Talk:The Best Offer

External link (in #Cast) beside Sylvia Hoeks' name.

The quote below is from User_talk:Debresser#Question_about_a_recent_edit:

In the interest of providing information to readers—and facilitating a red wikilink's evolution into a blue one—I inserted a link to de.wikipedia.org's Sylvia Hoeks article via google translate. While certainly not an optimal solution, I figure it's more helpful to readers than nothing.

If you'd be willing to assist with a better solution (i.e. getting a "Sylvia Hoeks" article started on en.Wikipedia) I'll happily share research links that I've bookmarked. As she's red linked in a number of other articles as well, it seems it would be of benefit to the wiki. I was looking into doing such, but then got sidetracked doing work at the Photography workshop.

In the mean time, I'll go ahead and restore the link and place a copy of this thread on The_Best_Offer's talk page so others know 'what's up'.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The offer to collaborate on a "Sylvia Hoeks" article is open to anyone. Feel free to contact me on my talk page.--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You can copy and paste the text from the German article here, and place it in comment marks. So that people who are interested can work on a translation. But this link is out of place, and your restoring it is not appreciated and will be summarily undone. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for dictating what I may and may not do Debresser. Without offering any explanation as to why you find the link to be "out of place". How could I have lost site of the fact that I'm editing on your wiki. Oh... wait... --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I find it just a teensy bit disingenuous that the same person who posted:

"...Also, first reach consensus, then insist on your edits."

as an edit summary would then close their talk page comment above with:

"...and will be summarily undone."

And then proceed to revert without offering other editors a chance to respond. To reach the aforementioned "consensus".

Please note that I placed an inquiry on Debresser's talk page and waited four days for her/his reply in which it was indicated that she/he —most likely— hadn't even followed the link before deleting it. After having explained my reasons for doing so—in detail—on both her/his talk page and the article's talk page, I reverted Debresser's deletion as it seemed —to me— to have been an uniformed and poorly considered action. It still seems such to me at present. And at this point, IMHO, it stretches the bounds of credibility to assume good faith and engage in further direct dialog with Debresser. Hence, I will proceed to restore my original edit once again. Without further delay. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Kevjonesin, I do not think it is appropriate to have the embedded link in the Wikipedia article. We want to avoid linking to embedded citations, and we certainly do not want to link to another Wikipedia since they are all not considered reliable sources. I think the best course of action is to go ahead and actually create an article for Sylvia Hoeks, however short it may be. It looks like she has won prominent enough awards to warrant an article. If we can do this, we can eliminate the embedded citation. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, precisely. You got it Erik. May I take your "we" literally and assume you're offering to help? --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I created a stub. I think the actor is notable with her Golden Film wins, though I am not sure how much biographical information is in English-language sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Erik. I got so mired in the details of aspiring to a full article with proper 'Biography of a living person' template and such that I overlooked the stub option. I'll be more likely to remember such in the future. Thanks again. :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Kevjonesin, please do not edit war. Please read WP:BRD, that if your edit is reverted, the proper course of action is to establish consensus for it first. Please read WP:AGF, and apply it: the fact that you and I disagree is not enough reason to assume bad faith from my side. Also use common sense and note that external links to another language Wiki instead of a redlink are not a usual course of action. In any case, I hope that the stub that was created avoids the issue. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... ...sigh...

The stub is definitely a better option. I agree that using an in-line external link is/was not the usual course of action, it was an exceptional one. And has now served it's purpose.

'Props' once more to Erik who stepped in to facilitate rather than 'manage'. To apply collaboration instead of 'control'. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Clock gears at Night and Day Restaurant

The open clocks, showing their inner workings, were to reinforce and emphasize to Virgil Oldman that he had been intentionally scammed. The gears were a reminder of the automaton’s gears, and how he had been so intent on having the automaton built, leaving him, in the end, bereft of his entire collection of valuable portraits of women and stuck with the automaton telling him that there is something real in every forgery. It was a way of reinforcing the message that Billy and Robert’s friendship and Claire’s love were, in fact, well staged forgeries, with the added slap in the face that some tiny element of genuine love was included in the forgery. 174.52.80.209 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)