Ol'Bacardi151

No Country For Old Men

Jim Dunning: I have noticed you tend to edit the article regularly and thus believe you deserve an explanation as to why your edits are being reverted.

First, this sentence: "Once inside the room, Bell sees that the vent cover has been removed by someone using a dime as a screwdriver, indicating that the money has probably been removed by someone." -Is it really necessary to state that the money has been removed by someone? Since "someone" removed the vent cover, as indicated by the sentence, who, or what else would have removed the money? It is rather redundant, unnecessary, and even clumsy to state that the money has been removed by "someone". This is something most people can probably figure out for themselves.

2nd: "Bell examines the room, observing that the bathroom window is locked, but does not encounter Chigurh, who quietly leaves while Bell was checking the bathroom. Bell then leaves the hotel room without any incident." -For this sentence, while there is really no point in mentioning that Bell sees the window is locked, I suppose it can be left in the article. However, there is no evidence in the Film that Chigurh "leaves while Bell [is] checking the bathroom". While you may have drawn this inference, an equally likely inference is that Chigurh remains behind the door, in the shadows, and is never seen by Bell. Because there is no visible evidence either way, it is incorrect to report this as if it is fact.

3rd: "Some time later Bell visits his Uncle Ellis (Barry Corbin), an ex-lawman. Bell is planning to retire due to his weariness of the changing times, but Ellis points out that the region has always been violent, and accuses Bell of "vanity" in thinking that he could not personally make a difference." -Ellis accuses Bell of vanity for thinking he could not make a difference? Do you really think admitting failure is a sign of vanity? Ellis is accusing Bell of vanity because Bell thinks he can make a difference; Ellis is trying to convince Bell that nature, and the way things have always been, are bigger than Bell is, and that it is vanity for Bell to think that he can influence, or change them.

4th:"As Chigurh drives away he is injured in a car accident and his left arm is badly broken; he manages to leave the scene before the police arrive. " -This is a case of both redundancy and improper English sentence mechanics (i.e. grammar). Why say, "[Chigurh] is injured in a car accident and his left arm is broken? By substitution, this is the same as saying: "Chigurh was injured in a car accident, and he was injured." Even if the rendundancy were not in itself the egregious part of this sentence, the sentence mechanics offend the rules of sentence construction in English. Because Chigurh is the subject of the sentence, it is improper to make his left arm the subject of the sentence after the conjunction "and". "And"is used to add additional information to the original subject of a sentence, not to add additional subjects and corresponding predicates to a single sentence (e.g., "A man got in the car and started it and drove it away and was injured", not "The man got in the car and the car was red and a kid was riding his bike and Melvin has three fingers").

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ol'Bacardi151, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for No Country for Old Men (film). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Regarding your edits, I was confused because when you edit an article in Main namespace and refer to a "Talk" page, it's normal to assume the article's "Talk" page is meant, not that of the editor. When you referred me to a discussion on the Talk page, I thought you meant these discussions on the film's Talk page: Vent covers, and Motel room at night, Chigurh and Bell. Editors discuss articles on the article Talk (or Discussion) pages. Discussions about the topics on which you're commenting have been going on for nearly a month. It was these discussions to which I was referring you (in my Edit Summary) when I reverted your edits; there was no way for me to know you posted to your own Talk page (mine would have been okay, but that would've left other editors out of the discussion). It's always a good idea to scan the article's Talk page before making a significant edit; this will give you an idea of any pertinent discussions, history and Consensus.

When you make an edit on a Talk page, you should do so chronologically when possible, either within an existing topic or at the end of the page. Consequently, I relocated your posts on No Country for Old Men to appropriate spots so others can find them more easily. Also, please sign your edits using the four tildes: "~~~~". This will automatically timestamp your edit and add your signature. Take a look at Section headings and Formatting for ideas on Talk page organization. Thanks for your interest in the article. You may want to take a look at the recent comments other editors have left at the NCfOM Talk page about the subjects that sparked this discussion; they bear on your points. Happy editing!
Jim Dunning | talk 01:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you refer to those passages as if I wrote them. While I am a contributor, they are not "mine" nor wholly my work. They represent a consensus of multiple viewpoints; I am just one of many contributors. That's another reason why I suggested making comments on the article Talk page: so the other (and future) contributors can read them. (Also, please sign your posts with four tildes so we can keep track of where and when you make contributions to the discussions.)
Jim Dunning | talk 02:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful when criticizing edits

I appreciate your interest in enhancing the quality of writing on Wikipedia, but a basic philosophy here is to assume good faith and to be civil in your communications and comments. You recently criticised the writing quality of another editor on the No Country for Old Men Talk page. In the process, your comments came across as critical of the editor her/himself: "he fancies himself an editor". You continued with a hyperbolic example of the mistake you felt he/she made, which could be construed as ridicule. In this case it would have been best to just have corrected the copy as you saw fit rather than slamming the editor publicly. I've reviewed the editor's contributions (at NCfOM and other pages) and they all appear to be good faith attempts to improve article quality, many of them very successful. The editor is relatively new and has done well in quickly learning style guidelines and practices (such as simple things like signing Talk page postings with four tildes and placing postings in chronological order).

If you are concerned about another editor's contributions or behavior, then certainly comment on them, but please do so constructively and always assume good faith. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my Talk page. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye-Aye, Dunning, you old bullshitter! If you review the history of the article, you will notice that the editor in question constantly reverted the article's grammatical construction to his style of prose (which bordered on illiteracy). This was done despite the fact that constructive edits incorporated his content into traditional sentence structures. As the editor in question was unable to comprehend the nature of constructive edits, an example was made, in good faith, to illustrate the necessity of those edits. Cordially Ol'Bacardi151 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Your editing space on this talk page has now been exhausted. Please refrain from further edits until you have negotiated additional space from this editor.