[WikiEN-l] Conventions and movie vs. film

[Stan Shebs]

james duffy wrote:

>
> Chill out, Stan. I was what is known in Ireland as 'taking the piss', 
> a bit of ironic mockery. (Oh God, you are not one of these boring 
> people who don't 'do' irony and are to a sense of humour what George 
> W. Bush is to linguistic dexterity?)

On the contrary, if you look at my work, you'll see there are quite a 
few jokes in
my comments.  I've even put a couple jokes in wikipedia itself, but 
they're so subtle
it will probably be years before anybody finds them.  And indeed I'm 
familiar with
'taking the piss', but when the Irish I know do it, they put a big grin 
on their faces
at some point, and unless you're a net newbie, you should know that if 
you're not
intending to be taken seriously, you need to add the smiley face.  I've 
been on the
net for 21 years now, and I have *never* seen any writer so deft that 
he/she could
be ironic without using a smiley face and not have it be misinterpreted.

In addition, you have a habit of arguing passionately and at length 
about issues
so picayune that I find myself thinking "he's got to be kidding" and 
looking for
a smiley face somewhere in the comment, but no, you're apparently completely
serious.  So my conclusion is that when you sound rude and arrogant, you 
really
mean to be heard that way, and that you're not sufficiently aware of 
other cultures
to realize that what might be OK to say over a pint in the pub sounds a 
lot different
to someone on the other side of the planet reading it on a Monday morning.

>
> The point I was making is that it is American arrogance in the extreme 
> to think - ' we use the word 'movie' therefore wikipedia must use the 
> word 'movie' and any references to the word film we will replace with 
> the 'right' (ie American) word'. Some people use movie, some use film, 
> as with British English versus American English, leave it in whatever 
> language the original author used. Some time ago, a European wikian 
> wrote about a film made in Europe that because of legal problems never 
> got a release in the US. It never have been released there, but still 
> someone tried to call it a (movie) not a (film) until a group of bored 
> Europeans, inspired by GWB, decided to wage their own war for the 
> liberation of the word 'film', collectively telling the annoying 
> renamer to shag off and Americanise something else. And he reacted to 
> their defence of a non-US title the way George W. reacts to anything 
> french these days. He hit the roof with a stream of 'how bloody dare 
> you . . . ' type responses.

I have no idea who this person is that you're talking about.  Criticize my
statements straight-on, don't try to tarnish my reputation with somebody
else's misbehavior.

>
> Put bluntly, Stan, this is wikipedia, not americopedia. If you want 
> respect from non-Americans, show their language and spellings some 
> respect. And get a sense of humour.

Well, that's sure breathtakingly arrogant on your part.  Calling you on
chronic rudeness, and the excuses you make for it, is hardly the same
as disrespecting non-American language and spellings.

Stan