User talk:Ring Cinema/Archive 2

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter

The September 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) 04:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

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:Chigurgh, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. As much as I wish for his warnings to stick and be viewable on his talk page - he is allowed to change or remove them as he sees fit. Once done - other users are not supposed to revert those edits, or edit the contributions/deletions of/by others. Srobak (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Chirgh

There is no way for us to block him, We can only ask for help since he's out of our hands. I've made a note of him at WP:AIV. Let's see what happens. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well. He's gone for the day anyways. If he continues to vandalize articles after the ban or sneaks in through another IP, report him at the link above as a Sockpuppet or report that he's continuing vandalism shortly after the block happened. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow... Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Man, please read the whole articles next time...otherwise you're right :)

Had you read the "Production" section, you would find an appropriate mention to the stadium scene... Had I read the essay WP:HTRIV, I would not argue with you about such a minor issue...

By the way, I'am the main contributor to this article and much more than this, I'am a Huracán fan, therefore my interest in "The Secret in their Eyes" is understandable. ;) Thank you.--Darius (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Darius: WP:OWNERSHIP Srobak (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have been making the point that statistically speaking he contributes more frequently, Srobak. I will feel free to offer my idea on improvements, but there's nothing wrong with respecting the contribution Darius made. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for getting it right, Ring Cinema, and for improving the article. Best regards. :).--Darius (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 00:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop bad faith reverts on A prophet

I have respected your reverts for over a month without reverting. Now my version has garnered some support. Please respect other users and wait before reverting my version, the same consideration I showed you. Also since you claim my version is so poor you should have no trouble finding another editor to revert. Please keep in mind wikipedia is collective effort. Valoem ^talk 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No bad faith here. You must be thinking of someone else. I've offered to discuss it with you. If you're operating in good faith, you'll discuss it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm talking to you as your clearing showing bad faith and here is how:

A. You repeatedly ask me what is wrong with your version and I explain it to you. Then you brush off my comments and ask again what is wrong. I have made about 10 posts regarding issues with your version. I said it does not have the proper details and is ambiguous to any reader who has not seen the film. Then you ignore that as if I didn't say anything.

B. You ask me to discuss this issue which I have for over two months. You are being disrespectful by reverting my edit when I have not been reverting yours. My patience is wearing thin. Stop your behavior.

Also please keep in mind I will no longer be discussing this issue with you as you are clearly bias. Valoem ^talk 15:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense, Valoem, but since your English isn't good, I assume you just don't understand. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter

The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Edge of Heaven

I watched it with Japanese subtitles so I am in no position to judge the actual dialogue. As long as there is a link to both the Jewish/Christian version as well as the Koran it seems npov...andycjp (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter

The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)

Could you please, at the talk page, explain why you removed that section of the text. It seemed nobody else had a problem with that besides you, and I believe those of us involved in the discussion deserve to hear your reasoning, and perhaps you could persuade the consensus.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If there was any consensus at any time, it would be the prohibition on using primary sources. If a consensus emerges to make an exception to the use of primary sources outside of Plot, we can take care of that. Similarly with the rest of that section, for which no consensus exists. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to take it down until one emerges. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

La Strada

Thanks for the attention to the La Strada article. I've been concerned that we are correct about Zampano. Is he real Gypsy or would it be better to refer to him as a gypsy? I can't verify it, but I'm of the opinion that Fellini did not consider him a Gypsy, and if he's not, it's slightly objectionable to refer to him in that way. Any thoughts? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. Yes, I happened to watch the film last night, so I immediately read the Wikipedia article for it afterward. What a wonderful film! I was somewhat surprised that Zampano was referred to as Gypsy within the article. Personally, I think that it should be corrected. I don't see any evidence to support that usage. (Anthony Quinn is certainly not listed in the credits with that term.) On another topic ... do you know why the film is referred to as La Strada (with a capital "S")? I thought that it should be La strada (with a lower case "s"). I was about to make all of those changes, but I thought that maybe I was incorrect. Also, the IMDb website states that the film is titled La Strada, but was originally titled La strada. So, I was confused on that issue. Do you know the correct title? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

Personally, I consider La Strada the sine qua non of film. As for the title style, there have been a couple discussions on the issue. The narrow preference has been to endorse the view shared fairly widely (see the New York Times) and not try to import foreign style into English. In other words, we are following Wikipedia style instead of Italian style. I think that makes sense for this publication. As to the Gypsy/gypsy question on Zampano, I am going to change it but would welcome your input if you think I get it wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I watched this for the very first time just yesterday ... so the film is only just now slowly "sinking in". But, I agree ... what a marvelous film! I am sure that I will watch it again ... and again! As far as the title style, I noticed the article's Talk Page discussions after I posted my question on your Talk Page. Finally, I noticed your recent corrections regarding Gypsy/gypsy ... and I think that your edits are an improvement to the prior version of the article wording. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

Dogtooth

Hello, The film may have been praised by the collection of 56 critics in Rotten Tomatoes, but omitting criticisms altogether does indeed make the movie appear to have been more highly appreciated (or at least, not criticized) overall than it was and therefore skews the article towards imbalance. I am not aware of any Wiki policy (please direct me to this if I am mistaken) discounting the validity of the opinions of audience members, so the >3000 opinions expressed on RT should have equal mention, particularly as films are created for audience consumption.

Wiki is about presenting both sides, even if one side is harder to find, else it appears whitewashed, and any detractions become more valuable due to their scarcity. In fact, A. O. Scott didn't even like the film (from one of the articles I read while examining the references), but the quote used (prior to my addition) made it appear that he DID like the movie, which is erroneous. I can say with all legitimacy that "there is no God", quoted directly from the Bible, with careful editing; the larger, actual quote is "The fool sayeth in his heart 'there is no God'", which changes the meaning significantly. I believe omitting the negatives from the reviews, and the summary I put at the beginning stating that the critics did indeed find the movie to be bizarre yet it had its merits in the cinematography, only enhances the truthfulness and balance of the article overall.

I thought the division of the statements from Greece vs. everywhere else were useful because the movie is from Greece, so the likelihood is naturally higher for possible favoritism, and international/everywhere else would possibly be more objective in their assessments of the film.

I will copy this into the Discussion section of the film's page to allow other editors to evaluate my logic and come to a consensus. LovelyLillith (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

Unless you have something constructive to say regarding an article, or a question regarding an article, I'd appreciate it if you'd stay off my talk page with your insulting rants. For the record, I never made any such claim directed to you. I said it's a game of semantics. It was a generalized statement. If you disagree that's fine, but don't presume to claim you know what I am and am not knowledgeable about. If you were insulted by my assessment of that philosophy as a semantical argument then just say so and I'll apology where necessary (if that's the article talk page then so be it) but please refrain from bringing it to my talk page. I don't know you and you don't know me and I don't need your drama on my talk page -- even if you revert your comments, I'm still stuck with the historical reminder. This is all I'll say regarding the matter, no need to respond because we're clearly at a difference of opinion regarding a lot of things. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Titanic (1997 film) -- recent edits

Hey, again. I didn't mean to revert you all the way in that first most recent revert of mine, but seeing it now, I agree with the complete revert.

I already explained the "seemingly asleep" part in my edit summary: "Seemingly asleep," I'm sure, was put there because of the debate of whether or not Rose is asleep or dead. We cannot state for certain whether or not she is asleep or dead, as even Cameron stated it is left open to interpretation even though he knows what he intended with the scene. This is why it is best to never make it seem as though she is definitely asleep or definitely dead. And because of this, that part of the plot summary has been a problem for the longest now. Some people interpret her as dreaming, while most interpretations (from what I've seen) believe she is dead; all screenwriting books mentioning Titanic in detail I have come across, for example, describe her as dead due to Jack's foreshadowing a little earlier on (about her dying an old woman, warm in her bed). I also feel "is seen" is needed to not definitively state she is reuniting with Jack.

Secondly, the fact that the central roles and love story are fictitious, while some characters are based on genuine historical figures belongs in the lead to me, and so does the fact that Gloria Stuart portrays the elderly Rose and narrates the film in a modern-day framing device. Billy Zane is also a prominent part of the film as Cal Hockley. As for Cameron seeing the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy, it seems especially relevant to mention in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the concept, and the best leads also give detail on why the story was created. In this case, since the love story is a big part of the story, it seems relevant to mention why it was created. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

On your first point, I'm indifferent. On the second, I don't entirely agree. The main concept is there: it's a love story set on the maiden voyage of the Titanic. The rest of it is not main concept material, really, so it should be taken up in its section. I certainly don't mean to diminish the importance of the items I cut. In a first draft of the article I can see why they might have been included. Now, though, we cover that material quite completely later and it's just not the main concept. The real/fictional basis is even a little bit obvious and clicheed, used many times in many different forms. Not really part of an overview. Cameron's intentions about the purpose of the love story is particularly trivial. Many things could be mentioned before those technical modalities of story construction and writing craft. We don't mention the main cinematographic or sound design elements or the intentions of the artists who put them there. They are just not important enough to be in the lead. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a revert war with you, and respect you, so let's try to work on something regarding my second point. As I stated in my edit summary, I feel it belongs there because, "The film is based on a real tragedy, and as such...it is important to acknowledge early on that some of these characters, especially the love story, are fictional in every sense." It's not obvious that some of these characters never existed aboard the Titanic. After all, this film is based on the real tragedy. Because of that, I gather that a lot of people would assume that all of these characters are based on real people. I have encountered people who thought so before they read up on the film, or before they were told the truth, especially in regards to the love story. Yes, this is covered later (lower in the article), but not every reader moves past the lead, and the lead is supposed to summarize all significant aspects of a topic (per WP:LEAD). The fact that the love story is fictional is a significant aspect that needs to be addressed early on, in my view. I'm not seeing how it doesn't belong in the lead. And information for why it was created seems only relevant, as well as professional, after mentioning that it is fictional.

As for the actors, as stated before, I feel that Gloria Stuart (Old Rose) and Billy Zane (Cal) should be mentioned in the lead as well. But I am open to removing Cal. Having those two in the lead the way it is now also keeps people from adding them to the lead in some trivial way, which has been done in the past. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I respect your judgement, so there's no possibility of a revert war. With respect, I don't think you're completely correct on this one although as usual you have your reasons. First, it seems to me that it goes without saying that we can't cover everything in the lead that someone might be mistaken about or not be able to easily glean from a superficial contact with the film. That's an unreasonable standard. What's more, we say it's fictionalized so I am pretty sure for the purposes of a quick tour of the main points we have covered it. Readers will find the details later.

I'm sorry, but it is not a good exercise of editorial judgement to mention the framing device (which actually could be skipped without missing the main story) or anyone who's not a lead at this point in the article. When it comes to summarizing the main concept of the film, that should be accomplished in one sentence, and we do that. As I already mentioned, and I stand by it, Cameron's thinking qua screenwriter is of no more moment than the intentions of the other significant production designers. These are interesting devices to be sure -- and that's why we have other sections to the article -- but I think it's completely sufficient to cover the material later and there's no reason to do it twice.

No harm is done with the article as is. But now we have the chance to improve it and we shouldn't be wedded to decisions made when the entire shape of the article was unknown. This is just part of the process. Thanks again. I'm sure we both want the article as good as possible and I hope you accept my reasoning. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Even people who respect each other get into edit wars. And I don't expect you to always let me have my way with edits you disagree with, no matter how much you respect my reasoning for them. And back to the debate: Although "we cannot cover everything in the lead that someone might be mistaken about or not be able to easily glean from a superficial contact with the film," it seems pretty obvious that we should acknowledge that some characters and the love story are/is fictional after we state that the story is based on the real Titanic tragedy. The lead is not supposed to tackle and summarize everything; it's supposed to tackle and summarize the most significant aspects of a topic. The love story is pretty significant. And it's not already covered that the characters and love story are/is fictional from the start simply because we state that the story is a fictionalized account of the sinking of the Titanic. Of course it's fictionalized. It's fictionalized because it's a writer/director telling the story in his way, one who has added fictional characters like Broc to help tell that story. Of course people know Brock isn't based on a real person (at least that was clear to people from watching the film back in 1997, while the film starts off in 1996). But the same cannot definitively be said of the characters aboard the Titanic in the film.

I believe mentioning why Cameron created the love story right after we mention the love story is a good enough reason to have it there. Including the reason a story/aspect of a story was created is carried out in many (if not most) good and featured Wikipedia film articles these days. I wasn't really arguing for mention of the framing device, however; it was more about mention of Old Rose; people recognize her as Rose just as much as they recognize Kate Winslet as the character. But as for what devices helped to create the film, look at the Avatar (2009 film) article's lead (for example). I also partly disagree that "When it comes to summarizing the main concept of the film, that should be accomplished in one sentence..." While that is true, it is also true that the main concept, such as a summary of the plot, should be addressed in the lead as well. And about covering things twice, that of course happens with leads (as leads are supposed to summarize the article's content).

Improving the article to me is not so much about cutting back helpful details, especially not perceived needed ones, that do not bog the article down in any way. The only reason (as far as I could see) this article did not make it to Featured article status in August 2010 was/is because it lacked some "comprehensiveness." Steve stated, "Very few, if any, film articles have successfully passed at FAC in the last couple of years without some kind of themes or interpretations section, something that goes into detail about the levels of analysis the film has attracted from academics. Obviously, not all films will get this treatment, but something with the visibility of Titanic is not one of them. Just a couple of minutes throws up several potential sources, which I'm certain are not even close to the tip of the iceberg..." So I say if we should be working on anything regarding this article, it's that. Everything else is fine. But as a compromise with you, what do you say we just leave the debated material as this:

Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures. Gloria Stuart portrays the elderly Rose, who narrates the film in a modern-day framing device. Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy.

or

Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures. Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy.

I realize that you would prefer Option 2 out of these two options, but let me just state that something about the film being narrated seems like detail that should be mentioned in the lead, to me anyway. We could also take this to the talk page, so others can weigh in. In fact, it's best that we take most of our disagreements about the article there. We could also go with some sort of dispute resolution. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've made your case. We mention it's fictionalized. Done. Leave it at that. The lead is no place for details. We definitely shouldn't be including minor characters, so Rose is out. Seriously, she is nowhere near prominent enough. Similar case: the prologue to Romeo & Juliet. No way you would mention the character of the prologue in the lead to the article on that play, even though Prologue reappears to close out the action. It's just a framing device. Agreed? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't insist on including Cameron's dramatic intentions. Its proximity to our mention that it's a love story is utterly irrelevant. We take it up later, as we should. It's not a main point or even close to it. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have made my case, especially why mentioning that the story is fictionalized does not leave it as "done." The word "fictionalized" means what in this case, that we should expect that some characters aboard the Titanic are made up? How are we to say that the reader should conclude that all on their own when this story is based on a real-life tragedy? See the definition of a fictional character. All these characters are fictional, and, because of this, "fictionalized" does not make clear that some characters aboard the Titanic within this film are not based on real people. This information is completely relevant to mention, which is surely why it was added to the lead in the first place and why it has remained in the lead for so long (I wasn't the one who added it; I am only the one insisting that it stays). I am not understanding how you do not agree with this being relevant to mention in the lead, or why you are so against it. The lead is for details -- summarized details. Cameron's dramatic intentions are a main point in this regard, because this story is largely a love story and the story's success is largely attributed to Cameron engaging the audience in this way.

Since it's clear we disagree, and you are not open to compromising on this matter, should I take this to the talk page and have other film editors weigh in or open an RfC? Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to bring in someone else that's fine, but I'm in no rush. 1) The lead is not a place to bring in speculation about why the story works. Please find examples of top film articles that do that. Perhaps you are unaware that there are design intentions at every step of the filmmaking process. Design intentions do not belong in the lead unless there is not a later section to handle them. 2) You're making a factually incorrect statement when you say that the lead includes details. False. And the attempt to make up a new category of "summarized details" seems like a Hail Mary. If you need to do that, perhaps you should admit that I'm making a point you can't answer. 3) Since you don't respond to the Romeo & Juliet parallel, I assume you agree that's a telling point. If you don't agree, please explain why the Prologue to R&J belongs for sure in the lead to that romantic tragedy. 4) Again, on the fictionalized point, you are falling back on the argument that we have to answer every possible mistake a reader might make about the extent to which a fictionalized account is fictional. The lead is not there for that purpose. We tell them it's fictionalized.

I don't mind discussing this with you, but if you can't answer my arguments point for point I'm going to assume you are conceding them. My mind is open but you have to make a cogent argument that draws on something outside your opinion, as I have done. Compare this article to another that makes your point, for example. Attempts to redefine something as its opposite (summarized details?) don't persuade me. Many thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, and try not to talk down to me. I have answered your arguments point for point. I addressed each and every one of them. And outside my opinion? You have only stated things based on your opinion. No where does Wikipedia style guidelines state what you have stated. I cited WP:LEAD to help get across my point that the love story is a significant aspect of the topic and why the creation of it should be summarized in the lead. I have compared this article's lead to another one -- Avatar (2009 film), which mentions several characters and talks about some of Cameron's intentions with the story (special effects and language, as that story relies heavily on special effects...while this one relies heavily on both, but more so on the love story). But you want other examples? Sure. There's also The Dark Knight (film), which mentions more than two characters in the lead and the director's inspiration for the film. There's also the lead of Halloween (2007 film), which mentions the director's intentions for the film. Both are GAs. There's also the lead of FA Changeling (film), which mentions what the film explores, the writer's and director's reasons/preparations for/during creating the film, and that most characters are based on real people. There are various other good or featured film articles with such detail. So, clearly, such detail is argued as belonging in the leads of Wikipedia film articles, and are perfectly acceptable. Ideally, comprehensive leads are "in." Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking this to the article talk page (copying and pasting it there), because that's where it belongs (especially so others will know of the discussion and weigh in). I see that you accepted one of my compromises (Option 2), and I thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wittgenstein editing

Thanks for the comment on my Talk p., & I've read your comment on the Discussion page, tho' not the new copy in the article.

You've done a commendable job in the thread not rising to bait. Indeed I think that editors who are quite ignorant of LW need to be brought into judgment here. This article, like any other in a gen'l encycl., must be for those who know little of a topic and consult it for information.

For that reason I don't read philosophy articles in Wiki, & only in one previous case intervened, when I chanced on one about a friend & thought I sh'd supply bio. & biblio., & fix some egregious errors, as he is no longer alive. I looked at the LW only to snatch & move some bibliog. for an article I was writing, & when I did was dismayed by the lead. This thread began with my cutting the worst part (I left alone gratuitous inclusion of "Hitler"). This was not philosophical work; during this pd I was the first to fix the grammar in the Galliano article & remove "neo-Nazi" from its header line, & I know nothing of the fashion world.

I've still not read the LW article, only looked over the Russell material, so have no opinion on its balance. I can well believe that it's as you say.

I'd been about to write you here, suggesting, as you do, that our discussion with SV is probably no longer useful, due to SV's ad hominems & not responding to our suggestions that comparable Wiki articles be consulted. Repeated references to "hagiography" etc show that the article has been worked with a definite agendum in advance, to combat what SV thinks is a mistaken culture, apparently around Cambridge. This seems in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Alethe (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

§ Given your comments, I subsequently scanned the full article, which I should have done earlier. In a word: "disgusting". I doubt it's redeemable by editing. It will stand as evidence for serious people who consider Wikipedia the encyclopedic equivalent of a no-pest strip. Alethe (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

§ I see that the lead has been cut back again to what I attempted on 25 Feb.: good. I don't know why Eagleton is quoted there, even. i) What does he know? ii) Why sh'd the literary quality get add'l emphasis? iii) My gen'l impression is that Spinoza has been the most influential philosophers among artists, latterly Kant, with all the Greenberg stuff, also Nietzsche's back in style. Eagleton's in England--it's all conjecture. More substantively, I note the exchanges in the Edit sections, where you' ve stood ground. SV's made it clear on several occasions that there's a motive behind the existing article: to counter over-reverential attitudes toward LW, esp. at Cambridge (maybe UEA, too). But a) that's not what encycl. articles are for, as is clear from Wiki rules: "not a soapbox", "We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." Disappointing for Wiki Administrator. So, b) given that the tabloid version of LW has been aired since most of SV's 450+ edits began on Sept 2010, & will always be retrievable, SV can write an article or book to accomplish the stated aim, while the article is made consistent with the others that we keep pointing out. One might begin that job with August 2010 version, but using valid info. in present version.

I'm moving this conversation to your talk page, for simplicity. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

La Strada

Thanks for the comment, I've seen your moniker around. I'm not an attorney, nor a Wikipedia-attorney, but do as you wish.... I think it's harmless.. true not a trailer just clips, but they are short to whet your appetite and educational and informative. The whole film is not shown. It is what it is. My best -- Luigibob (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter

The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 21:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Violation of WP:Consensus at Titanic (1997 film) article

Reported you there. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Our differences at the Titanic (1997 film) article

I think it's time we put aside whatever ill feelings we had or may still have toward each other as a result of our disputes at this article, and that we try to focus more on working together. It's clear that we're both going to be at that article for some time, and it's not healthy to engage in edit wars with each other over every little thing. One editor, as you saw, already thinks it's giving the article a bad name. We need to go back to not being so stubborn in our positions and try to see things from each other's point of view...even when it is difficult to. To get some level of respect we had for each other back. I believe that will help, and improve the working environment there again. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox

Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible after deliberation and negotiation, a majority decision may be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes.

Hey, Ring Cinema. If it's not okay to post in this section, since it's a sandbox area for you, then of course remove this comment after you've read it. Anyway, I just saw it and wanted to state that I feel "must be taken" should stay in place of "may be taken." After all, what is consensus if not by unanimity or majority? Flyer22 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, there is never a necessity ("must") about stopping the deliberation, so it is a matter of permission ("may"). Acting by majority is not by consensus, so it's the end of consensus to go to decision by poll. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. I was looking at it from the point of view that "when all are not in agreement, then we go with the majority." But you are saying, that in the case of Wikipedia, it doesn't exactly work like that because majority doesn't necessarily equal consensus either, right? For example, if 50 people agree with something and the other 52 don't agree with it, we don't then declare that there is consensus simply because the other side has two more people than the former. Yep, at the project page, this needs to be made clear. I believe "more than a simple majority" was meant to clarify that, but it doesn't. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You get me. I can't tell what people think so I'm just watching to see what happens. Nothing broken. Somehow the editors seem to muddle through and that's preferable to an over-explicit policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Your recent edit to The Hangover (film) was changed, because only YOU think Alan Garner is nobody's friend, just because he is a little socially awkward. He has 3 friends, to say the least: Stu, Doug, and Phil. WikiLubber (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

The discussion about "mathematically" on UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying is long over, and the consensus was to not have "mathematically" in that sentence, which I'm sure you are very well aware of. Re-adding it by now is nothing but vandalism. Please do not do that again. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely false. There was no consensus for change and you asked to leave it as it was. Not only that, you agreed that the status quo was not ambiguous. I would note that your arguments all failed. One was completely backward, another was beside the point, and the third seemed to say that we should keep the ambiguity in for no reason. Please be good enough to keep your word. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this not true. I don't know if you confuse me with someone else, but the discussion is there for you to look at if you want, but in any case it's irrelevant. You wanted to add mathematically, this was discussed and there was no consensus to add it, and in fact a consensus against it. WP:LETGO --OpenFuture (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. You clearly haven't done your homework. 'Mathematically' was there months and someone tried to remove it. You haven't checked and you're making things up. Not only that, your arguments weren't sound and so you abandoned them. That was wise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You have now not only broken the 3 revert rule over this issue, but have made 4 reverts on the matter today. There is very little point in telling me to take the matter to talk in an edit note if you have not examined the talk page to see that I posted there immediately before my edit. Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And now it's 5 reverts. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I invited a discussion and participated. In the course of the discussion, six different editors responded and they were split 3-3 to retain the status quo. The dissenters claim they have a consensus but this is in error. They are disrupting the orderly editing of the article and I'm preserving the status quo until a consensus emerges. OpenFuture, WalterGroaier, and Kevin McE all reverted me, so they are essentially vandalizing the page. I invited them to discuss our differences today and asked for their evidence that they had a consensus. Nothing was offered.

Decline reason:

Everybody who edit wars is certain they are in the right. Content disagreements are not vandalism; you were warned about the three-revert rule and continued to revert; hence, your block is appropriate to prevent you from continuing to edit war. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:08, 2 July 2011 (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.

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring.

You have already been blocked for edit warring on UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying‎ once. Despite this you now resume the edit-warring. I suggest you drop the WP:STICK. If you continue like this you will end up blocked and finally banned, and I don't see how that would be in your interest. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Ring Cinema,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

You are backing the vandals who are changing the article despite not having a consensus. Why aren't they blocked for edit warring? They made a complaint and I responded to it. I asked to have the page protected but nothing happened. Collectively, the three vandals have reverted me more than I've reverted them. This is a perverse result, to say the least. Any chance one of the admins will look at the facts so this vandalism can be prevented? Ring Cinema (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no vandalism; I can only see a content dispute between you and several long-term good-faith editors. When your block expires, it would be a good idea to continue the discussion on the article's talk page instead of simply trying to revert to your preferred version. Kuru (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (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.

Also, please note that referring to other good-faith editors as "vandals" is considered a personal attack.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, your failure to observe WP:NOTTHEM isn't helping you in your unblock requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, admins, sometimes you get it right but this time you've got it backward. It's kind of funny. See, as I mentioned, I tried the discussion with the other editors involved and when they failed to gain a consensus, they changed the page anyway. So you're defending them. So you think I should discuss with them some more? What would be the purpose of that? I told you about it, and you still got it wrong. That's your fault, admins. SarekofVulcan, you got it wrong and you're denying it. Amatulic, you got it wrong and you're making irrelevant accusations. Sorry, admins, your system failed you. What steps are you going to take to make sure you don't make this kind of mistake again? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that you violated WP:3RR. Repeatedly. Therefore you have been blocked. It's really that simple.

The fact remains that your unblock requests revealed your failure to read and understand WP:NOTTHEM.

The fact remains that resolving a dispute does not happen by edit warring, and you have not attempted to take any of those steps. If consensus is against you, accept it and move on. Or, you could request page protection. You could request 3rd party comments. You did none of those things.

By repeatedly edit warring in an attempt to get your way, you are the one who has it backward. Take this as a final warning: You are headed for an indefinite block if you resume edit warring when your block expires. Find some other way to resolve your dispute or find somewhere else to work on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get it and your petty threats are suitable for a second rate bully or a third rank martinet. I'm not impressed by little people. You made a silly mistake, backed the cretins and made yourself a fool in my eyes. And lest you misunderstand, I am judging you, not the other way around. You're not suitable to judge the color of my socks. My question for you as your judge is simply this: what do you intend to do to avoid similar mistakes in the future? Please keep your answer brief, because I don't like to waste time with people like you. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Brief answer: No mistake was made. You were correctly blocked for repeatedly violating WP:3RR. And your comments above are just digging yourself deeper into your hole. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of your complete absence of learning. Therefore, I am placing you in a hole! Ha! You will not get out of the hole without my permission. But you have to ask nicely first. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You obviously...

You obviously have no intention of trying to build consensus, and would rather nag like some kind of 1950s village school headmistress demanding an apology. Grow up or shut up. Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, you are wrong. I didn't ask you to apologize and I am working toward a consensus. As you know, I offered a compromise proposal already on the page and you actually are the one who failed to respond in kind. Furthermore, I am correct that you claimed a consensus when there was not a consensus and I feel very comfortable asking you and the other two to acknowledge your future commitment to the policy on consensus that you ignored the last time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he is right and you are incorrect in every single way. Compromise? The discussion is about the inclusion of one word. How could there be a compromise. We include *half* the word? "Cannot mathema win"? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your confusion here. I'm referring to the compromise I offered since the dispute over 'mathematically'. For the record, you and the other two claimed a consensus despite four editors taking a contrary view on the 'mathematically' issue. I know from your posts that you are aware of that (even though you want to ignore two editors for inadequate reasons, it is still self-evident that you know they didn't agree with you). Since then, I offered a compromise solution on a new issue. So I'm not asking you to do anything on the first issue. You made your bed, claimed a consensus where none existed and we all know it. That's why I'm asking you to commit to following policy on consensus in the future. I don't know why you wouldn't do that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You really don't get it do you? It is not acceptable for you to go around demanding promises from anyone. No-one is going to make such a promise in response to your nagging attitude, and the more you try to insist on such a thing, the less willing people will be to co-operate with you, as your attitude comes across as supercilious. For you to draw conclusions about editors' intention simply because they do not cower before your arrogance is only to exacerbate that arrogance. As to your bit about never having asked me to apologise, try looking up the word simile in a dictionary. Kevin McE (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm making no demands and saying nothing about your intentions. I'm assuming good faith on your part. Do you think it's unreasonable to ask you to follow policy when you ignored it? I don't. You didn't have a consensus, you claimed a consensus, and when you do that you can expect to be asked to follow the policy in the future. I would note that you aren't saying that you will follow the policy in the future. That is hard to explain and you don't explain it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is intentional or not, but you continue to state absolute falsehoods even after being corrected multiple times. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. We hear what you say, you do not hear what we say. Communication is a two-way street, you have to learn to listen as well as talk. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't call it making demands when you have asked for people to do something repeatedly, and continue to do so even after they have made it clear they will not yield to your wishes, and refuse to make any attempt at progress or resolution while you remain unsatisfied, and you continue to disrupt attempts to move the issue forward by constantly harking back to your perception of what previously happened, I can only suggest that you reconsider your definition of making demands. Kevin McE (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi, User:Hajatvrc is not an admin, but I may be able to assist you. You can use my talk page or use email to communicate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme Bartlett. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 17:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The White Album

What does the record label say the title is for what is popularly known as the White Album? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. You have to justify yourself in terms of the policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is prevailing here and you are on the wrong side. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Are you saying that your ignorance of policy is vindicated because you might get away with being clueless? Okay, that's one way to pretend you're smart. Go for it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your concern for policy is commendable but remember, you aren't exempt from them. You may want to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Consider this your only warning. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your threats are disgusting harassment. I better not hear from you again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Or else what? You will hear from me again if your behavior continues to be brought to my attention. Take it up on WP:ANI if you have a problem with me. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you are in a hole. You are not allowed out of the hole until you ask nicely. If you harass me further it will make it more difficult for me to let you out of the hole. So try to be good and don't harass me. I've been very generous with you so far, but no promises for the future. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remind yourself of our policies by reading WP:CIVIL. You are dancing very close to the edge with edit comments such as "pretend you're smart if you can't really do it". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I was already warned. Now you're harassing me. Disgusting. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you were warned. But you kept doing it. And you got warned again. And still keep doing it. I guess me warning you as well in't going to help, is it? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, OpenFuture gets his facts wrong. Amazing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Never argue with Wikipedia administrators. You will always lose. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter

The September 2011 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. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

re: Hello

Most of your contributions are not in the article space, so I'm far from lying. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You said "absolutely none." You are a liar. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion and consensus

Read wp:brd. If something is included and then deleted, as with your unexplained preference for indicating qualification outcome on a part of the page that deals with the situation before any match had even been scheduled, then it is incumbent on those who would include it to argue their case at the relevant talk page. Your obstinate refusal to do so is tantamount to editwarring. Kevin McE (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. You should know by now that continued reverts against multiple editors, even if they don't exceed the three revert rule, constitutes warring. See also WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD; the burden is on you to support content you wish to add, and you do this via discussion, not by reverting. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments removed. Ring Cinema, you're blocked; you know what that means; appeal the block, or don't - whatever. But don't attack editors. Same for others.

Move onwards.  Chzz  ►  02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, your talk page access has been revoked for personal attacks. If you want to appeal this block, please email the request to myself or unblock-en-l (that's the unblock request mailing list). Thanks, Swarm ^X 02:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 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. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus

I'm awaiting for you stop edit-warring and actually start the discussion justifying your changes. If you're not interested in doing so, I'll change it back to something nearer consensus. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Eva and The White Ribbon

I think on reflecion that Eva and the schoolmaster are a critical element of the movie's meaning. They are completely "normal" people who fall in love in an innocent way with apparently normal backgrounds and solid ethics. While there are other potentially sympathetic characters, everyone else ranges from dysfunctional to evil. Eva's family is important to a story full of sexual and psychological abuse by parents. Her father genuinely cares about her and the entire scenario I believe is meant to reflect what is good about people - why we do not all live in the insane village (or to raise the question of wheter we do).

Also I believe the order of events is important but a thoroughly character-based summary is appropriate. What is omitted or never solved all has meaning - not that we should interpret this for the reader, but the movie is obviosly not accidental. It is quite meticulous. Two more pennies worth of opinion on it... Obotlig (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, it is true that Eva and her family can be viewed as a foil to the villagers. I might differ with you about that, though. One way to take her father is as a token of the same patriarchy or authoritarian impulse that distorts the values elsewhere. This turns on how reasonable one views his exercise of parental discretion. And then we are presented with the question of the value of romantic love. We are habituated to the elevation of personal romantic attachments above all, but this, too, is a value that deserves examination. I'm not sure if Haneke is trying to present that as a problem or not. I think that part of the power of the film is in the paradox that, although it is obvious that society is replete with problems of incipient hostility, violence, objectification, denial, etc, there is finally nothing unusual about this village. It is typical and typically perverse. Is Eva and her family an exception or the rule? I'm not sure, although it is easy to see the schoolmaster's willingness to help others as reflective of the fellow feeling that I personally find is the essence of morality. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter

The April 2011 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. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)