Wikipedia

Talk:Dredd/Archive 2

< Talk:Dredd
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1 Archive 2

Olivia Thirlby's training

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is likely a bit of a nitpick, but I was just watching my copy of this film and noticed Olivia Thirlby's character description here describes her having learned to perform a roundhouse kick in order to appear more competent a fighter, but after watching through all of her fight scenes I noticed she never performed one and the only cite leads me to a 404 placemarker. I've been a practitioner of quite a number of martial arts and I'm thinking the link is perhaps a misquote, or just someone not familiar with striking arts. The closest kick I could find her perform was against Wood Harris's character Kay and it seems to be a Spinning Hook Kick[1], you can notice that as she comes around she leads with her rear leg and snaps her calf at the point of impact, connecting with the sharp of the back of her heel. It is quick and style names can vary so it's understandable they could mistake a Reverse Roundhouse Kick[2] or I'm mistaking the hook for a reverse roundhouse, but it's definitely not a roundhouse proper or she would be using less muscle and more swinging momentup connecting with the front calf bone or instep. Like I said, likely a complete nitpick but it was just a small detail I noticed while watching after having read the article. Anyone have a snapshot of the cite? I'll leave it as is for the moment until someone else confirms or refutes me, or just tells me to quit being a spaz and shut up :) Charos (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

UKER doesn't know how to be WP: BRD-compliant, round 2.

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Start your discussion here, I've made it easier for you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD defines that whenever you see anything that can be improved in an article, you're encouraged to make a bold change, which I did by reorganizing the article according to WP:MOSFILM. You then reverted me without providing any actual reason. The best you've done so far was presenting a WP:OTHER argument about some other film. What you're doing so far is nothing more than what is described in WP:SQS. Your refusal to accept change without previous discussion pretty much negates WP:BRD which Wikipedia is based on. WP:REVERT says you have to "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." Now, I'd like to hear it please. --uKER (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I gave a reason, you just didn't like it. The chain of events is thus:
    • You make an edit saying you are fixing things, at this point you don't cite the MOSFILM you hide behind now.
    • I restored it saying nothing was wrong with the previous format. This is a valid reason because there was nothing wrong with it.
    • You revert, act uncivil and throw accusations because that is who you are and what you do when you don't get your way.
    • I revert, invoking WP: BRD
    • You ignore that and just continue ignoring it. The end.
You not liking the reason does not make the reason invalid. MOSFILM is a guideline, it is not a rule, it is designed to provide SOME structure to articles, by the nature of the film articles it CANNOT be a definition of every film article ebcause it is not APPLICABLE to every film article. When OTHER STUFF exists en masse that ignores the MOSFILM, yes, that is a reason. When an article is a FEATURED ARTICLE and it is such while ignoring the MOSFILM GUIDELINE, that is a reason. I've given you multiple points, your argument has been "Well MOSFILM says..." There is no reason to change the layout and without a reason the burden falls on you to defy why the format in place was innappropriate for the film and prove how MOSFIlM is actually enforced as a rule. You will be unable to do this, and so you should have stopped at the first invocation of WP: BRD and user Toraldo should not have involved himself and instead restored to the last clean version while discussion went on, the user has instead escalated the situation. Again UKER, I remind you, you not liking the reasons and examples does not mean they have not been provided, i know a LOT of users who like to throw that around and it never works. Please now, feel free, argue why the article should be changed and use something other than "Well MOSFILM says..." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
And this just need to be highlighted as the blatant lie it is "WP:BRD defines that whenever you see anything that can be improved in an article, you're encouraged to make a bold change, which I did by reorganizing the article according to WP:MOSFILM. You then reverted me without providing any actual reason." You made the change, with no reason beyond "fixin'" you never cited MOSFILM, you were reverted with a reason that there was nothing wrong with the previous version and there wasn't considering your change consisted of moving sections based on a whim, not changes in content. A reason was given, please don't lie about events they are easily checkable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, things are simple. You do not WP:OWN the article. I don't have to ask you for permission to make an edit. The article didn't conform to a guideline and I made it better, not making it worse in any justifiable way. You saying there was nothing wrong with it before is meaningless and only responds to you trying to decide what the "established version" is, which probably is pretty much every time you make an edit. If you think WP:MOSFILM is outdated, like you said in Taroaldo's talk page, you'll be more than welcome to present your change proposals to that document. BTW, needless to say, my deletion of your comments was an accident and I apologize for it. --uKER (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No one ever said I owned the article, you not getting your way doesn't mean someone else owns it. You don't need to ask my permission either, you didn't, you made an edit, it was reverted because there was nothing wrong with the layout. Me saying that is not meaningless, I don't have to justify why something is not wrong because you think something is right and the article does not have to adhere to MOSFILM because MOSFILM is not the rule. I don't need to propose changes to it, you need to justify your changes here. Why one is superior to the other, and you can't, you just fall back on "MOSFILM says..." which is what I asked you not to do so you could prove you actually had any reason whatsoever for making the change. The simple fact of the matter is you've given no reason to make the change and MOSFILM doesn't back up the change because it isn't the rule. Meanwhile I can point to the layout having been in place for nearly a year without causing anyone issue including yourself and quality articles that follow the same format without incident. Other Stuff I'm afraid doesn't excuse your actions when that other stuff is successful articles of recognized quality and accepted formatting. I'm fairly sure you do not care about MOSFILM this much, you just want to win the argument. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ec BRD is an essay and holds no weight as a policy or guideline of Wikipedia. It does have its place in certain circumstances, but trying to use it as a club to trump the MOS isn't a good way to proceed. Prometheus was cited as one example which is different from the MOS. Look at Inception for an example which appropriately follows the MOS. OSE cannot be used as a reason to override the existing formatting of an article which complies with the MOS. That makes no sense. Now, from a logical/chronological flow perspective, it might be appropriate to have the box office section appear before the Home Media section. The appropriate venue for this discussion would be at Talk:MOSFILM, where there has been some recent discussion on reorganizing certain elements of that guideline. Taroaldo ✉ 22:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, MOS is not a rule and complying with it does not make an article set in stone. The release of a film is almost always a small section and works well integrated with the box office and reception as they are all relevant to each other, it is illogical for Home Media to go before sections that have occured months before, especially when the bulk of articles flows in chronological order beginning with production information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
As I stated above, I agree with you. Which is why I suggested that we discuss this at the MOSFILM talk page. I think their layout is wrong and that box office information should appear in articles before home media infomation. This project (sometimes for better and sometimes for worse) operates on consensus, and if consensus for a change cannot be achieved then there is not much that can be done. MOS needs to be in place for consistency, even if it doesn't always make the most sense: for an example see Numb3rs which, after many years with that article title, was recently moved to Numbers (TV series) per MOS:TM. Taroaldo ✉ 23:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The MOSFILM has now been changed to remove the version UKER is fighting for, so I ask if I restore it to how it was will you dispute it? 23:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I am pleasantly surprised that the change was effected so quickly at MOSFILM. -- Taroaldo ✉ 23:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Change is fairly easy, the problem is we tend to lose interest, make comments but never follow through. Luckily this time it was something apparently everyone wanted to change, just hadn't bothered to. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Reception interpretation

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Do we really need a source other than the usual aggregators (RT, MC, etc) themselves to qualify the critical reception for the film? I don't think I've seen this requirement before. --uKER (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You need to source claims. We stopped putting interpretations in, because they are interpretations. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Um, did I miss anything? I mean, aren't these aggregators supposed to be reliable sources as to what the film's reception was? --uKER (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If that were the case Metacritic and RT wouldn't be offering different interpretations of the reviews. That's why we use both and not just the one, and their scoring systems are based on unknown methods and if you've ever looked at the tomato/rotten score by a review and read the review they're not always representative of each other. That is why we removed the interpretations and why claims need sourcing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Blake. There are issues with how to word the consensus from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, especially if the consensus is not clear-cut (e.g., universal acclaim). There is a WT:FILM discussion here about that. Furthermore, MOS:FILM#Critical response says, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' consensus of the film." We can report the scores and quote the review aggregators (or paraphrase as closely as possible), but in terms of range and commentary, we need to attribute others. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Budget

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bom is wrong. The press release from the people actually providing the funding says 45 million. Notable news outlets say 45 million, BOM is an outlier and does not possess inside information that others do not, considering they cannot even keep their foreign box office up to date. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 18:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming fail, versus accepting fail.

Latest comment: 10 years ago67 comments9 people in discussion

With regard to this reversion by Darkwarriorblake.

You weren't very helpful there, I have to say. I had to trawl through archives - which are not the same as "talk pages" before I foudn what you referred to. I disagree. I've read it all, and the fact remains that Anderson assumes she has failed. It doesn't matter what Dredd's decision is or was - until she is told the outcome, the result is an ambiguity for her. So she can only assume a result, not accept one.

The key here is what do the words actually mean?

Dictionary.com defines "accept" as:

  1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.
  2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.
  3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.
  4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.
  5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.

Dredd has not given Anderson a proposal, treaty or anything similar at that point.

"Assume" is defined as:

  1. to take for granted or without proof: to assume that everyone wants peace. Synonyms: suppose, presuppose; postulate, posit.
  2. to take upon oneself; undertake: to assume an obligation.
  3. to take over the duties or responsibilities of: to assume the office of treasurer.
  4. to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt: He assumed the style of an aggressive go-getter.
  5. to take on; be invested or endowed with: The situation assumed a threatening character.

The first two definitions are clearly a more accurate description of what happened during the scene in question. Anderson takes for granted that she has failed. She takes that decision upon herself

She has not been told of any decision. She has nothing to agree to. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the talk page, that it has been incorrectly archived is not my fault. There is a full prior discussion relating to this, a full debate is not something that is necessary over a word, it is a waste of both our time. She failed, she accepts she failed, she says she has failed before they even storm Ma-Ma's room, Dredd passes her anyway, that is his minor character progression for a character so rigidly defined by the word of the law, it is something the writer has highlighted. It is not something that was worth copying and pasting all those definitions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not up to you to decide whether it's worth me spending my time listing the correct definitions for words used in an article - especially when those dictionary ddefinitions help support my claim for a change in the article. You are intepreting the word differently to its dictionary meaning. And you should have checked the talk page before assuming that your discussion was still present. I still maintain that the change from "accept" to "assume" is valid. She could not accept something that she had not been formally told about - but she can make an assumption based on previously available facts.
If you consider it a waste of (y)our time, then concede the change. If not, then discuss. I was not involved in the previous talk, and having now read through it, I note that the previous discussion made little mention of the meanings and whether the word itself was applicable.

Moreover, there is now a valid call for re-discussion - there are two editors wanting "accept", and two wanting "assume". Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You waste your time however you wish. Any of these four easily fits the description, the fifth doesn't seem appropriate for the context:
  1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.
  2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.
  3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.
  4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.
so no, your misunderstanding of 'accept' is not a reason to start another discussion when there is a full discussion on the subject with sourced evidence from people involved in the film, with accept being a perfectly perfect word, and 'assume' completely changing the meaning of the scene. Of course there are these additional definitions at thefreedictionary.com like:
      • To answer affirmatively: accept an invitation.
      • To agree to take (a duty or responsibility).
      • To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval: accepted a glass of water; accepted their contract.
      • To admit to a group, organization, or place: accepted me as a new member of the club.
      • To regard as proper, usual, or right: Such customs are widely accepted.
      • To regard as true; believe in: Scientists have accepted the new theory.
      • To understand as having a specific meaning.
      • To endure resignedly or patiently: accept one's fate.
      • To be able to hold (something applied or inserted): This wood will not accept oil paints.
      • To receive officially: accept the committee's report.
      • To consent to pay, as by a signed agreement.
      • Medicine To receive (a transplanted organ or tissue) without immunological rejection.
My favorite of course being the bold. So feel free to keep riding that grammar train. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You can only accept what you know. She does not know her fate - she assumes it. I repeat that she cannot accept failing to be a judge, because it does not happen. She may be fairly certin about the result, but she does not know the result - therefore it is an assumption on her part that she fails.
I also like your bold definition, however again it is an assumption. She does accept her fate - but it is the wrong fate. So her acceptance of it is based on... an assumption. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
PS: Different topic - slightly: I've had a look at Miszabot's archive settings - it all seems to be OK to me, however I admit I'm no expert. What do you think is wrong with the settings to cause an incorrect archive? The criteria seems to have been met?
The previous discussion breaks down all the facts, the rules established in the film, dialog spoken in the film, third party sources involving people who wrote/made the film, there is no ambiguity about the scene. By all the rules laid out clearly in the film, she has failed her assessment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
No, because she did not fail her assesment. She passed. By all the rules laid out in the film she should have failed, but she didn't. So it was an assumption on her part that she did. I agree that there is no ambiguity. It's quite clear that she assumes she has failed based on the rules and criteria laid out before her and explained to her (and by proxy the audience) in detail. However, the fact remains that she makes an assumption of her pass or fail before she is given that result by her mentor - Dredd. I'll lay that one out again:
Anderson takes her pass/fail status for granted before being informed of the senior judges decision. This is known as "making an assumption"'
My argument has not been covered before. I would be making the same argument had Dredd failed her. I am not discussing his decision in any way, or whether Dredd changed that decision a fraction of a second before he gave it to the Chief Judge. My argument is that Anderson made an assumption of the result before she was informed of it by the person assessing her. And if you watch the film, you'll see that that is indeed the case: Dredd does not inform her of his decision. She takes it upon herself to intepret the result. Whereabouts in the film does Dredd say "You have failed" to Anderson? NB: Saying "If you lose your gun you fail" is not the same as saying "You've failed." That is only setting out a condition, not affirmation that the condition has been met. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The film made clear early on that her losing control of a situation — and her getting disarmed is only part of it — would be grounds for failure. As this has all been hashed out before in lengthy discussion quoting dialog etc., this rehashed parsing seems unnecessary and excessive. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It was me who raised the topic the first time around and I still think it should be "assume". Despite all the established criteria (which we see are not a hard rule given that she had failed her admission tests and she was still there trialing as a judge, and are confirmed not to be a hard rule when Dredd passes her) it's never made explicit that anyone actually decided that she had failed. Dredd is the one in charge of deciding whether she passes or not, and he says she's a pass, so unless you somehow assume there were two outcomes to the same assessment, her failing never happens. And in any case, since an assumption may be correct or incorrect, "assume" is correct regardless of whether she failed or not; "accept" implies that not only did she in fact fail, but also somehow knew it herself. Now, do we really need to be so hard-headed to force "accept" to be used when it's not the first time it's been disagreed upon? --uKER (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Because we're concerned with the facts, not what two people who saw the film but did not actually watch it think happened. "Assume" is making stuff up, it assumes anything BUT failure happened when third party sources from those involved with the film, the rules and dialogue explicitly said in the film, AND the actions shown in the film establish that by all logic of mice and men she has failed her assessment. She explicitly states this, Dredd explicitly states failing offences, explicitly points out her second failing offence, passing her anyway is his character growth. This is not something that is debatable, this is the fact of what happens, what is explicitly stated, what is explicitly shown within the confines of the film. Anything else is not. And your passive aggressive attempt to divert the term "hard-headed" onto your OPPONENT in the discussion, when you have failed to accept the outcome of the previous discussion, even though with Tenebrae here and Triplethreat there, that is three long term editors who all see that "accept" is appropriate based on the facts of the film. Nothing you can say is anything more than theory and flies in opposition of fact, so unless either of you can find a source from the director/writer/actor that says she had done anything but fail, this discussion should come to an end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
" "Assume" is making stuff up, it assumes anything BUT failure happened" - what kind of bizarre logic are you using to come to the conclusion that an assumption equals she passed? Assume means that she did not know the actual outcome. It means that she had not been informed of the decision, so based on previously available logic and evidence she took it upon herself to think that she had failed. Once again, where in the film does Dredd pass judgement upon her and tell her she failed - thus granting her the knowledge that she had failed? Until then, she is using her own judgement to make a decision - an assumption.
What has been stated in the film, or by actors is not the crux of the issue - what matters is the in-universe context as a plot description, and at that point of the film, her character had not been informed of a decision. She did not know the result. I agree that she thought she had failed - but thinking is not the same as knowing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that contradicts the in-universe dialog, events and external sources by people involved in the film? Because much like I said at the outset of this discussion, you are wasting our time. You're fighting over a word, which would be applicable in EITHER circumstance anyway! You can accept your fate even if that fate is undone. You have the film, the events of the film (which I'm not restating for like a fifth time for you now), the comments by people who made the film and the educated judgement of three editors who have actually seen the film. Please don't prolong this discussion any further unless you have new evidence and you can't have evidence because you can't contradict the internal and external sources and general consensus. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. That again, unless a single assessment can somehow get two opposing but simultaneous outcomes, she never failed. Rules are one thing, fact is another, and the movie shows in two occasions that rules not always translate to fact. --uKER (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source that contravenes the sources/facts/film raised in this and the previous discussion or not? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The film itself says that she passed, so she can't -accept- something that never happened, regardless of how much it was supposed to happen. --uKER (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
So that's a no? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
In fact that'd be a yes. Is that your excuse for a retort? --uKER (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying not to waste my breath. You're providing no evidence that refutes points raised in this or the other discussion, and since you can't do that the discussion should come to a close. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
"blah, blah, blah, I'm not hearing you, I win", is that it? --uKER (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
No. For the third time just today, read what has been previously said instead of what you remember from the last six seconds. The reasons have been given, the gauntlet has been lain, laid? lain? You repeatedly kick the can instead of providing evidence. I'm trying to ask you to do so in as few words as possible as YOLO and I can't keep asking you the same thing over and over again as it is a tremendous waste of time. Instead of responding with yet another snarky comment that misses the point I will break it down for you. Evidence. Contravenes. Existing evidence. Go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
For the last time, as much as she was supposed to fail, she didn't. She can't -accept- something that doesn't even happen. Even if she had failed, "assume" would still be fitting, as correct assumptions do exist. Now I'd like to hear your argument as to why using "assume" is wrong, other than "I like it the way it is". --uKER (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The arguments are set out in the previous discussion, a discussion in which you were involved, a discussion which ultimately sided against you. So you know the evidence very well. The same are set out here or refer to that prior discussion. You know, in detail, the heavy evidence raised. Please leave your pettiness and exaggeration at the door UKER, it has no place here. Please also understand that simply ignoring the presence of evidence does not in fact make that evidence not exist. There are three editors sided in favor of the current situation, myself, Triple Threat and Tenebrae. All editors in good standing. Three to two, and one of those two has admitted that he will edit out of spite against me. Do we really need to carry on this conversation? And again, because it's been six seconds and I know you will forget "The arguments are set out in the previous discussion, a discussion in which you were involved, a discussion which ultimately sided against you. So you know the evidence very well. The same are set out here or refer to that prior discussion. You know, in detail, the heavy evidence raised. Please leave your pettiness and exaggeration at the door UKER, it has no place here. Please also understand that simply ignoring the presence of evidence does not in fact make that evidence not exist." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You asked to put my argument into as few words as possible and I did, and you reply with that load of mumble? I asked the same of you and I'm still expecting your concise argument against the use of "assume", please, and I hope it's not "it's been discussed before" or "there's evidence against it". BTW, your use of "contravene" was incorrect. --uKER (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can settle with "accepts the likelihood of her failure", but again, she can't accept something that hadn't factually happened, regardless of how much it was supposed to. --uKER (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Of all the semantical nit-picking on Wikipedia, this takes the cake. Either is perfectly acceptable. Yes, Dredd makes the final decision if she passes or fails but with Dredd being so hard nosed when it comes to rules and regulations, the likelihood of Dredd bending a rule to pass her is almost nonexistent. So she might as well have failed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Funny thing is, it's what actually happens. In any case, since it's easily the third time this thing has been contested by different people, can't we just agree to disagree and find a third option everyone is happy (or at least happier) with? --uKER (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
What we actually have here is two editors who wish to see "accept", two editors who wish to see "assume" and one editor who has said either is acceptable. So that's a stalemate - not a consensus. I see no reason why UKER and I are not in good standing - I believe we hold exactly the same status as you. I would be happy to remove the phrase completely and rewrite it - something like "In the aftermath, Anderson expects Dredd to fail her evaluation, however when the Chief Judge asks Dredd about Anderson's performance; he responds that she has passed.", or leaving out the entire contentious term "In the aftermath, the Chief judge asks Dredd for his evaluation, and after a pause he responds "Pass", despite failing to meet his criteria."
Those are both quickly typed up, and could do with work - but you see what I'm getting at.
And finally, frivolously - if you think this is nit-picky, you want to head over to Sega Genesis to see the talk page discussions over whether it should be Megadrive, or Genesis. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There have been more anonymous editors making that very same edit. We're not the only ones. --uKER (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a straw man argument. If the word had always been "assumes" you could easily have anonymous editors changing it to accept, 'assuming' these edits exist. It's not a scientific study. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
And that's an assumption! However, these edits do exist - and you know it, because you reverted them: [1][2][3] Despite that - which shows that "assumes" is more popular than "accepts", my suggestion is now that the sentence is reworded. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This is the page view statistics for Dredd since the start of September 2013, over 100,000 viewers. Looking at the previous months the article averages 100,000 viewers every month. You pull two edits from the start of the year, 8 months ago, and claim that out of the average 1 million people minimum who have viewed this article since then (200,000 in January actually) and the massive amount of contributors, that the two people you have identified show that "assumes" is more popular, and the other 1 million+ were what? Just too lazy to change it? You want to continue this corpse of a discussion, fine, but don't make such incredibly baseless statements and present them as fact. If you want to use this "scientific" method however, I got 1,000,000 people who say "accepts" is right. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Temper, temper. I was simply pointing out (for your own benefit, as you questioned the statement!) that other editors had made the change to "assume". The claim I make is that whilst several different editors have made the change to "assume", only 1 editor has made the change from assume. That means that in the context of this discussion, "assume" does seem popular with other editors. What is wrong with the timescale? Why does an edit from 8 months ago have any less validity than one from last week? (Also, you do not have 1,000,000 editors on your side - see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus for elaboration.) I am not rehashing old arguments, each time I bring up a new comments you simply ignore it, even if not directly related to the conversation:
  • When does Dredd confirm to Anderson that she has failed, top give her the knowledge?
  • Why do you think that Miszabot is archiving incorrectly?
  • Why is it necessary to point out that some editors are of good standing, but not others?
  • What is your opinion on rewording, with something different to both words?
I am also concerned that you are taking this personally. Ok, you removed it, but "What is the disease you and UKER seem to have" is close to a personal attack - as is implying that whilst you are an editor of good standing we are not, and that UKER only has a memory of 6 seconds. Remember - WP:OWN and WP:AGF Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
OWN does not apply, like I said to UKER, it's always the first resort of anyone not getting their way. Nowhere have I said this is my article, despite UKER's claims nowhere have I ever said "I prefer it this way", this is about facts, and you have none and so now you are claiming that 2 edits 8 months ago against teh millions of people who have viewed/been able to edit/edited the article are a statistical advantage to your position. It's a joke, and your insistence on pushing this discussion despite the already existing discussion has wasted an ungodly amount of all our time because you were upset about not having your one-word change kept. I've ignored nothing you have said IF I have been responding to you.
  • When does Dredd confirm to Anderson that she has failed, top give her the knowledge?
    • What knowledge? I can't believe I have to waste my time doing this again.
    • In film laws established of this film world
      • [Timestamp 10:44] "Losing your primary weapon or having it taken from you is an automatic fail"
      • [Timestamp 58:10] Anderson is disarmed, loses her primary weapon, is captured by Kay
      • [Timestamp 1:19:33] "Mind explaining yourself Rookie? Abetting a felon is not just a fail offence, it's a crime" / "I already picked up the fail when I lost my primary weapon, I'm not going to be a judge and I don't need to be a mindreader to know it".
    • Out of universe comments by the person playing the character and the person who wrote the character

      • No, I fully embraced it and I think that’s one of the great strengths about it. Dredd is seemingly unchanged. He is seemingly like just a tower of strength and everybody else is bending and buckling and changing and oscillating where Dredd is a constant. To me that’s a huge attraction and a huge plus, but an actual fact if you really study the film there is an arc for Dredd. There is a change. Dredd does something at the end of this film that he never would have done before meeting Anderson and that’s really the beginning of the cracks and the questioning I think for him. I don’t want to get too much into spoilers… By Urban.

      • "I didn’t think Dredd could have a great epiphany, but there is definitely a change in him over the course of the movie. He makes a very clear statement at the beginning of the film which he then contradicts at the end. That’s about as far as the shift goes." By Garland

    • I can provide quotes and comments both in and out of universe by people involved intimately with the film and the specific character that is the center of the discussion, neither of you can provide anything but unfounded rhetoric. By all of the information in-and-out of universe that we have available, all the evidence at our disposal, all the things which can be quoted without making an assumption, she failed her assessment, but Dredd broke his own rules and passed her regardless.
  • Why do you think that Miszabot is archiving incorrectly?
  • This was an unnecessary tangent, I fixed it, it didn't need discussing.
  • Why is it necessary to point out that some editors are of good standing, but not others?
  • The discussion is going nowhere, simpler to point out the numbers and remove any chance of attempting to undermine the quality of those numbers.
  • What is your opinion on rewording, with something different to both words?
  • It doesn't need rephrasing or lengthily explaining. Even as an assumption "accepts" is an acceptable word, she accepts the outcome of the assessment and walks off to not be a judge anymore, how is that different to her assuming the outcome of the assessment and walking off to not be a judge anymore? We have wasted enough time, you could have written an entire article on anything else by now, this is going nowhere and it never needed to. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
With these explicit, direct quotes from the film verifying what I said earlier, It looks pretty clear to me that she knows she failed. It's not an assumption on her part. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
If you say it would happen the other way around, with people changing it from "assume" to "accept", I guess you should have no problem giving it a try for some time. In any case, my current suggestion is, again, agreeing to disagree and finding another wording that everyone is comfortable with and doesn't get argumented against every once in a while. --uKER (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You are the instigator of one of the arguments and the enabler of another, so you're basically asking it to be changed so you will stop causing arguments. People will find something else to complain about. A wording that everyone is comfortable with? It is "accepts" instead of "assumes", this is a joke. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
"accepts" has been contested at least four times. The conflict exists and I'm proposing a way to resolve it. Will you argue with that too? --uKER (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Eye roll*, it's like debating a wall. Go read what I said to Chaheel about the page statistics, it's NOT been contested a million times based on my highly scientific figures based on the same standards you developed, while two of your "four" times were nearly a year ago. What imminent and constant conflict is it you think you are resolving? Last time I checked, this article isn't locked from editing because of the constant edit warring over that word, in fact last time I checked this article hasn't been locked often if ever because the only person who edit-war conflicts over the content is yourself, and the only reason you do that is because of your personal obsession with me. "Argue that too"? It's the same argument, the inception of the argument is to change a single word, reframing the argument to achieve the same result is not a new argument. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
eye rolls and your evaluations of the conversation are uncalled for. I could say the same thing and I'm not doing it. Also, I'm not the one who has a rant in my talk page threatening about leaving Wikipedia overwhelmed by this type of conflict which you seem to encounter commonly, where people disturb you in your work and keep you from feeling proud when you see others citing your articles. You deem four edits meaningless? Well, four editors is more than yourself alone, despite your thinking that your opinion somehow has a greater weight. It was a year ago? Does that even matter? Why did your apparently controversial option always have to prevail despite repeated challenges? Nobody knows. Your talk page seems to give clues though. Edit warring or page lockdown aren't a requirement for the existence of controversy. It exists, and it needs to end. --uKER (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Like I said on your talk page last time you were throwing a fit over something, you're quick to throw templates around without adhering to ones you don't like like WP: RS for instance. I got two of them, while your original research about how the small number of edits that back your personal stance are more meaningful than the large number of edits that don't. Hilarious how you attempt to call me a DIVA, OWNer and VESTED, when you're the one who has admitted you fight petty battles over minor things because you feel like you are a resistance fighter taking me on, repeteadly undo my edits citing that you "prefer it that way", and think your personal opinion is more important than the actor, the writer, and the film. Grow up UKER. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly how it ends but how about we write about her actions, not her motivations. For Example:

In the aftermath, Anderson turns in her gun and badge, and leaves. The Chief Judge asks Dredd about Anderson's performance; he responds that she has passed.

This might not be exactly how it ended but you get the point. This way it is definitive and less open to interpretation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Fully agreed. --uKER (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Except it doesn't say why she turned in her badge. So she just turns in her badge and leaves. For no reason. So then we have to make it longer, "in the aftermath Anderson turns in her badge because she failed her evaluation by getting disarmed, and leaves". Except it is being argued that despite all evidence to the contrary, she never failed her assessment so that won't work. So do you fully agree with it or did you not read it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No we don't have to make it longer. That's acceptable as proposed.
In the aftermath, Anderson turns in her gun and badge, and leaves. The Chief Judge asks Dredd about Anderson's performance; after a pause he responds that she has passed.
Slight addition? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Also OK with me. No interpretation whatsoever should hopefully keep conflict away. --uKER (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Remind me, does she say anything to Dredd when she leaves? If so, maybe we can use her own language to help establish some motive.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
IIRC, she doesn't. She does however comment on the matter when she lets the "techie" go. After reading his mind and setting him free, she's questioned by Dredd and she says something to the effect that since she already failed by getting disarmed, she may well take the chance to make a difference that way. Devoting one or two lines to that scene could get the reader into the mindset that made her leave without a word. --uKER (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You just admitted she failed... are you kidding me? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
She -assumed- she failed. :) Dredd later proves her wrong. ;) --uKER (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
@Triplethread She says nothing, the evidence I presented says it all. That clearly doesn't matter. Just change it to "assumes", jesus fucking christ. The proposed change just makes it worse. There is no explanation for her turning in her badge, she doesn't turn in her gun, there is no need to describe a pause. WTF? Just change it to "assumes" and you can tell your kids how great a contribution you made today. The day that overwhelming evidence didn't matter in the face of two petulant children with no sense of reality and too much time on their hands. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
For short: "So I can't have it my way? Screw it, have it your way then. You hopeless idiots will never be as great a contributor as I am anyway". That's what it's all about, right? Pride over your precious article. Well, there's your dispute resolution abilities at play. --uKER (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't need you translating, you've proven yourself incapable of interpreting even the most obvious of statements. I don't know how many times I have to explain it to you, clearly it is never going to get through, your constant statements that I undo edits with summaries like "I prefer it that way", that has never happened, your insane ramblings about how it's my way or the highway when I've linked to you Batman: Arkham Origins, an article in which I am currently a major contributor and yet do not undo the edits of the other two major collaborators and if I do it is with a reason which they will discuss with me. Your constant confusing of OWN with someone not doing what you say when you say it. I don't care about you or this persecution complex you have decided to latch onto me with. This has been going on for DAYS and it is now devolving into adding a sentence which requires another two sentences to explain, and it is all over a word. Just change the fucking word and we can all move on and hopefully, hopefully, I will have to deal with you infrequently to never again from here on. Change the word resistance fighter, you beat down evidence, you beat down logic through sheer intransigence and I commend you for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll just remind you of no personal attacks again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Darkwarriorblake is correct - she doesn't hand in her gun, as it exploded when Kay tried to use it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There's something you're not getting. My (and all others') not liking your proposed word is as valid and as important as your loving it. What does one do in the face of a dispute? Find a viable third option. We tried, and when you faced the situation of things not going strictly your way, you kicked the board and stormed out the door calling names on everyone. --uKER (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I faced the possibility of things not going my way purely because I had no interest in participating this discussion any more and it being decided in absentia. I am ending my opposition because I am not now going to start arguing over multiple sentences because of one word. I do not need you interpreting my actions, I don't want to be in this discussion anymore, I am choosing to end it, nowhere have I said I am leaving WIkipedia, leaving the article or anything else. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Someone must have vandalized your user page then, to make it seem like you are a living violation of WP:OWN and WP:DIVA and have this kind of conflicts all the time. --uKER (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
And edited in this line "So for the immediate future I will be working only on the main articles I have edited below, ideally to bring them to a GA status and FA if possible over time". Again, you're confusing OWN with stopping vandalism, guideline violations, addition of unsourced information, and not doing what you want. Move. On. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
My citing of WP:OWN is due to your taking pride when you see someone quoting "your work" and your attitude towards your edits. Do these ring any bells?
  • "I created/wrote the majority of this article."
  • "I saw your edit to this article, and I appreciate your help; however, I am an expert on the subject, and for the accuracy of this article, I have reverted your edit. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will immediately proceed to ignore them."
  • "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all."
  • "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
  • "You didn't have consensus because I was offline."
  • "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalising my work!"
Anyway, I think I'm done with this. I'm leaving work now and hopefully I have a great weekend ahead (gotta love Punta del Este). I wish the same to all of you people. Yes, even you. You seem like you could use it. Cheers to everyone. --uKER (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You only seem to be done with it if you can have the last word, and that last word appears to have to be accusatory. I have said none of these nor have I said anything similar. Your imagination, this place where you say I leave edit summaries saying "i preferred it before" is just that, your imagination. I advise you to read the article which you cite with such blanket frequency as if you believe you are accurately applying it or building some kind of case against me and pay attention to:
  • "In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy."
  • "Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter, an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter, or the editor could actually be an expert in the subject matter and provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. Unless an editor exhibits behavior associated with ownership, its best to assume good faith on their part."
  • "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not necessarily constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit."
Much like the bulk of this discussion, you have no idea about which you speak. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Spare me your "primary contributor" fanfare. See who is the second person with the most edits in this article? Save your self-promotion for someone who is impressed by it. Thanks. Do you know how of your edits are reverts? About two thirds. Yes, I counted them. Know why I stopped editing this article? Guess you do.
  • Persistent contribution is stewardship. Reverting because you liked it better before is ownership. I know the difference.
  • Unless the "core of editors who worked to build the article" is just yourself, I'm part of it, so again, point is moot.
And about the "You have no idea about which you speak", I brush it off just like one more of your gratuitous bigoted personal attacks, which are an integral part of every single conflictive discussion you take part in. BTW, "about which" what? Your syntax makes me cringe. --uKER (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment In truth I think the words are pretty interchangeable, but I think "accepts" carries a subtlety that is more suited to the context. The fact that Anderson did in reality fail her assessment but Dredd passes her anyway represents a character development, that he learns right and wrong can't always be reduced to absolutes i.e. sometimes breaking a rule is the correct thing to do. Bear in mind I haven't seen the film so this is just my reading from the plot summary, but you lose that subtlety if you replace "accepts" with "assumes", because "assumes" makes a statement about Anderson's beliefs and not Dredd's actions. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that accepts probably fitts better, and it does change the meaning like BettyLogan says. it shows his change in character. assumes leaves him as he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.214.202 (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

And I would agree with Betty Logan, Darkwarriorblake, TriiipleThreat and others such as the above that based on the film's own dialog and nothing else, "accepts" is correct.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate - the term is not describing what is going on inside Dredd's head, but Andersons. Regardless of any character development on his part, Andersons had no confirmation or knowledge that she had failed, only an assumption based on previously outlined criteria - but until informed of any decision, her own opinion on whether she passed or failed can only be an assumption. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment...it can be argued that she "accepts" that she has failed because she "assumed" that she has failed. So her attitude is that she accepts her failure. DonQuixote (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This represents the very worst of Wikipedia. Richard75 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Film nationality

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How is this film British and South African? As I understand it, the "country" is supposed to relate to the countries of production. In the case of this film, it should be United Kingdom (DNA Films), United States (IM Global), and India (Reliance Entertainment). While it was filmed in South Africa, none of its production companies are based there. It's kind of like District 9: takes place in South Africa, largely South African cast and crew, but the production companies are American and New Zealander, so it's not technically a South African film. I know, other stuff, but it's just an example. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Credits. The countries is a made up wikipedia rule for where otherwise clear evidence does not exist, it does in this case, and nationality of a source of funding has no bearing on a film's nationality. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 17:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Totally fine with me, I was just unsure. Thanks! Corvoe (speak to me) 01:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pedantry in the lede...

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm aware that this is beiong pedantic to the Nth degree, but two things strike me in the following sentence in the lede: "Dredd and his apprentice partner, Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), are forced to bring order to a 200-storey high-rise block of flats..."

  • Firstly - they're Judges. They're not "forced" to bring order, it's their job, and they would most likely perform similarly regardless of MaMa's regime.
  • Secondly (and here's the pedantic bit) despite what I just said there - they're not Judges. Or at least Anderson isn't. At this point, she's a rookie, a cadet. As has been borne out by the spat previously - she doesn't become an actual Judge until the last few seconds of the film. Both Dredd and the Chief Judge refer to her as "rookie". So, should the description not say "Dredd and his apprentice partner, Cadet Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), bring order to a 200-storey high-rise block of flats..."?

While the populace of Peach Trees refer to her as a Judge, she isn't, and they would't be expected to know the difference between a Cadet and Judge - the half-badge and white helmet (which Anderson doesn't wear anyway) aren't brought over from the comics. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting points. My responses are as follows:
  • Ma Ma has them locked in the building and lets everyone know that she intends to kill the Judges and anyone who helps them. I think they're forced because they have no options. You might be right that "...they would most likely perform similarly regardless of MaMa's regime..." but that isn't the important point. The important point is that if you have options then you aren't forced, whereas when you have no options you are, even if you end up doing the same thing you would have done if you'd had a choice.
  • I don't know a lot about the comics so if a Rookie isn't a Judge then I bow to your superior knowledge. However if we go by the film alone, then Anderson is a Rookie and it comes down to what that actually means. The way I understand the term Rookie is simply as someone who is new and in training. A Rookie cop is still a cop. Dredd calls her a "Rookie Judge" at the beginning of the film. In my mind Rookie means someone who is on probation - as we know Anderson is - and they might not pass probation but that doesn't mean they aren't, for all intents and purposes, still a cop, or a fireman, or a Judge, or whatever.

FillsHerTease (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Raid

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dredd was scripted long before The Raid. This entry however appears to strongly suggest Dredd is a copy of The Raid, which is not true.

I'm unhappy with my change being reverted, but one of the sources I cited is questionable I concur. However simply reverting my change rather than flagging it as dubious is unacceptable.

I won't revert to my original edit in this instance as I'll simply find a better source :)

Cheers, Paul (Mongoletsi (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC))

@Mongoletsi: The article reads: "made Dredd appear derivative". How is that suggesting it's a copy? All the article says is that people compared it to The Raid. And this is a featured article; poorly sourced information does get reverted without being flagged. Maintenance tags, unreliable sources, and "citation needed" tags are what is unacceptable. I get that you're trying to help and contribute—that's why I didn't accuse you of vandalizing or anything—but you need better sources from the get-go to insert information.
The big issue with the edit is that the information contradicts other—better sourced—information in the article. Considering everything involving pre-production took place in 2010, and filming mostly took place in 2010. A script is not stuck in development hell when it takes a few months to start filming. "However Dredd was said to be in development hell with the script first drafted in 2010" is, based on the other information in the article, just plain wrong. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. I'm about to make a better edit. Would welcome feedback :) Mongoletsi (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Who killed who?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Seeing his cover blown, Chan attacks Dredd, who kills him" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.80.29 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's that confusing, but I've reworded it slightly anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I preferred this version rather than the current one, which makes it seem like Dredd killed Chan just out of suspicion, ommitting Chan's attacking Dredd when he showed suspicion. --uKER (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Those who contributed

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This wonderful movie was not a box-office success. Thanks to all who contributed enough to make this a featured article.--C E (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Dredd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dredd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vqL6DDM8ec
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4RAefAmXVI
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dredd/Archive_2&oldid=1148380317"