Talk:Yesterday Was a Lie

message: I have tagged this article with a COI tag, since an examination of contributions indicates that at least four of the accounts used to edit the article: Helicon Arts Cooperative, Sorrywrongnumber, Boxcarwillie and Filmsnoir are all single purpose accounts used (basically) only to edit this and related articles, such as those of the actors and creative staff involved in the film.  In addition, several dozen IPs, all from the same area (69.23x.xxx.xxx), are likely to be COI editors as well.  
Because of this I have extensively reworked the article, removing promotional language and formatting and generally wikifying it. I have also left COI messages on the talk pages of the above accounts, and on some (but not all) of the IPs.  Sach (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also note that in the AfD discussion which took place a year or so ago, Sorrywrongnumber voted to keep, as did one 69.23x.xx.xx IP and one other editor User:2Misters who had only 2 previous edits and has not edited since.  This strongly suggests that the AfD vote was socked to a Keep.I'm not suggesting that the article should be deleted, it seems to me to be notable enough, but it does appear quite possible that the producers of the film are manipulating the encyclopedia for their own commercial purposes. Sach (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are in violation of WP:3RR and WP:AGF. Although I corrected the spelling of an actor's name and corrected the credit order, you accused me of "introducing promotional material." You also left abusive accusations on editors' talk pages accusing them of COI, when it is on fact rapidly becoming clear that you have the COI.166.205.130.225 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I always strive for accuracy: what actors name did I mispell?  If you're refrring to John Haymes Newton, that is the title of his article here on Wikipedia, so the proper way for him to be referenced in a Wikipedia article.  There's no need for a piped alias. Sach (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, a bunch of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx IP editors have come out of the woodwork to improperly delete this discussion without participating in it, and remove the COI tag from the article.  Unfortunately, by doing so they (or rather, he or she) has rather proved my point. Sach (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh, and note the user talk page discussions here and here. Sach (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it points to a COI concern, or perhaps it doesn't. If it does, then that logic cuts both ways, and we can reasonably conclude that you have a COI as well. A one-day old account pops up out of the blue and suddenly starts reverting credits on a film article, so that they are different from those on the film's official site? Who would do that, other than an individual with a COI? Either way, it is not your place to make sock allagations against other editors on Talk pages. Such accusations are taken very seriously and should be directed at admins on the appropriate forums, not like this. If you are wrong - and there is currently no hard evidence that you are right - then you are needlessly slandering editors and pointlessly watering down an article's information. That is why there are rules about how to handle such concerns, and you are violating all if them. But obviously, you do appear to care about Wiki policy - you only appear, in fact, to care about reordering a film's credits, which is just too suspicious.166.205.130.225 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've filed a COI complaint here. Sach (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: For the benefit of those reading this comment here, I responded to it on my talk page, to the effect that I have no problem whatsoever with Wildhartlivie's edits, and that, specifically, the removal of Chase Masterson as producer was basically an error on my part.  I do want to add, however, that I don't believe I have slung any mud at any time in this discussion -- it certainly never was my intention to do so, and I think a re-reading of the various threads will confirm that I didn't.  I raised what I believe is a legitimate issue and, lo and behold, chaos ensued.  I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about why, exactly, that would be the case.In any event, I extend my thanks to both Piano non troppo and Wildhartlivie for stepping in and helping to restore some calmth. Sach (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: When you violate WP:AGF by accusing editors of beings socks or aliases without an admin having verified it in advance, you are always going to cause chaos. Those accusations had (and have) no place on an article's talk page.166.205.130.225 (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you would benefit from taking a closer look at WP:AGF, since you seem to fundamentally misunderstand it and the process by which Wikipedia functions.As for my COI comments, they are, in fact, required to be here, to justify the COI tag I placed. Sach (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: Respectfully I think that a bit of bias was introduced into the article re: the Variety review which I am trying to correct.  I welcome discussion.  
Specifically, stating that Variety was critical of the film's plot does not ring true with the review itself, which praises the script as "ambitious" and "refreshingly high-minded." The Lynch quote that you used, and the statement that the film leads to grand yet underwhelming revelations, does not read like a criticism to me (I saw the film two days ago, and indeed, that is kind of the whole point of the movie).
Also, while the review criticizes the film's acting style, it then goes on to say it is forgivable.  Not presenting both points, I believe, biases this article.
Finally, stating that the film received positive reviews "earlier in its festival run" discounts the fact that many, if not most, of the reviews cited occurred after the festival run ended. 2Misters (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with two things in the article as it stands, and am editing boldly to change them. 1, I don't see why the Variety review should be on top because it is "the most important"? Whether Variety is any more or less important than the Times, Weekly, or Film Threat is very subjective. The standard order is good reviews on top, then mixed, then bad. I see no reason to change that. (Also, I don't understand the significance of singling out that the fact that Variety's review came out after the film's release, as if that somehow makes it important.. reviews always come out before a film's theatrical release, as it seems most of these reviews have.. the fact that Variety came out afterward kinda makes Variety less credible.) 2, I think if you're going to single out certain quotes from the Variety review attacking the acting, you need to balance that with the fact that almost all the other reviews praised the acting. 166.205.136.251 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, agreed, will change accordingly. Also, forgot to mention before that I am uncertain why the other editor changed the runtime from 89 to 88 minutes... IMDb and the theatre chain exhibiting the film (http://www.laemmle.com/viewmovie.php?mid=5458) both list it as 89. 2Misters (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: Hey I'm new to this, so please forgive me if I'm not going about this correctly.  I believe some bias is present in the reception section of this article, particularly in use of the name of the LA Weekly critic, John Wheeler.  Mentioning that he is a college student is irrelevant to quoting a review he wrote for the LA Weekly, and citing an article he wrote for a college paper only serves to verify that irrelevant admission.  That information seems like an attempt to discredit the critic, which would indicate bias.  It is irrelevant in any case. Rollins12 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, that's a tough one. On one hand I see your point, but on the other, L.A. Weekly is a pretty major paper, so its unusual to have a film reviewed by someone who isn't a staff critic, and that alone might make it notable. Does it discredit the critic? To an extent, it does make the review weigh less than if it was written by a professional critic. So does that mean it should be omitted? Well, we don't omit facts from Wikipedia just because they are "uncomfortable." An argument could be made, like the earlier editor did, that omitting this fact would bias the article. But, since overall the film appears to have gotten positive reviews, and these appear to be the only negative ones, I'm not certain that facts which slightly undermine one of the negative reviews are necessary to provide balance, in this particular case. So I guess I agree with you; let's strike that part. 76.176.7.158 (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: It's amazing the incredible attraction of this article to first-time editors! Apparently, people must have seen the movie and been overcome with an irresistible desire to edit the talk page of the Wikipedia article about the film!!  Let's see how many brand-new accounts and first-time IP editors we can accumulate, and how many corners of the same mouth they can speak out of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's an interesting observation. You, for example, set up an account a week before the film's release and have been busy editing not only this page, but the pages of virtually everyone associated with the film. I notice that the other new editors have been arguing with each other about notability, etc., and reverting each others' edits, so I doubt they are the "same" mouth. Although, if you know something that we don't, then you are strongly encouraged to take it to the admins. If not, your observation would be what we politely call "assuming bad faith," or at the very least "a waste of time." 76.176.7.158 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point!!  Right now, your four edits to Yesterday Was a Lie-related articles constitute 57% of your seven edits, while my contributions to articles related to that film constitue 2% of my 903 edits, and only 5 of the 256 unique articles I've edited – so, clearly, I must be the one with an agenda, and all that editing is just a gigantic smokescreen!!!As for taking it to the admins – eveything in the fullness of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 76.176.7.158, please do not contribute to bickering. Ken, if you have something productive to contribute to this or any article, please do so. If you feel there is biased or non-neutral material being inserted into an article by a party or parties with a COI, please report it (not "in the fullness of time"; there is no purpose in waiting). As of now, you appear to be making the same blanket allegations that H Debussy-Jones ("Sach") did earlier (in fact, your account was opened exactly at the point when Sach disappeared and stopped editing; like him, you appear to be at least somewhat focused on this film and filmmakers). Anyway, as the admins told "Sach" before, if you feel there is a problem with this (or any) article's content, then fix it now, or forever hold your peace. The talk page is no place for bad faith allegations and finger-pointing that do not further an article's accuracy. Thanks guys, and have a good Christmas! 2Misters (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: An observation

message: It's been claimed that I want to "own" this article.  I don't.  I don't really care much about the film it's about, but I also don't want the article to be edited by people intent on skewing it in a way that distorts the available factual information about the film.  Given the long history of a sockfarm that controlled this article, and many other articles connected to the film, it's only natural that I would be suspicious of brand new editors or IP editors who attempt to move the article back to the state it was in when they sockfarm essentially ran it -- so please understand that if I seem less than open and lacking in AGF a bit, it's that checkered history that explains it.I'm more than happy to discuss any changes with those editors at any time here on the talk page, and, of course, I don't interfere with edits made by established editors who are interested in improving it.  Again, I don't "own" this article, but I do try to look out for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'r eso interested in "factual information" then why the insistence on inserting propaganda? Man you know you worke don this film - your gig is up, just drop it already and step back. Your cover is blown Ed Fitzgerald. 208.88.120.88 (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note to editors about this article 

message: Citation 18 is a dead link. Citation 19 goes to a totally random website. Article is locked so it can't be edited. Shouldn't someone with edit privileges remove these links? 208.88.120.85 (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation 18 is indeed a dead link, and is labelled as one.  Since the Allmovie Blog review of the film that it originally supported seems no longer to be available, I have deleted the mention of it.  That citation 19 was originally added by one of Sorrywrongnumber's sockpuppets to show that the reviewer for the LA Weekly was only an intern, in an attempt to downplay that reviewer's opinion.  Since that contention is no longer in the article, I have deleted the ref.However, since you mention it, I've run down the links for the reviews in the LA Times and LA Weekly, which were categorized in the article as negative capsule reviews, and have seen that they are, in fact, somewhat more than that, so I've included them in the article, with pull quotes from the reviews -- since the LA Times and LA Weekly are important media outlets and should be included.Thanks for the heads up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, Sorrywrongnumber, the blocked sockfarmer I mentioned above, has in the past used IP addresses in the range 208.88.120.0/21 for his sockpuppetry, which I believe includes the IP you've just posted from.  However, if you have other suggestions about the article, I'll be glad to consider them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Glad to know I'm living rent-free in that head of yours. And for the record, it's hilarious how you refer to LA Weekly, an alt-culture paper with a circulation of 193,714, as "mainstream," in order to justify it as an "important" media outlet ("important" meaning "it gave the film a bad review so therefore it should be quoted in full." Of course, had it given the film a good review, you would consider it a "minor" outlet and try to bury it.)  Just like it's hilarious how you go to great efforts to quote everything negative about your film in the body of the article, while erasing everything positive - including the part of the Variety quote which praises the film's plot. Including the part about how Rotten Tomatoes actually counts that review you keep calling "negative" as "positive" (you certainly wouldn't want readers to know that, would you). And how you keep inserting the sentence "During the film's earlier festival run it received generally positive reviews, with certain notable exceptions" back into the article, with no explanation for the fact that there are no exceptions listed, not to mention the fact that the positive reviews given as examples didn't occur during the festival run. But what do we expect. We all know you'd never allow the facts to get in the way of your agenda. 208.88.120.86 (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments, Sorrywrongnumber.  Please remember that posting using an IP while you're blocked is block evasion -- so I'm afraid I can't enourage you to post here again.  However, if you can get over your ridiculous idee fixe that I'm biased against the film, and would like to post suggestions about the article on your talk page at User talk:Sorrywrongnumber, I'll be glad to consider them for the article.  Please be civil, though, since I'll simply ignore harangues and such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Ed, discussion moved to here. 208.88.120.84 (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I've looked at your comments and responded there.  Incidentally, although I'm happy if we can come to some accomodation that brings a little peace around here, I do not know you, we are not friends, and I have not given you permission to refer to me by my actual first name.  Please be kind enough to address me as "Beyond My Ken" or "BMK".  Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the discussion to User talk:Sorrywrongnumber as the most appropriate place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken links