Talk:You Only Move Twice/Archive 1

message: One of the pictures in this article does not appear to be official, it looks more like fan art. It is entitled "Hank Scorpio in front of Scorpio"
I believe it is fan art. This page contains the image and a reference to the page owner having drawn the image.
I think that the African Delegate referred to in this article was actually Indian. AllStarZ 00:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the DVD commentary, the director says it was because they needed to zoom in on Homer, but they couldn't do it without seeing the workers heads in the scene. So they made them lie down until the camera pulled out. -- Scorpion0422 08:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: I think the paragraph on Homer's colleagues needs expanding: right now it makes no sense. Also, I think the lead could do with an expansion. Like the plot, the fact this is the greatest Bond parody ever (or something like that). Alientraveller 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. -- Scorpion 19:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've given it a shot, what do you think? If you still don't think its clear enough, perhaps you could give some suggestions? Thanks. -- Scorpion 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Do so. Oh, and it's seen, not scene in what you're saying. Alientraveller 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All done, plus a couple of other things I spotted. Gran2 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Pass. Alientraveller 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: Could it be that there are also references to the book "Walden II" by B.F. Skinner in this episode? 84.158.88.132 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walden II? 

message: Well, the page is an FAC now and it needs work. In my opinion, we need to:
# Expand the lead
# Perform several copyedits on the synopsis section
# Clean up the production section
# Expand the Cultural references and especially the Reception sections.
In other words, it needs a complete overhaul. -- Scorpion0422 06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What needs to be done

message: OK, so, I gave it another shot.  The only sentences I removed referred to the business about the writers "debating" the Marge b-story because it was "depressing".  I don't see what this adds, since it doesn't end up impacting the actual plot.  I made some of the other parts more specific with respect to the family stories.  I also removed the business about the espresso makers because, honestly, who really cares that they're modeled after the animators'?  The rest of the changes I made did remove letters, but they did NOT remove content.  I even left in the business about adding SLH and S2.  The truth of the matter is that the writing in this section was not very good.  It spent a lot of words to say things that could be communicated succinctly.  It used clunky constructions when it could've used streamlined ones.  If you compare the prose, I think it's hard to say that my rewrites do not improve the page.  Croctotheface 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We all think our edits are absolutely perfect. That's why there are other users who can tell us otherwise. Your prose was far from improved. Stuff that causes major dissention in the writers room is notable. -- Scorpion0422 03:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious as to why you think "your" version is so much better. Your text contains FAR too many runon sentences, commas and is nowhere near as good as you think it is. And I really dislike the fact that I should be forced to see the page defaced just because an editor is too immature to accept that his version isn't an improvement. You really are the most immature and unprofessional editor I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with and I will see you in a day when I revert to the better version. -- Scorpion0422 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Defaced?  Go read WP:Own and find something productive to do. Croctotheface 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Own is a two way street, you don't own it either and just because you think your edits are perfect, doesn't mean they are. The previous version (which isn't just mine - four people worked on it) passed an FAC and I guess that counts for something, doesn't it? You just want to get your own way, that's all. By the way, who is Ernst Stavro Bolofeld? -- Scorpion0422 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your attitude this whole time has basically been to tell me to go away.  You keep referring to the article's FA status as if that means that it is perfect as is and can't be improved.  When you apologized for calling me a vandal and then "retracted" that apology, I am left to believe that you only apologized in the first place because you thought it would make me leave "your" article alone.  We can disagree about the appropriateness of this detail or that detail, but the prose needs improvement.  I am honestly surprised that it was selected as a FA, but rather than take your flippant suggestion of nominating it for a FA review, I decided to be bold and improve the article.  My reward for that was insults, accusations of vandalism, and reversions.  If I just wanted to get my way for the sake of getting my way, I would not have undertaken two distinct rewrites.  You reverted both of these outright.  In your mind, not only was my version not an overall improvement, not a single word was worth keeping.  Even if I am a terrible writer, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.  I'm left to believe simply that you reject and will revert any substantial change to this article out of hand.  Croctotheface 04:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope. Get over yourself. -- Scorpion0422 04:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the very least, then, I hope your recognize that we need further comments from disinterested parties to resolve this.  Croctotheface 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving it another shot 

message: #Croctotheface's edits improved the article greatly.  He is a good writer and has a good sense for weeding out clutter so that the article is actually easier to understand and more informative.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information.  Just because it's true doesn't make it encyclopedic.
#Scorpion0422 was completely out of line for jumping right in and labeling the constructive edits as vandalism.  Scorpion0422's failure to assume good faith is what kicked off this mess.
#Scorpion0422's edits were only in the nature of dragging the article back down to its less readable state.
#Remember the three-revert rule ? It's not the gazillion revert rule.  You're both guilty.  Equally.  Policy is policy.
#Scorpion0422  has had a harder time remembering to be WP:CIVIL, but you've both lost control.  Just look at this talk page tomorrow after you've had a good night's sleep.  You'll be saying to yourselves: "What was I thinking!?!"
#You guys sound like a couple of kindergärtners who didn't get their nap today.  Do better next time.  Don't make yourselves and everyone else miserable over a SIMPSON'S EPISODE (y'all know it's just a half-hour cartoon, right?)OfficeGirl 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has never been my opinion that my edits were 100% perfect.  I'm certainly willing to see this or that sentence changed from my version.  I do have to agree with OfficeGirl about my version being an overall improvement.  I would appreciate more guidance from both of our third opinion-givers about which details we should exclude and which to include.  For the time being, I left each disputed detail IN and focused only on the prose, but I don't think that each belongs. Croctotheface 05:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have sought to improve the writing here, but I have been met with considerable resistance. Croctotheface 04:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been met with resistance because you're trying to remove content. -- Scorpion0422 04:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You claimed I removed content before, and then you shut up becuase you realized that I didn't.  You continued to then revert contributions that everyone else agreed were big improvements.  You made this personal from the very first edit, and you continue to refuse to accept my edits as legitimate. Croctotheface 04:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  And, by the way, I want to remove content for the good of the article.  The stuff I want to remove is trivial and unnecessary.  It's a matter of three different little factoids.  You've reverted me, in whole or in part, multiple times.  You claimed that my edits did not improve the article at all.  For you, this is not about the article, it's about me. Croctotheface 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's see here, you came out of nowhere and removed half of the production section. It seems to me that you tried to remove a LOT of content. You seem to have forgotten that. And, by the way, removing sourced content without discussion IS considered vandalism. And don't you start with this "good of the article" stuff and acting like your so innoncent. I'm done with you. I've stated my case as clearly as I possibly can and the fact that you are still arguing over silly things proves that you don't care about the article. I tried to restart a discussion about the "three little factoids" and you ignored it. -- Scorpion0422 04:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You owe me an apology for calling me a vandal.   You owe me an apology for saying that I don't care about the article.  Until you do that, I have nothing to say to you. Croctotheface 04:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say that you aren't taking this personally? Besides, you called me a vandal. -- Scorpion0422 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Opinion As Requested 

message: (edit conflict, I see OfficeGirl got here first, but here goes anyway...)
I'm going to start this not with an opinion on the content, but with an opinion on this discussion.  The WQA volunteer in me won't let it slide. , I count at least four comments you've made in this discussion that are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL, another three instances on 's talk page, and it seems to me that your input on this discussion (especially in the "Giving it another shot" subsection) indicates you've caught a bad case of ownership of this article.  To put it bluntly, Scorpion, you need to back off, take a deep breath, and realize that others may have valuable contributions to make.
I'm honestly surprised that this discussion hasn't escalated farther than it has already; and for that I can only credit Croc's saint-like patience.  Personally, I would have reacted far more poorly than he did to wholesale reversions of good-faith attempts to improve an article.
That being said, Croc, you may wish to take into account some of Scorpion's less irritable comments.  I see that in the edit which you linked just above this opinion, you'd already done so to an extent, but it's obviously not what he was looking for.  I'll take some time a bit later (tomorrow morning, I think, it's midnight here) to read over the actual edits you've made and Scorpion's comments about them and see if I can work out a reasonable compromise for this article. --Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has never been my opinion that my edits were 100% perfect.  I'm certainly willing to see this or that sentence changed from my version.  I do have to agree with OfficeGirl about my version being an overall improvement.  I would appreciate more guidance from both of our third opinion-givers about which details we should exclude and which to include.  For the time being, I left each disputed detail IN and focused only on the prose, but I don't think that each belongs. Croctotheface 05:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another third opinion

message: Thought I'd chime in. :) I do think this article needs a lot of work. Had I noticed the FAC, I would have voted Oppose because of prose concerns. A few quick  comments after looking at the lead:
*The episode focuses around Homer getting a new job at the Globex Corporation in Cypress Creek. "Focuses around"? We could probably do better.
*The episode title is a reference to the James Bond film You Only Live Twice and many elements of the episode parody the Bond films. This is a run-on sentence. You need a comma between "Twice" and "and".
*We use the phrase "unbeknownst to Homer" twice within three consecutive sentences.
I think the Simpsons project should try to clean up some of the old FAs instead of looking for a new article to promote. If A Streetcar Named Marge passes its FAC, I'm probably going to turn my attention here. Zagalejo^^^ 03:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sought to improve the writing here, but I have been met with considerable resistance. Croctotheface 04:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been met with resistance because you're trying to remove content. -- Scorpion0422 04:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You claimed I removed content before, and then you shut up becuase you realized that I didn't.  You continued to then revert contributions that everyone else agreed were big improvements.  You made this personal from the very first edit, and you continue to refuse to accept my edits as legitimate. Croctotheface 04:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  And, by the way, I want to remove content for the good of the article.  The stuff I want to remove is trivial and unnecessary.  It's a matter of three different little factoids.  You've reverted me, in whole or in part, multiple times.  You claimed that my edits did not improve the article at all.  For you, this is not about the article, it's about me. Croctotheface 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's see here, you came out of nowhere and removed half of the production section. It seems to me that you tried to remove a LOT of content. You seem to have forgotten that. And, by the way, removing sourced content without discussion IS considered vandalism. And don't you start with this "good of the article" stuff and acting like your so innoncent. I'm done with you. I've stated my case as clearly as I possibly can and the fact that you are still arguing over silly things proves that you don't care about the article. I tried to restart a discussion about the "three little factoids" and you ignored it. -- Scorpion0422 04:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You owe me an apology for calling me a vandal.   You owe me an apology for saying that I don't care about the article.  Until you do that, I have nothing to say to you. Croctotheface 04:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say that you aren't taking this personally? Besides, you called me a vandal. -- Scorpion0422 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another opinion

message: First, you tell me I shoudl focus on other sections.  Then, you partially revert me.  Am I going to need to ask for another third opinion here?  Croctotheface 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, am I all of the sudden not even allowed to edit the article? I didn't revert you, I fixed some typos and fixed some clunky sentences. That is all. -- Scorpion0422 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what ways were your "fixes to clunky sentences" different from the version just before I edited the page? Croctotheface 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I accepted 75% of your changes but decided that in some cases, the original text was better. We try to avoid specific jokes, unless they have something to do with the overall plot and I removed a couple of instances of over-detailing. But, you immediately reverted to "your" version and all of the sudden you seem to have the ownership issues. -- Scorpion0422 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted because I assumed that your partial reversion was arbitrary.  In the past, you have reverted me without a good reason, and you didn't give one in your edit summary.  Based on your more recent changes, I think that the reversion has actually been a positive, since you reconsidered some of your earlier reversions, which did not benefit the article.  The "abandoned" sign could be a joke retelling.  OK, fair enough, take that out.  The "prove he's not bluffing" quote could be unnecessary, OK, fair enough, remove it.  I am still inclined to quibble, though, with a couple of other ones.  First, "does not recognize or comment on what is going on" accurately describes what Homer does, while "remains oblivious to Scorpio's evil genius tendencies" is inferior for a few reasons.  First, "evil genius tendencies" sounds strange.  What is it to "tend" to be an evil genius?  Would you accept a compromise version of "does not realize/recognize what his boss/Scorpio is doing" or "does not realize/recognize that his boss/Scorpio is a supervillain"?  And I think that my intro is just better, even if it might spend another ten or so words.  The writing is better. Croctotheface 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Because they are minor details with little to do with the overall plot. Synopsises are supposed to be as brief as possible and avoid jokes unless they are absolutely necessary. -- Scorpion0422 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to apologize to me for your numerous personal attacks.  If you want to remove the bit about the seniority, fine, but you haven't done that.  You've insisted on leaving it in without explaining why it matters.  Your version makes that detail even more irrelevant.  If you did not reject my edits out of hand becuase of your ownership issues here, maybe the article could actually get better. Croctotheface 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section, now