" 

 ==Bibliography again== 
 I would like to reference some fairly detailed articles on Juno, Karen Valdy's ""The Screenwriter Diablo Cody"" and Lisa Schwarzbaum's ""Knocked Up"" in Entertainment Weekly along with Cathy Gulli's ""suddenly Teen Pregnancy is Cool?"" in Maclean'''s magazine. These contemporary text sources could be the basis of a bibliography with citations written in Harvard Citation style to link to them. FWIW   . 
 :I don't understand. Will you be adding content to the prose of the article, and expanding it based on these sources? Or, are you merely going to list these articles under the heading ""Bibliography""? If the latter is what you're talking about, I've already argued against it, as has JimDunning; I don't know why you are persisting in the face of WP:CITE, as detailed by me above. Sorry to say it, but it is irritating to me that you have not spoken to the issues we raised, and simply persist with your same wants, ""Bibiography again"". Jim and I have both encouraged you to go to the policy level instead of spending your energy and that of other editors fighting for your personal preference at individual articles where people will repeatedly respond to you that Wikipedia policy doesn't back you up  yet you come back to the same argument here. Why? I've now observed that you were fighting a similar fight at Mulholland Drive, and I have to wonder why you are using this strategy, which seems like it frustrates you and is frustrating to others as well. You could have a much more widespread effect and at the same time take a more community-minded, collaborative approach by debating this at the project-wide or Wikipedia-wide level. If people in the Films and Aviation projects have all encouraged you to do so, I don't know why you think it would be too daunting. I've made amendments to Wikipedia policy that have sailed through. So, if you're going to actually add content to the prose of this article based on these sources, by all means, please do! If you're just going to list articles, in light of the previous discussion, you have no basis to be surprised or offended if others reformat your additions. There isn't consensus here for a bibliography, and this is not the place to fight for Wikipedia reference guideline changes. This article already cites some ""fairly detailed articles."" The article doesn't need more references for people to look at outside of Wikipedia  it needs to be better fleshed out in prose as per WP:MOSFILM.    

 ::Of course, I would be adding content. The entire exercise previously was merely to indicate the use of a bibliography section. Please note that there are other issues involved as I was asked to intercede in the article in question, and if you recall, the same thing applied here, a request for assistance was made. FWiW, trace back and you will find that a nomination to become a film Projects Coordinator has already been made, and that is where exploring the issue of referencing can be inititiated.    . 

 :::Though I hate to veer too far afield on article Talk pages from actual discussion of the article itself, we need to clarify two guiding principles: Assume Good Faith and Consensus. Bzuk regularly invokes AGF on Talk pages (both article and user) and edit summaries whenever someone disagrees with his edits and opinions. This is not what AGF is about. AGF is about reverts and changes by editors who ""assume"" the other editor intends harm to the article by intentionally making unproductive or destructive edits. That is not the case here. When I removed the initial ""test"" entry I clearly explained my reason in an edit summary (it had nothing to do with vandalism). Above, Melty girl and I have clearly explained our positions on Bzuk's ""proposal"" (again, no accusations of ill-intent on Bzuk's part). Yet, Bzuk repeatedly criticizes our actions by citing AGF (as he has done at Mulholland Drive'' with other editors). 

 :::Bzuk, please do not confuse ""disagreement"" with thinking that other editors are changing your contributions because they think you are intentionally injuring Wikipedia, or that those editors are consciously injuring Wikipedia by disagreeing with your edits. That brings us to Consensus. Wikipedia is built around Consensus and that is what you and other editors are trying to achieve by providing adequate edit summaries and engaging in discussion on Talk pages. It is considered good form to accede to the direction supported by a majority of editors. And, yes, WP is not a democracy, so minority positions may ""win"" the day, and Melty girl has made an excelle