Talk:The Fog (2005 film)

message: This movie is a "not to be seen" one, a total waste of time.(from Sami,may 20. 2006)
I added a cleanup tag to the plots summary section. It needs to be rewritten and currently reads like someone's middle school book report. Gront 22:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary 

message: The mistakes section seems to be a copy fo the copyrighted site http://www.moviemistakes.com/film5310, so I remvoed the section and added an external link to it. RJFJR 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes section

message: I was told some people call this movie the "TV killer" because most LCD TVs cannot display the fog scenes very well. Is it true? I've never seen this movie. -- Toytoy 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV killer 

message: "Before DeRay Davis auditioned and blew producers away."  Did Davis write this himself?  This is extremely POV, even more so than the Selma Blair line and should be deleted or have a citation added.==Hypermagic 03:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeRay Davis Audition 

message: :Image:The Fog 2005 film.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Fog 2005 film.jpg

message: Whenever some tries to contribute to this page it is undone and replaced with a load of condensed crap that is apparently within some guideline some idiot in an office with no life has made up. I am sick of it you should be able to put whatever you want within reason of course nothing rude obviously but if it helps with the plot then why shouldn't it be allowed to be used. This 700 word non sense is the biggest load of garabage I have ever heard what happens when the article is very long and needs to be over 700 words? The Fog and Gone with the Wind are very different length plots but are they both going to be 700 words if that's the maximum liit and the Fog is already 700? It's about time somebody stands up to these idiotic rules!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 17:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , Wikipedia's policy about writing about fiction says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." For articles about films, there is a consensus that "a concise summary" should mean between 400 and 700 words, as seen at WP:FILMPLOT. The guidelines say that depending on the complexity of a film, a longer plot summary may be warranted, but it should depend on consensus to do so. The goal of a plot summary is to provide context for the rest of the article; it is not intended to be an alternative to watching the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: The Fog Edits
:You clearly are trying to cause trouble as your disruptive edits and attitude have proven. As already pointed out to you, it is irrelevant to include details of exactly where the characters were on the boat when they were killed - only the fact that they were killed on the boat is relevant here. Inside or out, it is merely a minor detail, not a plot point. The plot summary is not meant to include every single minute detail. The way the article is written at the moment reflects the scene clearly enough, and the plot summary is already at the maximum 700 words, and there is no justification for making it longer than that since this is only an 85 minute film. Various people have tried to reason with you and you have done nothing but show yourself to be childish and irresponsible. If your disruptive edits continue, your account will be blocked from editing any further. 88.104.26.110 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you insulting people like this, that's another reason you would be threaten to block, because of your behavior.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody is able to edit Wikipedia, but there are rules and guidelines that must be followed - and you have failed to adhere to these. You have already stated that you think these rules were created by (quote) "some idiot in an office with no life" and also referred to them as "saddo's" (sic.). You have then gone on to attack other individual editors, referring to one as "irrelevant" and another as a "dull witted bigoted idiot", purely because the rules were pointed out to you. The edit history of this article alone shows that you have engaged in blatant edit warring and uncivil behaviour purely because you want to have your own way, regardless of Wikipedia's policies, and several editors on this article page have told you that you are wrong. It just doesn't seem to be sinking in that your behaviour is the problem here. But if you are so convinced that Wikipedia is so "poorly run and corrupt", then please don't let us hold you up any longer. 88.104.29.253 (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it, just report Stiarts erid to the Wikipedia administrators.  I just have enough of his or her behavior.  Have this person blocked at least a day  would tell this guy or gal that we are serious, otherwise he or she would think that we are bluffing.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately for whatever your agenda is, you don't get to place a 24 hour "reply or I'm doing it anyway" time limit on this sort of thing.  None of the remaining comments have any severe civility issues that I noticed (I sped read it so pardon e if I missed anything) and pretty much every policy and guideline about consensus will spell out that this time enforced ultimatum is not how the site works.  Here's what will happen if/when you remove this text again without actual verbal permission from the other editors; I or someone else will revert you again, and given the extensive list of recent problem edits on display on your talk page, you'll be reported to one of the various admin noticeboards, where you will likely be banned for at least a short time.  I'm trying to help you here.  Calm down, take your time, wait for the other editors to respond.  A great deal of the above conversation (including some of what was in the ruder comments of your own that you deleted, again, ditch the attitude and focus on the content) is actually salvageable as being a legit conversation on improving the article.  Even if consensus/site policy goes against your ideas, this sort of thing is still good to leave around in case future editors on the article have questions.  Millahnna (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, and we would endure your abuse.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had it with Stiarts erid's behavior.  He called me a bully, a NAZI, and now an illiterate.  He needs to be blocked because of his offensive behavior.  It is obvious that we have an inconsiderate person who cannot take rejection well, and would resort to abuse to retaliate.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

text: We will, once you stop insulting people  You have better learn how to be considerate, and stop your name callings.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

text: According to the report, he got another warning.  Like he's going to take it seriously.  Then he's going to apologize and be civil, yet he's going to break his promise later, just as before.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Please stop discussing other editors. WP:DR. All sides look silly in this. --Onorem (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So what are we going to do? We tried to get a consensus months before, and it didn't work and he still start an edit war.  How exactly can we get an agreement when we are dealing with someone who can't keep his promise or following the rules?  Pardon me, but the way he behave and demanding me to get over his insults, is already affecting me emotionally.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for a reason. In any case, how they make you feel has nothing to do with this article and it doesn't belong on the talk page for this article. Didn't you say just yesterday that you were going to disengage from this for a few days? --Onorem (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 2 

message: This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I recall reading reviews criticizing the decision to take an R-rated horror film and remake it as a PG-13 film. That probably should be mentioned in the article as one reason some critics felt it failed (if indeed that view can be sourced). --67.101.223.176 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  One missing criticism if the film 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Fog (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070807005255/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001306611 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001306611
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified