| Revision as of 08:12, 30 July 2013 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,421 editsm Dating comment by Stiarts erid - ""← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:51, 30 July 2013 edit undoStiarts erid (talk | contribs)223 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| :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. ] (]) 01:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | :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. ] (]) 01:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Thankyou, thankyou so much I dont think I have ever come across such a dull witted biggoted idiot like yourself, words fail me! All I wanted to do is say how I think it should be written clearly that is too much to be asked. You are what is commonly discribed as a little Hitler thinking yourseldf as great and important when you go round editing wikipedia pages that are known in many educational places as an unreliable source that anyone can edit! You are truley pathetic! This will be the last time I try and contribute to such a poorly run and corrupt site such as this when only one person is really allowed to make changes to fit with a made up rule made by a load of saddo's with no life, you might call me childish but you will always be a dull witted sod who can't see beyond the end of their nose!!!!!! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::If you insulting people like this, that's another reason you would be threaten to block, because of your behavior.--] (]) 10:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | ::If you insulting people like this, that's another reason you would be threaten to block, because of your behavior.--] (]) 10:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| "You clearly are trying to cause trouble" "you have done nothing but show yourself to be childish and irresponsible" I think they are personal attacks actually which is why I retorted so strongly, so I will be reporting that as abuse. What annoyed me is that I was denied adding my contribution on a site that encourages people to do so, which is why I think it's poorly run and corrupt. So I will not bother any more with this site as clearly you are not allowed to make contruibutions unless it is deemed right by someebody else. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::Everybody is able to edit Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages is so "poorly run and corrupt", then please don't let us hold you up any longer. ] (]) 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | :::Everybody is able to edit Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages is so "poorly run and corrupt", then please don't let us hold you up any longer. ] (]) 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::That's it, just report ] to the Misplaced Pages 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.--] (]) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | ::::That's it, just report ] to the Misplaced Pages 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.--] (]) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Fine I will apologise for my behaviour it was out of order for me to insult people like that and should have reacted better.I still think it was unfair for my contribution to have been dismissed completely, however I can see how people would think it is minor detail that is not essential to the plot. As far as I am concerned the matter over the Fog film is over unless anyone thinks differently? ] (]) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC) stiarts erid ] (]) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | Fine I will apologise for my behaviour it was out of order for me to insult people like that and should have reacted better.I still think it was unfair for my contribution to have been dismissed completely, however I can see how people would think it is minor detail that is not essential to the plot. As far as I am concerned the matter over the Fog film is over unless anyone thinks differently? ] (]) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC) stiarts erid ] (]) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| : | |||
| Do you really mean that? Last time, you said that "trying to cause trouble" and would "settle it reasonably," yet you've launch a personal attack towards us. You've better honor what you've said, otherwise you would still be in danger of being blocked. Once your account is blocked, you've won't be able to log back in.--] (]) 22:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| No actually I said I was NOT trying to cause trouble and WOULD settle it reasonably then to be told I was trying to cause trouble all because I wanted to add my contribution to a page. also " you've won't be able to log back in" doesn't need a you've just a you. But like I have said the matter is over to me so |
No actually I said I was NOT trying to cause trouble and WOULD settle it reasonably then to be told I was trying to cause trouble all because I wanted to add my contribution to a page. also " you've won't be able to log back in" doesn't need a you've just a you. But like I have said the matter is over to me so am willing to move on which surely is the adult thing to do. ] (] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 08:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
Revision as of 08:51, 30 July 2013
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plot Summary
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)
Could you add some more info? I've watched half of the movie and didn't see the 1871 boat murder in the beginning. Edward Roussac (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Remake vs. Original
There should be a section of this article analyzing the differences with the remake and the original. Bronks 15 Jan 2006
Edits
I removed "one of my personal favorites" from Selma Blair's name, because it's completely irrelevent. Also removed the two conflicting "trivia" notes regarding who was slated to play Stevie Wayne - they directly contradict one another.
Mistakes section
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)
TV killer
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)
DeRay Davis Audition
"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)
Fair use rationale for Image:The Fog 2005 film.jpg
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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)
#c-BetacommandBot-2008-01-21T05:55:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:The_Fog_2005_film.jpg){kind=link}
Plot
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)
- Stiarts erid, Misplaced Pages's policy about writing about fiction says, "Misplaced Pages 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)
Edits
The Fog Edits
Look I am not trying to cause trouble I am willing to settle it reasonably. I all I ant to do is put in that when on the boat they all go inside then the men come out and the women stay inside. It is not unreasonable or picky as it is part of the plot otherwise it sounds they are always inside and killed there or are inside then all go outside which is also incorrect. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a site where you can freely edit not for edits to be constantly undone to what someone else things is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Everybody is able to edit Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- That's it, just report Stiarts erid to the Misplaced Pages 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)
- Everybody is able to edit Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Fine I will apologise for my behaviour it was out of order for me to insult people like that and should have reacted better.I still think it was unfair for my contribution to have been dismissed completely, however I can see how people would think it is minor detail that is not essential to the plot. As far as I am concerned the matter over the Fog film is over unless anyone thinks differently? Stiarts erid (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC) stiarts erid Stiarts erid (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you really mean that? Last time, you said that "trying to cause trouble" and would "settle it reasonably," yet you've launch a personal attack towards us. You've better honor what you've said, otherwise you would still be in danger of being blocked. Once your account is blocked, you've won't be able to log back in.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No actually I said I was NOT trying to cause trouble and WOULD settle it reasonably then to be told I was trying to cause trouble all because I wanted to add my contribution to a page. also " you've won't be able to log back in" doesn't need a you've just a you. But like I have said the matter is over to me so am willing to move on which surely is the adult thing to do. Stiarts erid (talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Categories: