Talk:The Beguiled (1971 film)

message: Is there any reason why the user Netscott is constantly reverting changes made to this particular page that are actually improving the article? Jet082 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a response at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EVula#Note about this particular article and the constant reverts that are occuring here.  Honestly, if an edit improves wikipedia, it should remain.  Besides, how do you even know that those users are all the same person?  I seriously considering reverting to the more lengthy and useful article until I noted that I might possibly be banned for trying to improve this page. Jet082 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user  aka user  has been banned from editing Wikipedia. This user has been defiantly evading his ban through the use of IP addresses and sockpuppets. I have taken a proactive stance to ensuring that this user remains effectively banned from the project by reverting all of his edits (which is what Wikipedia policy calls for). The reason for this is that while this user's latest contributions appear positive he is effectively setting up a sleeper account for later abuse/disruption.  23:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So basically, the addition of important information is taking a backseat because someone might vandalize things in the future? Among other things, isn't that counterproductive? Other users seem to think the information is valid, therefore it seems ridiculous to continuously remove it simply because the original poster was banned. --Yayza 04:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When a person is banned they are to stop editing. When that person habitually does not abide by the wishes of the community then it is normal for additional steps to be taken to encourage the banned editor's disengagement from the project. The editor in question is aware of the steps he needs to take in order to have his ban rescinded... rather than take those steps he continues to evade his ban with sockpuppets and IPs.  05:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not revert his edit and add in the additional information yourself?  At least then the article will be improved... Jet082 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions being removed? 

message: :Image:Beguiled43.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Beguiled43.jpg

message: I made some changes to the plot, because the summary didn't reflect how dark it was. The film seemed to leave a question as to whether or not the leg truly needed amputation. Eastwood's character seems to think that he would have been able to heal the leg, but the other characters do not. Without the presence of medical attention, it does seem as though the headmistress did the amputation out of spite. Correct me if I am wrong here... Anneaholaward (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Plot */ 

message: Re. this line in the "Reception" section...... "Eastwood does not use a gun once in the movie in contemporaneous time (but does in recall of his activities qua soldier)". He does, in the scene where he shoots the lock off the door (the gun previously stolen from the headmistresses room) to verbally abuse the women just after he drinks the cellar dry. DropShadow (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun usage 

message: "After rejecting the headmistress for a younger girl, McBurney gets his comeuppance..."
Sorry, I didn't realize rejecting a woman's sexual advances deserves "comeuppance". Was this written by a feminist? I'm changing that offensive statement. Also, the "Freudian symbolism" smacks of original research. JQ (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually seen either this film, or its remake? The term "comeuppance" was more than likely utilized because the character "got what was coming to him". It has nothing to do with the character "rejecting sexual advances" & everything to do with the fact that he was "playing" these women & young girls, pitting one against the other with his behavior. He was "in love" with the Edwina teacher character whilst simultaneously having sex with the 17 yo Carol character & flirting with the rest of them, including the headmistress character & the young girls. "Written by a feminist"? Really?ScarletRibbons (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Comeuppance"