User talk:Darrenhusted/archive18

June 2010

Please do not rever my edits without giving a valid reason. My edits were minor edits. Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

According to what rule should all film articles use "Plot"? Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Acording the the WP:Plot It never said you have to use the title "Plot" it is an example. And that section talks about plot summaries and how to make them. Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reported you for committing the 3RR rule. Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just it I don't have a problem. You are the one harassing me. So you should discuss it with me. Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are editing the standard agreed heading to a non standard heading, you edited two of my watchlisted pages at the same time so I looked at your editing history. If all you are going to do is change 'Plot' to 'Synopsis' then expect to be reverted. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You do know that you look up the word "Plot" you will also find "Synopsis" among other similar words with the exact same meaning. And just because featured articles have the word "Plot" in their page doesn't make the word "Plot" extra special. It is the combination of the matertial within the article that makes the article and FA. Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

To keep all articles consisted the same headings are used in the same order on all articles; intro, plot, cast, production, reception being the most basic information for films after release. Through agreement the word "Plot" is the one used by the film project. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Through what agreement? Where is your proof? And loads of articles on WP don't use "Plot". Some use "Synopsis" as well. Do you have the link to the Film project? Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this; the name of the section for describing the plot of a film in film articles is "Plot", and for the guide on how long and what tenses to use the redirect is WP:PLOT, not WP:SYNOPSIS. The FAs use "Plot" and these are the most intensely reviewed articles in the film project, meaning that the use of "Plot" has been agreed by multiple editors. If some articles have "Synopsis" then this should be changed to "Plot", as it is you should raise your concerns at the film project, or try making edits that aren't just changing "Plot" to "Synopsis". Darrenhusted (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The section title "Plot" is used on nearly all FA film articles, it is one of the most frequent requests to change it form "Summary", "Synopsis", or some other variation to "Plot" in a GA and FA requests. Those articles that don't use "Plot" are mostly documentaries or not single movie covering article, like a character or a movie series, "Plot" is generally associated with fiction, while "Synopsis" is used for documentaries etc. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So I looked up the definition to "Plot" and in most dictionaries it refers to "a scheme;or a plan". "Synopsis" however refers to a plot summary. And again where is your proof of this it is one of the most frequent requests to change it form "Summary", "Synopsis", or some other variation to "Plot" in a GA and FA requests.? Wetcloth20 (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wetcloth20, stop posting here. If you have a problem with the word Plot then go to the film project, you have been told several times already. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of words which have more than one meaning; Plot:

1. a plan made in secret by a group of people to do something illegal or harmful : [with infinitive ] there's a plot to overthrow the government.
2. the main events of a play, novel, movie, or similar work, devised and presented by the writer as an interrelated sequence.
3. a small piece of ground marked out for a purpose such as building or gardening : a vegetable plot.
4. a graph showing the relation between two variables; a diagram, chart, or map.

If you would have clicked the link that was presented to you, you would see that every movie covering article uses "Plot" instead of "Synopsis". I don't really have every FA request I've seen bookmarked for you, but the end result is quite clear; "Plot" is used, "Synopsis" only for documentaries. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:PLOT is short form for Plot Summary that's why that section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is called "PLOT". Wetcloth20 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop posting here. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, please see my decision and comments at the relevant AN3 request. Though I believe that a block of your account for the reasons I gave there would be inappropriate, another admin examining the issue may arrive at a different decision. I do not endorse repeated reversion of content, but I do not believe it is in the best interest of the project to reward creating throwaway accounts for disruptive purposes. Thanks, --B (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, as it was I made an attempt to discuss the edits after making each revert and once I reached three on each page I stopped, and once it was clear that Wetcloth20 was not listening I stopped trying to discuss it. The user reporting to the 3RR board with less than 50 edits would make me suspect that this account is not the user's first. For the record on The Book of Eli; reverted to, 1RR, 2RR. On Xena:Warrior Princess; reverted to, 1RR, 2RR. On Seven Pounds; reverted to, 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, no warning of 3RR given. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR report of you and himself, looks a lot like an attempt to drag you down with him into a block, especially with the unblock request he made. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He said he would accept the consequences, and then made a fourth revert on two articles. Thank Jimbo for admins. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WWE

I can see you are all too familiar with the 3RR process, so I encourage you to change from the usual for a day. The subsection on the TV-PG rating seems to be creating a lot of the upset, so I am leaving the subsection as is to appease the opposition here. Please read it before you go into another argument about the "PG Era", which is not what this material is about.--Screwball23 talk 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You care to explain "I encourage you to change from the usual for a day", because as it is I am nowhere near 2RR let alone 3RR and not 4RR. You are the one with three reverts in eleven hours. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman 3 (2012)

Hello there! The deletion discussion about Batman 3 (2012) is trending towards an incubation of the article. I noticed your opinion that the article should be deleted and that what information is known about it should remain where it is at the franchise page until a release date is fixed. It turns out that there has been an announced release date, but principal photography isn't supposed to begin until March next year. I intend to start an incubation of the article so that it can be properly developed before going to the main space once principal photography starts as per WP:NFF. Until then, the franchise page would basically stay the same. What do you think? Cliff smith ^talk 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of World Wrestling Entertainment

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to World Wrestling Entertainment was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 11:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to join the mediation here. It can finally put a third party in this, and with their help, we can actually begin to have a meaningful discussion that will settle this issue. --Screwball23 talk 01:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you were blocked twice, have been reverted by 5 different editors, have started a 3O, RFC, mediation and gone to editor assistance it is clear that you are forum shopping, and I don't see a forum shopper as someone who will listen; and in fact you haven't listened to me when I've talked on the WWE talk page. So let me be clear, and feel free to copy this to the mediation page: the text you are trying to add is OR, and contains nothing that is not already better expressed in the article and does it with worse references. There is no version of the new text that I could agree to, the current text is more than adequate. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I gather from your response to Screwball2 that you are not favorable to participating in mediation. Would you be able to confirm this by visiting the mediation page, and so indicating? If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning World Wrestling Entertainment, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 17:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Q

Out of curiosity, why did you revert my sourced additions to Alvin Greene?--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You made a mess of some of the code, and put things in places where they don't belong. I wasn't going to sort them out so I rolled them back. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

The prologue of A Serious Man

I am a bit puzzled about your deletion of the paragraph about the prologue in the A Serious Man article and your assertion that "the prologue has no real influence on the main plot". On what authority do you have it? Whatever intention Coen brothers had in putting the prologue in, how can we presume to ignore it? Goochelaar (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It bloats the plot summary and losing it does not alter the plot. Several editors have removed it before me. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If several editors have removed it, this just means that as many had included it. What do you mean by "it does not alter the plot"? It is part of the plot, or do you suppose that Coen brothers put it in by mistake? I appreciate very well, and agree with, your concern about unnecessary details or single scenes, but by omitting the prologue we leave out a whole, important part of the film. Goochelaar (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, one or two editors put it in, then several different editors remove it (as an example of the maths those who add it usually go through 3RR several times before dropping the matter). The matter was discussed to death on the talk page six months ago. The prologue has no impact on the plot, and the plot summary does not miss anything by not having it there. Plus summaries have length recommendations, the prologue would need to be summed up in twenty words to stop the plot from bloating. There are several films with prologues (GI Joe from last year being another) and they are always left out. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the third time you give as obvious that the prologue is unrelated with the plot ("the prologue has no real influence on the main plot", "it does not alter the plot", "The prologue has no impact on the plot"). I personally do not agree with it, and am not even completely sure I understand it. And what even if it were a separate episode? Would you omit Planet Terror from a description of Grindhouse only because it is unrelated to Death Proof? In the Grindhouse article even the fake trailers get covered, and rightly so. A Serious Man is quite an important film, and such a distinctive feature of it should be mentioned. Perhaps is there another more suitable section of the article than the plot one? Goochelaar (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

One final time then, the prologue is unrelated to the plot. WP has guidelines on plot writing, the summary for A Serious Man covers the main plot of the film, and disregards the prologue and most of the sub-plots. Grindhouse is a bad example as it is two films, and has nothing to do with your argument, burn that straw man. Take it up at the article talk page, I'm done with this discussion. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Darren, I respect your views quite a bit, but I think it's too much interpretation to claim the prologue should be excluded from a summary of the film. The relationship between that short story and the rest of the plot is a question the film poses, not a pair of adventitious stories untethered by narrative intention. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Darren, please do not accuse people of tossing around straw men. My argument is simply: either the prologue is relevant to the rest of the plot, and so it has to be included; or it is, say, just a separate mini-film, and then it has to be mentioned just like the different episodes in a multiple episode film. In any case, we cannot just pretend it does not exist. I won't bother you anymore. Goochelaar (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You undid my entirely accurate editing, without even the courtesy of an explanation. Why was that? Ironman1104 (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC) No, on reflection, just don't bother. I've read around on this page ... Ironman1104 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello again! Any idea what to do with somebody who keeps on changing TB season 3 episode 6 back over and over (reverted four times yesterday)? I keep reverting it because I don't like it - maybe I should just give up?Ravenscroft32 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Dark Knight (film)

Hi. I am curious on why you reverted my edit on The Dark Knight (film) here. You feel the default size is little too big? --Sreejith K (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the actual picture is too large, limiting it to 200px helps users on slower connections. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Chatroulette

Hi. You really shouldn't use rollback for good faith non-vandalism edits (Here). Because the anonymous IP editor removed a section, the edit looked like vandalism, but he/she did give a reason (IMO a good one) and we should respect that. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Book of Eli

Hi Darren, why do you object to including the reason for Eli's journey in the Book of Eli article? Thanks. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the reason for his quest is never explicitly stated, he just wants to go west. Whether it was a voice in his head or the "voice of God" is really irrelevant to the lede of the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was explicitly stated that a voice told him to take the book west. Since this is the central drive for the entire story, it seems like pretty important to me. If you still disagree with including this information, I'd like to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

His reason for going west is unimportant. The book is a Macguffin, and the reason is a Macguffin. In addition the reason is left vague, though Eli says he heard a voice he could be lying, and we never hear that voice, so any addition of what that voice is, or if that voice is real, is speculation, and unsuited to the lede of an article. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether the voice is real or imagined or pure fabrication is irrelevant. It's the reason Eli states for going west. Without the voice, there is no plot. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I've posted my proposal on the talk page. If you'd like to carry on this discussion, let's talk about it over there. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

African American Policy Forum

Hi. Back in June 09 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Eli plot ref

I've re-added the ref in the plot, while movie plots don't need refs per WP:MOSFILM, I do believe the movie itself does not actually provide that information, which is why the reference is there. If it does, then just revert my edit. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean with "The edit you made previous changed the wording to "a nuclear ", and that's fine"? I'm pretty sure I haven't made such an edit. While the plot requires no source, as the movie itself is the source, if there is content in the plot that is not directly backed up by the movie it does require a reference. It has been some time since I've seen the movie and I don't recall exactly but I don't think the movie actually mentioned this, which is why it should be either removed from the plot or a reference should be in place. Also MartinezMD started a section on the talk page about this. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 01:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference from my edit, when I removed the ref and trimmed the plot, included the change to "a nuclear apocalypse", which was part of the edits that MartinezMD made, and you reffed (which I took to be tacit agreement from you). As it stands plots don't need refs, and if someone wants to revert back to "event" then they can be directed to the talk page and the wording can be agreed there, as it stands the reference talks about the production so it could be included as part of that section. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you meant MartinezMD edit, not mine. I didn't really follow the plot trimming/changes. I saw a statement in the plot that I don't remember being said in the actual movie, which had an additional reference for it, being un-cited (if that's even a word). Because I don't recall that being said in the movie, I just placed the ref back. Because an unsourced plot can only contain info from the movie itself, the statement should be either removed, cited, or someone should say were they actually mention that, don't really have an preference either way. I did a quick search in the movie script and the only suggestion to it being nuclear is a description of a magazine over. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit was made, then you made a further edit (adding the ref) thereby approving the edit. Refs don't belong in plots and issues like that can be sorted on the talk page. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make a further edit, I re-added the ref, not knowing it was just added, I did not approve the edit as I did not even know it was just made. You make it seem like I added the reference in the first place, which is not the case. There is actually nothing wrong with references in the plot, they are usually not needed though.

I've removed it from the page, I suggest you voice your opinion at the talk page as well opposed to just here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I took your further edits to be a tacit acceptance of the change of wording, and the addition of the reference to further enforce the use of "apocalypse" as opposed to "event". And should someone change it back to "event" then I would direct them to the talk page. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it wasn't an endorsement. I see you've removed the reference but left the statement. That is the problem. You give as reason "plots don't need refs", if you're putting statements in the plot which are not backed by the movie it does need a reference. Not in the movie = not in the plot or a with reference. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, due to a number of edits it was unclear where the dispute lay. You dispute the 30, and MartinezMD is supplying the ref for the 30. As it stands if the ref is good for the 30 then it isn't needed in the plot because it is in the talkpage. No refs in the plot still stands. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fight Club (film)

Regarding this edit to the article Fight Club (film): A blanket reversion of multiple non-vandalistic edits--most if not all of which were good-faith improvements of information and prose--with an offhand edit summary seems to me to be uncivil and poor editing practice. If there are particular changes you disagree with, then change those things, not every edit over an entire week. And the editors whose work you are changing at least deserve the courtesy of an informative edit summary, so they might understand why their changes are unacceptable.--ShelfSkewed Talk 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The plot was better when it was more concise, and there is no need for multiple wikilinks to common words. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points, although I did think some (but by no means all) of the rephrasing done by the other editors improved the prose a little. Still, I appreciate you giving consideration to my concerns and taking the time to separate what you consider the bad edits from the acceptable ones. Happy editing!--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No probs, plots are the easiest part of film articles to write, and have a tendency to expand if not kept in check. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)