User talk:Fearedhallmonitor

Survival[edit]

Don't call me a vandal. My edit was in good faith. Chubbles 03:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slither[edit]

If you are a new party, please see the discussion about labeling Slither as a box office bomb at Talk:Slither (2006 film). Also, if you revert a valid edit, please include a detailed edit summary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you reverted my edit? There was an editor who was deceptive in the discussion to shape the presentation of the film's box office performance. This was one of the concessions made, and it's being withdrawn instead. The content still reflects that the film did poorly at the box office, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was wondering why you did this, basically. See summarized explanation of the discussion that went before on the film article's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia must maintain a neutral stance with its articles, and I would assume that the consensus for the wording was based on the idea that it was the most neutral wording that best described what was taking place. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the paragraph clearly relates that the box office performance was substandard from the studio's perspective and an independent perspective via The Hollywood Reporter. The citation of its label from a DVD review was extraneous. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what else you think would be appropriate to add to the film article. Do you have an issue with the existing content being unable to show that the film did not do well at the box office? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "labeled a theatrical flop by the press" is rather broad, and there's only one source that was attached to the terminology to begin with. You cannot attribute one person's words to the wide scale opinion of most others. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read "weasel words" for the general practice of using words like "some", "many", and other similarly vague terms. The practice is that they are not accepted terms. I think your best bet would be to say "News Organization X (<--Fill in source's name) classified the film as a ..." Though, I'm still iffy about saying it at all, because of WP:NPOV's "fairness of tone" section, which basically says that you shouldn't present just one side to an argument, otherwise it presents a biased tone. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the necessity in adding the extra nail in the coffin, so to speak. It's established without your intended addition that the film did not perform well at the box office. There may be other editors who would dispute your contribution, so let's see what others on the talk page say. By the way, you link to box office bomb twice in that statement -- might wanna fix that. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bankrupt is an economic terminology, whereas "box office bomb" is simply jargon. That's why it isn't prefered. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry, I'm not riled up. I just meant "extra nail in the coffin" as in throwing in extra cites as if the case was not proven that the film did not do well at the box office performance. The original version seemed streamlined, and the new addition just seems padded on. In addition, I would suggest not citing another article on Wikipedia (especially uncited content) to support a stance elsewhere on the mainspace. :) I just thought that the previous version was more concise without lacking information -- when I read both revisions, I still come away with the impression that it was a failure at the box office. Why not make do with the minimal content? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that I do not completely support your addition -- I said above that other editors should weigh in. I've added a paragraph-comparison section on the talk page and made my comment in support of the original version unless there are other ways to address it. My point about the EW label being padded on still stands. I've asked Liquidfinale, another editor looking in on the situation, to comment on the difference. Also, I've asked Cuchullain to comment on the content. Though, was it really necessary to copy/paste my previous edit summary in reverting him? No offense, but it seems nearly mocking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) Cuchullain had a reason to suspect, though he should have assumed good faith. No matter; we shall focus on content, not the editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had my suspicions, so you'll have to excuse me for suppressing them in an attempt to assume good faith. However, reviewing the evidence against you, especially an admin's belief of you as a sockpuppet, I have to retract my good faith. Considering the deception thus far, you'll have to excuse me for feeling less willing to compromise, when I considered the original version with less content to be perfectly acceptable. How the press perceives the film in the passing sense is not relevant when there is no dispute about its poor performance. It's not necessary to cite additional perspectives when the degree of performance is shown in its numbers. Additional perspectives are for critical reaction of the film, of which there can be many. For the B.O. performance, there's no need for extraneous referring. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't turn this into something personal. The way I've collaborated with editors of opposing views is to find a middle ground if possible. However, if the editor resorts to methods beyond civil discussion, that damages his or her credibility. If you look at my recent contribution to Slither, I added the relevant bit about the distributor distancing itself from the financier. I have expressed my reasons for what content is substantial enough for inclusion, regardless of positive or negative perspectives. If you plan to contest my reasons, I would suggest that you do so in a civil manner, instead of accusing me of "facsistically denigrating" you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of personal attacks on User talk:MikeWatt[edit]

Can I ask what prompted you to make this edit? Accusing someone of personal attacks is fairly serious, and I can't really see any in this particular user's contributions. If you could add a diff to the above edit (like what I did here), that would be great. Thanks, --Nsevs • Talk 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]