User talk:Ring Cinema/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Annie Hall

I feel like we will need a better reviewer for the good article nomination. They didn't point out anything that is REALLY wrong in the article NoD'ohnuts (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We knew better than the reviewer, it seemed. But I really appreciate everything you have done. I hope you are getting some satisfaction from it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, right back at you. Thanks for working on the article. Hopefully, it shall receive the good article listing. NoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Good faith is as good faith does

What Victor Yus said:

• I could make this page as a whole both much more concise and more clear.

What I said:

• The trick [is] to make small incremental changes, doing [your] best to not change the meaning.

Your characterization of my comment:

• Your comments above to Victor seemed to counsel some kind of gamesmanship or something, as if there's a reason to be sneaky and scout around for places to make small changes that other editors don't notice are substantive.

How is that assuming good faith? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ring Central, I am answering your questions (below), would you please answer mine? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Do your comments indicate good faith? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to think that they do. Which ones in particular cause you concern? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Which do you think might cause concern? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

By saying "I would like to think that [my comments indicate good faith]" I am saying that I don't see how my comments might cause you to be concerned that I am not assuming your good faith. Accordingly, I cannot tell you which comments of mine you find troubling. If you would tell me which of my comments are troublesome to you then I can either explain or apologize (or both). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't match my comments to your words, that speaks for itself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not understanding you. Which of my words do you believe fail to match which of your comments? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, that speaks for itself. No problem. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have, with regret, come to the conclusion that our discussion here will not be fruitful. I wish I knew what I am doing to contribute to our failure to communicate. However, as long as you refuse to provide me with any guidance beyond "speaks for itself" (much like your comments elsewhere that something is "clear" or "obvious" without further explanation), I will remain in the dark. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been fruitful and I don't see a failure to communicate. I think both of us have made comments consistent with our thoughts. As you know, you are very perceptive and your comments here haven't dissuaded me of that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Your recent editing history at Donnie Darko shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MASEM (t) 05:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change

FYI... ButwhatdoIknow and I do have a disagreement about the CCC section (he removed something that I think is important) and normally we would be currently discussing it... however, we both realize that our disagreement is to some extent an offshoot of the broader discussion concerning reverts and how they relate to the broader "Consensus through editing" section (ie how that issue is resolved will affect our debate over the CCC section). I think BWDIK's hidden comment was a reminder to both of us that we need to come back and revisit our concerns over the CCC section once the broader debate has reach a conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Although I respect your perspective, BWDIK has gone out of his way to make himself a nuisance to me personally and it clouds his judgement. If he wants to turn himself into a crank, that is his unfortunate decision. Thanks again for your clear and forthright editorial input. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RC, I respectfully disagree with your analysis of my behavior and judgment. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Blimey!

Seems you didn't like one miserable bit the changes I've made to the "The Secret in...", even if I've only rewritten it, with just a few wee tiny additions. I do agree with not making the plot longer, but don't you find it a tad cryptic? I mean, it does lack some essential data (ie: "retiree"-> from where?) and it's quite sloppy – purple prose for the sake of arse knows what (meaning there's no correlation whatsoever between form and content. Ppronouns everywhere so you end up not realising what the hell they're referring to and blah, blah, blah.

As for "pitch", I'da left it the way it was, but that article seems to conform with the US spelling (dunno what part of the universe you're from), hence the change. Same for the football disambiguation link.

Anyway, 'tis good to find someone in this virtual cave: so far, not a sodding soul has touched the articles I've proofread. Best, --Cocolacoste (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC) PS, Please don't take my swearing as a personal attack, it's just the way I speak. Apologies if they upset you.

PS2, It's not that I care about that film, eh? Just put my paws into it to subedit. To me, it's just overrated crap.

No snub intended. I more or less liked your ideas and thought I took some of them a little further than you had.

If I changed 'pitch' back to 'field' it was my mistake. 'Pitch' to me is positively perfect for a soccer field.

On retiree from what: my view is that that information is in the same paragraph so it's there. Or, to put it slightly stronger, we don't really know what he retired from (some missing years) so it's best not to assume and just put the evidence we've got.

Thanks for caring and I hope I didn't offend you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I've never felt offended, just baffled, that's why I took the liberty to contact you.

'Twas the other way round: it read "pitch" and I wrote "field" because the article, as I said, sounds more US English to me. "Pitch" is, however, the word I prefer but for ppl in the US that'd be an American football playing space (?).

Your opinion about "retiree" is spot on.

You neededn't change the article because of my comments. That's ever so kind of you. Nevertheless, everyone here is entitled to do what they deem best. Stubborn as I am, though, I insist that the plot lacks some information and is poorly written: to put it bluntly, reeks of a Spanish attempting to write in English.

Just trust me on one thing (bah, if you want to): sth is equivalent TO sth or the equivalent OF sth, "with" is the wrong preposition –I've just checked the OED and Collins. "it had received the Spanish equivalent with the Goya Award for Best Spanish Language Foreign Film" sounds weird. A possibility would be "its Spanish equivalent".

There´s a pesky "we" in the Production section. See if you can fix it. You appear to be way more compenetrated w/ the article than me. Besides, I'm running away from that page.

Thanks for replying, --Cocolacoste (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

'Pitch' is not an American word for a field at all. We say "football field". I think the problem with the plot is that a lot of energy went into paring it to the essentials, so, yes, it lacks a couple things I would like in there but for the word count. The most important omission is the complex circumstance around Sandoval's death -- or maybe the opening sequence (that used to be included). I will look at it again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. My knowledge of US English is far from accurate. But then again, that's why I changed "pitch" to "field" in the article for the sake of linguistic consistency.

Agree with your comments about the plot. Anyway, I'll leave the rewriting up to you –as I said, I just wanted to correct the misspellings and grammatical mistakes. Not a big fan of Campanella's films, quite the contrary.

Best, --Cocolacoste (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones#John Marley's talk page.

JTBX's post at Editor assistance

You might want to have a look at this. I am not telling you whether or how you should respond, but I do think you should be aware of his one-sided version of events. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"thanks for the link to the Chomsky video"

Don't get it. Is it Noam Chomsky? Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 18:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a link on JTBX's page to a video of Noam Chomsky telling the truth for almost an hour. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I owe you a drink

Please read my reply to your posting(s) today at the Talk:The Godfather page. No hard feelings I trust? Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 18:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC) You need to read this -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 17:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men (film)

No Country for Old Men (film), an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Cache

Please don't removal material that has three sources all saying the same thing. Explain how it is not correct. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annie Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Rollins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Also note, i'm not eligible to the three revert rule when I'm reverting vandalism. Discuss on the board before making claims. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for breach of 3RR at Caché (film) and edit-warring at The White Ribbon. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The White Ribbon

Hi. Please can you discuss on the talkpage first the removal of the fully sourced info in the opening paragraph. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I've reverted your removal of sourced content. Please refrain from doing this again, as it will look like vandalism and start to head to WP:3RR. I'll flag up the issue at WT:FILM for further input. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annie Hall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Rollins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!

Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.
I hope to hear from you before too long.
Hoffwn i chi i gyd y gorau ar gyfer 2013! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Annie Hall

Edit warring has occurred again. I have locked the article for three days. If edit warring occurs again after the three days have expired I will consider closing the GA review as failed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Annie Hall edit warring

I'm not warring, I'm editing. I've added sources to support my claim and started a discussion. GothicFilm's contribution has been inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]. This comes very close to WP:3RR. You should be aware of this, as your block log shows that you have been blocked seven times for edit warring - the most recent in November. It is possible to edit Wikipedia to a very high level without ever resorting to the revert button. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can't recognize editing then you can't do your job. My observation is that the admins here are generally poor so I hope you are the exception. As I stated, I sourced my changes and started a discussion. Check the record. I made sourced changes and was reverted so I redid the changes and added a source. I was again reverted so I added more sources. Check the record. Making sourced changes is not warring, it's editing. If you insist on mistakenly calling it warring, that is your mistake, not mine. Please in the future get things right. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

note to self

Cannes goes by director's nationality. The Academy rules are that "the submitting country must certify that creative control of the motion picture was largely in the hands of citizens or residents of that country." Notice no mention of the production company and that is as industry as you get. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

[4]

An application to the BFI for recognition as a film of British nationality has several requirements.

1. British production company
2. At least 70% shot in Europe
3. One of the six UK languages must be the main language of the film
4. 60% British nationals or residents for key personnel, including: director, screenwriter, composer, actors, cinematographer, executive producer, editor, sound engineer, production designer, costume designer
5. the director must be British unless screenwriter and composer are both British and the key personnel is 80% British

---

On a related note, Appendix II to the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production (1992) requires that 1. A cinematographic work qualifies as European in the sense of Article 3, paragraph 3, if it achieves at least 15 points out of a possible total of 19, according to the schedule of European elements set out below. 2. Having regard to the demands of the screenplay, the competent authorities may, after consulting together, and if they consider that the work nonetheless reflects a European identity, grant co-production status to the work with a number of points less than the normally required 15 points.

European elements / Weighting Points

Creative group (7)

1. Director 3 Script writer 3 Composer 1
2. Performing group (6) --- First role 3 Second role 2 Third role 1
3. Technical craft group (6)

Cameraman 1 Sound recordist 1 Editor 1 Art director 1 Studio or shooting location 1 Post-production location 1

--N. B. a. First, second and third roles are determined by number of days worked. b. So far as Article 8 is concerned, "artistic" refers to the creative and performing groups, "technical" refers to the technical and craft group. (This method applies to works with at least three European co-producers.)

---

[5]

Chapter 4 The cultural test 1- Point rating scale applicable to live action productions Eligibility requirements: To be eligible, the project must score a minimum total of 18 points, including at least 7 points for “dramatic content”. 1. DRAMATIC CONTENT (18 points) Number of points received Simulation 1.1 - Location (7 points) Criterion no. 1 - Maximum number of points : 4 A relative majority of the scenes take place in France 4 Or A relative majority of the scenes take place in France and in a French-speaking1 country 3 Or A relative majority of the scenes take place in France and in a European country 3 Or At least five scenes take place in France 2 Criterion no. 2 - Maximum number of points : 3 At least two sets must be symbolic of France: two locations representative of France must serve as the main setting of one scene 3 1.2 - Charact ers (4 points) Criterion no. 3 - Maximum number of points : 1 At least one main character is French, from a French-speaking or European country 1 CRITERION NO. 4 - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS : 3 At least three secondary characters are French, from a French-speaking or European country 3 Or At least two secondary characters are French, from a French-speaking or European country 2 Or One secondary character is French, from a French-speaking or European country 1 1) A member of International Organisation of la Francophonie (www.francophonie.org) The Incentives Guide 21 The Tax Rebate for International Production 1.3 – Plot and story (5 points) Criterion no. 5 - Maximum number of points : 2 The plot and story highlight French artistic heritage or a period of French history 2 CRITERION NO. 6 - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS : 2 The plot and story deal with political, social or cultural problems concerning French society or European societies 2 CRITERION NO. 7 - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS : 1 The plot and story are inspired or adapted from an existing work, such as a cinematographic or audiovisual work (except sequels), a novel, comic, opera, play, or video game. 1 1.4 – Languag es Criterion no. 8 - Maximum number of points : 2 A final version of the film must be dubbed or subtitled in French 2 2. NATIONALITY OF CREATORS AND CREATIVE COLLABORATORS (12 points) Number of points received Simulation CRITERION NO. 9 - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS : 2 At least one of the creators: director or screenwriter 2 CRITERION NO. 10 - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS : 1 At least one of the film composers 1 CRITERION NO. 11 - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS : 2 At least one of the producers (individual) 2 CRITERION NO. 12 - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS : 2 At least one actor playing a main character 2 Or At least one of the actors playing a secondary character 1 Criterion no. 13 - Maximum number of points : 1 At least 50% of the actors (for scenes shot in France, excluding ancillary performers) 1 Criterion no. 14 - Maximum number of points : 3 At least three heads of department (first cameraman, art director, sound engineer, wardrobe director, film editor, first assistant director, production director, stage manager) 3 Or Two heads of department 2 Or One head of department 1 Criterion no. 15 - Maximum number of points : 1 At least 50% of the film crew members (for scenes shot in France) 1 22 The Incentives Guide 3. PRODUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE (8 points) Number of points received Simulation Criterion no. 16 - Maximum number of points : 3 At least 50% of shooting days are in France 3 Or Between 30% and 50% of shooting days are in France 2 Or Between 15% and 30% of shooting days are in France 1 Criterion no. 17 - Maximum number of points : 1 More than 50% of expenses related to special effects are paid to service providers established in France (for scenes shot in France). 1 Criterion no. 18 - Maximum number of points : 1 More than 50% of expenses related to shooting equipment (filming, machinery, lighting, sound recording) are paid to service providers established in France (for scenes shot in France) 1 Criterion no. 19 - Maximum number of points : 1 More than 50% of expenses related to shooting lab work are paid to service providers established in France (for scenes shot in France) 1 Criterion no. 20 - Maximum number of points : 2 More than 50% of expenses related to timing, sound mixing, or creating digital visual effects of more than 10 shots are paid to service providers established in France 2 TOTAL 38

from [6]

=

a. The European scale

According to French law, a movie must score a minimum of 14 points out of 18 points to be eligible to the State support system (documentary: 9 points out of 14 points; animation: 14 points out of 21 points) on a scale that is fairly straightforward but that requires a few comments.

To gain points, authors, actors and crew members must either be of French nationality, come from a European Union state, or -as seen previously- from a country with which France has a co-production treaty in the case of movies produced within that framework.

Foreigners qualifying as resident in France are treated as French citizens.

If there are two directors/ screenwriters, half of the points are gained if one is European.

The last point in the actors’ group will be awarded if European actors get more than 50% of all the working days (excluding the two leading roles).

Please note that what defines the lead and supporting role in this scale is the number of working days, not screen time or salary!

Technical facilities must be established in France or on the territory of a European state.

Movies: European Scale 18 points (required: 14)

• 6 points Authors and director(s)
• Bulleted list item

• 3 points Direction
• 2 points Script- and screenwriters
• 1 point Other authors (music…)
• 6 points Actors
• 3 points 1st role
• 2 points 2nd role
• 1 point 50% of other fees
• 4 points Creative collaboration
• 1 point Photography
• 1 point Sound
• 1 point Editing
• 1 point Set design
• 2 points Technical Industries

34

Feature film: How to make an official co-production The Incentives Guide Documentary: European Scales 14 points (required: 9) Simulation 3 points Authors and director(s) 2 points Direction 1 point Script and screenwriters 7 points Creative collaborations 1 point Photography 1 point Sound 1 point Editing 4 points 50% of others salary 4 points Technical Industries: 50% of shooting and post production technical costs 2D and 3D Animation: European Scale 21 points (required: 14) Simulation 6 points Authors and director(s) 1 point Conception or author(s) 2 points Script 2 points Director(s) 1 point Music 7 points Pre-production 2 points Drawing of the characters 2 points Stortyboard 1 point Art director 2 points Animation Positionning 6 points Production of the animation 1 point Caption stand 1 point Scene painting 2 points 50% of labour costs of animator 2 points 50% of labour cost of tracers colorists 2 points Post production Co-productions are now a very popular sport in Europe; there are more and more films involving producers from more than two countries. This is why members of the European Council2 and a few other European countries agreed on a general framework – the European Convention for Co-productions – for co-productions between producers of 3 or more signatory countries, as well as for co-productions between 2) A transnational organization distinct from the European Union. The Incentives Guide 35 Feature film: How to make an official co-production producers of 3 or more signatory countries AND a non-signatory country (the part of this last co-producer being no more than 30 % of the budget). Co-productions created using the Convention must also follow some rules and a minimum level of European talents and elements, according to another scale. A movie is considered European if it scores 15 points out of 19. The European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production countries are: Germany, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, The Former Republic of Macedonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Romania, United Kingdom, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine. European Convention for co-production Scale 19 points (required: 15) Simulation 7 points Authors and director(s) 3 points Direction 3 points Script- and screenwriters 1 point Other authors (music…) 6 points Actors 3 points 1st role 2 points 2nd role 1 point 3rd role 6 points Creative collaboration, technical industries, shooting 1 point Photography 1 point Sound 1 point Editing 1 point Set design 1 point Studio and locations 1 point Post-production Please note that what defines the first, second and third characters in this scale is the number of working days, not screen-time or salary! 36 Feature film: How to make an official co-production The Incentives Guide b. The French scale The law requires a minimum part of French elements and talents in the artistic as well as technical aspects of a movie before qualifying it (i.e. declaring it eligible to obtain the support of the State). Hence this second scale, on which, in order to be qualified, a movie must score at least 25 out of 100 points. Documentaries and animated movies use different scales as their processes involve different forms of craftsmanship, but the movie still has to score 25 points out of 100 points. In order to accumulate points, lead and supporting actors as well as crew members must be of French nationality, come from a European Union state or a European Council signatory state. Foreigners qualifying as residents in France are treated as French citizens. Leading actors are those featured in the frame in more than 50 % of screen-time, secondary actors those with more than 4 working days. For everyone, points are gained if work contracts or author contracts stipulate the French law as being applicable. Once the movie passes this level, its number of points will fix its BSF (Barême du Soutien Financier/Financial Support Scale), which is a sort of “Frenchness factor” of the movie. This ratio has a long-term effect on the automatic support the French co-producer and distributor will get at each stage of the movie’s lifespan. The higher this number, the bigger the automatic grants to the movie will be, and accordingly the higher the value of the French rights of the movie, which means the French co-producer is more likely to invest time and money into the venture! © CMN The Incentives Guide 37 Feature film: How to make an official co-production Movies: Financial Support Scale 100 points (required: 25) Simulation 10 points Production Company 20 points Shooting Language 10 points Authors 5 points Director(s) 4 points Script and screenwriters, dialogues 1 point Composer 20 points Actors 10 points Leading roles 10 points Secondary roles 14 points Technicians and creative collaboration 2 points Direction other than the director(s) 2 points Administration and production departments 3 points Photography 2 points Set design 2 points Sound 2 points Editing 1 point Make-up 6 points Workers 4 points Film Crew 2 points Construction Team 20 points Shooting and post-production 5 points Localization of shooting places: 3 points Locations 2 points Laboratory 5 points Shooting equipment: 2 points Camera equipment 2 points Lighting equipment 1 point Machinery 5 points Sound post-production 5 points Image post-production 38 Feature film: How to make an official co-production The Incentives Guide Documentary: Financial Support Scale 100 points (required: 25) Simulation 10 points Production Company 20 points Shooting Language 25 points Authors 15 points Director(s) 5 points Script and screenwriters, dialogues 5 points Composer 5 points Narrator 20 points Technicians and creative collaboration 1 point First assistant director 2 points Administration and production departments 6 points Photography 5 points Sound 6 points Editing 20 points Shooting and post-production 2 points Camera equipment 2 points Lighting equipment 8 points Sound post-production 8 points Image post-production The Incentives Guide 39 Feature film: How to make an official co-production 2D Animation: Financial Support Scale 100 points (required: 25) Simulation 10 points Production Company 26 points Authors 8 points Director(s) 8 points Script, screenplay, dialogues 6 points Graphic Artist 4 points Composer 5 points Technicians and creative collaboration 3 points First assistant director 2 points Production manager 19 points Pre-production 6 points Storyboard 6 points Drawing of the main characters 6 points Set design 1 points Animation positionning 30 points Production of the animation 2 points Setting up of set design 3 points Setting up of animation 10 points Animation 4 point Set painting/drawing 4 points Tracing, painting in gouache or colorization 7 points Digital assembly, special effects 10 points Post-production 5 points Sound post-production 5 points Image port-production 40 Feature film: How to make an official co-production The Incentives Guide 3D Animation: Financial Support Scale 100 points (required: 25) Simulation 10 points Production Company 26 points Authors 8 points Director(s) 8 points Script, screenplay, dialogues 6 points Graphic Artist 4 points Composer 5 points Technicians and creative collaboration 3 points First assistant director 2 points Production manager 22 points Pre-production 6 points Storyboard 8 points Modeling of the main characters 8 points Modeling of sets 27 points Production of the animation 3 points Setting up of 3D scenes 12 points Animation 7 points Rendering, lighting 5 points Digital assembly, visual effects 10 points Post-production 2 points Editing 3 points Laboratory 2 points Voices recording 1 points Sound creation 2 points Mixing

March 2013

Your recent editing history at Chinatown (1974 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I am in the process of reporting your edit warring to the Edit Warring Noticeboard in the hope of deterring you from edit warring further. Discussion needs to take place, not reverting just because you think another editor's edits are "wrong" or "incorrect". That's why I opened up the possibility of discussion on the article's talk page. It's better to say what and why another's edits are incorrect, not just revert them.Winkelvi (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Chinatown (1974 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Reporting again at the 3RR Noticeboard Winkelvi (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

See the result of the edit warring complaint at WP:AN3#User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Warned) since it contains a warning for you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ring Cinema. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Francis Ford Coppola. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cresix (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Observation: Carrying on a debate in edit summaries rarely yields fruitful results, particularly when you exhort others to use the talk page without doing so yourself. I find it curious that the article history shows a lot of revert-warring when Talk:Francis Ford Coppola hasn't been edited by anyone since December! ~Amatulić (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it curious that Winkelvi gets the facts wrong repeatedly. Can you get him to stop that? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, a good start would be to try to engage Winkelvi on the article talk page, or on his talk page. Being in the right is not a valid reason for revert warring. You have a dispute. Talk pages are intended for dealing with such things, not repeated reversions. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Amatulic, please note that Winkelvi is ignoring the discussion and reverted again after I returned us to the original text. Thanks for your help. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Er... I believe you won't like the "help". :)

In a content dispute like this, an admin has limited choices while staying uninvolved in the actual dispute: either block the edit warriors or do something more benign, which is what I just did: Restore to a prior version that wasn't in dispute, and protect the article until such time as an agreement on content can be worked out. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with protection. It's a good idea in this kind of case and in my opinion you found a good place to go back to. Unfortunately, the dispute is basically over because Winkelvi corrected himself (even while denying he is correcting anything). Sorry I didn't keep you up to speed but I perhaps erroneously thought you would check the most recent discussion and note that we aren't discussing a difference of opinion over content. No problem either way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I did look at the discussion and was glad to see you initiated it. However, based on that discussion, I wasn't really sure where an appropriate restore point should be, because the talk page discussion focused on one small issue being discussed amid a long series of reverts mixed with constructive edits. So I didn't know what else to do but restore to the point where you both weren't yet involved, and offered to restore to some other point that might be mutually agreeable. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you clear or confused? I recognize you don't really want to be bothered following this. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this acceptable behaviour? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 15:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I can't do anything about mistaken accusations until I'm asked to respond to something. Disagreements with JTBX and Winkelvi arose because they believed their ideas should be accepted in toto and none of us have that luxury. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinatown (1974 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Want to weigh in?

Your knowledge of films, and the notability thereof, likely exceeds mine. Before anyone accuses me of WP:CANVASSING, I'll say that I don't have an opinion either way on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Terror, so I have no stake in the outcome. The film is an oddity that has won some awards but strangely has no reliable-source coverage. I just thought that any insight you might provide may be useful. ~Amatulić (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Policy?

"Jacobite is right" based on what policy? Winkelvi (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

About Francis Ford Coppola

Compromise? Are you kidding me? Coppola is Italian-American, I cited some reliable sources (see NIAF) and you cannot continue to ignore the facts. --Karanko (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC) He is American, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Godfather

I ask you to exercise civility toward Winkelvi at The Godfather. To say "Winkelvi habitually gets things wrong" is not cordial. You have a case that can be made based on what the majority of the sources classify the film, but there are sources like the one I linked to that can talk about the film's epic proportions. We can think outside the box—we can see about mentioning that labeling later in the lead section or somewhere in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see him go on a long streak of getting things right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If the purpose of your rude, dismissive, and demeaning comments toward me and about is meant to be helpful, you've failed miserably. If your purpose was to make me feel like shit, you've succeeded quite handily. Your judgement of whether I get things right or not over and over is not the role of a Wikipedia editor. You, sir, are nothing more than a bully who enjoys toying with editors whom you haven't deemed to be at your level of self-assessed competency. Wikipedia is a largely volunteer effort. Volunteering your time is meant to be enjoyed. The way you treat me and others who venture into what you believe is your "territory" is a big part of the reason why new editors and experienced editors alike are leaving Wikipedia. Which works well for you, because you won't be forced to mix with the unwashed masses. Winkelvi (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it is our role to get things right and to correctly judge what is right. My criticisms of you have been about getting things wrong, and it is not uniquely my observation that your response has been bellicose: demanding, stubborn, unreasonable, insulting, snarky. Not coincidentally, you are on the receiving end of some of that. You made it clear that you would not take my advice, and, as long as we're on the subject of our exchanges, made many unjust ad hominem attacks when my interest has been in getting things right. This leaves me no space to do anything but to criticize, and I don't criticize you when you are right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it's not your role to keep others from editing articles you guard simply because you don't like and/or don't approve of their edits. Your scope of what is right is clearly made on your judgement of same. And then you demean others for not meeting your personal standards. You have ownership issues. Winkelvi (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to butt-in about whatever it is that you two are discussing here but I would like RC to know that as another editor I agree with the charge that you appear to have ownership issues.Even if you are correct, your abrupt corrections and corrections on almost any/all changes tends to give that impression. Housewifehader (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep introducing the same error. I would suggest that you edit a page where your knowledge of the subject is greater. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Secret in Their Eyes

By now you have to understand that the way that "double" is used there is really confusing to some readers. Yes, I have read the talk page and that is why I tried to make my edits about that topic the least-changed as possible. I do not have a complaint about each and every revert that you did to the edits that I made to the article, but on the point of, "double"-time period being used there, that one word, used in a sentence that apparently only describes one era, I have to tell you that it does not make sense and it should be fixed and I will probably continue trying to fix it.Housewifehader (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's precise and accurate. That you repeatedly misstate it is not the fault of the text. I am really surprised that you would edit a page where you don't know the facts. I'd like to ask that you stop doing that not only on this page but all pages where you don't know what you're doing. Thanks very much. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Civility

Ring Cinema, why are you being antagonistic toward me? Wikipedia's policy on civility says, "Participate in a respectful and considerate way... Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." We can disagree, but you are hardly being cordial in the infobox discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy of "film"

Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page. – The Welsh Buzzard – here – 07:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The White Ribbon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Whether it’s religious or political terrorism, it’s the same thing.<ref>Austria Presse Agentur (2009-05-24 [http://www.kurier.at/kultur/321162.php Michael Haneke: Das Spiel mit der Angst]" (in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Fast Five

This is neutral notice of a discussion concering the box-office section of Fast Five. Spinc5 (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

To Catch a Thief

I think the revert at the beginning of To Catch a Thief isn't a good move because it "buries the lead," to put it into the old reporters' parlance, which is that it stars Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, something no one should have to read down to the bottom of the opening paragraph to learn. Cinerama Comment (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I looked at your edits and that was the one I disagreed with. I found it redundant, awkward, wordy. There's no reason to mention the stars twice, everything is in the right order, and I think the reader just might stay with us for five more words to learn that Grant and Kelly star. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a big deal either way, both approaches work fine. I just thought "starring Cary Grant and Grace Kelly" in the opening sentence was a grabber but there's also an elegance to the other way. In any case, thanks for getting back to me. Cinerama Comment (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Care to comment?

Having rid ourselves of AutoMamet (talk), I was appalled to read the second thread here → (About Hearfourmewesique) this morning. What do you feel?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 13:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

3RR

You have reached three reverts, and as per protocol, I'm placing a warning on your page that you are about to go over WP:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Nonsense. You're violating BRD. Take it to discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I did take it to discussion. Please go see. And it's not nonsense: I've got three revert diffs ready to go. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Duh. You don't restore your rejected edit while it's under discussion. I thought you knew what you're doing, but apparently not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Titanic (1997 film). 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a misconception that WP:BRD is a policy and that editors are required to follow it. It's not, and they're not. See WP:BRD-NOT, the 4th and 6th bullet points specifically. Please try to avoid edit warring in the future. —Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your justifications are amusing. Anyone who makes accusations and doesn't allow a response is just someone with a problem. Typical admin, out of his depth with a teaspoon of power. Laughable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)