User talk:123.100.132.143

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dog Soldiers

Badger Brock, I suggest you read Wikipedia's Manual of Style for film articles. I have already explained the situation to you. Now you are ignoring my explanation and continuing to revert. Very mature. Geoff B (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dog Soldiers 2

"Please stop deleting the plot. This is not speculation, the second plot has been confirmed by the director and other people involved with the project"

As soon as you provide a decent reference, then it stops being speculation. But until then, it's speculation. References for Wikipedia need to be written (yes, this is a major pain in the neck when someone says something on a DVD commentary and there is no written version, but that's the guideline) and they need to come from a sensible source: for example printed magazines count, undated blogs on the web don't. If you have not read the contents of WP:OR and WP:V and WP:RS, then now is a very good time to.
Incidentally, don't you think that arguing "this is not speculation" is a little fruitless when your text begins "There has been speculation concerning the plot, however there are two main storylines that the film could follow"?
Telsa (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)