User talk:Crculver

Archives

User_talk:Crculver/Archive 1: – September 2006

I know this bertilvidet very well.I dont know why he has so much hatred and racism for turks but he keeps putting all negative things about turkey. There are no 2 million roma in turkey. There are about half a million and they are very assimilated. So stop this because it is not accurate and you are destroying wikipedia by purposely putting false information in it

I have nothing against roma personally. We are not bulgarians or romanians to be racist against roma,we are turks who accept anyone: we have always been that way. Berilvidet is a turkophobic racist (my impression) who is just trying to make Turkey look like some minority oppresing country to meet his twisted end (i dont know why. maybe because his gay lover turned straight after meeting a turkish girl?). He is doing this by putting references to "evil turks" in history pages and anything about minorities in turke and other pages. His whole goal is to make turkey and turks look bad to the outside world. See his contributions if you dont beleive me.

Hey, this is interesting stuff to hear that you know me very well. Did we ever meet? From where do you know me? Bertilvidet 09:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I had been on a wiki-break for quite a while. By the way there is also an Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. Miskin 12:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit verbs[edit]

His, Christopher, sorry both for bothering and puting this up here. I'm a clas. greek undergraduate and I'm beginning my Sanskrit. I know your reviews at Amazon. I couldn't make much sense out of the verb parts at M.R Kale and Macdonell, then I came to the wiki article. I was at first confused, because it makes no mention of the traditional indian terms (parasmaipada, atmanepada etc.). I haven't completely understood guna and vrridi yet, although I obviously am familiar with apophony\ablaut in Greek. I was wondering if you could help me make sense of the tenses and moods? That's a real killer. From what I understood, Imperative, for instance, is a mood under the Present system. Ok. So does that mean there is only Present Imperative and all other tenses do not have this mood? If you prefer, here's my e-mail: notrelatedtomyself@gmail.com

If it's too much trouble, don't worry; but, anyway, thanks in advance.

201.19.151.185 22:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan migration[edit]

Hey, thanks for keeping a watch on Indo-Aryan migration. I see that Indo-European languages and Proto-Indo-European have recently been modified to present the "Out of India" theory as a "main contender" to be an alternative explanation of Indo-European origins, but I'm not knowledgeable to revise it properly in light of WP:NPOV#Undue weight... can you help? --Xiaopo ℑ 03:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the alleged linkspam[edit]

FYI, this is not linkspam. It presents what it offers, pictures of the bad side of Stara Zagora: if you click the links on the left, you see everything.--Tekleni 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I advise you to actually investigate what you're doing before taking the word of a n00b with an agenda. I wouldn't be suprised if you never opened that link - additionally, User:TodorBozhinov was adding it, yet I don't see you serving him one of your warnings.--Tekleni 19:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, reverted three (3) times. Anyway, threats have no place on my talkpage, thank you very much. Anyway, thanks for pointing out that n00b can be insulting (English is not my native language).--Tekleni 19:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've violated the 3RR on my talkpage. Please don't readd that "warning", especially in double standards, as I have reverted exactly the same number of times as TB. I also see that you do little other than policing links: well done. I'll leave that link for now (you may have a point).--Tekleni 19:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you must WP:SUBST template warnings. Don't strain the wikimedia servers.--Tekleni 19:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the gallery personally, and reverting to Groser's inappropriate version is in my opinion a bad decision. There's already one gallery link in the external links section, Nikola Gruev's, so "no galleries" is a bad excuse, and I actually see the sz..free.bg link as quite a nice addition to the article — no city is perfect, spotting and showing its problems is part of being a good citizen, so it's a nice form of journalism. Also, I don't see how a free non-profit-or-anything website could actually be spam.

Now, there's also been a campaign by several people in some Bulgarian forums, as well as the Bulgarian Wikipedia, to present Stara Zagora as some kind of dream city which is developing greatly economically, as growing rapidly in population in contrast to larger cities like Rousse and the country in general, etc., so I'm particularly suspicious about such actions — you can also see the List of cities in Bulgaria talk and history and User:Хаха's edits for a nice example of what effect this Stara Zagora trolling and edit warring has on Wikipedia. That's one of the reasons I'm particularly suspicious about new and anonymous users' edits on Stara Zagora and the related articles. Todor →Bozhinov 20:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about removing Nikola Gruev's picture gallery link as well — his photos are actually GFDL when uploaded to Wikipedia (he has given permission to use them here under the terms of this license) and I think a link to his gallery is a nice addition to every article. What are the main concerns over including image galleries in the external links? As for including more photos, Gruev has some and there's a nice CC-by-2.5 gallery here. I might be able to pick out some and upload them to Commons tomorrow. Todor →Bozhinov 20:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a peculiar situation actually: as far as I understand, Gruev's images become GFDL when they are uploaded to Wikipedia, and are not free by default. Also, including an external link is some kind of desirable, especially when using Gruev's photos. There is also a suggestion not to "take everything", but use only 1-2 images per article, which I don't see as a rule, condition or something like that, just as, once again, desirable. You can read about the licensing here. Todor →Bozhinov 20:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did we really agree on that? Again you're removing one of the galleries and you're leaving the other one. As I said, I find the link rather relevant and useful, and I explained my reasons (including the Stara Zagora "local chauvinism" web propaganda thing), so I don't see anything wrong. You shouldn't be tolerating an 3RR offedner who I don't think would soon give up his cause to propagate Stara Zagora in the first place. Plus, I think my wording of the external links is very neutral and clear. Todor →Bozhinov 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europaio linkspam[edit]

Ok. So you know how to write "spamlink" in the delete comments, and know how to write a common template like (spam1) in a user's talkpage. You also study linguistics and have your own userpage in a dozen languages! Wow, you are so cute. Now stop thinking you are the only one who knows how all this stuff work, and DO TRY to discuss things BEFORE deleting them, and do not demand others to reflect BEFORE adding them. This is a moving, collaborative encyclopedia, not a stative one depending upon your decisions to include links or not - be humble, and begin again reading Wikipedia:Introduction, about "being bold" in editing and so on... it's one of the first links in the Main Page, cannot loose yourself. (sorry I didn't have a good old template like spam1 to reflect my PERSONAL views about your disrespectful attitude). By the way, not everyone here wants to have a username and a userpage, many still prefer to write anonymously. Please remember that too to respect other editors. Sorry for my stupidity in the writing of that article and its linking, guess (you think) I don't know how to link as well as you do, but do not delete this post, so that you can read it sometimes and remember to be more reasonable next time. Have fun deleting things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extremaduran (talk • contribs) .

I know WP policies very well. I've been here for several years now. You've just registered your account. The simple fact is that people can't write articles about their own projects, nor link to their own websites. If your conlang is notable, you'll have to wait until someone unconnected with it comes to add info. CRCulver 23:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoghurt Move Request[edit]

Please read (and, if you choose, respond to) this in regards to your survey statement on the Yoghurt move request. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvo Pärt[edit]

Thanks for catching that link I added to the Arvo Pärt page. Strangely, it didn't require me to register when I went to the article from Google. Intelligence3 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chronicles[edit]

Please check the chronicles before revert warring. TIA, --Irpen 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per this edit "Rv. I suspect that this has to do with original vs. normalized spelling. Let's keep one s until someone uploads a manuscript scan".

You "suspect" is not a reason to make any statement, and run revert wars. I advice you to check the sources before running revert wars. You may want to start from Talk:Name of Ukraine written by Daniel Bunčić an academic slavicist. After that please proceed to http://litopys.org.ua/ and enter "Russkie lyudi" and "Russkaya zemlya" in the search field. When you are done, you may report back. Resorting to revert wars because you "suspect" something may get you blocked. --Irpen 00:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've yet to present any firm evidence. It doesn't matter what romanisation you've found on the Internet, what matters is the manuscript attestation. If you want to make a case, upload a scan from the facsimile. CRCulver 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the anon troll the links to the book written by a Ukrainian slavist.[1][2] This is enough evidence.

If you want to disprove it, you look for scans. And be prepared to spend some hours because you will find none with "Rus'ki lyudi". You can't demand sources in excess of WP:V. The presented source fits the WP:RS definition. --Irpen 00:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language learning[edit]

Hi. I realize Wikipedia might not be the best place to ask about this, so feel free to delete this. I'm just wondering about a comment you made that linguistic historians often have to learn a new language in a week or so, and I was wondering if you had any pointers to sources for courses that target this timescale. In my experience (I have been accused of having an unused talent for learning languages), most course materials are not appropriate for this pace, though my own feeling is that it should be entirely possible with the right material to learn from. Zuiram 22:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogurt/Yoghurt[edit]

This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huns-Turk(ic) orign[edit]

i am sort of a beginner so its possible to do a mistake but i will make more research and tell you...

I think all of this fight is for misunderstanding Turkish and Turkic concepts...

Hi! I did receive a message from you, Crculver. Unfortunately, I dont yet understand, how to answer you personally. Can you give me your e-mail ? Sincerely etc... extern. PS You can to wipe off this massage as well.

Hi[edit]

Hey, just saying hi and mentioning that I think you are doing some great work on WP avoiding original research. You're an asset around here :) BTW: That's some languages! Elomis 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devanāgarī and Dravidian writing scripts[edit]

Hi,

From the way the article on Sanskrit read, it sounded like it was saying that the Dravidian writing scripts were of the Devanāgarī writing form. However, it is true that there are Sanskrit words written in the Dravidian scripts. That is how Grantha Tamil came about. It was created specifically for writing Sanskrit words by introducing five extra characters which are absent in the Tamil language. Hope I didn't complicate things. Regards.

Wiki Raja 09:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Gunmen[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. CRCulver 05:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I you want to say for yourself then email me directly. You will need to specify a valid email adress in your prefernces to do this. Myrtone (☏) 04:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, used to people with thicker skin on here ;) Anyways, I still think its a good idea to source that statement on the popularity on the show one way or another. Mucus 14:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope I didn't come out sounding bad. If I did, please accept my appologies. I was just commenting on the article and not the author. But, thank you for the advice and the links to no personal attacks and stay cool. I will keep that in mind. Anyways, I would like to contribute to the Sanskrit site in regards to Tamil, and to also put proper sourcing. Thanks again, we all can learn from each other. Much Regards. Wiki Raja 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply[edit]

I already assumed good will but in my opinion you confused/mixed what i tried to say. As i stated before that page, the important thing is to provide neutral comprehensive information based on scientific sources. That's it. I also offered to paraphrase some statements but you did not care. Please, read my comments at that page again. Regards E104421 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no wide consensus. This is your pov push. You never take into account any of the comments in the talk/discussion page. There is a controversy about the issue and the article is disputed. As far as i see from the edit history of the article only you and the user Stbalbach support that version. There are many opposing your version. See talk/discussion page. E104421 20:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Prayer[edit]

Sir, you did not find it necessary to respond to my message of 28 June with the same subject, so I shall repost it, with suitable modification to reflect the passage of over four months.

I'd like to express my disapproval at your deletion of my list, which I think is quite useful. The fact that it "could" go on "forever" is not reason enough to remove it. Plus, there are already two fairly analogous lists in Wikipedia already: here and here. Furthermore, just two foreign-language Wikipedias have articles on the prayer.

If you really want some sort of limit, I’ve come up with a standard that sets the number of languages at about 21. How about only listing the prayer in the liturgical languages of autonomous or autocephalous churches, plus the national languages of Orthodox-majority countries (this part covers Belarussian)? That seems like a fair compromise to me. I’d also include Latin for historical value.

(Greek, Arabic, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Albanian, Czech, Slovak, English, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Japanese, Chinese, Ukrainian, Macedonian, Belarusian, Latin would thus be the languages.)

In any case, I say we put the list back up and see where it goes, perhaps indicating these restrictions. Does that sound reasonable, or are you still totally against such a list?

I'll also note that in these past 130 days, a mere three modifications have been made to the article: one a minor disambiguation, two to link to the foreign versions. The body of the text has changed not one whit. How likely, in all honesty, do you think that list is to "go on forever"? Biruitorul 22:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lives of Cyril and Methodius[edit]

"I claim neither credit nor responsibility for those, but I welcome comments and criticisms of my own translations. I am an historian, not a Byzantine philologist, so there are sure to be mistakes. This remains a work in progress."
This comes from the site you're using as a primary source on translations. I've heard enough absurd claims about this so called Vita, but a Byzantine emperor calling Thessalonica "Solun" is just too much. Would you happen to know the original title of the work? I'll look for the Greek text and verify all those claims. Miskin 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then I misunderstood. I still don't know why on earth we have to have all those names on the head. The Turkish name which is indeed the only one of historical importance is already mentioned inside the article. The "Ladino" name, is in reality the Turkish name as used by the Jews of the city (who also spoke Ladino), and it's not the name of Thessaloniki in the Ladino language. I've no idea why the rest of the names are so important to be in the head. Miskin 00:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you say, your citation from the Vita doesn't explicitely state that there was ever a Slavic population within the city of Thessaloniki. This is just your personal interpretation, which happens to contradict the history of the city. There was never a record of a Slavic occupation or settlement in Thessaloniki, even during the great Slavic attacks on Greece, Thessaloniki was never invaded. Even when Tsar Samuel had conquered Byzantine lands as far as central Greece, Thessaloniki remained intact. You can verify any of this information. Miskin 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what you support is only your personal interpretation. If someone says today "All Osloians speak perfect English" it doesn't mean that Oslo is bilingual in English, nor that there's an English population in Oslo. If you can cite a credible source which interprets this part of Vita exactly as you do, then I will accept it. For the time being your claim is no more accurate than mine. Miskin 19:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hinterlands (region) of Thessaloniki and the city of Thessaloniki are two different things. I don't deny that there were Slavs in Greek Macedonia, nor that there waere influences/contacts between them and the Greek inhabitants of the city of Thessaloniki, but as history tells us there was never a Slavic settlement within the city, that is all. Miskin 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break.[edit]

Take a break, Culver. What you do is mindless vandalism. S shadow 14:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Music Deletions[edit]

While I appreciate people on the lookout for what your are calling link spam, you are mistaken in deleting links I've put on under a few 20th century music headings. EG under the site for Luigi Dallapiccola, we linked to recordings of lectures on his music given by one of his closest pupils. Not sure what a more appropriate link would be. I am not this Dallapiccola pupil self-promoting. He died ten years ago. The site on which they are located is not-for-profit. Scores of people have downloaded these lectures from these links, so people coming to these pages are finding them useful. I am going to put these 5 links back up and if you have problems with them,before taking unilateral action, please address this on the discussion groups for the individual pages and see what a larger group of people think. Pulpy 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Crculver. I am new to the english wikipedia. I have posted a small correction that has been erased by you. This one:".....Because nearly 55% of the English words are loanworded from Latin, the presence of words with Latin original borrowing has increased in the modern Romanian language, may be to nearly 90% of the total. For example, the English word "management" comes from the Renaissance Italian "maneggiamento", meaning handlement (Italian "mano"=English "hand"); and the Italian "mano" comes from the Latin "manus"....."

May I know the reason? I have been writing on the italian and spanish wikipedia without any problems, so I'd like to understand the reason of the erase and correct my mistake. Thank you.--Brunodam 03:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, Clculver. May be I wrote in a fast way. Next time I'll follow the "Publication Manual of the A.P.A". I live in Florida, where I got a MBA years ago, and I am a US citizen (born in Italy). I hope to be welcomed in the english wikipedia. --Brunodam 03:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the "welcome". Anyway, there are many mistakes in the english wikipedia: I have just corrected one in your own user page. --Brunodam 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply conditions?[edit]

Some users put certain conditions on giving a reply, such as that the message must be signed. You have not done this, so your failure to reply to two of my messages, sent in good faith and in a very reasonable tone, strikes me as odd and uncivil. Am I missing something here? Why will you not engage with me? Biruitorul 07:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. If that were the case, maybe, but the fact is that only Russian and German equivalents exist so far. Plus, if there is no need, why do we have similar lists for the Lord's Prayer and for the Paschal Greeting? Biruitorul 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man![edit]

I did not remove it, I restored it. User:Francis Tyers removed it. Why do you guys always treat Bulgarians and Greeks as the harbingers of absolute pure evil in these matters?--Euthymios 11:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I was led to believe (by Macedonians) that it wasn't used. Please update Macedonia (terminology) with a source. - Francis Tyers · 11:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Macedonia (terminology) article talks about the terminology of Macedonia, including in linguistics. Please let me know when you dig out a source and I'll add it. - Francis Tyers · 11:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europeanul[edit]

Because he seems to be a pretty obvious sock of the banned user Bonaparte. WP:BAN states that "any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". Khoi khoi 19:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on Jesus Prayer[edit]

Hello! I'm here in response to a request for a third opinion filed regarding the Jesus Prayer article. As you were the other disputant in the matter I'm providing you with a copy of the opinion as well, as follows:

While it's quite interesting that the prayer has been translated into this many languages, I think a simple note of that fact (the Jesus Prayer has been translated into over X languages...) would probably be more appropriate then a large list of full-text translations. Of course, these translations being available, you may wish to ask if some of the other language Wikis would be interested-if they're trying to write an article on this or translate this one it would probably be quite helpful to them! However, I do agree that such a list is probably a bit too long and cumbersome to belong in the article proper. Seraphimblade 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk??[edit]

If we could talk. Since we have strong convictions. Freedom skies 20:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do want to talk this out you may want to actually converse. A thing I had proposed from the very first edit. Ask for more citations in addition to Muller ?? or maybe a compromise ??

I have no problem in having a dialouge with you since you don't have a dog in this fight. If you want continued edit wars by substituting the authoritative (and painfully neutral to the extent of being labelled as a racist by the Indians) Max Muller with men who have worked on Irish chariots and Chinese mummies and make remarks about the vedas in the process, then do go ahead as well.

Either way. Your call.

Freedom skies 20:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Rama's arrow 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to know, many other users generally appreciate the notice that you have made. See the articles on bodhidharma, chan buddhism, zen buddhism and almost every other article that freedom skies has edited. they have all resulted in edit wars, other editors complaining about him, and locked pages. Kennethtennyson 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about him. He follows me everywhere but he's harmless. Freedom skies 23:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Flowers editing[edit]

I'm sending this to you, Crculver, to inquire about editing of the page for the film "Broken Flowers"... specifically, your "reverting" and thereby deleting material I added. This isn't sent to be confrontational or "difficult"; it's sent only to inquire about your action and the rationale behind it.

The specifics, which you may recall: within the plot summary, there is a description of the film's main character dining with a couple, and it ends with the line (this is a paraphrase, I didn't check), "The food is arranged with architectural precision". What I did was expand upon this, adding basically an explanation that would make it more coherent to a reader who had not seen the film…that the shot of the food was typical of the subtle visual humor of the film. Specifically, that it was a comment on the "prefabricated" nature of the couple's lifestyle.

I felt this edit was useful simply because, as written, the detail about the food falls somewhere between the superfluous and the confusing. I believed the responsible editorial action was to either have an explanatory expansion of the sort I made…or alternately, to simply delete the line about the food's arrangement, which, again, is much more a distraction than a useful piece of information.

Finally, your "given reason" for the reversion was "No Original Material", and while I'm not at all well versed in Wikipedia's rules/procedures, I don't see how this applies. What I did was essentially a "correction" , taking an instance of weak/incomplete writing and making it more comprehensible and informative. I don't think there was anything that could be considered inaccurate, biased, offensive, et cetera in the edit I made. Nor can it be argued that what I added was "opinion" or "personal analysis"…it is a fact that that shot in the film was a visual joke, precisely as I described it.

So, again, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this…as I said, though, I'm not terribly familiar with this site's "interactivity", and how you would communicate with me. So I'll give my email address -- gmurphy@sportsmansguide.com -- and I thank you for whatever you can convey to me.

The problem was not your description of how the food was placed. Rather it was your personal interpretation of what the scene means. That violates WP:NOR, unless you can source it from the formal publications of film scholars. That's just how things work around here. CRCulver 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record -- Mr. CRCulver's reply here was as ill thought-out as his original decision to confuse plot narrative with what he calls "original research". As it was, the plot summary had the line "The food is presented with almost architectural precision", which is superfluous, pointless on its own, from an editorial standpoint. He, again, is confused in his reply, calling it "[my] description of how the food was placed" when it was not. What happened was, I approached this editorially, feeling I should either delete the sentence entirely (again, it means nothing if you haven't seen the film)...or, should place it in the context of the film, describing (but not "inventing") why the shot is there, for the uninitiated reader. You can see my original revision directly below, and what its value is to the plot summary. I suppose happily, someone went in and "cleaned this up" entirely, since...completely removing reference to what the dinner looked like. Which was my initial other choice...before one CRCulver decided to go in and excise my editing and leave it the original mess it was.

Dora (Frances Conroy) is a realtor who hasn't yet let go of her past; once a flower child of the 60s, she appears very brittle and on the verge of exploding out of her confining life. Her controlling husband, Ron (Christopher McDonald), invites Don to an awkward dinner of fish, rice and chopped carrots. The food is presented with almost architectural precision, appearing "ideal" but completely unappetizing…a comment on the "prefabricated homes", and by extension, prefabricated lifestyle, the couple sells. The shot is typical of the film's understated visual humor.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]