User talk:John

A Note on threading: Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page. If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it. If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it. I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to. please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

(From User:John/Pooh policy)

Click to show archived versions of this talk page

User talk:John/Archive 2006 User talk:John/Archive 2007 User talk:John/Archive 2008 User talk:John/Archive 2009 User talk:John/Archive 2010 User talk:John/Archive 2011 User talk:John/Archive 2012 User talk:John/Archive 2013 User talk:John/Archive 2014 User talk:John/Archive 2015 User talk:John/Archive 2016 User talk:John/Archive 2017 User talk:John/Archive 2018 User talk:John/Archive 2018-2022 User talk:John/Archive 2022-2024

Personal attacks on my Talk Page Hi John! It seems QuackGuru is on a personal defamation campaign now. He attacked against me on my Talk Page[1] accusing me of "following him to other articles" (WP:HOUND). He has made the same accusation several times before[2][3][4][5], but has never provided any evidence even despite of my requests. Doesn't this fall under "personal attack"? WP:WIAPA goes about the description of personal attacks as follows: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." He also posted lengthy nine paragraphs where he is scrutinizing my edit history. The most interesting is that he is talking about me in 3rd person, so it's obvious that he didn't address it to me but made the post in defamation purposes, or as a "wall of shame" as WP:HUSH puts it. WP:HUSH says the following about user space harassment: User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space. I am bringing this to your attention because you are already familiar with the editor and I trust your sense of judgement. I hope you have the time to take a look! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Happy to take a look. --John (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Hmm, I looked at this and can see two sides to it. Is User:QuackGuru reverting your edits, or is he just making allegations about you on user talk pages? QG, didn't you agree to mentorship at some point? What's going on? User:Drmies, as my junior colleague, what do you think about the matter? Had you seen that page before, Drmies? Isn't it funny that we are almost neck and neck? --John (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC) QuackGuru has been making allegations about me on user talk pages. He has not presented any evidence for his allegations even despite of my requests. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Who was QG's mentor? --John (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I don't know if QuackGuru has or has had a mentor. In my understanding he has been acting out on his own. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC) You passed me again, John? Don't you have better things to do than racking up useless edits? And what are we looking at precisely? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC) I just looked at Acupuncture and I see problems all over the place, esp. with this edit. Where are these nine paragraphs? I can't read that section on User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya without a lot more coffee. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Drmies, sorry if I was a bit unclear. I was pertaining to QuackGuru's lengthy post on my Talk Page[6] (Background information) which clearly shows that QuackGuru wasn't addressing his post to me since he is talking about me in 3rd person. It's quite obvious that he is using my user Talk Page as a wall of shame as described in WP:HUSH. The edit you were pertaining has nothing to do with that, and the edit was made under the consensus achieved at the Acupuncture Talk Page. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Maybe it was User:Kww. Kevin, didn't you offer to help QuackGuru? Forgive me if I was wrong in that recollection. If I was right, what do you think of this? --John (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) I'm a filter, not so much a mentor. QG has agreed not to take things to notice boards without my agreement. I find that I approve about one request in four. As for these hounding/stalking complaints, I'll go have a little chat. It looks like he has gone a bit past the line again. I'd have to see very specific evidence from either editor on those accusations, because they tend to have a strong topic overlap: it would be hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.—Kww(talk) 22:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, I think it would be hard to prove any sort of following was going on in either direction given their overlapping areas of interest. Thanks for anything you can do. --John (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC) User:Kww, thanks for having a word with QuackGuru. I hope he understands this time "the soft way", otherwise I have to resort to tougher means. The beginning doesn't seem too promising though: he merely archived[7] your post on his Talk Page without giving any sings of understanding, and now as he has returned to Talk:Acupuncture, he is interpreting the comment by DrMies[8] in such a way that I'd somewhat the problem here. Just by taking look at his post here at Acupunture (talk), it doesn't seem he has understood his actions. I've been assuming good faith with QuackGuru, so I hope he will learn and change his behaviour now. I am not sure if "he got the message" though. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Taking a closer look, QuackGuru's late post at Talk:Acupuncture: I did discuss the problems... QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC) And what does that diff contain? Surprise surprise, the accusations originally made on my Talk Page. Now just brought to the article Talk Page under "I did discuss the problems". @John: and @Kww:, it is obvious that QuackGuru keeps going on with battleground mentality. As a fair compromise, I'd suggest an official administrative warning to him. I am optimistic that it will teach him a lesson. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC) QG would not be a problem if acupuncture practitioners stopped trying to use Wikipedia to spread the good word. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Reading more carefully, WP:WIAPA clearly says that: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Like Kww already stated to QuackGuru at his Talk Page[9], his accusations do not have any solid foundation. That is already a clear warning, and if he keeps up the same behavior, more severe means must take place. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC) User:Johnuniq, that is true but unhelpful; we have a duty to allow all editors to edit as long as they abide by our rules. Dissent is not automatically disruption. --John (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC) Hello, I've also been subjected to this same treatment by User: QuackGuru. Since engaging with this editor, I have done nothing but be nice and civil towards QuackGuru and yet he has baited me to the point where I have gotten warnings for nothing, and now has directly and indirectly covered my talk page in slime, turning it into a wall of shame as well. I'm long on patience, but this user has tested me beyond my limits. LesVegas (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Metalloid as requested TFA, October 4 G'day John I've listed metalloid as a current Today's Featured Article nomination, for 4 October, here. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC) I have supported. Nice work. --John (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC) kt Good morning, John. I have long been interested in your talk page as a place where wise insights might sometimes be found, much as I have stalked the talk pages of other stalwarts such as RHaworth. One appoach that I adopted was the use of the edit summary "kt" when removing useless hand-waving or otherwise unproductive messages. It is, after all, my talk page - or indeed yours, on the many occasions you have used that edit summary. Being thus focused on the edit summary's purpose, I did not spend a huge amount of time investigating its meaning. I thought it was the first of these two; "Keep together" - this is a discussion moved to my talk page from an article or policy or noticeboard talk page, it really has no place here, so take it back to that other place "Keep talking" - [10] [11] a younger editor tells me this sarcastic riposte is what it means Anyway, presumably it means different things to different people, but, having used it for so long based on your usage, I wanted to ask - what do you use it to mean? thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC) It's option 1; keep together. Per my talk page header, conversations started here continue here, and those started elsewhere stay there. Otherwise conversations become needlessly fragmented. --John (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Town vs City qustion. (Brittish English) Hello John! I've assumed You live in the UK or Ireland possibly (Please foregive me if I'm wrong and correct me). Through other articles, I have found out very little about the difference [with the exception of Scotland]. My question is - When do You find it proper to use the terms "City" respectively "Town" in a foregin nation, like Sweden. I've got the impression that a "Town" has perhaps from around 15.000 to 50.000 inhabitants, while "City" is a better choice if the settlement has around 100.000 inhabitants or more. I'm only asking for Your opinion and as if the settlements would have been British instead , unless You have a more detailed knowledge of the matter and cares for sharing it.(Swedish language is lacking atleast one word here, I think. As the Swedish "stad" takes no concideration of size). If such matters are not the least interesting to You , then I appologize. Boeing720 (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Happy to help. According to our article on city, the term is used differently in different parts of the world. In the UK it is a status conferred on a settlement by the Queen. It is only awarded to settlements over about 100,000 population. Sometimes people also use an older definition, whereby a settlement with a cathedral was regarded as a city. This is falling out of use. In the United States there is no such rule and any settlement may call itself a city. Thus there are cities over there with half a dozen inhabitants. The distinction between village and town is less clear cut. I hope that helps. I live in Edinburgh, Scotland, by the way. --John (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Boeing720, we've got the exactly same thing with Finnish language. We've got two words: "kylä" for a village (swe. by) and "kaupunki" for the Swedish "stad". We don't really make any distinction between a town and a city in our vocabulary, but I think the limit for being called "a city" here in Finland is 10,000 inhabitants (LOL!). Everything under 10,000 is still considered "a village". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks, both of You. Actually, Jayaguru-Shishya, in Sweden there was three "settlement sizes" with names "by" (village), "köping" (larger village) and "stad" (town or city), but since the 60's or 70's all settlements with 200+ inhabitants are referred to as "tätort". A word that never has been much used in common parlance though. The 'middle size' "köping" has not been used in speach as long as I can remember, but people still uses "by" and "stad". (interesting may be f.i. Båstad "Bå-stad", which suggests it would be a "stad", but it was a "köping"! 'on paper') Since this is in English, in my opinion, we ought to follow the British style, perhaps being a little more generous (for instance if the municipality exceeds 100.000 ?). But down to 10,000 feels too generous, and infact my home town Landskrona (with 30,000+ in the settlement and 40,000+ in its municipality) also feels too little to label as city, I think. But some other users do not agree. Hence my question. There really should be some WP-rule about it, I also think. By the way, the word cathedral ("katedral") exists in Swedish language, but is mainly used for non-Swedish large church-buildings. Is a cathedral a church where a Bishop resides, or is it related to size only ? I have not yet visited Scotland, I'm sad to admit, but we both lives at around the 55-56th latitude - however I guess You do not have much snow in the Scotish capital ? A very unpleasant type of precipitation, in my mind. (: No offence to Finland, further north in Sweden snow is apparently connected to positive feelings. However where I live, people cycles all year, golfers (like my dad) becomes sour and unpleasant to deal with and there isn't much else to do except waiting for those nice mild south-western Atlantic winds that makes things normal again. :) Boeing720 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Gage page The Phineas Gage article is being hampered by EEng more and more it seems. He's reverted the map issue (a debatable and esoteric issue) and reverted my edits to make the images licensing and details accessible.[12] He has now started ref bombing the text into an unreadable state. I think the entire article should be rewritten from scratch in a sandbox or in the draft article space so that consensus can be made to outright replace the article. It may be the best way to resolve all the issues at this point, it is not WP:TNT, but it would be close enough to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Maybe that is how the article will get improved. It seems silly to have to work around a problematic editor to this extent. Let's see if we can get a topic ban, as that would be preferable. Failing that, ok. --John (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC) EEng should be topic banned out of COI concerns. EEng self discloses on his user page that he is Lena and that means EEng (Lena) and Macmillan are working together. Should I take it back to COIN because EEng has had years of working directly with Macmillan, is referenced in numerous sources as Macmillan's co-author, aide, collaborator and such. The article is dominated by Macmillan and Lena citations, and is authored by EEng the dominate POV. It is entirely reasonable to believe that EEng is purposely controlling the article and adding to it because it is getting numerous citations and has been used as an outright soapbox in the past to further their research. WP:EXTERNALREL specifically notes academic-based COIs and I think I need to formulate this in a nice sentence if I do go to COIN. Any ideas? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Then there is a COI in his editing the page. That doesn't necessarily rule him out from editing it but it is a red flag. The draft idea is maybe a good one. I don't have much time at the moment to actually work on it but I can maybe help out a wee bit. --John (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Phineas_Gage - you might be tangentially involved in this. But I am pinging the others as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC) <sarcasm>Thanks alot Chris for pinging me about this.</sarcasm> Since he edited my text on his talk page, I hadn't seen anything since. I don't have his talk page or Gage on my watchlist. I'm sure he has said nothing but love and high praise. I thought I'd leave a message here to say maybe people smarter than us (well, atleast me) could help. When it comes to academics, Drmies and DGG are the best ones around. Bgwhite (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC) I don't see that I have any special expertise. I know the general WP that one shouldn't cite one's own work without prior consensus on the talk p., and this probably also includes to any project on which one is a close co-worker. Looking at at them the same way as any other editor here, I think the many quotes to Macmillan's book are appropriate; the quotes of his website are not--I'd rather see it as an external reference. I also know the WP principle that our articles are meant to be accessible to a reader; while there is a place for non-bibliographic notes, this article seems to me as an ordinary reader to use them to extraordinary excess. But none of this has anything special to do with academe. The problem would be the same no matter what the subject, and also the same if the references were to non-academic literature. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC) @DGG: + John - The matter is seemingly simple at its core. EEng is editing a page that is dominated by citations to himself and his co-author. I was told to bring it back to WP:COIN because it persisted, but WP:EXTERNALREL does highlight this particular form of conflict of interest. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC) But it is possible that they are un fact the leading modern sources for the subject. It is of course up to us to evaluate this, not for the author/coauthor to push for their inclusionl they can only suggest. I see from Worldcat, that the only extensive modern book devoted to Gage is Macmillan's An odd kind of fame 562pp. present in 822 libraries, published by MIT Press, an academic press with a particularly strong record in neuroscience. Fleischman's Phineas Gage, found in over 1600 libraries, is even more widely held, but it's only 86 pp. long and published by Houghton-Mifflen, a reputable trade publisher by not an academic publisher; Worldcat lists it as designed for high schools. Many other books discuss him, for example Damasio's Descartes' error', a very widely held book, present in 1750 libraries, but by a general trade publisher--and it devote only about 1/3 of the 312 pp. to him. Parker's bio of him is for children. Looking at Google Scholar, D'Aasio's article in Science is very widely cited (1090 times) and in a scientific journal of the highest prestige. Macmillan's book is cited 188 ties. I conclude from this that Macmillan's book is the most important secondary modern principal source, unless there are reliable review sources to be found that consider it inadequate. (This i s not a personal judgement: I have not read the book and in any case I am no authority in this subject to be making any such judgements based on content. But I can interpret citation data--which may lack nuances, but has the advantage of being entirely based upon objective quantifiable data. I regrat EE tried to introduce it hte way way it did, but it would appear its use as the major secondary source for the article is justified. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC) @DGG: - EEng asserts that Fleischman is an elementary school/children's book and is a not a reliable source on that ground, despite the work being peer reviewed. Descartes' error has several issues that EEng will all be too happy to point out, but Macmillan's book does attack the other scholars as EEng has on the article. However, Macmillan's book is indeed the best (even if outdated) - but speculation should still be noted as such. Key is the fact that several great errors are present and those should be noted, but EEng will not have any of that. Case in point - On page 108 Macmillan states Gages date of death with a specific cited source. I updated the date on the article and EEng became irate because this is in fact false. No date exists and Macmillan squirreled this away on the website.[13] Also, a family genealogy with no sources is reprinted and taken to much effect and without proper context. Macmillan's ability to take liberty with the matter also results in another error of logic on the page. Filling in the "36 year" and blank columns as "0 Months and 0 Days" implying Gage died on his birthday. Macmillan's text is riddled with such things and EEng has muddied the matter such that the article is as poorly detailed as it is written. Given the example provided and the great error and liberty taken by Macmillan, all in the same page, is it fair to be concerned about the work and his colleague's dominance of the page? I believe so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC) John - do you happen to have Macmillan's text on hand? If the decision to re-make the article gains support, I'd like to have another editor double check my work and highlight additional concerns I may miss. I've actually conducted some of my own groundbreaking research in the past months in a special field and I find that I work best with others. I'm keeping mum on the details of my research, but 1870s accounts are as flawed as modern writings of so-called journalists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid I do not. I might be able to find it in a local library though. --John (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Rough night ...last night with the boy. Man, for some sleep. Parenthood is highly overrated sometimes! Hope you all are doing well. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Just saw your note at ANEW: thanks for that. These last few days have not been pleasant. Drmies (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC) All well here Drmies. Always a pleasure to hear from you. Hang in there, they say it gets easier, though I am not entirely convinced. --John (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC) He's two... Drmies (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC) My five year old still occasionally needs comfort in the middle of the night. But far less frequently than when she was two. My advice is to try to enjoy every day as it will not come again. Childhood is brief (though it does not always seem that way to the child or the parents) and you will miss it when it is gone. I'm not sure how much help you will find that but it is as close as I have found to good advice on the matter. Best, --John (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC) WikiProject Women writers Invitation Hello John! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement! Thank you for the invitation. I have added my name to the members' list. --John (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Quatermass and the Pit Hi John – as you may remember from earlier conversations, this is the oldest remaining FA not to have been TFA - promoted August 2004. You did a bit of work on it a couple of months ago - do you think it's usable in its current condition or is it closer to FAR territory? If it helps, the next open TFA date is about 30 days away so if you think it could scrape by, you (and others, I hope!) would have a month to work on it. (And if as TFA-day approached you were unhappy with the quality, I could easily swap it for something else.) Yours, BencherliteTalk 21:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC) It's a deal. Same payment as usual? Seriously, I will take a look. Thanks for asking. --John (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Marvellous. I'll leave the used notes in a brown envelope in the usual place. BencherliteTalk 21:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I remember seeing that on TV when I was a kid, or I suppose it could have been a later repeat. Scared me to death, almost as much as the scene in Salem's Lot in which the newly created vampire floats up to his brother's bedroom window and tap tap taps to be allowed in. Makes me shiver even to think of it now. Eric Corbett 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I saw it on TV too, and I also had an old Penguin edition of the script. Wonder where it is now. Eric, I was actually thinking of asking you to help. Would you be interested? I'll pass on 70% of Bencherlite's fee, to reflect the workshare we usually end up with on our joint projects. I haven't looked at this article again yet but if I recall correctly it might need a major nip and tuck to pass muster for TFA. What do you say? Please? --John (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I'd be happy to help, but I need every Monday off. Eric Corbett 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC) That's great news! You're making me feel guilty though because I had intended to join your go-slow, but when yesterday came around I forgot and made a few edits. What does that say about me? The good news is having revisited the article it isn't badly written. My concern was on sourcing; an awful lot of the article seems to be sourced to the DVD sleeve notes. What do you think? --John (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I haven't read it, I'll take a look tomorrow. Eric Corbett 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC) My impression is that the article has a tendency to drift off topic a little, especially when talking about the subsequent careers of the cast members – why is that relevant? Our biggest problem though I think is that imdb is being used a source, that just won't wash these days. Eric Corbett 14:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC) If we trimmed out the poorly sourced parts, would there be enough left to be a viable TFA? --John (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC) We'll have to try it and see, because it's not a viable TFA at present. Eric Corbett 15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC) In addition, I suspect that there's some more material about QatP from the last ten years that needs a look, to see if it adds anything e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (from the first two pages alone of a Google Books search). But you didn't sign up for a major rewrite, just a spit and polish to try and get it through TFA on a wing and prayer, and that's not going to work I think. Perhaps the answer is for either or both of you to leave some comments on the article's problems on the talk page as a prelude to a nomination at FAR, then I can get it off the "yet to appear at TFA" list. Just be grateful I didn't ask either of you to look at Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway, the second-oldest remaining FA yet to be TFA (March 2005!) BencherliteTalk 16:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I don't feel quite so pessimistic about it as you do Bencherlite. Let's see what can be done first. Eric Corbett 16:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I would be up for a rewrite, but maybe not in the timescale we are talking about. Will take these questions to article talk as per your suggestion. --John (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Done. Wow, these were the days, eh? --John (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC) The world of FAC has certainly changed, that's for sure. Like you, I think we might struggle to get this up to current FA standards in the next three weeks or so, but I've seen it done before. Eric Corbett 18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC) When I said that the next open TFA date was in a month, I didn't mean that it had to run next month. It was a bit of an incentive/challenge - I just meant that if it was close to being acceptable then the next open date would leave a month for work to be done in it. However, if it's doable but in a long timescale, that's great too. If it's not really doable, or you'd rather spend your time on other things, then I completely understand. It's the most extreme example of an FA in limbo (not fit for TFA but no-one's taken it to FAR) and it would be nice to regularise the position, one way or t'other. Anyway, thanks to you both for taking a look. BencherliteTalk 18:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I still think we can save this from FAR John, but it's going to need quite a bit of work. My strategy so far has been to trim and tidy up what's already there, before looking at the larger overall picture of what ought to be there, and of course sourcing. I think it's starting to look tighter already, but it's early days yet. Eric Corbett 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC) I've been watching and what you are doing looks great. Should I start to look for sources? --John (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Sources for what's missing, certainly, but it might be a good idea to hang fire for now looking for sources to replace IMDB and the DVD notes until we're more sure of what it is of the current material that we want to keep. Eric Corbett 18:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC) ... actually, I think we're about there now, so let's get looking for some good sources. I've done quite a bit of work on the Plot section, and as I think I'm just about done there now I'd be interested to hear what you think. I don't know about you, but I often don't fully understand what a film's about until I've read a good article on it. It never occurred to me until just a few hours ago, for instance, that the drill operator was himself telekinetically causing all those objects in that iconic scene in which he's running from the pit to swirl around him. Eric Corbett 20:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Nice work. I will look tonight. --John (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Given the recent talk page comment I think we ought to prioritise replacing the IMDB citations. Eric Corbett 16:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)