Talk:Seven (1995 film)/Archive 3

2573:

There is no dispute that Doe's sin was Envy and that Tracy died as a result of his sin. Nor is there any dispute that Mills "became" the embodiment of Wrath, and killed Doe, ergo Doe died as a result of Mills sin of Wrath. That is what we see and hear onscreen, and the QUO version reflects that. As I said in my earlier comments, I don't see the need for the repeated use of the synonymous word "jealous/jeaously" when "Envy" and "envious" are not only sufficient, but more appropriate. The sin is "Envy" after all, and we even have it linked. Any further hand-holding of the reader is simply not needed. The more significant change further along, however, is cause for more concern. Look at how you went right into your interpretation/explanation of who-committed-which-sin-and-who-died-because-of-which-sin. My concern is that the additional wording will open the door to just that kind of interpretation. This is

526:, it started as a blank page. The only way they get created, expanded and for the most part, improved, is by adding content. What have you added? How is gutting this page of a significant amount of sourced and relevant content making it better, as opposed to taking that content and making some changes? Also keep in mind that everyone here is volunteer editor, and no one appointed you as a managing editor, and no one is "well served" by demeaning criticism and insults. You are no great artist here, it's easy to swoop in afterwards, carving away at everyone else's work and mouthing off while doing it, but that doesn't make you any kind of a savior of this project. Now, are we done here? I think we're done here. Try to cheer up and have a nice day - 1009:", 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. - 1960:. Ask. Not attack. One of the first things I did was ask you to calm down. I asked you to give others a chance to contribute. Another editor has, and he has now.repeatedly reverted your changes, taking the article back to its original stable version. I don't agree with your edit. I explained why. You don't like my explanation, so you're gonna what...? Try to get me blocked because its "not good enough for you"? What about the other editor? Does he have to provide an explanation for his revert ot face your ANI wrath? Another point that I think is important, with all the drama and attention you tried to bring to your edit, and despite how long you've dragged it out, 1204:, 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 - 1631:." 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? 1707:(seems I have to keep adding these everytime you do something). I pointed out, with a simple link, the previous discussion that was had on this issue, from over 4 months ago. But it seems you felt the need to cut & paste the entire discussion here, removing it from the archive page. For some strange reason, you believe people are really interested in wading through 15,500+ bytes of argumentative nonsense. Ok, fine... have it your way. But when I simply collapse it, so potential users will see the current discussion (and still have the option of reading through the old one), what do you do? 2578:

I could have initially provided more of an explanation with my first revert, but even though I didn't, even though a slow edit war ensued, even though there was a lengthy back-and-forth on the talk page and even though this was brought before the mass audience of that circus known as ANI, during all that, no one spoke up and said, "DK's edit is better". No one. Now, that's that meant as a shot at you, but all of that is telling, and it reinforces what I said about stability. The numerous daily readers, the fans of this film, and the 200+ page watchers here are satisfied with the QUO version.

658:

title sequence is one that is highly praised (which I still have to find the original sources to be able to include that but one should include a New York Times Magazine article). Thus, discussion of the title sequence is noted in sources and could be expanded upon, starting from the quote and its source that was provided. Deletion should only be the case if you can find no other compelling means to improve the content - eg if the only discussion of the title sequence was from that source and nothing else, then by UNDUE there might be a valid reason to remove it. --

2609:". He goes to explain how "the seven sins, and the seven virtues, were used in medieval sermons, created as a learning tool". Basically, if you are virtuous, you will be saved, but for sinners, there are consequences. Doe is preaching the consequences of sin. Sure, there is punishment involved, but it's part of the message. Envy was Doe's sin, and Tracy died as a result of it. Wrath was Mills sin, and Doe died as a result of that. Mills doesn't die, therefore we know that each sin does not directly result in the sinner's death. When you say that " 825:", 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 2299:" These people actually assume that Mills is killed off-screen, completing Doe's ″Masterpiece" at a much later date. Only an idiot would believe that a cop, under those circumstances, would even be charged, nevermind tried, convicted, sentenced to death and then have that sentence seen through to conclusion. Or that such a brilliant film would basically have an unfinished ending and that the audience is supposed to assume or infer what happens in the weeks, months and even years after the credits roll. But I digress... 1641:

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

1258:, 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 908:. 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 Knowledge. 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. - 31: 2898:

think. If we're in agreement, I would suggest that F+K make the edit, and we then can put this to rest. But I would also suggest then we clean up this talk page of unneeded past discussion by re-archiving the section titled "Plot" (of last April). If no one adds any comments to the remaining, current discussion, I'll archive it in 30 days, and hopefully the relative stability this article enjoys will resume. (Under the watchful eye of TOJ).

2615:", that is incomplete. Her death was a tool, part of Doe's sermon to the world on the consequences of sin. Tracy did not commit the sin of Envy, but her death represented the consequence of that sin just the same. This is what we learn from the onscreen narrative, and (steering back to the edits), therefore the plot should reflect that, an only that. It should be as succinct as possible and avoid any unnecessary tumescence. (jmho) - 1847:, changing the subject and making personal attacks when pressed to explain why, and then irrationally demanding that the other guy "gain consensus" for their edit. I don't think you realise just how easy you got off with the last ANI report. And you can stop bringing up the "four months" difference, by the way. Your behaviour doesn't go away with time, just because something came up and you thought you got away with it. 1323:. 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 - 2940:

with you two that this article could benefit from being improved to GA quality (especially given its legendary status in film culture) but unfortunately, I can't help out due to time constraints. I still need to wrap up work on other articles, help another user with userspace drafts, ETC. I would assist if I could, though. I'm a lot busier on-and-off Wiki than I used to be.

328:? It seems like all your comments and summaries are mostly scathing criticisms and snarky complaints. You just joined, don't you a) want to get something positive from this? and b) want to help build this project? I don't see how you can enjoy something if it constantly frustrates you and you can't really build anything by only taking away. Just saying'... - 3100: 1133:" - 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. 2430:, I was not surprised to see your post this afternoon. Sorry this dragged out for so long, (though I am as surprised as you that it suddenly started up again so many months later) and that you got caught up in it. Certainly don't blame you for wanting to stay clear. Thanks for all work you do on this page. DK, still 2765:, using "sin" twice in the same sentence is kind of clunky (no offence). Maybe ordered differently to eliminate one of the "sins"? Jooc, when you say it's from wording taken from here on the talk page, do you mean as an amalgam of snippets from both our various comments? Or am I missing that full quote somehow? 2902:

couple months? Or after the New Year? Give some time to think on it? Anyway, it's just a thought; you guys can lemme know what you think, and if you're interested in participating. I'm sure some other editors might be interested as well. But in the meantime, we can let the page be for awhile. (jmho) -

2876:

The detectives follow Doe's directions to a remote desert location. Within minutes, a delivery van approaches. Mills holds Doe at gunpoint while Somerset intercepts the driver, who has been instructed to bring a box to them. Doe begins to taunt Mills by telling him how envious he was of his life with

2577:

what I wanted to avoid. The QUO version is concise and explains only want is seen and said onscreen. That is why I agree with plot re-write last year, as have many other editors, and why it has been relatively stable during that time. This includes my revert of your changes last spring. Sure, perhaps

2302:

Tracy's death represents Doe's sin of Envy. One can just imagine the cops busting into the Mills' apartment, finding Tracy's headless body in bathtub, with "Envy" scrawled in blood across the vanity mirror. Doe's death represents Mill's sin of Wrath. Nothing says "Wrath" more than an 8 round mag-dump

2292:

creates a grey area that is subject to debate. I'm referring to a debate that had raged for years on message boards, like IMDb, about the meaning of Doe's "Masterpiece" and did he complete it? Some claim that the sinner must die for his sin, for the message to truly make sense. That Tracy's death was

2253:

Hello everyone, sorry for the delay. I had typed out a lengthy response earlier this afternoon, but wanted to proofread before posting, then got caught up IRL. I see there have been some comments posted since F+K's first post at 10:30 25 Sept. I will address this after if need be as I don't feel like

1964:

has supported your edit. I know that you firmly believe you're in the right here, but it doesn't mean you are. Name all WP:links you like, hurl all the insults you can, nothing will change that fact. If you want to run to ANI again, go for it. But everything from the first ANI on this talk page would

1640:

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,

1605:

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

2939:

Yes, I'm with you two on option #4. As for Thewolfchild's inquiry about John Doe's original plan, my guess is that he had two other victims lined up for Envy and Wrath but changed his mind when he caught himself becoming increasingly jealous of Mills. That's just a theory, though. I definitely agree

2868:

plan for the last two sins? The first five remain unchanged, but since this plan couldn't have included Mr. & Mrs. Mills, what was his plan for Envy and Wrath? Interesting thought, huh? Sorry to go on about this, I certainly don't mention it to debate the narrative any further, or as a reason to

187:

That looks better now, but either way we definitely want to keep something about the opening credits in the article. They were notable on their own for their style, which has since been copied by other directors for other films. I believe that section has been in the article for many, many years, so

2901:

But, I would like to add that I am intrigued with DKs suggestion of overhauling this page to try and bring it to GA. Hell, maybe even FA! This film certainly deserves it. This action does not fit in with the idea of stability, but this is not something I would look to start right away. Perhaps in a

2483:

in the film itself that John Doe (the killer) is envy. Tracy didn't represent envy because she wasn't the one who felt envy. You see, John Doe envied Mills' normal life and his entire plan was to provoke Mills into killing him, with Doe's death representing his own sin. And contrary to popular (yet

2016:

To be clear, my reverts were to restore the stable version while discussion continued. The two of you have been arguing and reverting one another for 4+ months, and you both know that this is ridiculous. The change in the text is so minor, I cannot possibly understand the basis of this edit war.

1939:

DK, jeez... do you ever just stop, take a look at what you've written, the length and especially the tone (not to mention all the off-topic detours, accusations and insults) and think that maybe there is another way to approach this? You think you have some proverbial gun to my head? Either you get

714:

To some extent yes, sourcing will be harder, but my point to non-deletion as the preferred method is that when I did a first search to expand on sourcing, it was very clear that the title sequence was significant beyond just the film, to give enough reason to explain why we have a section on it - a

2774:

Anyway, we're not limited to the three options, right? And there is no deadline to have this decided? I would like to see if anyone else posts any suggestions. I know people haven't so far, but with a calmer discussion focused on content, who knows? Or if it's just us, maybe we can kick a few more

2756:

I noted above. I'm obviously not a fan of option #2, and have explained why, at length. Though, I am interested to see when/if DK replies, if he considers revising or even withdrawing his edit after reading our responses. I suppose we can call your suggested rewrite option #3? Imho, I don't really

2572:

A quick caveat; I am intimately familiar with this film. The first five sins are pretty straight forward so there is no need to hash them out. As for the last two sins, before I get into any debate about the symbolism of Doe's acts within the narrative of film, I would prefer to address the edits.

1948:

You say you want to discuss this, but that requires a collegial, cooperative attitude. Your attitude has been full-on hostile from the very first time you were reverted. (I get it, some people really, really don't like to be reverted). Look at your subsequent edit summaries with all your reverts,

870:

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

657:

As a matter of working collaboratively, removing sourced content is generally a last step that should be taken over trying to edit to improve/expand it, or to open discussion related to problems. As it stood, I agree it didn't seem significant here, but when I started poking for sources, "Seven"'s

561:"Sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. "Relevant" was the very problem - it was not relevant. It was a lengthy quote about something not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the article. And yet you can't grasp that that was a problem? I took the irrelevant material out. 84:

I don't know if the following is appropriate content, but the video game "Borderlands 2" has small cardboard loot boxes spread throughout the game and in one area, a box appears randomly with a pistol in it called "Gwen's Head". When you open the box, you hear what sounds like Pitt's mournful cry:

2863:

Even after the detectives unexpectedly show up at his door (leading to the running gun battle, and Doe "smashing Mills face", as well as "breaking" his hand to conveniently cover up Pitt's actual on-set injury), Doe states that he will have to "change his plans after this... set back". Mills, and

278:

The section obviously was useless - how can a lengthy quote without any context about something not even mentioned in the rest of the article be anything else? I am glad to see that something not useless has been put in its place. However, it still does not clearly explain what the title sequence

1968:

As far "discussing" this here and resolving it, I"m still willing to. But you would need to totally change the hostile attitude and.stop all the threats and insults. Who knows? Maybe it does get worked out. Aside from that, since OldJacobite has also reverted your edits, more than once, I would

1582:

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.

2897:

I'm ok with this version if you guys are. I did add one minor adverb (unbolded) to your suggested rewrite of the sentence (bolded). I also made minor additions to the preceding sentence, and re-arranged the second to last sentence, but without any significant change. Please let me know what you

2584:

While I can see how you came to this reasoning, it is actually explicitly stated in the film itself that John Doe (the killer) is envy. Tracy didn't represent envy because she wasn't the one who felt envy. You see, John Doe envied Mills' normal life and his entire plan was to provoke Mills into

2604:

See, this is actually where you are mistaken. We need to go by what is shown and told to us onscreen. You say Doe is "punishing". We see that Mills makes that same mistake, when he claims the same thing. He is corrected by the more learned and wiser Somerset who concludes that Doe is actually

2213:

You said you wanted me to wait until Thewolfchild replies before mentioning him again, and that's fair enough. Frankly, that's all you needed to say. There is no wikilawyering, and there most certainly is no tendentious editing. Everything I have said has been justified and directly backed by

2916:

I'll wait for DK to say if he's OK with "option #4" and if he is, I'll happily make the edit verbatim as just above. And there is more than enough detail out there on this movie to allow the article to get to GA at a minimum. I'd be happy to help (as an editor, not with my admin hat on).

2115:

And contrary to Thewolfchild's dishonesty above, no one has fully supported his edits. In fact, he has been reverted twice by an IP editor (and if wolfchild thinks it's me, they can open a SOCK investigation right now). For that reason alone, I already have more of a consensus than he does.

2497:

He forced a lustful man to kill a prostitute with a strap on, effectively traumatising him for life. In this instance, the man was traumatised, not killed (prostitutes don't do what they do for lust). John Doe was trying to show him the error of his ways, albeit in the most twisted way

1681:. 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. - 2467:

This is the sort of detailed explanation that I have been asking for for nearly five months now. But with the past aside, we can now begin discussing this properly. If you can remain this civil and forthcoming about your reasoning, there really shouldn't be any issues moving forward.

798:. 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... - 1035:

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

2103:

Case of point. Now, instead of explaining why he made the revert, Thewolfchild is trying to paint OldJacobite's reverts as having some imaginary support he clearly doesn't (even though OldJacobite asked him to stop months ago). And, amazingly, he's now demanding that I discuss

1793:); this is highly disruptive behaviour. And stop bringing up WP:BRD. As has been quoted to you, again and again and again, BRD is not an excuse to revert someone, nor are you entitled to have your preferred edit in the article simply because you made a revert. But as always, 971:" 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 3050:

Why is McGinley mentioned in the infobox, but Spacey is not? Why is McGinley mentioned by R. Lee Ermey is not? McGinley's role is basically that of a body and a voice. His face is not even visible in the film, and his role - compared to Spacey especially - is insignificant.

678:- Unfortunately, because the movie is from 1995, that may make sourcing more difficult, but the opening title sequence is a significant component of the film and, as I recall, was much discussed and as you say; "highly praised" by critics, industry types and fans alike. In 3072:

The infobox cast goes by who is credited on the film's casting block which only has those 4 names. Obviously Spacey's name was omitted to mask the id of the killer. In the lede, since we don't care about spoilers, Spacey is mentioned with the rest of the cast block names.

2413:

Anyway, that's about it. Some detailed reasoning on why I disagree with the changes and reverted them. In short, they are unnecessary, clunky, repetitive, may serve to create plot confusion and basically do not improve the article. Thanks (and sorry about the length). -

1230:

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).

2704:

I appreciate both of you are very knowledgeable about the film. I've seen it a couple of times, so am vaguely familiar with this part. Surely we can come up with a reasonable compromise. I actually think a better, clearer wording has been expressed here on the talk

2226:

I understand and feel your exasperation for the situation, but if you are going to make ill-justified threats and unsubstantiated allegations, then we might as well migrate to ANI right now. Such a sanction here and now would definitely warrant an ArbCom case request.

1774:

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

1534:. 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. 565:. What is there now bears no relation to what I took out and is better than what I took out. My edit helped to improve the article and I am disgusted that you chose to attack me for making it. You really do seem to misunderstand the nature of editing in a big way. 2410:". As a regular contributor here, and someone who has both reverted and disagreed with DK's changes, I would consider asking TOJ for his input on this. (He may not care to get involved though, he doesn't seem to like these talk page debates or content disputes). 2325:

2265:

1969:

suggest you also ask him for his reasons. And perhaps also ask if he will discuss cooperative, alternative changes to the section you have a problem with. Again, who knows? Maybe it gets worked out. You just have to try to be less hostile and more collegial. -

169:

It's not useless, but I will agree a section that is just a block quote without context is not our best work. More details should be pulled out of the quote and the Art of the Title article to give context and then use the quoted material where appropriate.

2087:

There is no "wiki-lawyering" (from me). Thewolfchild made a revert, continuously refuses to explain why he made the revert, demands that I "gain consensus" without discussing his revert, and seems completely incapable of being honest while expressing gross

386:

None of my edits are deletions; anything I removed is still in the article history. All of my edits are edits. Editing can involve adding material, removing material, or rearranging material. There is no obligation to do any one type of edit more than any

2437:

at anyone who dares to disagree with you, huh? Now threatening an admin with arbcon for just doing his job? Wow. Don't change a thing... just keep doing what you're doing. F+K, thanks for the intervention. Sorry for the delayed response. Cheers -

2473:

103:

Sounds like an interesting little easter egg, but to add it the article would necessitate creating a "Pop culture" sub-section and this doesn't really seem significant enough for that. Just imho though, other may see it differently however. -

1262:

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) -

1493:). 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. 1949:

then look how you started on the talk page, either 5 months ago, or the other day... you come in here in full attack mode. Just how many WP:link policies, guidelines and essays have you (repeatedly) accused me of violating? Then you had

2303:

of .45 ACP 230 grain hollow-points slamming into a guys face and chest at point blank range. One can just imagine the coroner stripping the orange jumpsuit off of Doe's corpse to find "Wrath" tattooed across his chest. "Masterpeice"

968:

No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Knowledge). 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

761:

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

715:

section to be improved but a section nevertheless. I do hope the NYTMag quote is not a case of citogenesis since I've yet to solidfy when that was even published, but once we can source those directly, they should be included. --

1944:

be changed, whether you or I someone else does it. But it doesn't. The article has been stable for some time. The section is fine. And it's not just me, another editor reverted your changes, today, back to the stable version.

1858:

more times for personal attacks / incivility, and twice for edit warring. Here, you have exhibited blatant ownership tendencies over this article, you have edit warred, you have continued making personal attacks, and you have

1823:" - Believe it or not, wolfchild, I am a very busy editor both on and off-wiki. And to be clear, the ANI page was indeed archived prematurely due to a lack of activity and, lucky for you, it received minimal attention due to 2994:

Thanks, F+K, for getting that done and your efforts to help resolve this. I'm going to leave the page be for now, and over the next couple months give some thought to doing a re-write and putting in a GA review. Cheers -

2856:". The thing is, Doe was "methodical" and "meticulous" and had every murder planned well in advance. But, he couldn't know which officers would be assigned to the case, especially Mills, who had only just arrived in town 2815:

I'm in a similar position to Thewolfchild to where I obviously prefer option #2, but Fish and karate's suggestions are fair compromises IMO. I would be perfectly fine with options #3 or 4, as they both seem like a good

2585:

killing him, with Doe's death representing his own sin. And contrary to popular (yet understandable) misconception, John Doe doesn't just kill with the deaths representing the sins. He punishes them however he sees fit.

1498:

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?

2257:

Hi Fish+Karate, thanks for the post. I see what you're trying to do here and appreciate the effort to try and resolve what must appear to be a disruptive deadlock. So, let's get to it and address the edits first;

3023:

reads "Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part." - William Somerset". If that's the quote used, I believe it should be incorporated into the

1289:

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.

2597:

The problem with the current version is that it insinuates that Tracy is Envy, which is factually incorrect (at least according to John Doe - "It seems that Envy is my sin. Become vengeance, David. Become...

820:

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 Knowledge works. Honestly, if you can't provide a genuine argument as to how it's

2187:, stop. Enough. No more threats, no more wikilawyering. Do not say anything else about wolfchild on this talk page until they have responded to my query. I will block you for tendentious editing if you do. 1965:

need to be included. Why? Among other things, to show this is a content dispute. You were advised repeatedly to seek dispute resolution or 3P0 and you still haven't. I would suggest going that route first.

2516:

In this instance, John Doe sliced off the nose of a prideful model to spite her face. He had no way of knowing she would later kill herself. That was purely her decision, because she couldn't live with her

1842:

haven't done four months later. This isn't a simple matter of you reverting someone and then doing a poor job explaining why. This is a matter of you reverting someone, repeatedly refusing to explain why

1032:

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

315:

it? You talk about your "edits" when really, "deletions" is a more precise label. Out of your first 50 or so edits here, other than a half-dozen or so (complaints on user talk pages about being reverted)

1989:, notwithstanding all the ridiculous, overwrought arguments from DK, and ignoring the awful and interminable wikilawyering, can you please explain for my benefit what is wrong with the sentence saying " 2406:

DK's changes back to QUO (though curiously it hadn't been reverted back in by DK, but by some seemingly random IP user). You also note that last April 30 @ 12:57, TOJ said of DK's of changes that he "

374:

You talk about your "edits" when really, "deletions" is a more precise label. Out of your first 50 or so edits here, other than a half-dozen or so (complaints on user talk pages about being reverted)

2147:(specifically the first paragraph) made it clear that he wants it the way it currently is and will revert any changes I make to it. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Thewolfchild wrote the 1898:

solution would be. For clarity reasons, the text can't remain the way it is and (for whatever unexplained reason) you're clearly against my revision. I mean this without sarcasm, tell me how would

3047:

In the article intro, it says the film stars Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kevin Spacey and John C. McGinley. In the infobox only Pitt, Freeman, Paltrow, and McGinley are mentioned.

2369:

Now I have referred to the QUO version several times as the "stable" version. Because it has been just that. With the exception of one word, the wording of the QUO version has been in place since

1403:

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 -

2850:

Yeah... just watched it again, for like the bah-zillionth time, though I hadn't seen it in several months. Still love this film. As I was watching however, a comment that DK made came to mind; "

2043:. It's one line of a plot summary. Wolf please lay out your objections to DK's wording. As an uninvolved outsider I don't think it's particularly objectionable but I may be missing something. 1894:

close to just reopening the ANI case. Only you can stop that from happening. You say you want to discuss this properly. So, without more bizarre allegations and off-topic attacks, tell me what

2792:

Nope, absolutely not limited to those three options at all. And there's no deadlines. Maybe I'll watch it again tonight. I'd be happy to stick with envious, rather than jealous. How about

2214:

Knowledge's policies and guidelines (which I am prepared to list, if need be). I have explained my edits, attempted to discuss, and followed the consensus process to the best of my ability.

2860:

Doe had already killed his first two victims. He also couldn't know that Somerset would use an FBI contact to illegally and clandestinely track Doe down through his library book history.

1813: 1602: 2139:

To be clear, your intervention here is the only thing delaying an ANI case against Thewolfchild from being filed today. I already suggested a third solution, such as rewriting the entire

504:

It seems that basically, your problem with my edits was that you think any edit that removes material is inherently bad. I think that's a huge misunderstanding of the nature of editing.

2112:

that I've been talking about, and Thewolfchild has been blocked / reported for similar behaviour more than once in the past. This is far outside the confines of a legitimate dispute.

1789:

gain consensus. That's not how consensus works and you know it. In fact, virtually every policy and guideline related to consensus and edit warring all say the same thing (including

3111: 2084:) have even asked him to further elaborate, yet he refuses to provide any sort of explanation for his revert other than the most minimalistic and vague one he can come up with. 1997:". Is it badly written? Is it untrue? Does it misrepresent something? Or are you reverting it now just for the sake of reverting because DK has conducted himself so badly? 1863:

elsewhere. A case can easily be made for another indefinite block. If this goes to ANI and receives ample attention, it's not going to go the way you apparently think it will.

1854:

for personal attacks in 2012, and then blocked indefinitely for it. The block was only lifted because you apologised and said you would stop. Since then, you have been blocked

522:

Well, that looks like a whole lot of rage. Look "Doc", while you're out there trying to "sculpt" some kind of "garden", keep in mind that every article here didn't start as a

2362:

There is something to be said about clarity and it doesn't get much clearer than that. Tracy's death represented Envy. Therefore, Doe's death represented Wrath. "Masterpiece"

1107:

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. -

2293:

just a means to an end, that it was Doe's death that represented Envy. These folks go on to say that Mills will die for his sin of Wrath, hence the line from Somerset: "

2757:

see a need to use two different words, even if synonymous, to describe the same emotion. This why I believe another user changed "jealous" to "envious" some time ago, (

2288:

The extra wording is unnecessary. Do we really need the words "jealous", and "jealousy" and "Envy", all in such close structural proximity? Furthermore, in DK's edit:

240:

with her comments here. It could just be frustration, but taking into consideration some of her summaries and other talk page comments, maybe that's just her way... -

1981:

I've had a look at this, and I honestly, for the life of me, cannot see why DK's edit is so bad. To me, it makes it clearer that John Doe saw himself as "Envy".

2337:; he also states that her head is in the box and that she was pregnant. Despite Somerset's warnings, Mills shoots Doe, completing Doe's last murder, representing 2280:; he also states that her head is in the box and that she was pregnant. Despite Somerset's warnings, Mills shoots Doe, completing Doe's last murder, representing 3156:

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the song "guilty" by gravity kills featured? The soundtrack did extreme injustice by not including nin, among others.

1610:. 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... 1049:" - 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. 2399:". I agree with the plot should remain concise, not over-burdened with clunky prose trying to explain every detail of the plot to the slowest of movie fans. 589:"attacking". Now, take a look a look at Masem's comments below; he makes a good point about "working collaboratively". Still hoping your day gets better... - 557:

How is gutting this page of a significant amount of sourced and relevant content making it better, as opposed to taking that content and making some changes?

279:

consists of, and it does not make any mention of any how the title sequence was perceived as a piece of film making. I also find it bogged down in minutiae.

1956:

Why couldn't you just do it the way it's supposed to be done the first time? You made an edit, you get reverted, you disagree or don't understand, and you

692:

in 2011 as "the third greatest title sequence of all time". So, it is certainly worth noting in this article. Thanks for for your efforts to improve it. -

2569:

Ah, you're welcome? And I'm sure that if you, well, don't act like the way you have up until now, everything will be just, er... let's see how it goes.

2352:. Boom! There is his sin right there. No distracting synonyms. No repetitiveness. The sin is Envy after all, so let's just stick with what it's called. 770:

readers (not just those who are already familiar with the article's subject matter), so some substantial elucidation is needed to justify their reverts.

900:

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,

2632:

Can I make a summary and a suggestion? There are two versions which do say similar things (this is, after all, just one sentence of the plot summary):

2864:

then Tracy, were last-minute additions to his plan, in place of whoever he had long intended for the final act(s). So the question is, what was Doe's

1576:

seen someone carry so much anger and hostility for so long (4 months!), all over a single edit. You go and make the edit again, but with the summary;

1254:

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

2729:

This avoids repetition (uses jealousy once, and envy once). It is not ambiguous; it is clear that Doe is the one who represents envy. How is that?

2307:. What is the point to all this? We don't need to open the door to inquiry, followed by debate, followed by disruption. By putting the emphasis on " 625:

Hmm... now that creates quite the 'pot-kettle' scenario, doesn't it? I don't know where you're from, but in my part of the world you can be an adult

479:

Do you criticise a sculptor who chisels away stone? Do you criticise a doctor who removes a tumour? Do you criticise a gardener who pulls out weeds?

2853:

You see, John Doe envied Mills' normal life and his entire plan was to provoke Mills into killing him, with Doe's death representing his own sin.

2484:

understandable) misconception, the deaths themselves don't necessarily represent the sins. John Doe punishes them how he sees fit. For instance:

1719:". Can you stop all this aggression? Can you show that you're capable of even the slightest effort at collegial cooperation? Is that possible? - 236:, she did post lengthy edit summaries with her initial edit removing the section and also with subsequent reverts. But, yeah she is somewhat... 2533:

The problem with the current version is that it insinuates that Tracy is Envy, which is factually incorrect (at least according to John Doe - "

1953:

to accuse me of basically all sorts of bad behaviour. That I'm uncooperative, made false accusations against you, and broke sooo many rules.

2872:

Anyway, back to the edit, the edit, the edit. Am I to understand that with 'option #4', the full paragraph would (essentially) read as this;

1446:

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

942:", 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 2775:

ideas around the next day or so? Lastly, if you haven't seen the film recently, I would definitely suggest seeing it. Or at least check out

2952: 2832: 2553: 2239: 2163: 2128: 1914: 1902:

would reword it. Because even if I rewrote the entire section from scratch, I suspect you would revert that as well. What's your solution?

1875: 1546: 1511: 1243: 1145: 1096: 987: 889: 841: 782: 3144: 89: 3054:

I propose changing the opening paragraph to mention Ermey instead of McGinley, and the inforbox to mention Spacey instead of McGinley.

1742:

here is amazing, as is your continued insistence on changing the subject every single time you are asked to provide one. Now, you have

1473:

If you recall, the prematurely-closed ANI report was filed because of your repeated refusal to provide a valid reason for your revert.

3197: 3165: 3093: 1374:

Sorry, I saw this and then got distracted. I've reconsidered my revert and think that the changes you made were helpful. Cheers! ---

1352:- 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 - 585:(1: cluelessness, 2: rage, 3: disgust, 4: indifference, 5: acceptance). Once you reach stage five, you'll realize that "reverting" is 2889:; he also states that her head is in the box, and that she was pregnant. Despite Somerset's warnings, Mills shoots Doe, representing 282:

It was indeed very frustrating to make a clearly explained and necessary edit and find it undone without any meaningful explanation.

863: 904:. And, simply reverting you does not imply ownership, but accusing someone of ownership without the basis to do so is considered a 1758:" with no further elaboration. That doesn't exactly help you considering that I have already gone into ample detail about why it 1627:), when a simple link would suffice? As in, "if anyone would care to see the previous discussion on this issue, please see here; 1066:

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

64: 59: 471:

I don't see how you can enjoy something if it constantly frustrates you and you can't really build anything by only taking away.

859: 3137:

There is an alternate ending to the film, though not filmed but storyboarded and features on the DVD, so why not mentioned.

1654:

As I see it, you can; a) drop the hostility and try being more collegial, b) try dispute resolution, or c) drop the stick. -

2385:. The plot has been relatively stable since then, except for the odd IP fly-by test edit every once in a while. Last April, 2796:? When I said it's from wording on the talk page, the phrase I've quoted is from something you said a little further up. 2345:

This version is less wordier, simpler even, but more concise. It's creates less ambiguity and and is more to the point.

2975:

both for chilling out and engaging with one another. Hopefully you can both see it's easier if we all work together.

1827:. Because I did a diff-by-diff breakdown of the discussion, it was far too lengthy, a mistake I won't be making twice. 1606:

dispute resolution or a third opinion, neither of which you did. Meanwhile, another editor familiar with the article

154:

Someone wants me to explain on talk why I removed a useless section. I removed it because it was useless. Happy now?

2648:

he was of his life and Tracy. Somerset opens the box and warns Mills to stay back. Doe states that he killed Tracy,

2330:

he was of his life and Tracy. Somerset opens the box and warns Mills to stay back. Doe states that he killed Tracy,

2680:

he was of his life and Tracy. Somerset opens the box and warns Mills to stay back. Doe states that he killed Tracy

2270:

he was of his life and Tracy. Somerset opens the box and warns Mills to stay back. Doe states that he killed Tracy

427:

You have certainly irritated me, by undoing my edit twice without giving a reason. Also see below. But you are not

38: 2983: 2925: 2804: 2737: 2195: 2051: 2005: 1785:

because you made a revert, repeatedly refused to explain why you made the revert, and then somehow demanded that

930:

There is no personal attack given that your very arguments are a violation of the policies I just named, and you

2504:

The man was chained to a bed and starved for a year (intentionally kept alive), only dying after his punishment.

1834:, a lot of what they said was blatantly incorrect and could have easily been refuted had I been there. And even 2947: 2827: 2548: 2234: 2158: 2123: 2027: 1909: 1870: 1778: 1541: 1506: 1384: 1300: 1238: 1140: 1091: 982: 884: 836: 777: 455:

You just joined, don't you a) want to get something positive from this? and b) want to help build this project?

220: 3107: 1454:, in a mature a civil manner, I am certainly willing to. This would be the place to have such a discussion. - 495:

I've never seen anyone use that phrase attached to something that wasn't obviously intended to be irritating.

93: 3148: 2480: 2089: 1739: 3201: 3169: 2817: 2040: 1070:

You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?

940:

You made an edit, it was reverted, now how about you chill out and allow others an opportunity to comment?

47: 17: 3062: 2143:

section using GA criteria. I even asked him what his solution to the dispute would be. But predictably,

1486: 1482: 867: 689: 210:

Agreed. The section is not worthless. Saying so, with no attempt to explain why, is just smartass. ---

2781:, that has the (4min+) scene we're discussing. I'm going to watch the film again later today. Cheers - 1781:, but that has to be the most reachy attempt at an allegation you have provided yet. You are violating 936:

Eh, as far as I am concerned, the previous edit was fine. No one has said anything before, so whatever.

3058: 3140: 3033: 3029: 2977: 2919: 2798: 2731: 2208: 2189: 2064: 2045: 1999: 1623:

Speaking of archives, why have you re-posted archived discussions here, (including a discussion that

616: 570: 509: 291: 159: 1738:

So your not going to explain your revert? That's all I needed to know. The amount of dishonesty and

1005:

You really expect a response to these increasingly hostile and uncivil rants? Look I didn't revert "

934:

have not provided a valid reason for the revert. In fact, your only argument can be chalked up to "'

629:

have a sense of humor. You just don't seem like a particularly happy person. Good luck with that. -

2972: 2942: 2822: 2777: 2543: 2427: 2229: 2182: 2153: 2118: 2109: 2071: 2019: 1904: 1865: 1805: 1536: 1501: 1490: 1441: 1398: 1376: 1347: 1314: 1292: 1255: 1233: 1197: 1135: 1086: 977: 972: 951: 879: 831: 772: 212: 1940:

what you want or you'll start another ANI? And taking the position that it's a given this section

439:

It seems like all your comments and summaries are mostly scathing criticisms and snarky complaints

3121: 2452: 2039:

Agreed. It's incredibly petty, on both sides, and it is going to stop right now. This is not a

1562: 3196:

Because it is not a horror film. Why would we have it have horror when it is not a horror movie?

2658:

Tracy didn't represent envy because she wasn't the one who felt envy. Doe felt envy, not Tracy.

2869:

further amend the plot. I just find that unknown aspect of the story to be thought-provoking.

3025: 2996: 2968: 2903: 2782: 2616: 2459: 2439: 2415: 2097: 2076:

I've already asked him to lay out a valid objection, repeatedly. At least two administrators (

1984: 1970: 1887: 1733: 1720: 1682: 1655: 1478: 1468: 1455: 1406: 1355: 1326: 1266: 1227: 1207: 1165: 1110: 1012: 943: 911: 853: 801: 754: 695: 632: 592: 582: 529: 331: 243: 191: 107: 3020: 2374: 2217: 1073: 947: 874: 283: 3180: 3081: 2382: 1660: 1460: 938:" As previously stated, you need a valid reason to revert someone. And with your comment " 723: 666: 612: 566: 505: 308: 287: 233: 178: 155: 136: 523: 3205: 3191: 3173: 3152: 3127: 3085: 3066: 3037: 3001: 2989: 2958: 2931: 2908: 2838: 2810: 2787: 2743: 2621: 2559: 2444: 2420: 2245: 2201: 2169: 2134: 2057: 2034: 2011: 1975: 1920: 1881: 1802:

Meanwhile, another editor familiar with the article agreed with the revert of your edit.

1725: 1687: 1552: 1517: 1420: 1391: 1369: 1340: 1307: 1280: 1249: 1221: 1179: 1151: 1124: 1102: 1026: 993: 925: 895: 860:

reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes

847: 815: 788: 727: 709: 670: 646: 620: 606: 574: 543: 513: 345: 295: 257: 227: 205: 182: 163: 121: 97: 3019:

mentions "Somerset's quote from Ernest Hemingway" which is not present in the article.

2753: 2221: 2081: 2077: 1831: 1824: 1794: 1765:

You also attempted to hide your previous behaviour from plain-view AGAIN, this time by

1583:

Otherwise, the ANI case will have to be re-opened (it was closed prematurely last time)

1081: 959: 3115: 2717:

he was of his life and Tracy. Somerset opens the box and warns Mills to stay back.

2529:

Another instance where John Doe felt ruining the victim's life was punishment enough.

2093: 1957: 1790: 1782: 1777:" - LOL, what?! I don't know why you insist on playing mental gymnastics, as well as 1611: 1474: 1451: 1077: 1039: 963: 955: 905: 826: 795: 581:

You've moved from 'rage' to 'disgust', congrats! You are making your way through the

311:- Ok, I have to ask; if you think there is an issue with some content, why don"t you 2471:

But on to the real discussion - Here's where I disagree with what you are saying: "

2315:

sin?" And from there it just goes on and on (and on). Confusion. Conflict. Chaos.

766:" (as wolfchild put it). It is a requirement that plot summaries be accessible to 463:

Yes, and yes, and again I do not appreciate the insulting suggestion that I don't.

1072:", and your utter lack of explanation for the revert (not to mention the blatant 2893:, and completing Doe's plan. Police converge and take the devastated Mills away. 2877:

Tracy. Somerset opens the box and, in a sudden panic, warns Mills to stay back.

1991:

Doe states that he killed Tracy out of jealousy for Mills' normal life and that

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

447:

Who exactly would be well served if nobody criticised substandard content here?

3074: 2390: 1532:"We don't usually post threats to run straight to ANI if we don't get our way" 1158: 1047:

I reverted your edit because it wasn't an improvement and it wasn't necessary.

716: 675: 659: 188:

it was certainly the better move go improve it instead of just removing it. -

171: 86: 1950: 1750:", but even that has only come in the form of commonly used buzzwords like " 862:. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by 679: 286:

nicely summarises why people feel aggrieved when someone does that to them.

2763:

Doe says that his sin was Envy and that Tracy died as a result of his sin

2719:

Doe says that his sin was Envy and that Tracy died as a result of his sin

2350:

Doe taunts Mills by telling him how envious he was of his life and Tracy.

3099: 2794:

Doe says that his sin was Envy, and that Tracy died as a result of this

877:, as your very arguments (and lack of a valid one) are against policy. 2752:

Well, if it was my choice, I'd take option #1, if only because of the

2393:

restored the very wording being debated here, with the edit summary; "

2318:

Now, after all that, I would think you would appreciate some brevity;

1319:- hi, just to be clear, I was asking you about your revert of my edit 2523:

John Doe envies Mills' normal life. He provokes him into killing him.

1679:

by linking to the very discussion I was trying to hide in my response

407:

I do, and I do not appreciate the insulting suggestion that I do not.

3015: 2290:

Doe states that he killed Tracy out of jealousy... envy was his sin

1808:

has stated that he has no strong feelings about it either way, and

2890: 2338: 2281: 2535:

It seems that Envy is my sin. Become vengeance, David. Become...

1821:

Just to be clear, your ANI report was not "closed prematurely"...

1452:

you made a bold edit, I reverted, if you would like to discuss it

2884: 2358: 2334: 2274: 1992: 354:

if you think there is an issue with some content, why don"t you

2682:

out of jealousy for Mills' normal life and that envy is his sin

2479:

While I can see how you came to this reasoning, it is actually

2690:

The words "jealous", "jealousy", and "Envy" in close proximity

25: 3164:

Can we remove all elements saying that this is a horror film?

3106:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

2096:

as his only reason for why his edit should stay, even though

1601:"closed prematurely"... it was not closed at all. It's still 3098: 2296:

If you murder a suspect, David, it's death row all the way.

2092:

tendencies. For instance, even now, he is still going with

1816:, you're latching on to whatever defense you can grab onto. 1713:

it, of course, with yet another snide, accusatory remark; "

2402:

I will also note that OldJacobite is actually the last to

1159:

mellow jazz? Or bongo drums? Maybe a huge bag of weed...?

2758: 2403: 2386: 2378: 2370: 2144: 1860: 1851: 1838:

told you to further explain your revert, something you

1809: 1766: 1762:

necessary, which you haven't even attempted to refute.

1709: 1607: 1527: 1523: 1447: 1201: 758: 524:

big chunk of marble with a masterpiece contained within

829:

the article and talk pages are for actual discussion.

2341:. Police converge and take the devastated Mills away. 2311:", it almost begs the question; "did he then die for 2284:. Police converge and take the devastated Mills away. 1526:

by archiving the entire previous discussions, before

350:

Well, that looks like a whole lot of misconceptions.

2224:

at the last ANI report, and I'm starting to see why.

1769:. I would strongly advise against doing that again. 871:

discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

324:...? And why do you seem to get so irritated by... 2100:has been read out to him over and over and over... 1042:to the growing list of policies you are violating. 685:the beginning of a new renaissance in title design 563:Removing substandard content makes articles better 2381:, when is was changed, and appropriately so, by 2108:revert with TheOldJacobite! This is the blatant 2687:Thewolfchild's concerns with this version are: 2272:out of jealousy for Mills' normal life and that 1645:(to what is otherwise a fairly stable article). 2357:Doe states that he killed Tracy, representing 415:And why do you seem to get so irritated by... 2874: 2323: 2263: 1810:has warned you to stop dragging him into this 8: 2491:Forced an obese man to eat himself to death. 1677:Yep, I was trying to "hide my behaviour"... 1528:replying here with snarky dishonest comments 1779:trying to pass your behaviour off as my own 87:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-lSBQs5RpQ 3138: 2377:. That 'one word' has been in place since 2254:rewriting my post. Here it is, as it was; 143:The following discussion has been closed. 131: 2887:, and that Tracy died as a result of this 85:"Aaaah. What's in the b-o-o-o-ox?". See 794:Oh relax. You made an edit and you were 135:Debate started by well known ban evader 1746:started giving a little bit more than " 1625:had nothing to do with you or your edit 320:of your edits are deletions. How about 2852: 2793: 2762: 2712: 2675: 2643: 2611: 2596: 2583: 2356: 2349: 2308: 2289: 1715: 1597:Just to be clear, your ANI report was 1581: 1064:" - That's not what comments such as " 684: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3092:"Seven (1995 film) (film)" listed at 2655:DK's concerns with this version are: 1629:Talk:Seven (1995 film)/Archive 3#Plot 975:given your statements on this post). 7: 2713:Doe taunts Mills by telling him how 2676:Doe taunts Mills by telling him how 2644:Doe taunts Mills by telling him how 1479:not a valid reason to revert someone 1058:in hope that others would support me 1007:in hope that others would support me 2581:Now, onto plot debate. You wrote: " 1812:. But just with your dishonesty at 1795:you only hear what you want to hear 1608:agreed with the revert of your edit 757:seems intent on reverting my valid 1162:" Anything to help you to ctfd. - 688:" and notes it as being ranked by 24: 1716:Stop trying to cover your tracks. 3114:if you wish to do so. Regards, 2967:That edit is done, thank you to 2408:didn't think they were necessary 29: 3057:Any objections, and if so, why? 1748:I just didn't like it, alright! 1522:Also, please do not attempt to 954:and, with your unsubstantiated 3002:13:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC) 2990:09:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC) 2959:05:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC) 2932:08:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC) 2909:04:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC) 2839:21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 2811:13:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 2788:12:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 2744:09:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 2622:04:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 2560:02:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 2445:02:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 2421:01:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC) 2246:21:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 2202:20:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 2170:19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 2135:19:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 2058:14:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 2035:13:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 2012:10:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 1976:06:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 1921:04:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 1882:04:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC) 1726:11:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC) 1688:10:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC) 1661:10:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC) 1553:09:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC) 1518:09:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC) 1461:09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC) 858:BRD is not a valid excuse for 1: 2754:stability and wide acceptance 2373:, after some improvememts by 122:19:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 98:15:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 3086:14:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 3067:08:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1038:", you can (ironically) add 682:review, it is described as " 378:of your edits are deletions. 3206:19:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 3192:19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 3174:08:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 2761:). As for the latter part; 2612:Tracy didn't represent Envy 2591:(skipping first five sins) 1832:administrator you mentioned 583:five stages of 'Wiki-grief' 3224: 3153:09:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 3128:19:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3038:05:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 2937:(Sorry for the late reply) 2396:Plot needs to stay concise 2216:I also seem to recall the 1341:19:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 1308:12:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 1281:04:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 1250:03:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 1222:23:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC) 1180:05:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 1152:04:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 1125:04:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 1103:04:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 1027:03:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 994:03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 962:. I will once again quote 926:02:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 896:01:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 848:01:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 816:23:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 789:22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 728:21:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 710:17:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 671:13:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 647:17:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC) 621:08:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC) 607:17:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 575:07:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 544:03:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 514:20:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 346:07:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 296:07:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 258:02:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 228:01:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 206:01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 2321:Here is the QUO version: 2220:being heavily blasted by 1628: 1080:and now your attempts at 852:Also, I suggest you read 183:23:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 164:22:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 3110:. Please participate in 3108:Seven (1995 film) (film) 3094:Redirects for discussion 2355:Again, in the QUO edit: 1572:Wow. I can't say I have 1084:) all seem to indicate. 232:Actually, to be fair to 146:Please do not modify it. 3133:Alternate Ending/guilty 3112:the redirect discussion 1450:a little unusual. But, 1421:15:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 1392:13:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 1370:04:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 3103: 2895: 2883:says that his sin was 2510:An attorney is killed. 2343: 2286: 759:correction to the plot 18:Talk:Seven (1995 film) 3102: 3016:The "Filming" section 1054:Look I didn't revert 42:of past discussions. 2371:October of last year 2218:wiki-lawyering essay 1958:ask on the talk page 1797:and ignore the rest. 864:policies, guidelines 80:Video Game Reference 2261:Here is DK's edit: 1814:the last ANI report 1524:hide your behaviour 3104: 2642:(the status quo): 1481:, and neither is " 902:but neither do you 764:fine the way it is 3155: 3143:comment added by 2938: 2778:this youtube clip 2693:Creates ambiguity 2650:representing envy 2481:explicitly stated 2456: 2348:In the QUO edit; 2225: 2151:section himself. 1852:blocked two times 1764: 1728: 1690: 1566: 1416: 1365: 1336: 1276: 1217: 1200:, regarding this 1175: 1120: 1022: 921: 811: 747: 746: 705: 642: 602: 539: 341: 253: 201: 117: 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3215: 3189: 3183: 3124: 3118: 3078: 3043:John C. McGinley 3018: 3010:Final quotation. 2999: 2955: 2950: 2945: 2936: 2906: 2835: 2830: 2825: 2785: 2780: 2619: 2556: 2551: 2546: 2463: 2450: 2442: 2435: 2418: 2397: 2309:envy was his sin 2297: 2242: 2237: 2232: 2215: 2212: 2186: 2166: 2161: 2156: 2131: 2126: 2121: 2090:WP:IDONTHEARTHAT 2075: 2068: 2030: 2022: 2021:The Old Jacobite 2017:Please stop. --- 1988: 1973: 1917: 1912: 1907: 1878: 1873: 1868: 1763: 1740:WP:IDONTHEARTHAT 1737: 1723: 1712: 1703: 1685: 1673: 1658: 1560: 1549: 1544: 1539: 1514: 1509: 1504: 1472: 1458: 1445: 1419: 1414: 1402: 1387: 1379: 1378:The Old Jacobite 1368: 1363: 1351: 1339: 1334: 1321:and nothing else 1318: 1303: 1295: 1294:The Old Jacobite 1279: 1274: 1246: 1241: 1236: 1220: 1215: 1178: 1173: 1156:How about some " 1148: 1143: 1138: 1131:more of the same 1123: 1118: 1099: 1094: 1089: 1061: 1057: 1025: 1020: 990: 985: 980: 924: 919: 892: 887: 882: 844: 839: 834: 814: 809: 785: 780: 775: 720: 708: 703: 663: 645: 640: 605: 600: 542: 537: 344: 339: 256: 251: 223: 215: 214:The Old Jacobite 204: 199: 175: 148: 132: 120: 115: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3187: 3181: 3162: 3135: 3122: 3116: 3097: 3076: 3045: 3014: 3012: 2997: 2953: 2948: 2943: 2904: 2833: 2828: 2823: 2818:WP:MIDDLEGROUND 2783: 2776: 2674:(DK's edit): 2629: 2617: 2567: 2554: 2549: 2544: 2457: 2440: 2433: 2416: 2395: 2295: 2240: 2235: 2230: 2209:Fish and karate 2206: 2180: 2164: 2159: 2154: 2129: 2124: 2119: 2069: 2065:Fish and karate 2062: 2032: 2028: 2020: 1982: 1971: 1937: 1915: 1910: 1905: 1876: 1871: 1866: 1731: 1721: 1708: 1683: 1656: 1547: 1542: 1537: 1512: 1507: 1502: 1483:I don't like it 1466: 1456: 1439: 1437: 1434: 1412: 1404: 1396: 1389: 1385: 1377: 1361: 1353: 1345: 1332: 1324: 1312: 1305: 1301: 1293: 1272: 1264: 1244: 1239: 1234: 1213: 1205: 1194: 1171: 1163: 1146: 1141: 1136: 1116: 1108: 1097: 1092: 1087: 1059: 1055: 1018: 1010: 988: 983: 978: 917: 909: 906:personal attack 890: 885: 880: 873:" Please avoid 842: 837: 832: 807: 799: 783: 778: 773: 752: 718: 701: 693: 661: 638: 630: 598: 590: 535: 527: 337: 329: 249: 241: 225: 221: 213: 197: 189: 173: 144: 130: 113: 105: 82: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3221: 3219: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3161: 3160:Horror or not? 3158: 3134: 3131: 3096: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3044: 3041: 3026:"Plot" section 3011: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 2973:Darkknight2149 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2747: 2746: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2707: 2706: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2691: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2634: 2633: 2628: 2625: 2566: 2563: 2531: 2530: 2524: 2518: 2511: 2505: 2499: 2492: 2448: 2447: 2428:TheOldJacobite 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2183:Darkknight2149 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2113: 2101: 2085: 2072:TheOldJacobite 2026: 2014: 1936: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1850:You were also 1848: 1828: 1817: 1806:TheOldJacobite 1804:" - Actually, 1798: 1770: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1495: 1494: 1487:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1442:Darkknight2149 1436: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1411: 1408: 1399:TheOldJacobite 1383: 1360: 1357: 1348:TheOldJacobite 1331: 1328: 1315:TheOldJacobite 1299: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1271: 1268: 1256:TheOldJacobite 1212: 1209: 1198:TheOldJacobite 1193: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1170: 1167: 1115: 1112: 1074:wiki-lawyering 1050: 1043: 1017: 1014: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 916: 913: 875:wiki-lawyering 850: 806: 803: 751: 748: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 700: 697: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 637: 634: 597: 594: 549: 548: 547: 546: 534: 531: 517: 516: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 490: 489: 483: 482: 481: 480: 474: 473: 467: 466: 465: 464: 458: 457: 451: 450: 449: 448: 442: 441: 435: 434: 433: 432: 422: 421: 411: 410: 409: 408: 402: 401: 391: 390: 389: 388: 381: 380: 370: 369: 368: 367: 361: 360: 336: 333: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 280: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 262: 261: 260: 248: 245: 219: 196: 193: 150: 149: 140: 139: 129: 126: 125: 124: 112: 109: 81: 78: 75: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3220: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3190: 3186: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3159: 3157: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3145:80.192.198.17 3142: 3132: 3130: 3129: 3126: 3125: 3119: 3113: 3109: 3101: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3055: 3052: 3048: 3042: 3040: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3022: 3017: 3009: 3003: 3000: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2981: 2980: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2960: 2957: 2956: 2951: 2946: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2923: 2922: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2907: 2899: 2894: 2892: 2888: 2886: 2880: 2873: 2870: 2867: 2861: 2859: 2855: 2854: 2840: 2837: 2836: 2831: 2826: 2819: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2802: 2801: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2786: 2779: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2764: 2760: 2755: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2745: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2735: 2734: 2728: 2727: 2722: 2720: 2716: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2703: 2702: 2692: 2689: 2688: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2673: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2657: 2656: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2647: 2641: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2631: 2630: 2626: 2624: 2623: 2620: 2614: 2613: 2608: 2602: 2600: 2599: 2592: 2589: 2587: 2586: 2579: 2576: 2570: 2564: 2562: 2561: 2558: 2557: 2552: 2547: 2540: 2538: 2528: 2525: 2522: 2519: 2515: 2512: 2509: 2506: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2493: 2490: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2482: 2477: 2475: 2469: 2466: 2465:THANK YOU!!!! 2461: 2454: 2453:edit conflict 2446: 2443: 2436: 2429: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2419: 2411: 2409: 2405: 2400: 2398: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2367: 2365: 2361: 2360: 2353: 2351: 2346: 2342: 2340: 2336: 2333: 2329: 2322: 2319: 2316: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2300: 2298: 2291: 2285: 2283: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2269: 2262: 2259: 2255: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2238: 2233: 2223: 2219: 2210: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2193: 2192: 2184: 2179: 2171: 2168: 2167: 2162: 2157: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2127: 2122: 2114: 2111: 2107: 2102: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2073: 2066: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2049: 2048: 2042: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2033: 2031: 2024: 2023: 2015: 2013: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2003: 2002: 1996: 1994: 1986: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1974: 1966: 1963: 1959: 1954: 1952: 1946: 1943: 1934: 1922: 1919: 1918: 1913: 1908: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1869: 1862: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1846: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1768: 1767:callapsing it 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1735: 1730: 1729: 1727: 1724: 1718: 1717: 1711: 1706: 1705:Added note #2 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1689: 1686: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1662: 1659: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1644: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1613: 1609: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1585: 1584: 1578: 1577: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1564: 1563:edit conflict 1554: 1551: 1550: 1545: 1540: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1516: 1515: 1510: 1505: 1497: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1477:in itself is 1476: 1470: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1459: 1453: 1449: 1443: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1400: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1390: 1388: 1381: 1380: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1322: 1316: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1304: 1297: 1296: 1288: 1287: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1247: 1242: 1237: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1203: 1199: 1191: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1161: 1160: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1150: 1149: 1144: 1139: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1095: 1090: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1051: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1008: 995: 992: 991: 986: 981: 974: 970: 965: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 928: 927: 923: 922: 918: 914: 907: 903: 899: 898: 897: 894: 893: 888: 883: 876: 872: 869: 865: 861: 855: 851: 849: 846: 845: 840: 835: 828: 824: 819: 818: 817: 813: 812: 808: 804: 797: 793: 792: 791: 790: 787: 786: 781: 776: 769: 765: 760: 756: 749: 729: 725: 721: 713: 712: 711: 707: 706: 702: 698: 691: 687: 686: 681: 677: 674: 673: 672: 668: 664: 656: 648: 644: 643: 639: 635: 628: 624: 623: 622: 618: 614: 610: 609: 608: 604: 603: 599: 595: 588: 584: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 559: 558: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 545: 541: 540: 536: 532: 525: 521: 520: 519: 518: 515: 511: 507: 503: 502: 494: 493: 492: 491: 488: 485: 484: 478: 477: 476: 475: 472: 469: 468: 462: 461: 460: 459: 456: 453: 452: 446: 445: 444: 443: 440: 437: 436: 430: 426: 425: 424: 423: 420: 416: 413: 412: 406: 405: 404: 403: 400: 396: 393: 392: 385: 384: 383: 382: 379: 377: 372: 371: 365: 364: 363: 362: 359: 355: 352: 351: 349: 348: 347: 343: 342: 338: 334: 327: 323: 319: 314: 310: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 259: 255: 254: 250: 246: 239: 235: 231: 230: 229: 226: 224: 217: 216: 209: 208: 207: 203: 202: 198: 194: 186: 185: 184: 180: 176: 168: 167: 166: 165: 161: 157: 152: 151: 147: 142: 141: 138: 134: 133: 127: 123: 119: 118: 114: 110: 102: 101: 100: 99: 95: 91: 90:47.214.183.73 88: 79: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3198:81.101.15.25 3184: 3166:81.101.15.25 3163: 3139:— Preceding 3136: 3120: 3105: 3056: 3053: 3049: 3046: 3013: 2984: 2978: 2976: 2969:Thewolfchild 2941: 2926: 2920: 2918: 2900: 2896: 2882: 2878: 2875: 2871: 2865: 2862: 2857: 2851: 2849: 2821: 2805: 2799: 2797: 2738: 2732: 2730: 2718: 2714: 2681: 2677: 2671: 2649: 2645: 2639: 2610: 2606: 2603: 2595: 2593: 2590: 2582: 2580: 2574: 2571: 2568: 2542: 2536: 2534: 2532: 2526: 2520: 2513: 2507: 2501: 2494: 2488: 2478: 2472: 2470: 2464: 2460:Thewolfchild 2449: 2431: 2412: 2407: 2401: 2394: 2368: 2363: 2354: 2347: 2344: 2332:representing 2331: 2327: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2312: 2304: 2301: 2294: 2287: 2277: 2271: 2267: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2228: 2196: 2190: 2188: 2152: 2148: 2145:his response 2140: 2117: 2110:WP:OWNERSHIP 2105: 2052: 2046: 2044: 2041:battleground 2025: 2018: 2006: 2000: 1998: 1990: 1985:Thewolfchild 1967: 1961: 1955: 1947: 1941: 1938: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1864: 1861:been uncivil 1855: 1844: 1839: 1835: 1830:As for that 1820: 1801: 1786: 1773: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1734:Thewolfchild 1714: 1704: 1678: 1674: 1643:months later 1642: 1624: 1598: 1580: 1573: 1559: 1535: 1531: 1500: 1491:WP:OWNERSHIP 1469:Thewolfchild 1448:your summary 1438: 1407: 1405: 1382: 1375: 1356: 1354: 1327: 1325: 1320: 1298: 1291: 1267: 1265: 1259: 1232: 1228:Thewolfchild 1208: 1206: 1195: 1166: 1164: 1157: 1134: 1130: 1111: 1109: 1085: 1069: 1065: 1053: 1046: 1034: 1013: 1011: 1006: 1004: 976: 973:WP:BOOMERANG 967: 958:accusation, 952:WP:OWNERSHIP 939: 935: 931: 912: 910: 901: 878: 868:common sense 857: 830: 822: 802: 800: 771: 767: 763: 755:Thewolfchild 753: 696: 694: 683: 633: 631: 626: 593: 591: 586: 562: 556: 530: 528: 487:Just saying' 486: 470: 454: 438: 428: 418: 414: 398: 397:contributing 394: 375: 373: 357: 353: 332: 330: 325: 322:contributing 321: 317: 312: 244: 242: 237: 218: 211: 192: 190: 153: 145: 108: 106: 83: 70: 43: 37: 3059:Robbmonster 2517:punishment. 2432:guns blazin 2426:Follow up, 2375:Popcornduff 1752:unnecessary 1675:Added note: 431:, you know. 36:This is an 3030:GeorgeTSLC 2627:(break #3) 2565:(break #2) 2383:Gil Dawson 2278:is his sin 2098:WP:BRD-NOT 1995:is his sin 1435:Plot con't 966:for you, " 944:WP:BRD-NOT 854:WP:BRD-NOT 613:Boredkarla 567:Boredkarla 506:Boredkarla 429:everything 417:everything 395:How about 326:everything 309:Boredkarla 288:Boredkarla 234:Boredkarla 156:Boredkarla 2607:preaching 2575:precisely 2498:possible. 2489:Gluttony: 2222:Snow Rise 2082:Dlthewave 2078:Snow Rise 1888:wolfchild 1612:let it go 948:WP:LAWYER 823:just fine 611:Grow up. 284:WP:REVEXP 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3141:unsigned 2866:original 2672:Option 2 2640:Option 1 2598:Wrath.") 2379:last May 2364:complete 2305:complete 1951:the gall 1775:article. 1756:unneeded 1192:Question 796:reverted 137:WP:BKFIP 3179:Why? -- 2715:jealous 2678:jealous 2646:envious 2387:an edit 2328:envious 2268:jealous 2029:The '45 1935:(break) 1825:WP:TLDR 1754:" and " 1744:finally 1485:" (see 1386:The '45 1302:The '45 969:reason. 960:WP:GAME 356:improve 313:improve 222:The '45 39:archive 2985:Karate 2949:Knight 2927:Karate 2829:Knight 2806:Karate 2739:Karate 2550:Knight 2539:Wrath. 2537:Batman 2527:Wrath: 2514:Pride: 2508:Greed: 2502:Sloth: 2474:Wrath. 2404:revert 2236:Knight 2197:Karate 2160:Knight 2125:Knight 2094:WP:BRD 2053:Karate 2007:Karate 1962:no one 1911:Knight 1890:, I'm 1886:Look, 1872:Knight 1845:at all 1791:WP:BRD 1783:WP:OWN 1710:Revert 1543:Knight 1508:Knight 1475:WP:BRD 1260:before 1240:Knight 1202:revert 1142:Knight 1093:Knight 1082:gaming 1078:WP:BRD 1040:WP:NPA 1036:button 984:Knight 964:WP:OWN 956:WP:NPA 886:Knight 838:Knight 779:Knight 387:other. 366:I did. 3117:SONIC 2891:wrath 2881:then 2858:after 2705:page: 2521:Envy: 2495:Lust: 2391:Masem 2339:wrath 2282:wrath 1856:three 1840:still 1603:there 1530:like 1415:child 1364:child 1335:child 1275:child 1216:child 1174:child 1119:child 1021:child 932:still 920:child 810:child 704:child 676:Masem 641:child 601:child 538:child 340:child 252:child 238:blunt 200:child 116:child 16:< 3202:talk 3185:Zala 3170:talk 3149:talk 3077:asem 3063:talk 3034:talk 2998:wolf 2979:Fish 2971:and 2954:2149 2944:Dark 2921:Fish 2905:wolf 2885:envy 2834:2149 2824:Dark 2800:Fish 2784:wolf 2759:diff 2733:Fish 2618:wolf 2555:2149 2545:Dark 2441:wolf 2417:wolf 2359:envy 2335:envy 2313:that 2275:envy 2241:2149 2231:Dark 2191:Fish 2165:2149 2155:Dark 2149:Plot 2141:Plot 2130:2149 2120:Dark 2080:and 2047:Fish 2001:Fish 1993:envy 1972:wolf 1942:must 1916:2149 1906:Dark 1896:your 1892:this 1877:2149 1867:Dark 1836:they 1722:wolf 1684:wolf 1657:wolf 1574:ever 1548:2149 1538:Dark 1513:2149 1503:Dark 1489:and 1457:wolf 1410:WOLF 1359:WOLF 1330:WOLF 1270:WOLF 1245:2149 1235:Dark 1211:WOLF 1169:WOLF 1147:2149 1137:Dark 1114:WOLF 1098:2149 1088:Dark 1068:", " 1016:WOLF 989:2149 979:Dark 915:WOLF 891:2149 881:Dark 843:2149 833:Dark 805:WOLF 784:2149 774:Dark 750:Plot 719:asem 699:WOLF 680:this 662:asem 636:WOLF 617:talk 596:WOLF 571:talk 533:WOLF 510:talk 399:...? 335:WOLF 292:talk 247:WOLF 195:WOLF 174:asem 160:talk 128:Edit 111:WOLF 94:talk 3188:Bim 3182:Zim 3123:678 2879:Doe 2541:") 2389:by 2366:. 2106:his 1900:you 1599:not 1290:--- 1196:Hi 1076:of 866:or 856:, " 827:own 768:all 690:IFC 627:and 587:not 376:all 358:it? 318:all 3204:) 3172:) 3151:) 3084:) 3073:-- 3065:) 3036:) 3028:. 3021:It 2820:. 2601:" 2588:" 2476:" 1760:is 950:, 946:, 726:) 669:) 619:) 573:) 512:) 294:) 181:) 170:-- 162:) 96:) 3200:( 3168:( 3147:( 3082:t 3080:( 3075:M 3061:( 3032:( 2982:+ 2924:+ 2803:+ 2736:+ 2721:. 2605:" 2594:" 2462:: 2458:@ 2455:) 2451:( 2434:' 2211:: 2207:@ 2194:+ 2185:: 2181:@ 2074:: 2070:@ 2067:: 2063:@ 2050:+ 2004:+ 1987:: 1983:@ 1819:" 1800:" 1787:I 1772:" 1736:: 1732:@ 1614:. 1586:" 1579:" 1565:) 1561:( 1471:: 1467:@ 1444:: 1440:@ 1401:: 1397:@ 1350:: 1346:@ 1317:: 1313:@ 1129:" 1062:" 1060:' 1056:' 1052:" 1045:" 1033:" 821:" 762:" 724:t 722:( 717:M 667:t 665:( 660:M 615:( 569:( 508:( 419:? 290:( 179:t 177:( 172:M 158:( 92:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index