User talk:Xfpisher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Xfpisher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  The King of Kings 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

X-Men 3[edit]

It's not that Whedon should be the only one credited for the idea of a mutant cure (as you point out, it's been done before). It's that the movie draws from the particular story he wrote about a mutant cure. In that context, the mention of the X-Men episode is irrelevant. WesleyDodds 12:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded in greater depth on your own page, but just to recap--it's not irrelevant, because Whedon's story is more similar to that of the animated series than that of the movie--probably because he was adapting the TV story for his own purposes. So if Whedon reworked Edens' story in the animated series for Astonishing X-Men, and the X3 scriptwriters then came up with a third treatment of the same basic idea after reading Whedon's comics, then the movie is affected by both stories--but not closely following either of them--Edens influences Whedon, who then influences the scriptwriters. And again, it's wrong to give Whedon credit for coming up with somebody else's idea. It's inaccurate, and it's misleading. If you mention Whedon, you have to mention Edens. I edited the article because it said Whedon was the first X-Men writer to use this idea, and that's an unfactual statement. Anybody reading the article before my edit would assume that Whedon came up with an idea nobody had ever used before. Which I doubt he has ever done in his entire career. Whedon's contributions to the material he works on are mainly contributions of style. Not content. That's an opinion, of course--and please note I didn't put it in my edit. I'm more than content to let the facts speak for themselves.

You're missing a basic point. Comparing Whedon's story with an episode violates Wikipedia:No original research. We have no proof he drew from that episode. WesleyDodds 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You're missing a much more basic point--citing two pre-existing online sources, one of which IS Wikipedia, is not original research--how on earth did you reach the conclusion that it was? I'm not trying to prove Whedon was influenced by the earlier story (though I'm personally convinced that he was)--the mere existence of the earlier story proves Whedon was not the first to use this idea--to say that he IS the first to use it would constitute original research (however erroneous and unfounded). To mention Whedon's story without mentioning the earlier story would imply Whedon was the idea's progenitor, even if you didn't come out and say the idea had never appeared in an X-Men story before. Again, the story in the film doesn't resemble Whedon's very much at all, beyond the basic idea of a mutant cure. Whedon's story resembles that in the animated series much more closely, right down to the plot device that an enemy of the X-Men is behind the cure, and the scientist who discovers it is that villian's accomplice; a plot device that doesn't exist in the movie.
Btw--editing this in--Are we QUITE sure Whedon was the first writer on an X-Men comic to use the idea of a cure? The X-Men first appeared in 1963. There have been a few continuity reboots. There have been a lot of spin-off titles. I think saying that Whedon was even the first comic book writer to use this idea is dancing on very thin ice, unless you've read every single one of those comics.
This is the sentence I originally found fault with--

"The "cure" for mutant powers, its creator Kavita Rao, and the ethical problems associated with it first appear in Joss Whedon's 2004 "Gifted" story arc in Astonishing X-Men."

That isn't factually true. Therefore it either has to be amended or deleted. Period. I didn't feel I was in a position to delete it, so I amended it. The only thing Whedon did first was create a fictional geneticist named Dr. Kavita Rao--who strongly resembles a fictional geneticist named Dr. Godfried Adler from the 1993 teleplay.
What seems to have happened, according to an interview with Simon Kinberg I just read, was that a 20th Century Fox studio executive had read some of Whedon's comics, thought a mutant cure would be a good dilemma for the characters to face in X3, and asked Kinberg & Penn to incorporate something like that into the storyline. They ended up writing a very different take on the idea, but self-evidently they named their cure-discoverer after Whedon's, as a tip of the hat to somebody who had influenced the movie's plotline, however tangentially. They borrowed a few other elements, like The Beast being tempted by the cure (but of course he's not the same Beast as in the comic). They didn't copy Whedon's story, and it wasn't his original idea. Did he spontaneously and independently come up with the idea of a mutant cure? Impossible to prove, and unreasonable to assume.
The article I edited said Whedon was the first X-Men writer to ever use this idea, and that is provably inaccurate. I don't find anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that endorses inaccuracy. So there is no possible way to justify returning to the earlier version of that paragraph. I'm not saying mine has to stand forever, inviolate (this is Wikipedia, after all). But I am saying that I won't tolerate Whedon getting credit for being the first to use this idea in an X-Men story. I think you have to credit the first writer known to have used this idea, particularly when his story resembles Whedon's so closely, and predates it by over a decade.
I've seen plenty of Wikipedia articles on this type of subject that mention earlier versions of a given story idea, without proving that the earlier story directly influenced the one the article is discussing. It's never easy to track influences, but I didn't raise this issue--I'm simply clarifying it. Again, it's not original research to give people the information they need to make up their own minds. Let people read the two synopses of Edens' story, compare it with Whedon's, and compare both with the movie script. Why not?
Hey, wait a damn minute here--how come you left THIS in?

"In the 2005 "Decimation" X-Men storyline, a vast majority of the mutants, including Magneto, lose their powers, the result of Scarlet Witch's actions."

How come mentioning that (much less similar) storyline is kosher? Unlikely it was an influence on the film script, given the very late date it appeared. It seems to have simply been cited as an example of a comparable storyline to the movie's that appeared in the comics.
I've streamlined my edit a bit, but I've made it a bit clearer that Whedon's story resembles Edens' in more than just the basic idea. However, it's still well within Wikipedia guidelines. I make no speculation, present no theory, and do no original research. Now explain to me why the Scarlet Witch thingy stays in. (g)
That should probably be taken out as well. And I don't think anyone's trying to give credit to Whedon for the idea of a mutant cure. I personally don't care. Certainly it shouldn't say that he came up with the idea; more that he came up with a story that uses the concept of a cure. But when the script first appeared online, it was compared to his "Gifted" arc on Ain't It cool News, and it uses the character of Kavita Rao. as you yourself have shown, it's his story that has bearing on the development on the film's plot (to whatever extent it has impacted the development of the film), and unless you can find some kind of proof that the episode has bearing as well, then it's irrelevant to mention the cartoon episode in the film's article. WesleyDodds 08:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Then there's a whole lot of irrelevant stuff in the article--like for example, saying that Wolverine killing Jean in the movie is comparable to his killing Mariko in one of the comics. Well, somebody developing a mutant cure in the X-Men animated series is comparable to somebody developing a mutant cure in Astonishing X-Men, which is comparable to somebody developing a mutant cure in X3. I'm not trying to prove an influence (I'd need a direct quote from Whedon for that), I'm simply making a comparison, and that's not original research, and in the context of this article, it's not irrelevant at all. The article is full of comparisons to earlier X-Men stories, without proving that those stories directly impacted the movie script--we can assume some of them did, because Kinberg & Penn cheerfully admit to being huge X-Men geeks, as does Whedon. But in that case, they probably all watched the animated series. Any previous X-Men plotline that resembles the movie in some way can be mentioned in this article. But very few of them are as relevant as "The Cure". I certainly think the history of an idea that made its way from TV to the comics and then into this movie is a relevant topic. If I could find earlier instances of a mutant cure being raised in an X-Men story, I'd put that in there too. And I'd bet good money there are earlier instances. And that's INTERESTING. Not irrelevant. I'm happy with where the edit stands now, and since I can't spare the time and money involved in reading over every X-Men comic since 1963, I'm more than happy to let the matter drop. And if you don't care, you might as well do the same. And btw--your argument that 'everybody online compared the movie script to Whedon's story when the script went online'--irrelevant. Of course people mentioned Whedon's story, it had been published less than two years earlier. But if it had come out in 1995 (and if there had been much of an online fan community to talk about it in 1995) everybody would have been talking about how Whedon ripped off that story from the TV show. Which he almost certainly did, but I'm sure he improved on it.  ;)
Address these points on the article's Talk Page. At this point I'm worried that your insistence on keeping this information in the article is keeping you from evaluating its relevance to the greater subject. WesleyDodds 11:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Wesley, you were the one who addressed me here. I'm a less experienced Wikipedia editor than yourself, no doubt. But I think you fail to understand that in the context of an article like this, anything that appeals to the fan's desire to know more about the history and context of the storylines and characters in question is supremely relevant.
My point was that you listed concerns with the article, so it's best to address those concerns at the article's Talk Page. Otherwise you're just talking to me and not addressing your concerns. That's how it works. And Wikipedia articles aren't meant for the fans, they'e intended for the general reader. WesleyDodds 11:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You could have referred me to the X3 Talk Page before, you know. Like the first time you addressed me here on my talk page. There's no section on the mutant cure idea over there--should I start one? Nice to see I'm not the only person you're arguing with in relation to this movie--and judging by your talk page, with a whole bunch of other people, on entirely unrelated subjects. I guess that's how it works? ;)
Well, yes. I generally only write on people's talk pages when I have some concern. And when I want cupcakes. WesleyDodds 11:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have a lot of concerns relating to Wikipedia articles, but at present time, I have just the one. So let's cut to the chase. You haven't persuaded me. Nobody else seems bothered by my edit. My edit is very consistent with the article's overall tone and preoccupations. You obviously have an unusually strict interpretation of what is or is not relevant. My edit is very small, and very easy to restore. There is no consensus that it should be removed. I'm open to suggestions as to how it might be improved to our mutual satisfaction, but you haven't made any. Are you saying it's a rule that any edit, no matter how small, must be justified at the article's talk page? Because this is a very small edit. And entirely accurate, and impeccably sourced, and hey--I notice you've stopped saying it constitutes original research? Now you're going on about relevancy. Please show me the Wikipedia guideline that proves my edit isn't relevant. And I don't have any cupcakes.

The main guideline is that any unsourced material can be removed by another editor at any time: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. You've cited that a cure storyline was used in the episode, but you haven't cited that it has any bearing on the topic at had. You're inferring it does by including the information, which is original research. And using talk pages is just good etiquette in order to avoid things like revert wars (which is why I wrote on yours in the first place). WesleyDodds 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, and I'm an editor, and I removed the laughably inaccurate (and entirely unsourced) statement that Whedon was the first X-Men writer to ever use this cure idea, without stating any theories or opinions I may have. Putting personal theories, speculations, or opinions EXPLICITLY into an article is the only valid definition of 'original research', according to the guidelines I read. You may say it's implicit in my including the information, but I say it's equally implicit that if you say Whedon wrote this story, without mentioning earlier and highly similar stories in the same franchise, that he is being given credit for being the first to use this idea. The difference is that now the reader has more information. If the general reader is not interested in learning about the 1993 cure story in an article about X3, he or she is probably equally uninterested in finding out that Joss Whedon wrote for a comic book in 2004.
And you're an editor, and in spite of the fact that I had TWO sources, one of which IS Wikipedia, you returned the passage to its earlier inaccurate condition, without removing an equally irrelevant (by your standards) sentence in the same paragraph, regarding a comic book storyline about The Scarlet Witch going nutso, the particular issue of the comic book in question having been published in December 2005, when the movie was already in production. You now say that should 'probably' be removed as well, but that doesn't quite explain why you didn't remove it in the first place.
How would somebody go about 'citing' that properly sourced information they edited into an article has any bearing? That's a matter of interpretation, not of objective fact. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Moby Dick--it includes references to events that 'almost certainly inspired Melville's tale', without in any way proving that they did. There was absolutely no citation to 'prove' that the Whedon storyline was relevant to the article. Your argument seems to be "everybody was talking about how the Whedon story was similar, so that means it must be relevant". No, it really doesn't. And not everybody was talking about it. The General Readership you like to talk about certainly wasn't talking about it. FANS were talking about it.
The section of the article I edited is about COMPARING the movie with similar X-Men stories that appeared earlier--'Comparison with the comics', which I've amended to 'Comparison with the comics and other media', just to be precise. If the chapter is about comparing similar elements in earlier X-Men stories to the movie, how is my comparison irrelevant? In not one single case is there a citation to prove that the storylines mentioned directly influenced the movie, though in some cases it would be possible to do so. Yet you had no problem with any of that until I edited in SOURCED information that clearly proved a very similar story had appeared on television in 1993. I think I must conclude that your interpretation of what is or is not relevant constitutes a form of 'original research', and therefore must be disregarded. ;)

Let me make a suggestion here--I know your primary concern is that the article meet Wikipedia's standards, and I'm guessing you didn't delete anything else because--um--it was already there? I'm convinced my edit makes the article more accurate and informative, and that my contribution is entirely relevant to the subject matter of the chapter in question--if you remove my information, you might as well remove the whole chapter. It's a very small edit I made--and you must admit I haven't exactly indulged myself in a lengthy essay about who got what idea where. I corrected the error about Whedon's story being the first appearance of a mutant cure, and I mentioned (without editorial commentary of any kind) that there was an earlier story that strongly resembled Whedon's. I properly sourced the information, so that the reader can make up his or her own mind, if he or she is interested in examining the matter further. To me, the whole point of an article like this is a more informed reader. Let's let the matter drop here. Give me a bit of time, and I'll post on the discussion page for X3, explaining the reasons for my edit, and opening up the floor to debate on its appropriateness. Fair enough?Xfpisher 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Goners[edit]

Thanks for tagging Goners as well! In the past, I was aware of Goners but not Goners (film), and for some reason, my awareness switched around to only consider the latter. Glad both are addressed now. Happy editing! —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

X-Files[edit]

Hello... please stop trying to correct the statements in the X-Files: I Want to Believe article. Quite simply, it is just an actor complaining about his film being released at the same time as a box-office behemoth in a similar genre, and readers will interpret it as such. Your attempts to "disprove" him by comparing it to films such as Mamma Mia! The Movie and Space Chimps - which appeal to entirely different audiences - are not appropriate for an encyclopaedic report. Keep in mind that we are here to record information, not to analyze it. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy 19:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, please do not revert again; you should be aware that you are coming up against the revert rules in doing so. I have commented in the discussion you began on the article's talk page, and would ask that you refrain from further reverts until there is a consensus either way. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As above, stop creating various of doubtful edits. You need a source for the new DVD sales, a source. IMDb is not considered reliable. It is edited by users, meaning that it does not meet the english wikipedia standards. --TIAYN (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you've received a great many more messages like that--including some threatening to ban you from Wikipedia entirely. IMDb is referenced on EVERY SINGLE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE DEALING WITH A SPECIFIC FILM. Without exception. It's one of the most trusted sources on the internet. IMDb keeps tab on hundreds of different film awards. Both Constellation and Portal are fan-based awards that have no official standing. Portal allows multiple online voting. Constellation identifies itself as a fan award. You might as well start a blog, vote IWTB the greatest movie ever made, and cite that as a source. I will keep reverting the article, on a daily basis, and you can appeal to higher authorities if you like--I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear from you again. Take care, or you really may be banned from Wikipedia. This is not your personal fanpage. Xfpisher (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I didn't really respond to your comment about the DVD gross update--I based that on The Numbers, which is a perfectly legitimate source here (as is IMDb). They have two different pages for each film, and the one linked to Wikipedia is lagging a bit in terms of updating the gross--the two pages will agree soon enough, if they don't already. I'm a bit surprised, btw, that you reverted the gross, but not the date. You really want to believe that the DVD grossed zero dollars in three months? It's done very badly, but not that badly.Xfpisher (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Have it your way about the DVD gross--I won't update it again in the near future. Readers can just assume it never made a penny more than the current amount--it's not that far from the truth. But the source is perfectly legitimate--it's the source the figure currently provided came from--and you really don't seem to know what you're talking about. Regarding--well--anything. I am going to go right on reverting the awards section, which I created. You have no basis in the guidelines for insisting those awards be included. If those are eligible, everything is eligible. I mean, the Portals only exist to promote somebody's fansite. They allow the same person to vote multiple times for the same film or show, over a period of weeks. How on earth do you think that counts as a real award? Anyway, no need to argue about it. Just understand I will check this page every time I go online. And if you continue making disruptive edits, as you have been warned about in the past, I will have to take a closer look at some other articles you have edited. Xfpisher (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. "Anecdotes, trivia, and unreleased film information from IMDb do not meet the reliable sources guideline. The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films." Its not reliable. Its used on wikipedia as an external link, an external link is not a SOURCE. Read the RELIABLE SOURCES Guidelines, i have. You haven't and it seems very clear to me that you are to stubbern to do so. Sorry, but i would have gladely opened up to the idea to use IMDb if it was considered reliable by "WIKIPEDIA" and not "YOU". --TIAYN (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that guideline, but it has nothing to do with IMDb as a whole, and nothing to do with our dispute--it's not about anecdotes, trivia, or unreleased film info. I see now why you're confused. Let me try to explain. IMDb is an accepted source for film release information, as well as awards, budget, and even box office in some situations--that's why links to IMDb appear in every single Wikipedia page devoted to a given film. If IMDb doesn't keep tabs on an award (they keep tabs on hundreds of them), then it's almost certainly not a legitimate award, and is not worthy of being mentioned in a Wikipedia article. I might also mention that neither of the awards you want to add have Wikipedia articles devoted to them, which makes my point better than anything else I might mention. That's because they are basically just awards given out by a group of fans with no official standing. At least one of them allows multiple online voting. So now I expect you to prove you are a rational person and admit IMDb is a legitimate and respected source of information on Wikipedia, and that's why ONLY anecdotes, trivia, and films in development are specifically singled out. You have proven yourself wrong by citing the guideline in question. Xfpisher (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Include all information regarding a third feature film, while it may not happen (which is most likely) we still need to have information, because its a slim chance a third X-Files film while be released. Add the Carter interview you mentioned :D --TIAYN (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sheesh, I didn't even see this--I get very little feedback here, so better respond on the discussion page for IWTB in future, if you want me to read it right away. Anyway, you had a point--that section needed revision and expansion. I just hesitated to do it myself, and there really haven't been any definitive statements, just the usual "We'd love to do it but nothing is happening, maybe 2012?" If we haven't heard anything definitive by the end of 2011, this version of the X-Files franchise is probably gone for good.Xfpisher (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

September 2009[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The X-Files: I Want to Believe. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ckatzchatspy 19:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at The X-Files: I Want to Believe. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ckatzchatspy 20:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

homonym [edit]

A homonym(sic) in a snipe hunt is a confusion between items such as a "long weight" (reasonable request for an apprentice to fetch) / "long wait" (bemused apprentice left standing at the tool crib). There's no claim that these were ever homonyms for the snipe hunt itself.

Strictly these are homophones rather than homonyms anyway, in the stricter linguistic definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. It has nothing to do with snipe hunts. I think if you want to do a general catch-all article, fine--but the tradition of the snipe hunt should have its own article, and you can link to the catch-all article on fool's errands. The snipe hunt is a very specific tradition, that a lot of people know about, and want to learn specific things about. They do not want to read about flux capacitors, and homophones. If they are curious, they can go to another linked article to read about that. Just my opinion, but I think you'd find it was the majority opinion among people who type 'snipe hunt' into google.Xfpisher (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

October 2010[edit]

Please do not attempt to unilaterally restart the X-Files issue from almost two years ago. Your attempts to qualify the actor's opinion was rejected following extensive discussion at that time, so restoring it without any indication that consensus has changed is not appropriate. Thank you in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 11:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That edit was up for a good long while before you even noticed, wasn't it? You're probably the only person involved in that 'consensus' who even checks this article now. Time is on my side--just like the facts. That 'consensus' no longer meaningfully exists. But I won't revert for now. Talk to you again in a few years? :)Xfpisher (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
He's not the only one. Consensus doesn't just go away because people forget about it. Your failure to convince us that your edit had merit is there on the talk page for all to see. Suggesting that time will allow you to make problematic edits is absolutely ridiculous. Good day. Rehevkor 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Xpfisher, why persist in this manner? You have now gone on record as stating that you intend to openly defy Wikipedia's guidelines and policies by ignoring consensus and waiting for an opportunity to sneak in your text. How is that helpful? --Ckatzchatspy 02:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It's election day. I have a cold. I said I wouldn't put back the perfectly correct parenthetical comment about Mamma Mia that would draw absolutely no controversy at most other Wikipedia articles--for now--I will not promise to never revisit the issue, because that's silly. You're arguing that consensus is forever? You're like the Supreme Court now? Even THEY get overruled, by their successors. The whole point of Wikipedia is that things change. Now stop being a spoiled child, and let me make some soup. :) Xfpisher (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I have made my point and you have failed to make yours. I have nothing more to say to you. Rehevkor 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You didn't make a point, you just hurled an insult. In the meantime, somebody else edited that section, and my attentions will no longer be necessary there. I wouldn't say I won the argument, but you clearly lost it. Xfpisher (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Before Sunset[edit]

Hi there. I just saw your comments left on the talk page. Um, from the article you provided, it's an early idea about the sequel. Most readers wouldn't know about that, and since the idea was not really substantiated, it could be a very different film if/when the third one comes out. For now, we'll stick to what we saw in the film. We don't know if Jesse stayed or not. Best, Michelle. --Artoasis (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Um--? The point of Wikipedia is to tell people what they already know? Here's the thing--if we're going to be sticklers here, you need a quote from Linklater to prove that he wanted people to speculate about whether or not Jesse stays--if you don't have one, that sentence is basically speculation, which violates the guidelines. The information about the planned sequel has to be in the article. I'll give you some time to think about where you want it.Xfpisher (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence simply summarize what we know, which is exactly the point of plot summary. About the planned sequel, there's some mention of it in the production section ("Hawke had suggested the possibility of further films in the series"). We can use the interview you provided as a ref, but since they are still only ideas flowing around, per WP:CRYSTAL, no need to get into too much detail. My point is, when/If the third one comes out, it could be a very different story. --Artoasis (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read the plot again. Yeah, the last sentence does sounds a bit like speculation. I'll leave my comments on the article's talk page. If no other editor opposes the change, we'll remove the last sentence from the plot summary. Best, Michelle. --Artoasis (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough--that last sentence really has to go, though. My own feeling is that the first scene in the bookstore is referring to the end of the last movie, and Linklater & his two stars/collaborators wanted to do something different this time, which is why Jesse and Celine are TOGETHER at the end, not going their separate ways. We expect it to end like Before Sunrise, and it doesn't--it's a different kind of question being asked about what happens next, because the characters are at a different period of their lives. I think the interview I linked clearly proves that--they wouldn't have been discussing a sequel happening so soon after the end of Before Sunset otherwise. Now they can't do that sequel, and maybe there won't be any. And even so, I acknowledge it doesn't belong in the plot synopsis. But the readers should know such a sequel was planned, so that they can draw their own conclusions. Thanks for responding. Xfpisher (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been very busy the last few days, so I forgot to remove the last sentence as we discussed, :) I just found the original source of the interview you mentioned (from MTV.com). I'll add it as a ref now. Best, Michelle.--Artoasis (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Parker[edit]

What do you say about adding some sort of note to the talk page about this? So if someone tries to add the budget to the infobox, they can be directed to it?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think that would help.Xfpisher (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Swimmer (1968 film)[edit]

Please note that per WP:FILMPLOT, the plot summaries for film articles should generally be between 400-700 words; your revised summary was over 900. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In which case, I made the summary better by shortening it with my last edit. I think the synopsis still needs a lot of work. I hope you can understand that as somebody who admires this film, I hate to see it poorly summarized.Xfpisher (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
You just expanded it to over 800 words; that it's "just as long as it was before" is not sufficient reason to violate the guideline in my opinion. You're welcome to revise the summary, but I don't see why this film can't be summarized within 700 words. If you disagree you're welcome to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

3RR...[edit]

Xfpisher, you're now over WP:3RR at You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby‎, having reverted both me and User:Nikkimaria four times in the last 24 hrs. You've been around here since 2006, so I'm assuming you know why this is an issue. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll look forward to seeing you justify your reverting an edit that clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines. I tried to communicate with you, and you just did not want to be helpful, or make any constructive suggestions. As I've explained, I went through this before regarding using IMDb as a source, and I was upheld. I don't like edit wars, and I tried very hard to avoid one. You made it unavoidable. And I wasn't just reverting, I was changing the edit to try and meet objections raised to it. You aren't paying attention. Xfpisher (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

3RR...[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Xfpisher. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Xfpisher. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)