Talk:Sea of Love (film)

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Fair use rationale for Image:Sea of love.jpg[edit]

Image:Sea of love.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who copies who[edit]

This 2007 edit brought the plot summary to a state almost identical to IMDB's synopsis here last edited "3 years ago", which would be 2008 at the earliest. The only difference is IMDB omits the mdashes around "posing as a waiter". In 2007 October 30 IMDB had no synopsis, while wikipedia had this 2007 October 23 version. This 2009 January IMDB version implies the last IMDB edit was around 2008 May or June. The sole IMDB contributor appears to have created other synopses remarkably similar to, or exact copies of, those found on wikipedia, for example: this one for Ghost Dad and this one for Boarding Gate. -84user (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific study[edit]

The scientific study mentioned in the critical response section is relevant and referenced with a reliable source. If any editor wishes it removed, they should explain why here on the talk page. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Any editor" meaning me. Sorry, I didn't realize you had written here until I came here just now to start a new topic. I was just reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles . I think you should read it. (again). You've broken most of the guidelines on that page. I've given reasons each time I reverted. Ah, I went to copy the text and already you've threatened me with blocking. "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Sea of Love (film), you may be blocked from editing." So you merely assert I'm the one not giving adequate explanation. While at every step, I've given substantive reasons, I believe more than adequate ones for this small matter. You gave no reason for your reversions, merely leaving hypocritical, aggravating and hostile notices on my talk page. What I seem to be disrupting is your ownership of the page.

I've already explained this (it's not complicated), but the sentence I removed was absolutely nothing to do with the critical reception of this or any other movie. I know because I read the linked article. Why it was in the 'critical response' section I have no idea. How on earth is it about the critical reception to that movie, in any way? It doesn't even come near that.

I notice you've been editing here for years, I'm relatively new. It's rather difficult to remain calm but I'm doing my best. Please stop being so hostile. Thank you. I thought I was making the article better, I explained why. You repeatedly accused me of not explaining why (which wasn't true.) In fact you were the one not explaining, posting hostile messages on my page etc. I'm not sure why more I can say. I noticed you've been in trouble for edit warring before, well I haven't, and I don't intend to start now. 122.106.31.40 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, after I wrote "The Old Jacobite, please stop reverting and leaving condescending notices asking for reasons on my page, you have given none." In my edit comment, you just reverted 1 minute later. With, as always, no reason given. 122.106.31.40 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my page "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation,..". Well, every time, I've given what I thought was adequate explanation. I don't know why you are pretending (see above) that I'm not. The only clearly inadequate explanation is yours, merely saying "is relevant and referenced with a reliable source." Well, I'd like to see someone else's opinion on that. On the first question, I mean - how reliable the source to an irrelevant sentence is, would also be irrelevant.

I read the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing you linked to on my page. "If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. .. A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." Again, that seems exactly what you're doing yourself. Please explain. And I think you have a lot of explaining to do. An apology would be nice. Read the linked article - it's truly ridiculous to claim it belongs in a 'Critical Reception' section. Have you gone around adding all the other movies mentioned to those movies pages? I ask again (please don't ignore this time), explaining something is more than just asserting it like you've done, "it's relevant". I will revert now I guess, you have explained nothing but merely threatened and begged the question and broken many guidelines in doing so. 122.106.31.40 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to any of the concerns I raised in my initial message. The information is relevant and well-sourced. All you've offered is your opinion that it doesn't belong there. But, of course, your opinion is irrelevant. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]