![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Is there a source to verify that "loosley based on a book" arguement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Greenrd and anyone who feels like having an opinion. I removed it, Greenrd restored it. [1]
Sure, MOS:SEEALSO allows links that are "only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." In my opinion the relation in this case is to far-fetched and just seems randomly picked, plenty of other things, like Taking the waters would be much closer to the subject (but also unnecessary to add). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Grandpallama please elaborate on what exactly qualifies as WP:PLOTBLOAT, because I went to find that exact manual of style entry after your initial reversion, which was a valid reversion. I then cut down the edit to the bare essentials to comply with said style entry. Now you are wholesale removing the edit repeatedly despite the chronology of the climactic scenes being wrong entirely, as well as the description of the rape scene preceding. Additionally, the closing scene added context due to the music cue implying a potential corruption of the main character, who has been unduly influenced by the "nightmarish treatments" earlier in the movie. This is a meaningful PLOT POINT, as I came to the page in the first place after seeing that closing scene and wondering if there were any interpretations seeing that as a cue for a sequel or that Volmer survived through the protagonist. DaPlat ( talk) 03:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Daplat
please elaborate on what exactly qualifies as WP:PLOTBLOATThis was explained on your talkpage.
I went to find that exact manual of style entry after your initial reversion, which was a valid reversionIf you understood it was valid, why did you continue to revert to your preferred version?
I then cut down the edit to the bare essentials to comply with said style entrySo you understood the issue with WP:PLOTBLOAT, despite having just said you didn't understand.
Now you are wholesale removing the edit repeatedly despite the chronology of the climactic scenes being wrong entirelyNo, I only reverted the repeatedly reinserted edits that tried to provide unnecessary amounts of minute detail.
There were other issues with your edit-- At that juncture, YOU were welcome to open a talkpage discussion.
Edit warring your preferred version back in when editorS object to the change is problematic.emphasis mine.
Simply stating you'll be adding them back in is an unwise moveUntil you engage on an editorial basis, I will be (or rather, have). As at this juncture, all I've seen from you is lazy wholesale reversion of a good faith edit with merit.
Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits.
f you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.
A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith.
Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.
your obnoxiously large egois an obvious personal attack, which you made after just being cautioned about such things. Grandpallama ( talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you should both try to relax a bit? If you honestly can't find a way to compromise, you can try dispute resolution. Wikipedia has a lot of arcane guidelines on how to write various parts of articles. This can make it difficult to get the version you want into the article, especially if another person thinks your version is worse. Dispute resolution can help to highlight relevant guidelines and find compromises that fit within them. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4731136/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_stry_pl. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NotAGenious ( talk) 13:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Is there a source to verify that "loosley based on a book" arguement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Greenrd and anyone who feels like having an opinion. I removed it, Greenrd restored it. [1]
Sure, MOS:SEEALSO allows links that are "only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." In my opinion the relation in this case is to far-fetched and just seems randomly picked, plenty of other things, like Taking the waters would be much closer to the subject (but also unnecessary to add). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Grandpallama please elaborate on what exactly qualifies as WP:PLOTBLOAT, because I went to find that exact manual of style entry after your initial reversion, which was a valid reversion. I then cut down the edit to the bare essentials to comply with said style entry. Now you are wholesale removing the edit repeatedly despite the chronology of the climactic scenes being wrong entirely, as well as the description of the rape scene preceding. Additionally, the closing scene added context due to the music cue implying a potential corruption of the main character, who has been unduly influenced by the "nightmarish treatments" earlier in the movie. This is a meaningful PLOT POINT, as I came to the page in the first place after seeing that closing scene and wondering if there were any interpretations seeing that as a cue for a sequel or that Volmer survived through the protagonist. DaPlat ( talk) 03:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Daplat
please elaborate on what exactly qualifies as WP:PLOTBLOATThis was explained on your talkpage.
I went to find that exact manual of style entry after your initial reversion, which was a valid reversionIf you understood it was valid, why did you continue to revert to your preferred version?
I then cut down the edit to the bare essentials to comply with said style entrySo you understood the issue with WP:PLOTBLOAT, despite having just said you didn't understand.
Now you are wholesale removing the edit repeatedly despite the chronology of the climactic scenes being wrong entirelyNo, I only reverted the repeatedly reinserted edits that tried to provide unnecessary amounts of minute detail.
There were other issues with your edit-- At that juncture, YOU were welcome to open a talkpage discussion.
Edit warring your preferred version back in when editorS object to the change is problematic.emphasis mine.
Simply stating you'll be adding them back in is an unwise moveUntil you engage on an editorial basis, I will be (or rather, have). As at this juncture, all I've seen from you is lazy wholesale reversion of a good faith edit with merit.
Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits.
f you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it.
A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith.
Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.
your obnoxiously large egois an obvious personal attack, which you made after just being cautioned about such things. Grandpallama ( talk) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you should both try to relax a bit? If you honestly can't find a way to compromise, you can try dispute resolution. Wikipedia has a lot of arcane guidelines on how to write various parts of articles. This can make it difficult to get the version you want into the article, especially if another person thinks your version is worse. Dispute resolution can help to highlight relevant guidelines and find compromises that fit within them. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4731136/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_stry_pl. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NotAGenious ( talk) 13:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)