User talk:MantisEars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Torrents

I'd like a better explanation on your removal of the content I added on Fitna (film) using the edit summary "he film soon became available on many torrent websites" is fine in a related paragraph, but by itself it just looks bad (just like "His wife is Hungarian.") comment out)".--Otterathome (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It stuck out by itself, not connected to a paragraph about its early release (scrambling the timeline). I removed it while working on the fifth paragraph about the second edition, so the fourth paragraph would be smaller. I always intended on adding it back after I got enough information about the second edition to balance the article. MantisEars (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
But you removed the commented out version as 'remove space' even though commented out content makes no difference to the look of the article. Having a hard time WP:AGF here.--Otterathome (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it did. At the beginning and the end of the comment, there were newlines which made an unusual space between the release section and the plot section, which I sought to remove. After I removed it, I realized I could have just removed the newlines, then I got your message. I went to reintegrate the torrent part into the fourth paragraph to resolve the conflict, but as I submitted my changes I saw that there was an edit conflict; you had already done it (in a way I wouldn't have, mentioning the torrents after the march 30 reinstatement, putting an artificial break between the security upgrade and Wilders' deletion.) MantisEars (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fitna (film)

I'm not in the business of giving out barnstars, but you deserve one. You are doing an unbelievably good job of keeping the Fitna article clean and on track. Alexwoods (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Except for failing to provide a solid citation for the inclusion of the term Scarlet Pimpernel. I am not sure where you heard that it is a nickname for someone wanting to remain anonymous, but that would be an incorrect assessment. By that reasoning, a person could call themselves, Zorro or Batman. We need a citation for the usage of the term from a reliable, verifiable source. Without it, it cannot be included. I've opened a discussion topic on the subject. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
On the discussion page for Fitna, you said there was not a single citation for its usage, here you say there are no solid citations. Because you posted this comment after the discussion, did you find the citation and decide it was not strong enough? What was wrong with it? In case you don't want to dig through the history, the citation was from NRC Handelsblad [1] MantisEars (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
MantisEars, I second what Alexwoods said. You're help at the Fitna article and its talk page has been invaluable. I'm sorry I haven't been able to assist you lately, but I lack the time, not to mention the energy, to stay on it. There has been quite some tiresome conflicts on the talk page, such as that obnoxious anon trying to frustrate everyone to reach his/her goals. I know that editing can be a real pain sometimes because of things like that. But somehow, so far, you haven't lost your cool yet, being able to muster up enough patience to keep going. Even though I must say that I do not always agree with you, I admire the huge ammount of time you have spend on helping out. Expect some rewards for this real soon. Yours sincerely, Face 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Marked Item as resolved based upon additional remarks at Reliable Source Notice Board.

The film credits are a perfectly acceptable source for film articles, and should be the preferred source for listing in the infobox. If, and only if, there is a reliable source backing up the Scarlet Pimpernel = Scarlet Pimpernel Productions should that information be added to the PROSE but not the infobox. Collectonian (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

♠ Hi from the "obnoxious Anon" referred to above by Face. My apologies for the undue stress I placed on you and the article - It was quite the education to see that your detached response to heated debate allowed you to place the article over personality. To have remained in control and sifted through the substance of the debate, and shown the magnanimity of changing your position and reverting your edit was a revelation. I am genuinely humbled, you are an asset to Wiki. 18:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.57.10 (talk)

Another obnoxious anon here =)... I wasnt aware I was breaking the rules of engagement in posting my mirror site; the site has remained up since its launch and has copies of the film available for direct download, and is the original unedited version of the film, with additional background information; because of this I thought it was a contribution to the discussion and added the link to the external links list. I do apologize if I broke any rules and would like to know what they are if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.74.92 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues here. One is the posting of your mirror site and another is the "unedited" film. First issue: for Wikipedia policy on the matter please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. "Mirror" films cannot be verified for their accuracy and often misrepresent the product. This would also be one of the reason why Wikipedia would not link to pirated versions of, say, Hollywood movies. For the second issue, you misunderstand what "edited" means in the context of Fitna. Geert Wilders originally released the first version of Fitna with a couple of errors, such as Salah Edin to depict Mohammed Bouyeri and the use of Kurt Westergaard's cartoons without permission. Facing lawsuits, he released a second "edited" version of the film correcting that. Basically, what you did was link to the liveleak version of the 2nd English language film below the "edited" link labeling it as "unedited" when they both point to the same thing. MantisEars (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But mine has Bill Cosby as Mohammed. That counts for nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.74.92 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes MantisEars (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Would you take a look at this[2] and see if enough support has been provided to correct the Infobox? As you know, the supporting reference speaks only of the involvement of a production company in the film - that all the players have chosen to share the same pseudonym is no reason to arbitrarily append the word Production to the credits unsourced. Additionally as per the RS noticeboard[3] using the Films credits is a Reliable Source - The Credits remain our only source as to the name of the Director, Writer and Editor. Wiki should reflect this verifiable fact and not the Wiki editors created term. Thank you.75.57.186.159 (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It has, now that you have taken the matter to the reliable sources noticeboard. I would still wait for Arcayne's response before making any changes to the article. MantisEars (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Marked Item as resolved based upon additional remarks at Reliable Source Notice Board.

The film credits are a perfectly acceptable source for film articles, and should be the preferred source for listing in the infobox. If, and only if, there is a reliable source backing up the Scarlet Pimpernel = Scarlet Pimpernel Productions should that information be added to the PROSE but not the infobox. Collectonian (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance to make the edit, that would be great - thanks again. 75.57.186.159 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit has been made. MantisEars (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.186.159 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've asked for clarification of that. I think the anon's bringing his 'unique' interpretation of civility might have colored the opinion. The logic was a bit flawed. I'll revert it back until we can get that clarification. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct listing for Director, Writeer and Editor was reverted, yet again, by Arcayne.

Since that time, still another clear statement of fact regarding the Reliable Source of the Credits has been posted:

We as viewers are not "citable" but the film's movie credits are the source, not the viewer, and as it is the primary source, it is the main one that is used. Again, as noted above, the infobox should use the name officially used in the credits, which is also the name that will appear on official registration documents, et al. In the prose, it can be stated that, "according to Patrice Katz, "Scarlet Pimpernel" is a doing business as name for "Friends of the PVV", which did not want its real name attached to the film." The use of another name for a production company is quite common, particularly among Japanese anime productions which often create Production companies named after the series that is made up of multiple companies. We list them by that production company name because it is the name they chose to do business as. We don't ignore their choice in name. Collectonian (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that this is a settled matter. If you should have the opportunity to correct this it would be appreciated.75.58.40.232 (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I will err on the side of caution and wait until the RS noticeboard has a
Resolved.
in place of its current
Unresolved.
MantisEars (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fitna no-wiki

Per this edit, do you think it would have been better to find a citation that notes it as a pseudonym rather tha hide it? I am concerned that someone will think it was simply removed and put it back in, which I think defeats the purpose. By putting a citation on the moniker usage, we open up the possibility of a section in the article on the anonymity issue as well, which I think could provide depth to the article. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read through the previous section, and saw the reference again to the Hasenblad citation. It stuck out because I had been (inaccurately) accused of having deleted it enough times that it stuck out. Looking at the reference, it doesn't say out and out that its a fake name, which I would think is pretty important. What do you think? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we are not sure that this is being used as a pseudonym; no sources confirm that. There are other sources, like the other one from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer[4] that only confirm a "Scarlet Pimpernel" had a place (this one in particular mentions a scriptwriter part) in the film. Is that enough for a place in the infobox? MantisEars (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, and for all the reasons I noted in the article discussion, I don't think we can. If it ere a person's actual name, it wouldn't be an issue at all, unless they were a noted polemicist, which might inspire an entire section to discuss their involvement. As we don't know who the person is - or even if they truly exist - we cannot take the logic step and allow them the same credit as someone whose name is known. Neither sources note that the name is a nom de guerre, we cannot include it. I understand that this is a bit more gray than simple uncited info, butI think we are still on good footing keeping it out until we can cite it. With the intensity of the media blitz, the name is sure to come to light. Dude, what if it were the Pope? Gah! - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What if it isn't a nom de guerre? Why do we have to act under the assumption that it is, is that the burden of knowledge? Would we be struggling to confirm this person's identity if they were named John Doe? Why can't we include Scarlet Pimpernel as if it were a real name (it looks reasonably like one) until we get more information? MantisEars (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to assume that the name is made up. Granted , there might be a Miss Scarlet Pimpernel out there, but I am willing to lay odds that there isn't. I urge patience. Something will come up sooner rather than later. We aren't in a hurry to include info; we just need to be sure. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay MantisEars (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for trusting me a little bi. Set the time. In one week, if something doesn't show up, we'll both go to an admn and get some backing for including it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Monday 7 April, 19:50 MantisEars (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As I was watching the film again during my lunch break, it came to me that the film is produced by Geert Wilders and Scarlet Pimpernel Productions1. The shortened form of 'Scarlet Pimpernel' was used in the same way that companies are shortened in the credits Icon, WB or like ILM is used in place of Industrial Light and Magic. It's not a person it's code for the entire production company. Unfortunately, the cite I just gave you is a blog. If there is a way to verify the existence of the Scarlet Pimpernel Production Company, we've got our citation for inclusion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, the use of symbols does hint at something bigger than one person! It could still be a small-scale operation — not a company, even one that does not usually work in the English language. Don't you think if such an operation was known, there would be [threats of] violence against them as there were for Wilders? MantisEars (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It might have been a small-scale limited production company, formed for the purpose of making the film. I am thinking that this idear should be discussed in the Fitna article discussion. Would you concur?- Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur. MantisEars (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A word of advice

MantisEars, I find some of your claims at the talk page of Fitna, about Islam and Muslim culture a bit disturbing in how inaccurate they are, and wonder if you shouldn't consider doing some research on Islam and on majority Muslim cultures. The most recent of these is the one about honor killings being "a core pillar of Islam." As I have pointed out in response to your comment there, here is the mainline verifiable and scholarly perspective on the issue, right from the entry on honor killings: "Islamic religious authorities prohibit extra-legal punishments such as honor killings, since they consider the practice to be a cultural issue." I don't want to accuse you of trying to spread lies because I honestly believe you are simply misinformed. It would be helpful to you and the rest of the community if you did some background research on these issues before issuing forth statements that are inaccurate and incendiary. Just a word of advice. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect public religious officials not to encourage their constituency not to break the law in Westernized countries, the sensible solution is to try to change the law, first for Muslims so Sharia court judgments are enforced, then for non-Muslims. There is a disparity between what is said to the community and what is said to the outside world, especially with regards to practices looked down upon in countries where women have rights and so forth. There is also the issue of terminology, whether to call honor killings (as I do) honor killings, or capital punishment. The latter blurs the line between universally accepted crimes like murder, or Islamic crimes like adultery, but this is a matter of POV, not fact. Most importantly, in the context of Fitna, these heinous acts do not have to be “pan-Islamic” to be shown in the film, this is Wilders' fear of the existing population in the Netherlands, of which he surely knows more about the customs and crimes than you or I.
I appreciate the advice though, and will aim to educate myself about this interesting topic. MantisEars (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My concerns here are with your language, and not the films. You made the statement I quoted and you have not substantiated it. I have provided you with a more mainline perspective, but I'd like to know how you justify claiming that honor killings are "a core pillar of Islam?"PelleSmith (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, "core pillar of Islam" implies that Islam advertises it as a fundamental principle, which I can see by the religious leader's statement it is not. I will change that to "core pillar of what it means to be Islamic", because it is a key principle for any religion that can be readily accepted and integrated into a patriarchal culture. MantisEars (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Your new wording may be even more incendiary, and is clearly equally unsubstantiated. How do you propose to substantiate this claim? You're not taking my advice btw, just dancing around it as the hole under your feet gets wider and wider.PelleSmith (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that this is progress, when we were debating the inclusion of Fitna into an unnamed category, I was trying to explain to you how "Islam" and "Islamic" are very different things! "Islam" refers to "Islam" in its purest form, while "Islamic" can mean anything with influences from Islam, including the tribal cultures from Africa that practice honor killings. It is probably not universal in its scope, which is why I did not use the word "Islam". MantisEars (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That is an odd and non-normative distinction you are making. Besides that fact when you say a "core pillar of what it means to be Islamic" you are making a statement about everybody who is "Islamic", without qualification, or at the very least a vast majority. You keep on refusing to substantiate this claim, and I'm beginning to understand that you are not interested in doing so. If you are in fact willfully spreading misinformation then I am disinterested in this conversation, which was based on the premise that you were acting in good faith. My patience grows thin in that regard.PelleSmith (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying here, and I have removed the "core pillar" bit because I have determined that it does not detract from my message, that those who protest these actions are not respectful of Islamic culture (or culture with Islamic influences if you prefer) and can be called "Anti-Islam". MantisEars (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm at the end of my rope. I see no good faith here at all, just a slow infuriating dance around the fact that you have no factual basis for anything you are claiming. Good luck with that.PelleSmith (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I am truly sorry to hear that you're at the end of your rope, your insight helped me differentiate between the local culture of the Arabian peninsula and Islam, and it has been reflected in my comments. You can't please everyone while trying to stay neutral, especially in these affairs where Muslims have a near-monopoly on understanding of Islamic culture due to the language barrier. I will continue my studies to try to change this for the better. MantisEars (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barn Star

The Barnstar of Liberty
This is for all the great work you've put into keeping Free Speech alive and well on the Fitna (film) page Schrandit (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bygeert.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bygeert.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tabasco.svg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Tabasco.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sdrtirs (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image was uploaded the image on 17:00, tagged for deletion at 17:03, and used on 17:04. MantisEars (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot Edits

Please be more careful using peerreviewer. I just corrected several problems created here [5]. Peerreviewer is not perfect, and you must check that its suggestions make sense. Thanks! Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the problems with peerreviewer, and I do review the results. If you wanted to know, I ran the peerreview through the article mainly to correct the wrong reference placing (wrong[1]. wrong. [2] right.[3]) and expose deeper problems with the article (such as some references not having titles) which I corrected manually.
Because you didn't mention any of these “problems” caused by peerreviewer, I assumed they were too numerous to count. They were not (only 2 of the same type). The error was a typical converting "[Added text] inside of a quote" to a "[[Added text]] inside of a quote" as if [Added text] was a link to an article — people genuinely make that mistake. Because the article is quite large I didn't spot it, but the benefits of the peerreview were greater than the minor annoyance the errors may have caused. MantisEars (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

An article that you have been involved in editing, Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

[edit] Two TfD nominations

A set of two templates that you have been involved in editing, Template:Ron Paul and Template:RonPaul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 23#Template:Ron Paul and/or Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21#Template:RonPaul. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? JJB 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paulville, Texas

I have just created a new article at Paulville, Texas, and wanted to invite you and a handful of other friends to have first crack at helping to improve it. Cheers! JJB 21:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Circle K.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Circle K.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Couche-Tard.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Couche-Tard.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)