User talk:Glock172

Eagle Eye

The description of how Jerry uses the Glock in the film was left purposely vague to not provide spoilers. --Ben41 20:43, 8 July 2011 (CDT)

Oh, I'm sorry. I'll fix that if it hasn't been already. My bad.

Bill Cosby

Cosby used a lot of weapons on the I Spy (TV Series). --Ben41 22:31, 9 October 2011 (CDT)

MW3 M1911

The description is deliberately vague to avoid needless spoilers. While fighting Makarov at the end is about as big a surprise as Mario fighting Bowser, it isn't really obvious from the image that the body is Soap (I deliberately didn't look at Soap so his name wouldn't appear and stood so you couldn't see anything distinctive) and I don't think it's really necessary to say it is. Evil Tim 20:29, 20 November 2011 (CST)

editorial descriptors

We are trying to discourage posters from posting commentary on an actor's gun handling skills, or lack of, on the movies main page. Our goal is to have the main movie page function more as an encyclopedia entry listing the firearms and some descriptors about the individual weapons used in the movie. Feel free to post your observations on the discussion pages however. As a result I reverted some of your commentary on Silence of the Lambs and Game of Shadows. Thanks for your cooperation.--Jcordell 10:11, 1 January 2012 (CST)

You've been told before about posting gun commentary and you're doing it again with the Southland pages. If you continue to do this, you may be subject to a banning of editing privileges. --Ben41 02:18, 22 August 2012 (CDT)

Forgive me if I was in violation, I've been trying to improve the Southland pages since I started watching. I don't remember exactly what was posted, but I'll refrain from commenting on actors' weapon handling skills. Can you refer me to the page that explains, or perhaps tell me yourself, what is "unqualified" gun commentary? I'm simply trying to give more details.

As stated in the Rules, Standards and Principles:

Due to IMFDB's increasing role as a site of movie trivia research, we are clamping down on commentary which may appear sarcastic, insulting or denigrating. Criticizing an actor's firing stance or snickering at them 'flinching' during blank fire is becoming increasingly frowned upon by IMFDB. Pointing out how ridiculous a scene is due to mythical firearm ballistics, or lack of reloading, or lack of technical advisers can be done, but only in a non-insulting manner and only if it is relevant to increasing the public knowledge of the weapon and its proper usage. If one has to point out a flaw or mistake, please try to do it as scholarly and neutrally as possible. Using the old 'management axiom' "Praise in public, Criticize in Private", we can move any casual discussions to the 'Discussions Pages', that is what they are there for. Looking for movie still frames where an actor blinks or flinches (just to ridicule) is not necessary and brings down the professionalism of the site.

Also, when responding to someone's comment, please remember to answer on that user's discussion page and properly sign your posts with the following symbols: --~~~~ --Ben41 17:33, 23 August 2012 (CDT)

Southland

Thanks for your contributions to the Southland pages. In the future, please keep your captions a little shorter. The main point of the caption is to describe the weapon seen. There is no need to over explain every single plot point that pertains to the screenshot. --Ben41 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2013 (EST)

Over-explaining won't happen again, but what's wrong with describing the context? People might do well to know *some* details if they see a screenshot of a cop laying on the ground firing his weapon. I won't spoil anything or over-explain, but is the policy to describe *nothing* but the weapon?