![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Should We add this [1] in here its pretty relavent i mean snakes in a movie theatre while snakes on a plane is playing?
Does anyone have the full quote for the most famous line in the movie? "Enough is enough! I've had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane! ..." I forget what comes after the most famous part of it. I remember it has something to do with making sure everybody holds on because they're about to open some windows...
The full quote is "Enough is enough! I have had it with these mtoherfuckin' snakes on this motherfuckin' plane! Everybody strap in! I'm about to open some fuckin' windows." Here's a video for proof. -- Norar 09:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm unprotecting this page to give it another chance, if it gets crazy, protection may come (from any admin). Also, we need to keep cool heads. Let's hope we all can work well together. Yank sox 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"most internet-hyped [sic]" is a grossly unnecessary use of [sic]. Let's try to keep this out of the article. Both lowercase and uppercase spellings for internet are now widely accepted. The entire "spellings" section of the OED entry for "Internet, n." is "Also with lower-case initial." A google search for other articles on Wikipedia using "internet [sic]" turns up just one example — you can guess whose quote it is — and it's not someone trying to push an Internet/internet spelling POV. — ptk✰ fgs 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The article makes numerous references to the reshooting, but doesn't specify what scenes were added. I have not found out anywhere any information about this. Does anyone know and should it be added?
I removed/deleted the following
<block> The phrase "Snakes on a Plane" has been used as Internet slang to indicate that a given topic is nonsensical [1] . With creative uses of capital letters, bold or italic text, and punctuation the title has been manipulated to reflect surprise, horror, or absurdity, among other things. The meme is often interspersed with images of Samuel L. Jackson reprising his role as Mace Windu and quoting lines recalling his roles from both the Star Wars series and Pulp Fiction. The slang form "SoaP" is used in place of " Shit happens" or "Oh well, what'cha gonna do?" </block>
Do others agree w/ my decision? I double checked the sources. The faux source is an internet page which allows the user to create their own definition. By that logic I could create a definition at the webpage www.urbandictionary.com, then return to wiki and cite myself as a source. Forums are not allowed as far as I know. Correct? I do not believe in the authencity of this contribution. Sounds made up. Jessicarowls 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I found that I had the August 15th episode of The Daily Show on my PVR. I captured, cropped, and retouched a new version of the image. It appears to be of the exact same frame. I had to paint out the TV14 and CC logos, but I think it's a definite improvement. — ptk✰ fgs 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles say that we should generally avoid Trivia sections. Though this isn't an official Wikipedia policy, I think it makes sense to incorporate the trivia into other sections of the article. This is more manageable than an indiscriminate list of information. So ask the other editors, if you see a piece of trivia that could be incorporated into another paragraph, do so. I'll try as well. Lovelac7 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Should a list of the snakes in movie be included in the article? I jokingly suggested it as a section called "Snakes on the Plane" a while back, but it seems like something the article would benifit from, heck, would be required. I just have no idea how to go about it. JQF 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought people working on this article might enjoy this (or you may not) Maddocks: Homeland Security bans Samuel L. Jackson from all flights Mad Jack 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that usually a major reason for box office "flops" (SoaP didn't flop, just underachieved) and something producers want to avoid?
From
MPAA film rating system article:
On the other hand, the R rating also has a negative effect on the box office performance, due to common social and cultural controversies. In fact, most R rated films released in the 1990s generated a box office revenue of less than $100 million.
This article is shaping up nicely! Although, Concerned w/ POV material slithering (pun) its way into article.
Editors claim Jackson dialogue is famous. Inconsistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Quoting WP:NPOV
Insert SOAP example for purposes of illustrating my concern
Again Quoting WP:NPOV
"Samuel Jackson reciting the already-famous line,"
"FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel Jackson) reciting oneliner from film, an audience favorite."
Addresses my primary concern. No attempt made to quantify how "famous". Too nebulous. Why I oppose original wording.
Bolded section that (for me) is most important part of this dispute. Want to come half-way point with competing editors.
My boundaries:
Support mentioning the oneliner's popularity.
Oppose claims that the film's oneliner is famous as a statement of fact.
Purpose of Wikipedia is to educate the reader in a way that is the clearest, most direct wording possible. Claiming dialogue is "already-famous" assumes that mostly everyone reading article already knows what Neville Flynn is saying. Huh? Our goal as editors should be to educate readers unfamiliar with movie. I imagine that's why readers are surfing Wikipedia, to learn about more about this film. Showed article to my spouse from India. He didn't know what the caption was refering to. Basically including link/citation not sufficient. We need to explain who considers this popular, requiring an "identifiable and objectively quantifiable population". WP:NPOV
Wanna take a crack at it? More willing to accept famousness of oneliner if someone can provide NPOV revision. My good faith effort to avoid edit war. Please work with me. mkthxbye Jessicarowls 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Support that the line is in fact famous. Fame doesn't imply that everyone is familiar with it, but there is plenty of evidence that the line was popularized in the media well before the release of the movie. Perhaps "notorious" would be a better description, though. MFNickster 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Jessicarowls ( talk · contribs) is yet another Guerillafilm ( talk · contribs) meat/sockpuppet. [2] And this has been discussed to bits. The four cited references don't say "popular". They say "already-famous". Change the wording when five reliable sources refute this.
chocolateboy 12:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already taken a look at Wikipedia's guidelines concerning censorship, but this article takes it to a whole new level. I don't understand why it's necessary to include profanity in the thumb for Image:Haditwiththesesnakes.JPG. While I don't really find it a problem with quotations discussing the development and/or production, is it necessary to use the same word multiple times to express a view? Perhaps it should be shortened to "FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) reciting the film's 'already-famous' catchphrase". The quotation is already in the History section and readdressing the same point over and over is silly. Crimson-Radar 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't help wondering, if someone is interested enough in the movie to read this article, they are surely interested enough to see the movie. Don't you think viewers who are sensitive to this kind of language would avoid the movie and everything to do with it? MFNickster 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Snakesonaskateboard has been removing a lot of quotes that have been with the article for a long time. I don't think they are vandalism, he just wants to remove them. I would revert them, but after watching the recent reverting war, I don't know how to mess with it. Should they be included back in the article? I just don't think he should be removing all of these quotes without discussing it first. -- Nehrams2020 06:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What was the deal with him supposedly being in this movie? Our theater hands out little pamplhets detailing who is in the movie, etc. and Benjamin McKenzie was listed. I remember him being on the cast list on IMDb and on here. Was that just a rumour that got out of control? I mean he obviously wasn't in the actual film, but I'm just curious. Morhange 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I was told that this movie is a remake of an earlier film (probably not by the same title) but I don't really believe it- and I can't find anything on it. Can anyone confirm/deny? 72.49.248.114 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)dethtoll
The infobox for this film is very long, mostly due to every single producer being listed. I think only the main producers should be in the infobox, and the executives and associates (unless very notable, eg. it was also the star of the film) should be left for the IMDb links. There are only three producers for this film, and well over ten associate and executives..I just dont see it practical to list them all... Soapyrules 10:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Is four items of Trivia really too much? WilyD 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Are these deviations from "more" and "motherfucking" really necessary as they appear in the quotes in this article? Wikipedia articles don't make a point of writing quotes phonetically unless it is important to the topic at hand, as the cause of a misunderstanding for example. Here it just seems pointless, how is it any different than the old habit of spelling "going" as "g'wan" when black people said it?
Do we really need a section on what products were placed in this movie? Do we? Metros232 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
From WP:EL adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers. The page now has about 16 in the external links section alone. I believe their is some scope for consolidating this into a core set of a few links. Perhaps the section should just point at a SOAP dmoz directory? -- Oscarthecat 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The link to Call and response leads to something primarily about African tribal music which is totally irrelevant to the concept of theatre audience participation.
I was going to fix this, except that ' Audience participation' just redirects to ' Audience' which is a stub.
Worse, while 'Audience' briefly touches on the idea of Audience Participation, it refers to the Rocky Horror Picture Show and references Callback (comedy) which described somehting other than what is referred to by RHPS callbacks.
This means that this whole section of information is pretty mangled and I don't have the time to fix it, but if someone else does they should probably look at this and provide some sort of informational article dealing specifically with Audience Participation, Callbacks, and the like so that this, RHPS, and so on can actually properly point at something relevant.
Right now it's just a mothafuckin' mess on a mothafuckin' wiki.
I suggested this earlier, but it kinda got lost in the shuffle. Do people think this might be usable?
Zagalejo 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
One of the sections in the contents is called "Survivors of Flight 121". Isn't this a spoiler because it pretty much says that there are characters that survive? I would shift the spoiler warning before the Contents, but I thought it'd be better to get the opinion of others before I do. -- Norar 10:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Does there even really need to be a section about the survivors in the first place? -- Norar 09:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the three movie review links with a link to MRQE, the IMDB of movie reviews. I'm not sure why this is not used more often on Wikipedia it is a fantastic source. The only possible complaint is that it puts all the eggs in one basket if MRQE ever went away there would be no review (unlikely, it's been around a long time, at least as long as IMDB). There also may be a couple reviews that stand apart as being exemplary in writing style or length and are often cited that need to be highlighted. -- Stbalbach 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't these be in alphabetical order?-- Hamedog Talk| @ 02:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Was this recent news story a hoax, based on the popularity of the film? A Google search gives tonnes of results... Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Guerillafilm continues to wage POV wars in this article despite being banned for sockpuppetry:
chocolateboy 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Enough of this rubbish mate. I'm no'one's sockpuppet & unaware of your dispute with editor Guerilafilms. We have never met mister & I prefer "civility" in these exchanges, inviting you to work with me to better the SoaP article. Knee-jerks attacks on my person are no brainer violations against long-established wikipedia guidelines of good faith and civility. WP:FAITH WP:CIV
Perhaps a reminder is in order:
WP:CIV Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
* Rudeness (Your incendiary & persistent sarcasm). * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("Calling me a sockpuppet") * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice (Assuming anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet) * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (Calling me a sockpuppet based upon one or two edits from my IP) * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." ("If you have an objection to being called out on your sockpuppetry" Chocolateboy) * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.(Mister you're making it clear with your behavior that you haven't the slighest desire to resolve this dispute peacefully).
More serious examples include:
* Defacing user pages (Your knee-jerk use of banners. Why not 'ask me' first before vandalizing my userpage?) * Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove trolling (Unfairly labeling moi a "sockpuppet") * Calling for bans or blocks (Threatening to ban me by pointing to other users who have been banned, tsk, tsk.)
Maybe there're sockpuppets you've dealt with previously, however, that is not my concern here 'bloke'.
Indeed you speak the truth that a caption is no place to explain a bold opinionated assertion about a polarizing cinematic experience. Hence forth, the source of my dispute. Your assertion doesn't belongs inside a caption. Why not move it to somewhere 'else' in the article so you can quote the proper publications correctly? Cramming your opinionated assertion into a caption is a deceptive way to pass an opinion off as fact & I could not find any sources currently or recently claiming the noteriety of this bit of dialogue, hence my use of the words 'hype.' A "famous" movie would be discussed repeatedly in past, 'present' and future, don'cha think mate? This is not the case which is why I don't personally any of this. However, I agree the noteriety of the dialogue should be discussed in some form & you indeed listed some valid sources. Why not move the contribution to the history section in order to properly cite "famous" because the caption is no place for it.
Let's get along bloke & be good mates. Life's good mister so smile. :) Let us be friends. 71.208.89.57 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I heard a rumour that Jackson took the role in the movie thinking that "Snakes on a Plane" was a metaphor for something else, not the literal content of the film. Has anyone else heard this and are there any sources to back it up?
Seriously?! 4.89.247.164 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Should We add this [1] in here its pretty relavent i mean snakes in a movie theatre while snakes on a plane is playing?
Does anyone have the full quote for the most famous line in the movie? "Enough is enough! I've had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane! ..." I forget what comes after the most famous part of it. I remember it has something to do with making sure everybody holds on because they're about to open some windows...
The full quote is "Enough is enough! I have had it with these mtoherfuckin' snakes on this motherfuckin' plane! Everybody strap in! I'm about to open some fuckin' windows." Here's a video for proof. -- Norar 09:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm unprotecting this page to give it another chance, if it gets crazy, protection may come (from any admin). Also, we need to keep cool heads. Let's hope we all can work well together. Yank sox 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"most internet-hyped [sic]" is a grossly unnecessary use of [sic]. Let's try to keep this out of the article. Both lowercase and uppercase spellings for internet are now widely accepted. The entire "spellings" section of the OED entry for "Internet, n." is "Also with lower-case initial." A google search for other articles on Wikipedia using "internet [sic]" turns up just one example — you can guess whose quote it is — and it's not someone trying to push an Internet/internet spelling POV. — ptk✰ fgs 14:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The article makes numerous references to the reshooting, but doesn't specify what scenes were added. I have not found out anywhere any information about this. Does anyone know and should it be added?
I removed/deleted the following
<block> The phrase "Snakes on a Plane" has been used as Internet slang to indicate that a given topic is nonsensical [1] . With creative uses of capital letters, bold or italic text, and punctuation the title has been manipulated to reflect surprise, horror, or absurdity, among other things. The meme is often interspersed with images of Samuel L. Jackson reprising his role as Mace Windu and quoting lines recalling his roles from both the Star Wars series and Pulp Fiction. The slang form "SoaP" is used in place of " Shit happens" or "Oh well, what'cha gonna do?" </block>
Do others agree w/ my decision? I double checked the sources. The faux source is an internet page which allows the user to create their own definition. By that logic I could create a definition at the webpage www.urbandictionary.com, then return to wiki and cite myself as a source. Forums are not allowed as far as I know. Correct? I do not believe in the authencity of this contribution. Sounds made up. Jessicarowls 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I found that I had the August 15th episode of The Daily Show on my PVR. I captured, cropped, and retouched a new version of the image. It appears to be of the exact same frame. I had to paint out the TV14 and CC logos, but I think it's a definite improvement. — ptk✰ fgs 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles say that we should generally avoid Trivia sections. Though this isn't an official Wikipedia policy, I think it makes sense to incorporate the trivia into other sections of the article. This is more manageable than an indiscriminate list of information. So ask the other editors, if you see a piece of trivia that could be incorporated into another paragraph, do so. I'll try as well. Lovelac7 20:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Should a list of the snakes in movie be included in the article? I jokingly suggested it as a section called "Snakes on the Plane" a while back, but it seems like something the article would benifit from, heck, would be required. I just have no idea how to go about it. JQF 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought people working on this article might enjoy this (or you may not) Maddocks: Homeland Security bans Samuel L. Jackson from all flights Mad Jack 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that usually a major reason for box office "flops" (SoaP didn't flop, just underachieved) and something producers want to avoid?
From
MPAA film rating system article:
On the other hand, the R rating also has a negative effect on the box office performance, due to common social and cultural controversies. In fact, most R rated films released in the 1990s generated a box office revenue of less than $100 million.
This article is shaping up nicely! Although, Concerned w/ POV material slithering (pun) its way into article.
Editors claim Jackson dialogue is famous. Inconsistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Quoting WP:NPOV
Insert SOAP example for purposes of illustrating my concern
Again Quoting WP:NPOV
"Samuel Jackson reciting the already-famous line,"
"FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel Jackson) reciting oneliner from film, an audience favorite."
Addresses my primary concern. No attempt made to quantify how "famous". Too nebulous. Why I oppose original wording.
Bolded section that (for me) is most important part of this dispute. Want to come half-way point with competing editors.
My boundaries:
Support mentioning the oneliner's popularity.
Oppose claims that the film's oneliner is famous as a statement of fact.
Purpose of Wikipedia is to educate the reader in a way that is the clearest, most direct wording possible. Claiming dialogue is "already-famous" assumes that mostly everyone reading article already knows what Neville Flynn is saying. Huh? Our goal as editors should be to educate readers unfamiliar with movie. I imagine that's why readers are surfing Wikipedia, to learn about more about this film. Showed article to my spouse from India. He didn't know what the caption was refering to. Basically including link/citation not sufficient. We need to explain who considers this popular, requiring an "identifiable and objectively quantifiable population". WP:NPOV
Wanna take a crack at it? More willing to accept famousness of oneliner if someone can provide NPOV revision. My good faith effort to avoid edit war. Please work with me. mkthxbye Jessicarowls 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Support that the line is in fact famous. Fame doesn't imply that everyone is familiar with it, but there is plenty of evidence that the line was popularized in the media well before the release of the movie. Perhaps "notorious" would be a better description, though. MFNickster 21:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Jessicarowls ( talk · contribs) is yet another Guerillafilm ( talk · contribs) meat/sockpuppet. [2] And this has been discussed to bits. The four cited references don't say "popular". They say "already-famous". Change the wording when five reliable sources refute this.
chocolateboy 12:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already taken a look at Wikipedia's guidelines concerning censorship, but this article takes it to a whole new level. I don't understand why it's necessary to include profanity in the thumb for Image:Haditwiththesesnakes.JPG. While I don't really find it a problem with quotations discussing the development and/or production, is it necessary to use the same word multiple times to express a view? Perhaps it should be shortened to "FBI agent Neville Flynn (Samuel L. Jackson) reciting the film's 'already-famous' catchphrase". The quotation is already in the History section and readdressing the same point over and over is silly. Crimson-Radar 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't help wondering, if someone is interested enough in the movie to read this article, they are surely interested enough to see the movie. Don't you think viewers who are sensitive to this kind of language would avoid the movie and everything to do with it? MFNickster 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Snakesonaskateboard has been removing a lot of quotes that have been with the article for a long time. I don't think they are vandalism, he just wants to remove them. I would revert them, but after watching the recent reverting war, I don't know how to mess with it. Should they be included back in the article? I just don't think he should be removing all of these quotes without discussing it first. -- Nehrams2020 06:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What was the deal with him supposedly being in this movie? Our theater hands out little pamplhets detailing who is in the movie, etc. and Benjamin McKenzie was listed. I remember him being on the cast list on IMDb and on here. Was that just a rumour that got out of control? I mean he obviously wasn't in the actual film, but I'm just curious. Morhange 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I was told that this movie is a remake of an earlier film (probably not by the same title) but I don't really believe it- and I can't find anything on it. Can anyone confirm/deny? 72.49.248.114 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)dethtoll
The infobox for this film is very long, mostly due to every single producer being listed. I think only the main producers should be in the infobox, and the executives and associates (unless very notable, eg. it was also the star of the film) should be left for the IMDb links. There are only three producers for this film, and well over ten associate and executives..I just dont see it practical to list them all... Soapyrules 10:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Is four items of Trivia really too much? WilyD 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Are these deviations from "more" and "motherfucking" really necessary as they appear in the quotes in this article? Wikipedia articles don't make a point of writing quotes phonetically unless it is important to the topic at hand, as the cause of a misunderstanding for example. Here it just seems pointless, how is it any different than the old habit of spelling "going" as "g'wan" when black people said it?
Do we really need a section on what products were placed in this movie? Do we? Metros232 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
From WP:EL adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers. The page now has about 16 in the external links section alone. I believe their is some scope for consolidating this into a core set of a few links. Perhaps the section should just point at a SOAP dmoz directory? -- Oscarthecat 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The link to Call and response leads to something primarily about African tribal music which is totally irrelevant to the concept of theatre audience participation.
I was going to fix this, except that ' Audience participation' just redirects to ' Audience' which is a stub.
Worse, while 'Audience' briefly touches on the idea of Audience Participation, it refers to the Rocky Horror Picture Show and references Callback (comedy) which described somehting other than what is referred to by RHPS callbacks.
This means that this whole section of information is pretty mangled and I don't have the time to fix it, but if someone else does they should probably look at this and provide some sort of informational article dealing specifically with Audience Participation, Callbacks, and the like so that this, RHPS, and so on can actually properly point at something relevant.
Right now it's just a mothafuckin' mess on a mothafuckin' wiki.
I suggested this earlier, but it kinda got lost in the shuffle. Do people think this might be usable?
Zagalejo 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
One of the sections in the contents is called "Survivors of Flight 121". Isn't this a spoiler because it pretty much says that there are characters that survive? I would shift the spoiler warning before the Contents, but I thought it'd be better to get the opinion of others before I do. -- Norar 10:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Does there even really need to be a section about the survivors in the first place? -- Norar 09:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the three movie review links with a link to MRQE, the IMDB of movie reviews. I'm not sure why this is not used more often on Wikipedia it is a fantastic source. The only possible complaint is that it puts all the eggs in one basket if MRQE ever went away there would be no review (unlikely, it's been around a long time, at least as long as IMDB). There also may be a couple reviews that stand apart as being exemplary in writing style or length and are often cited that need to be highlighted. -- Stbalbach 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't these be in alphabetical order?-- Hamedog Talk| @ 02:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Was this recent news story a hoax, based on the popularity of the film? A Google search gives tonnes of results... Zyxoas ( talk to me - I'll listen) 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
User:Guerillafilm continues to wage POV wars in this article despite being banned for sockpuppetry:
chocolateboy 23:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Enough of this rubbish mate. I'm no'one's sockpuppet & unaware of your dispute with editor Guerilafilms. We have never met mister & I prefer "civility" in these exchanges, inviting you to work with me to better the SoaP article. Knee-jerks attacks on my person are no brainer violations against long-established wikipedia guidelines of good faith and civility. WP:FAITH WP:CIV
Perhaps a reminder is in order:
WP:CIV Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
* Rudeness (Your incendiary & persistent sarcasm). * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("Calling me a sockpuppet") * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice (Assuming anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet) * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (Calling me a sockpuppet based upon one or two edits from my IP) * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." ("If you have an objection to being called out on your sockpuppetry" Chocolateboy) * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.(Mister you're making it clear with your behavior that you haven't the slighest desire to resolve this dispute peacefully).
More serious examples include:
* Defacing user pages (Your knee-jerk use of banners. Why not 'ask me' first before vandalizing my userpage?) * Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove trolling (Unfairly labeling moi a "sockpuppet") * Calling for bans or blocks (Threatening to ban me by pointing to other users who have been banned, tsk, tsk.)
Maybe there're sockpuppets you've dealt with previously, however, that is not my concern here 'bloke'.
Indeed you speak the truth that a caption is no place to explain a bold opinionated assertion about a polarizing cinematic experience. Hence forth, the source of my dispute. Your assertion doesn't belongs inside a caption. Why not move it to somewhere 'else' in the article so you can quote the proper publications correctly? Cramming your opinionated assertion into a caption is a deceptive way to pass an opinion off as fact & I could not find any sources currently or recently claiming the noteriety of this bit of dialogue, hence my use of the words 'hype.' A "famous" movie would be discussed repeatedly in past, 'present' and future, don'cha think mate? This is not the case which is why I don't personally any of this. However, I agree the noteriety of the dialogue should be discussed in some form & you indeed listed some valid sources. Why not move the contribution to the history section in order to properly cite "famous" because the caption is no place for it.
Let's get along bloke & be good mates. Life's good mister so smile. :) Let us be friends. 71.208.89.57 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I heard a rumour that Jackson took the role in the movie thinking that "Snakes on a Plane" was a metaphor for something else, not the literal content of the film. Has anyone else heard this and are there any sources to back it up?
Seriously?! 4.89.247.164 19:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)