Talk:Seven (1995 film): Difference between revisions

	Seven (1995 film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 20, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California: Los Angeles / Southern California C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force. This article is supported by Southern California task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: American C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Horror C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Cinema C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Thewolfchild seems intent on reverting my valid correction to the plot for some completely unexplained reason. As it stands, the plot can't stay the way it is, because any reader who hasn't seen the film for themselves is going to assume that Tracey is envy. The current plot is unclear and far from "fine the way it is" (as wolfchild put it). It is a requirement that plot summaries be accessible to all readers (not just those who are already familiar with the article's subject matter), so some substantial elucidation is needed to justify their reverts. DarkKnight2149 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh relax. You made an edit and you were reverted. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in. If not, then it doesn't. AFAIC, the plot was fine the way it is. It's been that way for awhile and it's not as if people have been struggling to understand it. Hope your day gets better... - ^theWOLFchild 23:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that as if you are entitled to have your preferred edit in the article just because you made a revert. That's not how Wikipedia works. Honestly, if you can't provide a genuine argument as to how it's "just fine", then your edit will be reverted by default. In the meantime, I would suggest you read our policies on articles and plot summaries. Sometimes, problems in articles will go by unnoticed or unfixed for years at a time. Just because no one has spoken up about it (until now) doesn't mean the plot summary was clear. Hell, it isn't even the only part of this frankly poorly written article that will confuse the vast number of readers not already well versed in the subject matter. Shrug my genuine points off all you want, but you do not own the article and talk pages are for actual discussion. DarkKnight2149 01:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest you read WP:BRD-NOT, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense exists, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Please avoid wiki-lawyering, as your very arguments (and lack of a valid one) are against policy. DarkKnight2149 01:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP's policies & guidelines yourself before you try preaching them to others. I don't claim to have the to final say here and don't, but neither do you. And, simply reverting you does not imply ownership, but accusing someone of ownership without the basis to do so is considered a personal attack. You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment? If you're going to get this bent outta shape every time you get reverted, you might want to consider another hobby other than editing Wikipedia. In the meantime, if there is support for your changes, then in they'll go. If there is isn't, then they won't. I think you already know all this, so calm down and hopefully your day will get better. - ^theWOLFchild 02:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack given that your very arguments are a violation of the policies I just named, and you still have not provided a valid reason for the revert. In fact, your only argument can be chalked up to "'Eh, as far as I am concerned, the previous edit was fine. No one has said anything before, so whatever." As previously stated, you need a valid reason to revert someone. And with your comment "You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?", you have pretty much confirmed that you only reverted me on the off-chance that someone might support you. You are in direct violation of WP:BRD-NOT, WP:LAWYER, WP:OWNERSHIP and, with your unsubstantiated WP:NPA accusation, WP:GAME. I will once again quote WP:OWN for you, "No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia). If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason." I would suggest that you (yes, you specifically) provide a valid reason for your revert. Otherwise, it will be reverted by default and attempting to edit war without actual elucidation will be met with a report (and any attempts to file a report on me would be an automatic WP:BOOMERANG given your statements on this post). DarkKnight2149 03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really expect a response to these increasingly hostile and uncivil rants? Look I didn't revert "in hope that others would support me", I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary. Get over it already. This constant bitching and whining isn't accomplishing anything. Take a break, give others a chance to contribute (others usually do here) and if there is support for your changes, then so be it. But jeez, relax already. It's like you're so pissed off that you can't type out your retorts fast enough and then you need to make another six edits to correct your mistakes because you don't even bother to use the preview button. Calm down, take the night off and come back to it tomorrow. The article isn't going anywhere and it will survive another day without your edit. Have a good evening. - ^theWOLFchild 03:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing hostile and uncivil here is your increasingly condescending responses. My posts were very straightforward, but they are hardly emotional. You simply didn't like what I had to say. And with "Get over it already. This constant bitching and whining isn't accomplishing anything. It's like you're so pissed off that you can't type out your retorts fast enough and then you need to make another six edits to correct your mistakes because you don't even bother to use the preview button", you can (ironically) add WP:NPA to the growing list of policies you are violating.

"I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary." - So you now say, suspiciously vaguely and without any proper explanation as to how they are unnecessary or in what way the previous edit was an improvement.

"Look I didn't revert 'in hope that others would support me'"" - That's not what comments such as "You made an edit and you were reverted. It happens all the time. If there is consensus to support your edit, then it goes back in", "You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?", and your utter lack of explanation for the revert (not to mention the blatant wiki-lawyering of WP:BRD and now your attempts at gaming) all seem to indicate. DarkKnight2149 04:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... more of the same. Is it at all possible for you to calm down, even a little, and maybe lay off the insults and accusations? Like I said, it is accomplishing nothing. - ^theWOLFchild 04:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"more of the same" - On that we agree. You still have yet to provide a solid explanation for the revert, instead continuing to deflect what I just said by going right back to your previous points (which I already refuted) without further elucidation. This is indeed not helping your case, especially when I have outlined precisely why I made the edit I did. DarkKnight2149 04:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about some "mellow jazz? Or bingo drums? Maybe a huge bag of weed...?" Anything to help you to ctfd. - ^theWOLFchild 05:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheOldJacobite, regarding this revert, I had added "custom made" because "bladed strap-on" is quite vague, and for the fifth murder, saying they are just "told about it" is incorrect as they actually "attend the murder scene" (which is important, as there are visual clues that aid the viewer in understanding the murder and how that particular sin applies, eg: "pride" scrawled on the wall and a huge portfolio photo of the victim on her own wall that not only indicates she was a model, but a vain one at that... vain enough to kill herself due to her disfigurement). With this in mind, would you consider restoring these minor, but helpful edits? Thanks & Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild has already been reported for edit warring, as well as the disruption seen in the discussion above. Although TheOldJacobite has every right to reply if they so choose, I think it's a little late for Thewolfchild to be discreet (especially after the clear final warning). DarkKnight2149 03:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "final warning" you're referring to, or why you're trying to derail this thread with your off-topic attack posts. But I was reverted by TheOldJacobite, and instead of freaking out, insulting the guy and accusing him of all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, I just figured I'd try discussing it with him in civil and mature manner. An approach that perhaps you should have tried. But you've now fired up an ANI instead, with some accusations you will have a hard time substantiating, such as "edit-warring", "own" and "incivility", especially in the face of your own persistent incivility here. I also posted this comment before you posted that ANI, so... there's another accusation down the drain... Are you sure you don't want to just chill out and discuss this here calmly like adults? Well... lemme know. (but I would like to keep this section on topic, thanks) - ^theWOLFchild 04:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no strong feelings about the plot changes. I don't think they're necessary, but I am not going to be drawn into this ridiculous argument. You both need to take a break from WP for a few days. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: - hi, just to be clear, I was asking you about your revert of my edit and nothing else. It's unfortunate that Dk2149 posted his comments here because I had no interest in drawing you into that drama. However, that said, I made an edit, you reverted, I came here, politely explained the the reasons for my edit further and asked that you reconsider your revert or at least clarify it a little further. Please don't conflate the above dispute with my request. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 19:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: - hi again. I see you've been active since the question to you directly above was posted. Can I expect a reply anytime soon? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 04:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw this and then got distracted. I've reconsidered my revert and think that the changes you made were helpful. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: Thanks for the reply and reconsidering your revert. The page is locked until next Monday, May 7, so the changes will have to wait until then, but I'm ok with that, there's no big hurry. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 15:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: We don't usually hash out months-old debates, or post threats to run straight to ANI if we don't get our way, via edit summaries, so I found your summary a little unusual. But, you made a bold edit, I reverted, if you would like to discuss it, in a mature a civil manner, I am certainly willing to. This would be the place to have such a discussion. - wolf 09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: If you recall, the prematurely-closed ANI report was filed because of your repeated refusal to provide a valid reason for your revert. WP:BRD in itself is not a valid reason to revert someone, and neither is "I don't like it" (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWNERSHIP). So now I am giving you a second chance to explain why you reverted my edit. Make no mistake - reverting someone for no discernible reason, demanding that they "gain consensus", and then holding the article hostage is highly disruptive.

You are willing to discuss. Let's discuss. Why are you strongly set on reverting my edit? Especially when it's such a minor edit that does nothing but correct an unnecessary confusing and poorly worded plot sentence? DarkKnight2149 09:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not attempt to hide your behaviour by archiving the entire previous discussions, before replying here with snarky dishonest comments like "We don't usually post threats to run straight to ANI if we don't get our way". Trying to avoid the subject by being uncivil every time your disruption is pointed out (while irrationally insisting that I am the one making personal attacks) was another main reason the last ANI report was filed. You were fortunate that it flew under the radar. DarkKnight2149 09:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Wow. I can't say I have ever seen someone carry so much anger and hostility for so long (4^1/2 months!), all over a single edit. You go and make the edit again, but with the summary;

"Clarifying that John Doe is envy. This was actually disputed a while back, but seeing four months has passed and still no explanation has been provided on the Talk Page. If Thewolfchild would actually like to discuss this, which he has repeatedly refused to do so, then he is free to provide one. Otherwise, the ANI case will have to be re-opened (it was closed prematurely last time)"

Just to be clear, your ANI report was not "closed prematurely"... it was not closed at all. It's still there in the ANI archive, as you left it, where not only you didn't get the response you wanted, but where there was some sound criticism that you certainly weren't expecting and obviously didn't like. You were advised that the ANI was inappropriate for a simple content dispute, that you should have sought dispute resolution or a third opinion, neither of which you did. Meanwhile, another editor familiar with the article agreed with the revert of your edit. That, along with the complete lack of support for your edit here, or anywhere else, and the failure of your ANI should have told you that enough is enough... let it go.

Speaking of archives, why have you re-posted archived discussions here, (including a discussion that had nothing to do with you or your edit), when a simple link would suffice? As in, "if anyone would care to see the previous discussion on this issue, please see here; Talk:Seven (1995 film)/Archive 3#Plot." Meanwhile, you come here again, in full froth, hurling accusations and a litany of WP-alphabet-links, none of which you really seem to have any support for. In the ANI, it was explained to you that I was following BRD, by trying to give others an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. WP:IDLI hardly applies (except to you perhaps... you certainly don't like being reverted). OWN can go both ways; you accuse me of it because I reverted you, I can accuse you of it because of the absurd tenacity you're displaying in trying to force your edit into this article. But I think enough accusations have been posted, don't you?

Despite your appalling attitude and hostility last time, and the fact that you immediately resumed that same approach with your recent edit summary, along with your renewed accusations, blatant and repeated lie about the ANI and your needless interference with talk page archives, I was, and still am, willing to give you an opportunity to discuss this like a calm and civilized adult. I don't agree with your edit, it is not an improvement and it is not necessary. The plot is clear enough and your extra verbiage does nothing to enhance it. If anything, it complicates it. There, I've explained why I disagree with your edit. Another editor disagrees as well. No one has supported it, despite all the widespread attention you have tried to bring to it, nor your efforts to add it again months later (to what is otherwise a fairly stable article).

As I see it, you can; a) drop the hostility and try being more collegial, b) try dispute resolution, or c) drop the stick. - wolf 10:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added note; Yep, I was trying to "hide my behaviour"... by linking to the very discussion I was trying to hide in my response. Oh puh-leeeze... will you lighten up with the repetitive and ridiculous accusations already? Just focus on your edit, for once, instead of constantly attacking me ffs. Are you even capable of a simple, mature and on-topic response? If not, then I think we're wasting our time here. - wolf 10:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]