User talk:Amyluna13

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Amyluna13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take caution

Particularly pertaining to In the Valley of Elah; Assuming you understand Good faith edits and Wikipedia's Manual of Style, many of you edits warrant discussion previous to posting. Your edits can be discussed on the talk page of each article. In addition, be sure you become versed with Wikipedia's beginner's assistance, manual of style, and take caution so as to not to edit to a standard that creates a bad faith edit pattern of behavior. Bullmoosebell (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cautionary edits

Regarding your recent edits on the article of In the Valley of Elah, emotional or otherwise, such edits &/or additions warrant discussion. Understanding good faith edits, adding such content (in addition to correct grammar and spelling) necessitates discussion on this talk page. The information posted by You may or may-not be substantial, but is it pivotal to the movie? Is said "factually supported analysis" actually original content? A lifetime member of Baker Company TF 1-15 IN (the unit in which the movie is based upon), so do not presume that I don't understand the situation that piqued the interest of the producers & directors to create this movie. Check your edits, content, and necessity, then discuss it on the Talk page. Bullmoosebell (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Thank you for your efforts to make Wikipedia a more substantial research-based source. While your recent edits may seem to be applicable to the article, there are steps to be taken for long-term posting. First off, it would be best to establish an account (not just a redlink). Secondly, familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia Manual of Style (in concert with the Five Pillars). Our recent discussion regarding the content of the article of the movie, In the Valley of Elah, brings many compounded discussions. Understanding good faith, your discussions are to be talked about on the specific discussion page prior to posting for public view. Just know the movie is fiction, though based on factual events, and the article is to reflect the content of the movie.

The majority of the content is not necessarily to educate controversial topics with intended or subtle motives. This movie depicts the death of a soldier and his father's tireless effort to solve the mystery (runaway AWOL soldier, suicide, or murder), not PTSD. The true story in which the movie is based on is the proper venue for such content. All that aside, concurrent to my personal endeavor to treat, cure, and eliminate the stigma, of mental illness, I do appreciate your personal effort to educate and inform the masses of mental illness in military service members. Bullmoosebell (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tar baby, Katczinsky, and The Machine

I understand what your intention is. However, the movie "portrays a military father's search for his son and, after finding his body, subsequent hunt for his son's killers. The film explores themes including the Iraq war, abuse of prisoners, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following active combat."
Hank Deerfield is trying to find his son & his killers. As it states, the film "explores" themes of PTSD, the GWOT, prisoner abuse, et cetera. Those are not the main plot. Don't get me wrong, as a combat veteran diagnosed with PTSD, I understand the importance of educating the masses. However, the wikipedia page of the film In the Valley of Elah is not the proper venue because it is not a movie about PTSD, regardless of what you feel the film crew were trying to convey. It's not a movie about the Iraq War. It's not a movie about Father-Son military service. For that reason, there is no extensive literature on the article depicting such. Take a look at the articles of other movies with subtle undertones (PTSD or otherwise), Song of the South, All Quiet on the Western Front, Glengarry Glen Ross.
With that said, Do not feel I am simply dismissing the subject. Your presence is to make Wikipedia a better resource. If you so choose to pursue this, feel free to join the Film WikiProject and speak your case there. I advise you familiarize yourself with the Manual of Style, so as to present guideline basis for your edits (you can start by signing your posts). In other words, learn the ropes, substantiate your view, then present yourself to the powers that be, otherwise you will not be taken serious (we see countless people with new content, views, and opinions that are not actually new or original, and have been discussed previously). Lastly, do not bring abrasive comments such as you've posted previously, "But, with all due respect, if these issues were obvious to those who serve, this tragedy might never have occurred in the first place."
Just because you state "with all due respect," does not mean your comments are not disrespectful. That sort of conduct will not get you very far, on Wikipedia or life. Your comment was purely hypothetical and, without having served in combat yourself, you should guard against making such comments.
Good luck, Bullmoosebell (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Koontz

Tar Baby is a character in Uncle Remus stories, as depicted in the movie Song of the South, Stanislaus Katczinsky is a character fromAll Quiet on the Western Front, and Shelley "The Machine" Levene is a character from Glengarry Glen Ross.
Congrats of articulating your point of view (subjective or objective), and your passion for the subject, but I've come to realize... this is just Wikipedia. After a couple volleys, I grow apathetic and move on (especially when they become as analytical as this). If I were in your shoes (more like when I am in your shoes), I would forego any furthered debate with a general-editor and seek the advice of an Administrator (one who focuses on film). An Admin is well versed with the MoS and has the power to over-ride an editor. The first few lengthy discussions can keep my interest piqued, but eventually the discussion becomes a debate and occasionally an edit war. Also, considering the volumes of language I've shared, communicating with a non-military-trained person give their opinion on military topics (especially one as the Richard T. Davis incident) strikes a negative chord with me, and I take an aggressive posture on the subject. I've been to this rodeo too many times. Perhaps my comments led to digression from the topic on-hand, for that I apologize. You proposed your edit, I disagree, and it would be best to bring your proposition to an authority on the matter.
Dean Koontz is the title because you wrote a small novel on my talk page.
Cheers, Bullmoosebell (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Rogers

I enjoyed engaging conversation when I worked in the finance industry and had plenty of time, but my current line of work is a lot more demanding and time-consuming. As such, if I focus my energy on this debate, it will take away from my abilities elsewhere (such as cleaning up the article of Matthew Ridgeway). Discussion, debate, banter, those conversations that continue can create a retard or stalemate of progression.
Just like when you go to a retail store, if you're not satisfied by the representative's solution, go over their head. If their supervisor fails to meet your demands, keep going up each echelon until you reach the wall. So on, so forth. As long as you don't step on toes along the way, you will build a solid foundation that editors & admins will smile upon. THAT is what I intended to emphesize previously. Your comment, "if these issues were obvious to those who serve...," is a subjective comment (which I've previously discussed ad nauseam, in personal meetings, with executives and directors of the National Alliance on Mental Illness), which contradicts Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Comments like that shed less credibility on you/your potential edits in the eyes of editors & admins. I know this because I've done it many times before. There are too many editors that make edits that do not adhere to Wikipedia's policies & guidelines, so do what you can to stand out beyond a single-time editor.
Your personal page will also demonstrate a professional perception. I edited my page to give it the most professional look possible, and it took a few weeks and a lot of memorization of code. And all I did was search other users pages & emulate their styles. If you need assistance, I can help, just let me know.
Happy trails, Bullmoosebell (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke & Mirrors

There is so much more to that story that what was filmed. Long story short, the sequence of events (choking wife --> wife cheating) were actually flip-flopped. It wasn't PTSD, it was domestic abuse. It's pitiful and disgusting that he actually claimed PTSD in the film when we all, including public records, know the truth. The other guy, too. He was never a trained murderer, he was always fat & was barred from re-enlistment, he sat in the TOC, never engaged the enemy, never saw actual combat, and then cried his eyes out for stepping on a kitten. Trained murderers never cry when they step on a kitten. We were all embarrassed when the final segments were aired. Upon the release of the film, those of us in contact with the producers let them know the actual story. The documentary had already aired (and we were already in Iraq again), so all they could do was say "oops" and offer their apologies for not fact-finding information prior to finalizing the film. So, in all, I've grown cynical & critical to many claims of PTSD, while still advocating for troops that ACTUALLY have mental illness. I now realize that PTSD is beyond serious and there are countless @$$holes that will jump on the bandwagon at an attempt to gain the sincerity of the public's bleeding heart for the troops. Bullmoosebell (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guns 'N Roses

I don't totally feel misrepresented. In every aspect of life, there are all walks of life. Bad chefs, bad cops, bad priests, bad service members, bad astronauts, bad politicians, bad teachers, bad bankers, et cetera. That doesn't mean every cop, congressperson, or educator is a bad-soul. The producers showed us in a combat zone and what we do there (though the first 12 months were full of bullets, bombs, & blood, when the cameraman showed up, he became our good-luck charm). They wanted to portray each soldier's truth of combat, and they did just that. They just didn't realize some soldiers have less integrity than a common $hitbag.
Welcome to the jungle, Bullmoosebell (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your professionalism and diligence! Bullmoosebell (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]