Talk:Snakes on a Plane/Archive 3

message: Was the page deleted?
:It was archived Axeman89 01:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection was a good move! --67.170.168.68 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened?

message: I think that we should put something in about the spam being sent to people's phones.  I've received a message with Jackson talking about his movie.  Several of my friend have gotten these and we're all annoyed, especially because where I live in California it's not legal to call a phone and play a recorded commerical advertisement.  Apparently the call is coming from New York but when I called the number I got a fast busy signal.  This is similar to weird partial messages in Spanish I have been getting from New York about once a month for the last few months as well.  Maybe the spammer was gearing up to advertise this movie?  --Mperry 06:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The message was almost certainly initiated by someone you know. See http://snakesonaplane.varitalk.com/ . —ptk✰fgs 06:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been told that.  However, no one I know claims to have sent it.  We're also old enough not to participate in teenage hijinks and practical jokes (like sending the message and lying about it).  I went to the site you linked to and tried to send a test message to my home but it wouldn't let me (says it's outside the right hours).  It looks ripe for abuse.  Does this call the "from" number to get verification to send the message and limit the number of messages to send?  If not then anyone can send messages to any quantity of numbers.  Or the movie company can use it to send to a list of numbers and dismiss any complaints as "The message was almost certainly initiated by someone you know."  I wonder if anyone else has had this experience.  --Mperry 06:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person sending the message has to enter in a whole mess of info before it sends.  Also, movie companies don't want to antagonize people by sending them random ads.  If the message is personalized, the receiver will actually listen to it, instead of hanging up as with a generic message.  =D  Jumping cheese Contact 11:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phone Spam 

message: I had posted the trivia item about the apparent goof by the graphic designer when creating the official poster (actually, the "B" poster, the current poster is the "C" poster with images of the cast).  It was deleted by another user along the way.
To anyone who doubts me, look at the poster.  Try tracing each snake's head down to its tail.
Minor quibble, but thought I'd offer something to distract from arguments about the box office, projections, and the famous line. PabSungenis 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many tails in the poster?

message: The first way to clean up this page is to stop blaming other editors. I don't care if Hitler, Saddam, and Satan all team up to get the page to their POV, we will not get anything done on this page as long as users keep blaming each other. By the way, I am not singling out anyone. That would violate my own rule. It all comes down to choice: you can continue pointing fingers and angering other editors, or you can think of constructive way to get this page on the long road to Featured Article status. For this purpose, I propose the following solution:
#We start with a cease fire in the recent edit war. That means no reverts. In fact, let's take it one step further — rule 2.
#If you have been in an edit war — stay away from the section that's got you all riled up. It's that simple. If you're arguing over box office results, switch to editing the plot summary, or work on character analyses, or whatever.
#Users who attack other users on this page or related talk pages should be reported to the admins and blocked for a short while. Not long, a day at most. Hopefully that will cool off tempers.
#Hinting at rudeness is the same as being outwardly rude. If I say, "F*** you", the meaning is the same even if I don't spell it out. It's not about censoring Wikipedia for minors; it's about respect.
#The page is going to be vandalized by random anons and new users. We'll revert them when necessary, but let's not confuse vandalism with honest edits.
Hope this helps. — Lovelac7 08:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. Yanksox 17:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal

message: There's a mention of them being dissapointing, but it should be clarified that the film will still draw even and likely make a profit. The budget was only 36,000,000 so there wont be trouble reaching that number. Gregmitch 09:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, the article only mentions that the opening weekend earnings were disappointing.  I agree that we don't need to add more about its earnings until it has left the theatres.  It might end up making a lot of money during the full run but the film hasn't even been out for a full week yet.  Let's just wait and see what happens.  --Mperry 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Film Earnings

message: The villain Kraitler is probably named after a venomous snake, the Krait. This should probably go in the trivia section. I can't put it there at the moment because the page is protected, but anyone else should feel free. Zargulon 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would need an independent source; otherwise it's original research and speculative at that. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence that should go in the trivia section is "The first part of the villain Kraitler's name, Krait, is a species of venomous snake", which doesn't speculate about whether or the feature is intentional; I assume that was Darcy's only objection to my previous comment. Zargulon 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOR. There are no exceptions listed and as such, even Trivia must meet the three content guidelines. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Bobblehead 16:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence I just posted is purely factual and contains no original research.. that objection seems to be frivolous. You are entitled to your opinion that it is indiscriminate information, I disagree. Zargulon 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kraitler

message: The large constrictor in the movie is a Burmese python, not a Boa Constrictor.
http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/blsnakesonaplanepicsx.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.199.125.10 (talk • contribs) 
:You know, we should probably put up a list of the snakes shown in the film, and link them to the snakes' articles. That seems like something that this article would benefit from, and keep the snakes clear. We could call it something like "Snakes Featured" or "Snakes on the plane". JQF 19:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Python

message: I should've mentioned this earlier, but I'm leaving wikipedia for a while. I have a family member under going surgery so I need to help out since she is developmentally disabled. Her home doesn't have internet access so I don't see how I can meaningfully participate on this article for the next couple of months at least. So good luck. Please keep it real even though there are two rude Snakes on a Plane fans on this forum that won't stop at twisting this page into their own personal SOAP fan page. Please be good to each other. And try to work things out. Sorry for my own temper and my own negativity on this forum. I noticed on the adminboard that one of users who was engaging in the edit war has been officially censured. Out of the respect for that person I won't mention them by name. But try to keep that individual honest so he/she doesn't engage in more destructive page ownership. And that also means preventing him from using other users on this forum by proxy to revert other individual's edits. Take care and god bless and remember, only the facts!Guerillafilm 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm leaving on a jet plane

message: Can y'all please take this somewhere else? I don't care in the least who insulted whom. If someone makes a personal attack here, remove it under WP:RPA and argue about it on your own talk pages. If you think it's a repeated pattern, take it to WP:ANI. But this is not the place and it's just making it more difficult to get this stuff worked out so the page can get unprotected and updated.
Thanks. —ptk✰fgs 22:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. Time to focus on the content of the article, not past transgressions.--Bobblehead 22:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks 

message: Wow, this Internet-phenomenon-turned-box-office-bomb isn't attracting the attention of many administrators, is it? This is pathetic. BabuBhatt 22:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is VERY pathetic. Both sides seem to be on a power trip at the moment. Pacific Coast Highway {blah • Snakes on a Plane} 22:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I mean it's pathetic that editors cannot work on an article about a brand-new movie, because a nut admin has locked it instead of just blocking the two users in question. Simply pathetic. BabuBhatt 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I'm actually close to unprotecting this, and I just can't block two users out of the blue. I believe in being nice to people, not calling others names, and trying to move forward peacefully. I hope you can do the same. Yanksox 03:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously still locked six days after the movie was released?

message: I'm unprotecting this page to give it another chance, if it gets crazy, protection may come (from any admin). Also, we need to keep cool heads. Let's hope we all can work well together. Yanksox 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection