User talk:Javits2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is at present occupied with ink and paper. Other media are taking a backseat.

Archives 1: 20. Nov. 2006 bis 3. Apr. 2007.

[edit] Re: Talking Points

I agree with you, but I figured that the edits are being so tendentious because some of the difficult editors are convinced that we aren't listening to them. Obviously some are just making noise, but I wanted Agha and whoever to get all their cards on the table and clearly define what their issues are. After they did so, others could post their agreement or disagreement, and then we would either get a third opinion, find consensus or vote. Personally, I like the edit that Maria put together, which sidesteps all of the nonsense and uncivil behavior. However, I think it wise to get this out now, while the article is fully protected from those who would simply "Edit By Stamina & Violations" (consistently tag-teaming the pre-agreed edits of the article so no one breaks 3RR and slowly eliminating, albeit temporarily those who disagree via 3RR or AN/I distractions). However, I will concede that this might not work. I concede to your greater experience with WP and editing. Arcayne 09:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will post it under a new header in 300 Talk. Arcayne 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
...A header called, Pick a Numbah, Any Numbah -Arcayne 10:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300 lead

Hey man, thanks for including me. I was actually previewing my response when I got the notice that you left me a mesage. Should be done posting shortly. Hewinsj 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've added my $0.02. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that short disappearance. I just gave my opinion in the talk page, although I don't think it'll do much. I don't agree with any uses of the "fictional" label as I've never seen it being applied on similar articles. Furthermore I can't prevent myself from feeling that Islamic chauvinism is having an influence even on wikipedia, implying that the Battle of Thermopylae is a work of fiction (because the word 'fiction' in the lead can easily imply that). This is why I'm in favour of a true neutral solution, along the lines of 3,4,5,6 proposed by Arcayne. Miskin 00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think it is a good idea, but I'm not sure if it's better or more "stable" than just leaving it blank. Miskin 00:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point as well and I'd be silly to deny that the film has a great deal of fictional elements. However I can't help but noticing all the historical elements as well, and if we could put an objective utility on both categories I'm pretty sure the fictional elements are minor. The gaps within those two hours are filled with the same thing that Alexander (film) was filled, fictional dialogues and storyline. My second argument is based on what currently is practiced in other similar articles. I don't want to bring up The Patriot again, so I'll point you to Gladiator (film), a film which is 100% fictional and declares "historical" right in the lead. So it appears that 300 is getting special treatment for the fairly obvious reasons. Miskin 00:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a legitimate vote

The lead is fine as it is. User:Arcayne is a party to the dispute, the vote he he has initiated, with options he's cherry picked, has no legitimacy. --Mardavich 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)