adding comments to mine. Darrenhusted ( talk) 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{ User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
First, stop reverting. I suggest you read WP:Edit war and WP:BRD. You very boldly redid this article's entire plot section without discussion and for questionable reasons. The article is currently a WP:Good article, meaning it has been reviewed for content, including its tone, accuracy, etc. If you feel there are specific parts that are inaccurate or contain speculation, bring them up on the talk page for discussion. However, your wholesale replacing of a generally well-written plot summary with a very bad one is not appropriate. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on No Country for Old Men (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I was trying to WP:AGF that you were just well-meaning, but that you insist on continuing to revert without discussing the issue properly, this is your official warning to stop the edit warring. Start a discussion on the talk page if you feel there are inaccuracies. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 05:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't create a new section for every detail you think is wrong, keep it all in the same section so that people don't have to scroll the entire page just to see what else is wrong with the article. Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Rather than spreading to individual talk pages, it may be more advantageous to center the discussion on content and stylistic issues to the article's talk pages. FWiW, Ring, your edits are valued and that is the only aspect that should be in question... Bzuk ( talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC).
Sure no problem. I'm happy to justify my edits. Ring Cinema ( talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | ||
For your efforts in working cooperatively even with someone diametrically opposed to your viewpoint. Bzuk ( talk) 17:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC) |
To find out where the other half went, trace my contributions. FWiW, yes, you did deserve the honour, for keeping WP:COOL when things got hot. Bzuk ( talk) 22:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 08:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I am curious as to why you consider it speculative to describe his emotional ouburst at the end of the film as "repentent"? Philip Cross ( talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback with the rewrite of the "Plot" section! I've been slowly but surely trying to revise the guidelines as a whole. There's never been a concerted effort, in my opinion, and it shows (like with the guidelines' "Cast" section, which I'll be rewriting soon as well). I've seen you participate in discussion and would like to welcome you on board. :) Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about film articles or WikiProject Films, and I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability. One last thing -- I recommend starting a user page. It will give other editors an idea of who you are and what you're interested in, film or anything else. You could also link to policies and guidelines, since there's quite a few of them to be found. Happy editing! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I thought I had explained it well in the talk page of the Wittgenstein article.
Basically I think it is original research; the text does not reference it (I read it carefully, but maybe it could've slipped), and there's no discussion whatsoever on its relation to the proposition it uses as caption.
On absence of better information, I deduced that it was trying to refute that proposition. Well, that does not make sense. The proposition states "Though a state of affairs that would contravene the laws of physics can be represented by us spatially, one that would contravene the laws of geometry cannot". But a representation is very well-defined, and does not include a two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional object. It has to have the same structure, the same form of the being represented. And R2 is not homeomorphic to R3. In the case of geometry, he states quite specifically in proposition 3.032 that a representation has to be a full representation, as through the means of its coordinates. Well, any projection loses information about a coordinate, so it cannot be a good representation.
Anyway, it is not important if it was wrong or right. The way I see, it was unsourced original research, not belonging to Wikipedia.
Please, tell me what you think, as I plan on removing the triangle from the Tractatus' article as well. I'd prefer that you'd respond through Wittgenstein's talk page, so that other people could participate as well. -- Tercer ( talk) 22:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You're becoming increasingly hostile to others on the Project talk page. You're insulting their efforts, while at the same time crowning yourself King of all who edit Wikipedia. Please try and remain civil, and show some proper etiquette when discussing things with other editors. It's very disrespectful to "point out flaws", as you are trying to do, especially when you keep doing so in what appears to be an effort to degrade their contributions. I know you are better than that, so please show me that I'm right. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Multiple editors endorsed my draft. I even implemented Bignole's suggestion of a sentence from yours to mine. We have tried to explain plot summaries and primary sources to you in different ways, but you cannot "get" it. I highly recommend that you work on articles in the mainspace and review articles in our spotlight before you can claim any sort of experience with film articles. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
However, it is generally agreed that as every piece of information in this citation is already contained multiple times within the article and its infobox, it would be redundant to do so. Does this answer your question, or have I missed your point (for which I apologise in advance)? All the best, Steve T • C 17:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Changeling (2008) [Motion Picture], dir. Clint Eastwood. Los Angeles: Universal Pictures. Retrieved on July 13, 2009
Please read the paragraph below the one that starts with "Primary sources". It has this sentence: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." This is using a primary source, in other words, referencing it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay where do I respond to you? -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 20:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not edit my talk page any further. It's clear at this point that nothing will result from this discussion. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 23:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not mistaken about what the guidelines refer to. They refer to actual use of primary source material in WP articles. For example, Philosophical Investigations uses the actual primary source. That is what they're talking about. That is why PSTS discusses primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If PI talked about the primary source it would be referring to it and that wouldn't be under the PSTS guidelines for the use of primary sources. The only time you're using a primary source in an article is when the work itself appears in the article. Is that clear? Thanks. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC) (copied from Blueboar's talk page)
You're welcome. Blueboar ( talk) 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Blueboar, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The diff of your deletion can be found here. Viriditas ( talk) 00:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI... This comment was originally added by you, not Erik, and he removed it appropriately. Viriditas ( talk) 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
...is taking umbrage at the starring and order of the actors on NCFOM. Darrenhusted ( talk) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Since you reverted my first rewrite of the plot section on this article, your opinion would be appreciated at the discussion I started at Talk:No Country for Old Men (film)#Plot rewrite. Sorry I didn't respond to this for so long, but I didn't put the page on my watchlist after cleaning up the plot summary so I did not realize it had been reverted. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 18:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Dude, I'm not going to edit that page again man. "Too many errors introduced"? You seem to know what they are, correct them please. Those stupid names of the actors in the plot section, I hate that. I'm not mad at you or anything, but it's not the first time my edits are reverted for those reasons. I'm getting tired of that. I'm not a native speaker of English, but I did want to create a style that is very acceptable in Dutch. I figured it read OK in English as well, but that's because I'm Dutch, apparently. So I'm just saying: why don't you improve it yourself? Ciao Mallerd ( talk) 09:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Avoid them? Do you think I make grammatical issues on purpose? Warned? I guess I missed something. -- Mallerd ( talk) 08:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The "hair of death" page is what I found the first time I googled this a few minutes ago, and it's a blatant copy of the Wikipedia article. The original source I just found is [4]. Feel free to put it back; it just should have had a source from the very beginning. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This edit summary is incorrect; punctuation-always-inside-quotation-marks is a standard in some settings (for example, most U.S. academic settings), but not worldwide; for instance, in Europe, they often use "logical quotation", or punctuation outside of quotation marks. See the very page you directed me to (perhaps you didn't read it before linking it): Quotation mark#Punctuation. Wikipedia's MOS guidelines also prefer logical quotation: WP:MOS#Quotation marks.
Personally, I don't care which is used, as long as it's consistent. (In my real life I use American quotation, but on-wiki I use logical quotation.) So since you standardized it across the article now, I don't have a problem. But you should be aware of these policies before citing them incorrectly in other conversations—in other articles, there may be people who care more about this than I do. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
> Insults? Wow, I give you an F.
Hi RC. If you really do know how to read, then please start reading people's comments before answering them. Nobody said anything about the Cast section being based on the infobox, and you explicitly ignored my criticisms of your numerical cast-counting rule. Ignoring people is not "playing well with others". I don't mind chatting with you here on our user pages, but it would be nice if you could figure out what the general discussion is about before participating in it. Have a nice day. —
Codrdan (
talk)
17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
> Collectonian's post explicitly mentioned the infobox
Collectonian made one statement about the infobox, one about the Cast section, and one about both of them. No one said anything about one being "the standard" for the other.
> Did you see that or not?
I read the entire section carefully. I wouldn't question your literacy otherwise. —
Codrdan (
talk)
21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"I usually use the rule of thumb of headliners in the infobox, those who actually get mentioned in the plot summary in the cast section"
> That's what Collectonian said. Do you see how she talks about how there's a rule of thumb on the infobox that she applies to the cast section ...?
No. What I see is that headliners go in the infobox and anyone mentioned in the plot summary goes in the Cast section. I see no connection between those two rules, and I can't imagine how you could see one. They're completely independent.
> your laughable rudeness
You can laugh all you want, RC, and you can give me any grade you want. You're just confirming that you really don't know how to read.
> What do you think she meant?
The headline is the "standard" for the infobox, and the Plot section is the "standard" for the Cast section. Have a nice day. —
Codrdan (
talk)
00:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
> Your reading is probably right.
I'm sure it is. I don't think the Cast section has anything to do with the headline stars, except that it has to contain all of them along with the rest of the cast.
> Not an excuse for rudeness.
I apologize for "Please learn how to read." But it does seem like you were reading carelessly. In addition to misinterpreting Collectonian's post, you wrote "You are concerned about too few", which is incorrect, and you wrote "I don't know of a reason to avoid a numerical guide" right after I provided two reasons to avoid a numerical guide. Anyway, thank you for easing up on the heat. Hopefully we'll stick to discussing content in the future. —
Codrdan (
talk)
02:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the head's up on Dtrap, looks MUCH better! Good work! Tommyt ( talk) 20:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure, and thanks for motivating me to improve the documentation. Although I'm sensitive to not drowning the plot section with too many semi-relevant details, I think the footnotes provide a good place for this kind of stuff. I wouldn't just shove random trivia in footnotes, but in my view the geographical details enhance the sense that the action of the film sort of outgrows Terrell County and sweeps over a large part of West Texas. (But then, I've always been a geography geek!) - Cheers, PhilipR ( talk) 20:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
In response to this: yes, it's a bad idea. See WP:OVERLINK. The book is already linked prominently in the article's lead. Furthermore, there's no reason for the text "Anton Chigurh" to link to the book; having a link on him is deceptive, as someone who clicks it would not be expecting to arrive at an article on the book in general. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 06:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see the two notices above on your talk page. In addition, it has been advertised in several newsletters as well as the announcements page. This roll call is similar to ones we've had before and helps to ensure that active members are reached for project-wide issues/discussion as well as receive the newsletter. If you have suggestions for ways of expanding awareness, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need to re-has the merits of spoilers, I was trying to say that the plot should be comprehensive because it is the first thing most readers look at, and that it needs to stay where it is but all plots should be as well written as every other part of the article. Darrenhusted ( talk) 19:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for starting a discussion. I agree with your interpretation, but with the current structure there are two sentences in the lead that cover the film's content: first one that is a summary of the plot section, and then one that covers the meaning of the film (the Haneke quote). I think they should stay separated, without any analysis whatsoever in the first. But, rather than fighting over details, we should concentrate on expanding the article. Ideally we should be able to replace the quote with the summary of a themes section, since there shouldn't be any original information in the lead. There are lots of good interviews available online, and the section doesn't need to be fully developed immediately. Since the message seems to be the aspect of the film that you're most interested in it would be great if you wanted to contribute with this. (And you seem to be correct about the title, the German distributor includes the Kindergeschichte part too. Sorry about that.) Smetanahue ( talk) 18:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
1. I'm sensitive to the idea that interpretations should be out of the lead, which is why I cited it. Maybe that's still a problem. I don't think it should be intentionally bland or noncommital. We should strive for accuracy. Neutrality is run amok if we can't state what's obvious. Perhaps your view is that this village society is not sick, it's normal and that's human nature. I agree that's an argument that two people could go round and round about. 2. I'm comfortable with the Haneke quote because that is the director's analysis. Haneke might not best define the work for our purposes but what he thinks the movie is about is noteworthy. That's my view and I would allow for exceptions that I don't think apply in this case. He's not being disingenuous or evasive or cryptic or anything that would put me off about it for accuracy about his state of mind. 3. I'm open to the idea of putting the subtitle in another place. At least it deserves a translation, which will be tricky. Thanks. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The summary today at Netflix seems unusually inaccurate: At a rural school in northern Germany in 1913, a form of ritual punishment has major consequences for students and faculty. But the practice may have bigger repercussions on the German school system -- and maybe even on the growth of fascism. Celebrated Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke helms this Golden Globe-winning, sumptuously photographed black-and-white drama that stars Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Tukur and Theo Trebs. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The February 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I guess that I read your comment the wrong way. It came off has a sarcastic apology. Sorry for calling you a smart ass [and troll], obviously you weren't being one. — Mike Allen 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Erik ( talk) has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Did you watch the Oscars last night? What did you think of the winners? Erik ( talk) 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The April 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The May 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Kindly remember WP:BRD and do not edit war over your preferences in wording. Your disagreements over the MOS are all well known and documented on the talk page and you have made your feelings clear. Get consensus if you wish to change it now. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 05:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
> this article needs to be reordered for organization.
Yes, but you didn't do it correctly (or with consensus from other contributors). "self-contained section" is a technical detail, so it shouldn't be in the first sentence. The first sentence should state the summary's definition (a short description of the story), and the second sentence should explain why it's important (complements wider coverage). —
Codrdan (
talk)
20:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:AnmaFinotera. Thank you. Taric25 ( talk) 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR 09:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello there. I had moved Hey Babu Riba to Dancing in Water as the commonly used policy here is to name foreign-language film articles using the title under which it was released or has become widely known in the English-speaking world (of course, there are exceptions to this as I've noticed that many French and some Italian films have retained their original titles). As for Yugoslav films, I'd say 90% of them are listed here under their English title. As for Hey Babu Riba, imdb's entry says Dancing in the Water was the film's international title, and allmovie.com entry lists Dancing in the Water as an alternative title. I have no idea whether it was released in cinemas abroad as Dancing in the Water but it was almost certainly titled that way when it was screened at various international festivals back in 1987. Cheers! Timbouctou ( talk) 10:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The June 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If you chronicle the history of horror films and thriller films, you'll see that horror arrived on the scene first. When it came to films. One of the first thrillers was The Bells, a crime thriller. One of the earliest horror films is Le Manoir du diable, a French horror short which was produced almost 30 years before The Bells. A lot of the early thriller elements were also found in horror films; the thrillers were just glossier versions without monsters. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The July 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I reverted my edit because the comment looked liked I was making a personal attack on DocKino (when I addressed his commenting). If you want, I can revert it back. Secret Saturdays ( talk to me) what's new? 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The August 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I will revert in 10 minutes due to the fact your version has incorrect information. I responsed to your comment please discuss. I am making a revert, please contact Geoff B to do the final revert and let him decide which version is better. Valoem talk 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made another subsection in the discussion please respond. I believe we should revert to my version of the plot summary and if the general public believes your version is better than another editor should revert it because I have proven myself more knowledgable when it comes to this film. Valoem talk 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Your right I didn't read the version very well, however I have updated my version and made grammical correction, please advise on any other mistakes you see. Thank you I am also trying to make this article as solid as possible. Valoem talk 15:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No actually there were no objections and no lies whatsoever. It seems you only respond when a revert is about to occur prior to that there were no objections. You proclaim that your version is better which is merely an opinion but because I have proven a conflict of interest neither of us should revert only a third party should or until consensus has been reached. Perhaps he was held hostage, but other parts of your summary are far from correct and I have corrected them. I find it interesting that you are acting like the page belongs to you. I have been on wikipedia longer than you and having been edit that page long before you. You were actually not suppose to revert my edit without discussion since other editors did not seem to have an issue with it. I however chose to be the bigger man here and let your version stay until a third confirms which version is better. Ill give it 24 hours before I revert. Your version would confused any reader and is filled with plot holes and lack of explanation for motive. Also please stop saying that my version is too long that is clearly not the case. Valoem talk 19:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard this complaint, although I admit I'm not as active as you are in the film project. I think as long as a wikilink can add further understanding of a theme or specific detail, especially for more challenging words, it is worthy of inclusion. Now, if you're talking about too many external links, then yes, there is a point where too many links diffuse the focus of the reference materials. With regards to my edits on A Serious Man, if you feel I've gone too far, feel free to undo anything I've done. Hoof Hearted ( talk) 20:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind if I respond here. The issue of link excess came up when I was pitching in on Titanic's article and it got me thinking that it can be overdone. Obviously a judgment call and I didn't mean any disrespect! The word in this case was 'icepick', right? I thought the link might imply special usage since it's a common object. If someone doesn't know what an icepick is, well, there are so many things we have to explain to them. I'm sorry if I got it wrong. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
No wait you were in there on tenure, etc. Those were good, I thought, although I had some question if solicitation made a good link because the article on solicitation doesn't seem to include the element of prostitution which I assume is the case in the movie. -- Ring Cinema ( talk) 05:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, Ring Cinema. I got the move reverted on the grounds that it was not uncontroversial, so it is back to status quo for the time being. I requested a move on the talk page so there can be fuller discussion to determine a consensus of whether or not the move should take place. Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)