User talk:Grandpallama/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Actually

It's 1/2 of humanity, but what's a few synapses more or less? EEng 01:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: Damn--classical error on my part! Grandpallama (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If only you had an extra digit. EEng 15:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Change

A young boy is false now ? Citrounou (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. When you make an edit and it's challenged, don't just revert it back in. Grandpallama (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reversing that edit to the List of animated series with LGBT characters page

I really appreciate it. Feel free to add or revise any other entries. I'm trying to update the page as much as I can, as is GlitchyM, but the more editors, the faster it can be completed, then ultimately split into different pages.Historyday01 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Historyday01, this isn't a topic I know much about; I just saw an obviously problematic edit and reverted it. I don't have the content knowledge to contribute meaningfully to this effort. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which of two photos is preferable in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't do that.

That's not civil. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It was perfectly civil. Don't close discussions in which you are involved--that's against policy. Grandpallama (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you doing?! Show me the policy that says I can't withdraw my own report. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It was in the edit summary, which you summarily ignored. And it would have been in my post, if you weren't so eager to close down the examination of your behavior that you reverted before I could comment in the discussion again. Grandpallama (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making your hostile motivations clear. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Put on your big boy pants, already. If you file at ANI, people will pay attention to what you're saying and doing. And everyone's behavior is under scrutiny, even the filer's. Expecting you to abide by policy isn't hostility. Take your whining elsewhere, because it's not welcome on my talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, for anyone stalking my talkpage, FollowTheSources was blocked as a sockpuppet shortly after this. Grandpallama (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. CrazyBoy826 15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

User:CrazyBoy826, give me a break. Get some experience before lecturing other editors, and don't template the regulars (especially when they're shutting down disruptive edit warring). Jesus Christ. Grandpallama (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. I advise you to strike or delete your comment which is certainly a violation of NOTFORUM and arguably a BLP violation as well. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your original comment. As for your new one, I obviously disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I have struck the snark from my comment. However, my post is certainly not a violation of WP:NOTFORUM (You're going to suggest it's not relevant? Really?), and I have expanded on the purpose of my comment to illustrate the relevance. BLP at best could apply to the tone of my comment (hence the willingness to strike the snark), but a link to a CNN article about relevant breaking news regarding associations of Tucker Carlson--the central point of the discussion at hand--does not violate the policy. Considering your ongoing position that features, among other things, the argument that Buzzfeed News is not a reliable source in order to advance the idea that a user should be blocked (despite every single admin who has weighed in now disagreeing with that assessment and your claims about BLP), I would suggest you are involved to a degree that putting warnings about the discussion on a user's page feels dangerously close to an attempt at intimidation. If other admins at the discussion think I've violated BLP and notify me of such, I will amend my thinking. Grandpallama (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your "snark," which read like a personal insinuation of racism, was the problem. Not your advocacy of a particular source or your disagreement with my take on the original edit. What's left is just a disagreement over interpretation of an edit and applicable PAG. I try not to take those personally. In my job I'd lose what little non gray hair I have left if I did. Again, thank you for striking the "snark." -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Any editor, can, and should caution other editors if they see something that looks obviously inappropriate. Warnings are not covered by INVOLVED unless they are being issued in an administrative capacity. That said, I did not make that clear so your point is a fair one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The snark was because I find it eye-rollingly disingenuous to see arguments being made in that discussion (not by you) that these associations are only the work of fringe writers, or require contortions of interpretation of the sources. And I fully understand INVOLVED, and did not read your warning here as a non-admin one, so I appreciate the clarification and follow-up; I have consequently struck my ANI comment about an attempt to chill speech. I would still, however, caution you to think twice about putting warnings on a user's page related to a discussion that is specifically regarding an admin action that you took and/or are proposing to take. No editor is going to read any such warning in that context as being anything other than an admin warning. Thank you for your reasonableness. Grandpallama (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Exceptional work at ANI

You have a particularly incisive mind. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I think your comments in the wake of the initial filing are doing you no favors, and I'm not particularly in favor of some of the edits you've made that Levivich has brought to light; you would do well to tread softly in AP2 if you manage to evade a TBAN. What I don't like is the appearance of the usual brigade at ANI (not Ad Orientem) clearly assembling for the sole reason of punishing an editor who did something they don't like on sketchy grounds. Admins were pretty firm earlier in the discussion that they didn't see sanctions as appropriate, and once they begin to weigh in, I think that position will prevail. Grandpallama (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried my best to restrain myself after being threatened with a death sentence from out the blue. Overarching BRD was promptly ignored and the ANI topic should never have been opened to allow people who don’t like to swarm like piranhas smelling blood in the water. But when somebody comes at me like that, restraint is a challenge. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

In pretty much every way, successfully editing in AP2 and surviving a report at ANI are largely based on who demonstrates the most restraint when challenged. Grandpallama (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please strike accusations

Please strike these false accusations:

1. "the "CNN is fake news" dog whistle" - I didn't say "fake news", or suggest it, and "dog whistle" is what I was taken to ANI for in May (I appreciate your not piling on back then, by the way), on the basis that this term has racist connotations. I'm guessing it wasn't your intent to suggest I'm racist.
2. "you invoking a non-existent policy about RS" - I didn't invoke any policy, existent or non-existent, which you admitted here ("you didn't call it a policy or a guideline or even an essay...and yet it's a partial justification for the TBAN you supported")

At bottom, and this is something I've said many times before: disagreeing with you doesn't make an editor disruptive. For example, that I don't think CNN is a high quality source like The New York Times doesn't mean I think CNN is fake news or that I'm blowing a dog whistle.

By the by, I think by now you've come to appreciate my (and others') underlying point in this whole matter: the editor's battleground conduct and refusal to acknowledge any of the concerns being raised or commit to changing is problematic. Without cooperation from the editor at issue, a sanction such as a tban is not unreasonable. You might not agree that one should be instituted, but it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the editors who feel differently than you do. I'll remind you that this ANI had two parts, and in part one, Ad O backed off and acknowledged there wasn't consensus that the edit at issue was a BLP violation (though everyone still thought it was undue). The reported editor's response to this was to gloat and suggest Ad O should reinstate the edit, which shows that they took nothing on board from the earlier discussion (which included no proposal for sanctions). Only after that happened and was raised in the thread, was a tban proposal made. Since then, the editor's had plenty of time to post something to assuage concerns. Those of your colleagues who think this should be met with a tban, such as myself, are not crazy or disruptive or POV pushers or dog whistlers or anything like that. I think this is an area where reasonable editors can disagree; I don't know why you don't think so. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing I said was false, and your claims here are formulated in a way that continues the misrepresentation in which you engaged at that discussion. I'm not interested in litigating the inappropriateness of the TBAN on my talkpage when a sanction such as a tban is not unreasonable has already been thoroughly disputed in that discussion and will likely be rejected when the discussion is closed.

1. I'm sorry you were accused of racism; I've not personally seen any such evidence of that. However, the term "dog whistle" is a general one in politics to indicate hidden messaging. If you want a clarification that I was not hinting anything about racist intention, I'm happy to clarify that for you now: I don't think you made any racist claims or implications, nor did I imply so. Of course, you already knew that, because there is no connection between the "CNN is fake news" canard and race.
2. The fact that in quoting my "admission" you are again doing so while ignoring the context of a quotation (which is the problem with your contributions throughout that discussion) means that this does not merit a response. And if you genuinely think it is an admission, then this request is moot.

Demonstrate some self-reflection and consider the many statements in that discussion that you should probably strike. If you don't like getting called out for the behavior in which you engaged in that discussion, then don't engage in that behavior any longer. Please don't bring this sort of melodrama to my talkpage again. Grandpallama (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

refusal to acknowledge any of the concerns being raised or commit to changing...the editor's had plenty of time to post something to assuage concerns I can't manage to get the diff, but this is in the thread:

Look, I readily concede from the all-hands-on-deck pile-on now occurring that sometimes I demonstrate a bad attitude, and can sometimes even be nasty, and sometimes make sloppy edits. People are telling me to get my act together. I get it. I really do. I will take it to heart and conscientiously endeavor to do better going forward. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020

suggest Ad O should reinstate the edit In fact, I implored him to "do the right thing," which I deliberately left open to his interpretation and discretion. An apology for his error would have been nice, but a mere acknowledgment would have sufficed, and he still has never acknowledged his error even as he continued to insist I confess to a crime that didn't happen. I actually wasn't even thinking about restoration of the edit. soibangla (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI

I saw your comment on my page. Well, I tell you, better you start caring for contents rather than formalities otherwise Wikipedia will definitively become a joke or worse the nest of international propaganda with a political agenda who's so great in keeping the proper formalities while pushing their own agenda. RT, Sputniknews and those kinds... you know what I mean? yeah... great formal looks "CNN like" and total rubbish inside. Better you review that Mruser2000 or whoever, who's so active in pushing anti-Western military / political lines and chapters. Yeah, I will sing this, dunno if in the correct manner. vnkd

It was a friendly reminder that you forgot to sign your post. This is a weird response to that. Grandpallama (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Every now and then I come across some of your contributions, and thought you deserved this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Very kind of you! And my first one, after 14+ years of editing. :) Grandpallama (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Raz undo

The snope article literally says he gave a gun to someone who claimed to be 18 and I placed the same quotes you claimed were in the article I cited. I am going to assume you simply did not do your due dilligence but were editing in good faith, but in the future please check through the work before you undo someone elses edits. Bgrus22 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bgrus22, er, no. You added a statement that Forbes described Raz as a warlord; they did not. They reported on other publications calling him a warlord and then debunked those claims. Adding Forbes as a source wasn't an issue; adding it as a source to support the idea that Forbes called him a warlord was, and is, an issue as it completely misrepresented the source. And the other material was not supported by the source you provided. Only the Snopes article is a reliable source, and it only confirms that a video of Raz handing out guns is genuine; there is no text in that source about conservative criticism (although one could infer criticism was implied by Ngo's tweet, the source you provided doesn't back up that claim). I'd like to assume that you are editing in good faith, but adding back in such controversial material to a BLP without appropriate sourcing to support extraordinary claims is not acceptable. And adding in legal statutes from the state legislature? Really? That's textbook original research. Think twice about your relative knowledge of policy before coming to another editor's page to lecture them again. I'm going to correct your problematic edit now. Grandpallama (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Thats why I moved the source to the end of the sentence and not as a link to Forbes, something you could have easily corrected and kept quality of citation up instead of removing someone elses edits done in good faith. The snopes Article and the other news.com article demonstrate that the event occurred and that there has been criticism from it. As for stating an act is illegal, that is not original research, I am not going out and doing any research on my own I am simply stating a state law and citing it via a reliable source (the state government). The individual claims he is 18 and that is important to the context of what occurred. If you have such a big problem with this then lets start a talk page there because I am not interested in edit warring and would rather simply see this solved by group consent. Bgrus22 (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This argument makes no sense. Why would we add Forbes as a source to support a claim that was removed? Why would we use a Forbes contributor at all, when RSP explicitly says not to? The other sources did not support the text that there was conservative criticism, nor did Snopes verify the individual in the video is 18. You can't add claims like that to a BLP, in Wikipedia's voice, when they are not directly supported by secondary sources. If you think your citation of the Washington state legislature wasn't original research, please read (or re-read) WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH, because you were egregiously in violation of them, and you are demonstrating a fundamentally incorrect understanding of our core policies. Re-adding almost the exact same verbiage was already edit warring, and putting in material like that is a brightline violation of WP:BLP. If you do it again, you will likely be blocked. Grandpallama (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Horror film

Why do you keep editing back to the way it was it looks crooked Drewfrench (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look "crooked"; it addresses the title issue the first time the title is displayed. Please read WP:BRD and WP:BLOCKEVASION. Grandpallama (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

A History of Violence

Have reverted your deletion/vandalism of the above article. I've opened a forum on that talk page. State your case there. If you do this again, it gets kicked up. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hanoi Road, please review WP:FILMPLOT and WP:BRD. Not sure what you intend to "kick up", or where, but the reversion wasn't vandalism. Calling it such is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia, so please rethink your approach. Grandpallama (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the guidelines. Are you? This is not inference, but rather a statement of fact based on the scene. Had he not been accepted, I doubt they'd have passed the meatloaf. Try again. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the definition of interpretation: stating what the scene "means". It is not in line with WP:FILMPLOT. Please continue any further discussion at the talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of edit warring

Okay I haven't been edit warring three times in a span of 24 hours on the Bobby Moynihan you need to stop saying that and accusing me of those actions.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

One does not need to violate WP:3RR in order to be edit warring: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. You are reverting other editors to restore your edits, on different pages, despite the fact that objections to those edits have been raised. The same general sort of edits, and objections, that resulted in your block. As I said, you should rethink this pretty quickly. Grandpallama (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble about this. I know the logistics of the WP:3RR and edit warring. But saying I'm edit warring consistently on pages even if I did it "ONCE" today but not going to repeat it again the next day or next week or next month is just frustrating and I'm just tired of how you continue to be adamant on disregarding the voice-artist on the Alanna Ubach page when literally she has done a good balance of both on-camera and voice-over acting just like Mark Hamill, Clancy Brown and Lacey Chabert.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Secondly @Grandpallama: what you did was dumb and especially calling me "edit warring" when I wasn't even edit warring on the Bobby Moynihan page.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Ernest

There is no "OR" on my side, unless applying Shackleton's own words to describe his nationality constitutes original research - which it doesn't. What part of "I am an Irishman" is obscure to you? There is, I suppose, a weak case to be made that Shackleton's nationality is not entirely a matter for himself to decide, but taking all factors into account, it would be weak indeed, particularly since Anglo-Irish is not even a nationality. Had he at any point asserted his Britishness, the matter would be different, but he never did. He did the opposite of that - and often. The statement "I am an Irishman" is a de-facto denial of Britishness, and, politics aside, (or perhaps including politics, especially) I seriously doubt he ever conflated Britishness with Irishness. The two things are distinct. Another editor has suggested an RfC on this. I think that is the way to go. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, another editor suggested an RfC, that editor being me. Please keep any further discussion on this at the article talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

You wanted to get "involved". Fine. Now you're "involved", Barnstar, medals and all. You suggested an RfC. Get it started. It was your suggestion. PS: I will tolerate no further "I can get you banned" antics from the likes of you. You want an RfC. Go. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

What is with your incessant incivility and inability to keep discussion on the relevant talkpage? Or to grasp basic indentation, for that matter? Grandpallama (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I am reverting your unauthorized edit. You will then be subject to the three-revert rule yourself, which you tend to cite. You suggested an RfC on this matter. I suggest you get that going before making changes that nobody (except yourself) agreed to. Any further dishonest attempts at a "ban" will be called out, and you, exposed as the aggressor that you are. Calls for 'courtesy' will not fool the wider community who will backtrack every edit, and intent. Stand warned. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Good grief. Grandpallama (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I see you've lodged another 'complaint'. I intend to lodge one myself. Anyone observing your leap from a Viggo Mortensen film (in which matter you were corrected) to this quite separate issue will, I have no doubt, draw their own conclusions as to your motives. Leave it with me. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A matter in which I was corrected? I don't think any of this is going to end the way you think it is. And why do you refuse to indent properly? Grandpallama (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you that it will end exactly the way I think. I would start by pointing to your arbitrary changes late at night, when you, yourself suggested an RfC to reconcile the matter. Such antics are not consistent with your initially reasonable suggestion. I am guessing that after thirteen years of this, you take pride in your objective rationality and adherence to protocol, not to mention the stripe. Don't ruin things for yourself. When confronted by trickery (which I loathe) and passive aggression at the expense of this project, you will find me a formidable and relentless adversary. Again, stand warned. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:INDENT, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Grandpallama (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

BlackBird1008

I agree; they're definitely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. :( IHateAccounts (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A week old, not a single mainspace edit, and multiple attempts to push pro-Trump talking points and far-right sources while casually casting aspersions at well-established editors. Methinks at some point, they'll waste the time of too many peeps and find themselves blocked. Grandpallama (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tim Walz

your recent revert of an edit you claimed had was POV biased. all sources were cited, no false statements were made Jacksonshatek (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That's an inaccurate representation of my edit summary and of the edits that were reverted (by another editor as well as me); get consensus on the talkpage. Are you editing logged out in order to avoid scrutiny? Grandpallama (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Prisoners (2013 film)

Hi, can you tell me what you didn't like about my edits that required reversion? You mentioned in your summary that the previous version was perfectly compressible, but can't it be made better, isn't that what this Wikipedia thing is all about? Can you tell me specifically what parts were a problem? Capuchinpilates (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Or is the article talk page the more appropriate place to discuss? I can delete this conversation and move it there is that's better. Capuchinpilates (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Over the course of the past year, multiple editors have worked to reduce the size of this plot summary, as well as remove interpretive verbiage. Any plot summary can probably be made better, it's true, but the verbiage from the version you wrote in January 2020 unnecessarily increases the size of the plot summary by including details that aren't critical to a general summary (e.g., a description of the torture when "torture" suffices for a plot summary) and problematic claims (e.g., calling Dover "a hard driven survivalist") that are specifically the sort of thing editors have worked to trim out. It's fine to work on and improve a plot summary; it's not fine to ignore WP:FILMPLOT or to simply restore a year-old preferred version that you yourself drafted. And yes, please do continue any further discussion at the article talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)