Talk:Brendan Filone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cleanup

The tone of this article does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. Examples: "the Tony Soprano crew" "smart-mouth" "egotistical loose cannon" "may have" "Unfortunately" "a little steep" "Moe Greene Special"

Additionally, there are no sources for the opinions and claims offered, and two pictures in an article this small pushes the limits of fair use licensing. The tag should not be removed by the author of the article. Kafziel 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've been looking at other Soprano articles, pics like these are everywhere. I would delete them, but I don't want to accidentally delete something that is meant to stay. In defense of the people who put them up, I do think it's a bit vague as to what is an acceptable photo and what is not. Though I suppose when a dozen people tell you to stop doing something, it may not be the right thing to do. --Orion Minor 15:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?! that's the best possible description. the only part in the whole article which is "added" from my perspective and on my terms is "People who don't play by the rules don't last very long"...that's it. Everything else was fine. If you go back to all the reverts, you'll see that one line is the reason why everyone kept tagging it. - Zarbon

See? This is what I'm talking about. Your lack of objectivity keeps this article (and others) looking amateurish and (by your own admission) like it was written by a fanboy. The tag stays. Kafziel 16:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No. You're being amateurish. If you were orderly and constructive, you would find a quick means of getting rid of tags. What the hell is the point of keeping tags when most of the article is fine. The one sentence that was causing the tag has already been removed for objectivity reasons. There's seriously nothing else that should be taken out, holding your own perspective of what's needed and what isn't. - Zarbon

The examples I gave you encompass a lot more than one sentence, and this isn't my perspective. I'm trying to help you here. I'm not the one who put the tag on in the first place. I'm not the one who has now tagged List of characters from The Shield (which was fine until I merged your content into it). Other people are telling you you're wrong, not just me. Kafziel 16:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

i understand that. but if you're really trying to help me, then you'll help fix the article so that the tags won't be there anymore. - Zarbon

You don't let me. When I've tried to do that on other articles, you try to start edit wars by reverting me. Even the smallest details or choice of words is "extremely important" to the article, in your opinion, so you don't let anyone change anything you write. Kafziel 16:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Your exact words were: "It doesn't bother me none as long as you enjoy yourself constantly resetting what i write." Kafziel 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I apologized for that...? Anyways, if you can find a way in which the tags are removed...I would be greatly thankful. But I do know for a fact that for example, "Moe Greene Special" is stated on the show and also in his character profile on the site back in 2000. - Zarbon

No, you didn't apologize for that. And you still haven't.

They called it a Moe Green special because that's how Moe Green was killed in The Godfather. That doesn't mean it's an official Mafia term, or that it belongs in the article. Kafziel 16:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. then sorry for that. How else would you like me to apologize. Look, I'm not trying to keep any grudges. As you can see, my only intention is to showcase the portrayal of my most favorite guy in a well-established manner. Please, somehow help out if you say you can. - Zarbon

I can help rewrite this (and The Shield articles) but you need to accept my changes, no matter how drastic you think they are. I'm not going to waste my time just to be reverted and accused of somehow being biased. I'm not one of those editors who thinks no fictional characters should be on Wikipedia, but I do believe they need to be treated carefully and with as little detail as is necessary to establish their notability within the work. If you are willing to accept that, I'm willing to rewrite the content to try to get the tags removed. Kafziel 16:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] past present fiction

Thank you, Kaz. I don't do much fiction at all. Are even dead fictional characters refered to in the present? I defer to you. Hpuppet - «Talk» 17:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay...everything seems fine, cept for one very major detail. Can you please add the "eye". it is of Major relevance to his character. in the end, "clean through the eye" or "through the eye" or "in his eye" or somehow or in some manner, the form of demise should be noted. - Zarbon

How is that "of major relevance to his character"? In what way does that develop his persona? His character is dead. The actions his character took in "life" are of relevance, and the fact that he was killed on orders from Junior, and maybe even the fact that he was killed in his bathtub. But you need to be able to let some of the smaller details go. Kafziel 17:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I did. The only detail that I want kept is the eye. that's it. nothing else. - Zarbon

Why is it important? What happens in later episodes that might have been different if, for example, he had been shot in the forehead? Kafziel 17:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Then he would not have been mentioned as receiving a "Moe Greene Special", which is a part of popular death scenes. The reference would further lead to Moe Greene and chained to Bugsy Siegel. It's relevant, it's not just my opinion. The hbo site found it relevant so I'm just going by the official site. - Zarbon

So someone later refers to it that way. How does that influence the plot? Of course the HBO site found it relevant; it's their show. They're allowed to have all kinds of irrelevant fan information. Wikipedia isn't the same. Kafziel 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously though, would it matter to you personally if the eye word was left there? Is it that much to quarrel over? Besides, you'd be making me plenty satisfied. (Dezerian with the foot cutting and the 2 shots to the chest - reference) - Zarbon

The phrasing, as Hpuppet fixed it, is better now, but the sentence seems pretty awkward with so much detail crammed into it (where he was, where he was shot, who shot him, and who else was there, all in the same sentence). It's acceptable enough, though. Kafziel 17:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! you don't know how much this means to me. Thank you so much. - Zarbon

[edit] Skill

I removed the bit about his real skill being truck hijacking. First of all, it implies that being a crystal meth addict is a skill, and secondly, he wasn't exactly skilled at hijacking - he failed to do his homework, robbed the wrong truck, botched the second attempt, and was killed for it. The point of his character was really that he didn't have any skills; his character was written to show what can happen to inexperienced criminals, particularly wannabe wise-guys, when they lose their focus to drugs and are desperate for money and respect. It's a similar theme from Goodfellas, and was repeated later with Christopher himself. Kafziel 17:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

and case in point, the imperfect-ness is what makes me love him so very much. i can relate to him. On another note, the reason why he jacks the second truck is not to pay Junior, but to get more. He simply didn't want to comply to orders, it had nothing to do with paying Junior the restitution. That was already paid. The jack was his plan simply to make extra cash. - Zarbon