 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
editThe CorenSearchBot makrs the plot description as including a substantial copy of:
http://secondcinema.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/second-cinema-september-2009-2
Second Cinema was granted permission to use the official movie plot description, which we have also used with permission.
- It is not enough to assert permission to use - see instructions below. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
editOne or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://secondcinema.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/second-cinema-september-2009-2. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
neutrality issue?
editI've just read the post, along with the warning that the main writer's links to the film production may make the article less than neutral. So far as I can tell, no opinions are expressed in the article about the movie, only a few dry facts, with no language that I could find to be biased in either direction - neither for nor against the film, and neither bolstering nor discrediting the story depicted in the film. What specifically is the point of view issue called into question? If the only problem is the writer's connection to the film creators, well, it seems that the writer has done a very good job of hiding any favoritism or criticism, and has simply stuck to the neutral facts. Don't consider the writer guilty by association; look at what is actually written. Just because someone works for a chocolate chip cookie maker doesn't make that person biased when it is their turn to explain what a chocolate chip cookie is. Shrommer (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
neutrality?
editAgree with Shrommer's post. The article is neutral in tone. As more people contribute, can we not remove the flag?KNoftle22 (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)