User talk:MarnetteD/archive 7

Gina Mckee

I'm no whizz with wikipedia, so i'm probably wrong about this, but did you read the source supporting the 1964 date? it specifically tackles the ambiguity which mckee apparently 'puts right'. is that not overriding in any way? Amo (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not 'bother'ed at all :) Thanks for the swift reply. Amo (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Hi Marnette, I notice you reverted an edit I made to defaultsort Talk:Laurence Olivier, and I need a little help if you can. I added the defaultsort so that the name would appear in alphabetical order on the page Category:Top-priority biography (actors and filmmakers) articles and when I added the defaultsort it appeared correctly under "O". Now that the defaultsort is removed, it shows on the category page under "L" for Laurence. Do you know how to fix this? I thought the "listas" parameter would work, but it doesn't seem to, and I can't figure it out. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your reply. The truth is I had no idea what I was doing, so I just tried it and it worked. Who knows... there may be a better way of doing it that neither of us know about. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Block of User:62.77.161.89

You're absolutely right; I've extended the block to a full year. Waggers (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

re: removing your Alabama Edits

I am removing your edits, due to the fact that the Shula reference is repetitive. Also, the 2007 LSU game is the only rivalry score listed and not needed in the first place. Irbster2 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would do the same when messing with my edits, instead of just threatening to ban me, thanks Irbster2 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Any response of recognition is appreciated, as it seems you have singled my contribs out for being deleted. Irbster2 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to harass me, you will be blocked from editing. Irbster2 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You know full well that you are not being harrassed but please report me to any admin that you like. We will present all of the facts and I will abide by any decision that they make. MarnetteD | Talk 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You know as well that you have changed many of my pages, some understandably so, but you have done so on pages where there was no problems. This, after an altercation on the Waggers discussion board. Then, you ask me to stop changing pages without reasons, but will not grant me the same courtesy. If you want to be hypocritical, so be it, but please find someone else. Thank you. 147.217.65.6 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Regarding the change to the LSU piece, it was redundant. You have a page solely for the purpose of the 2007 season results, then, on ONLY ONE team on the rivalry page, you add the score. Why? What is the purpose of adding the score for one team, and the results from the past season, when there is a whole page dedicated to that information. The answer is, you did it because you were trolling me. Going to every page I edited and reverting it. Irbster2 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The messages that you have left here and the blanking your talk page shows that you are childish in the extreme. A look at the pages involved show that the info that you removed was not redundant. It simply showed 'bama in a light that you do not want it to be seen in. As I said before please feel free to report me to anyone that you wish. Their decision regarding your edits - including the vandalizing ones - and mine is something that I will abide by. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. However you want to paint the fact that you "followed" my edits around, while knowing nothing of the subject to which I was writing is pretty frightening considering what this site is intended to do. There is no "hiding" of facts, there were 2, yes 2, places that the score to last years game can be found. Neither score explains why they are even a rival. While the 2 BIGGEST rivals are left without scores and thoroughly explained to why it is a rivalry. If you want to get a chip on your shoulder about everyone that doesn't see eye to eye with you, then that's on you. Next thing you know someone may be messing with your edits for some bogus reason. Furthermore, the reason I "cleared" my page was to get all the "warnings" you sent me regarding the same article to go away. As you and I both know, that page is not really "gone" and may still be referenced at any time. May God bless your weekend. Irbster2 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The warnings were well deserved as you were not following wikipolicy and lets remember what your first two edits were [1] and [2] both of which are heavy duty vandalism. Your next edit was to tell Waggers to let you continue to vandalize pages. Your next set of edits included the blanking of info on several pages without any explanation of why the info was being removed. This is also considered vandalism. Serial vandals have to be followed, their edits reversed and warnings placed on their page to have them cease vandalizng. When you finally used an edit summary then your edit was left alone. I was not the only person to leave a message on your page and one of the ones I left included a link to a page where you could begin to learn how to edit properly on wikipedia. But, rather than take that option, it seems you need to continue to cry and moan here, thus, creating more wikidrama then you are worth. Please also note that wikipedia requires outside verifiable sources for new edits and, as yet, you have made no edit that includes these. Thus, other editors may also revert your edits until you learn how to do this. Hopefully you will contribute something to the project one day - but it seems that it will not be this day. Please take your moaning elsewhere in future. MarnetteD | Talk 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Full text

Re, this edit, I agree that your version is better than the one you reverted. Actually the full-text Branagh used (a conflation of Q2 and F) is (with minor variation) the one that you'd expect to see at a theatre if you went to see a (comparatively rare) full text production of Hamlet. (Just a comment, no need to reply.) AndyJones (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yes, my collection of Shakespeare films is ever-expanding - but I'm keen to add that DVD to it ever since I discovered that my VHS version has a shorter running time than the theatrical one. I happened to be in London the week it premiered, and I remember giggling at the sight of a skull that was very obviously Ken Dodd's (I'd been a fan his of when I was a small kid: as you may know he has famously odd teeth). I was puzzled by the fact that the scene wasn't on the video: but now I think I know where it went! AndyJones (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Full Metal Jacket film

Good edit. Best Luigibob (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Hi. Thanks for the thanks about Template:Cryptozoology. Glad it's of use, it did take me quite a while to make and distribute! :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Regarding IMDb

Hi. Responding to your request for a citation regarding the disallowed use of IMDb as a reference source:

Wikipedia: Reliable sources - Are wikis reliable sources specifies that wikis are not allowed as reference sources. IMDb falls under that definition as it has solely user-generated content, and, as noted elsewhere at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, IMDb does not "have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."

Thanks for opportunity to respond--24.215.162.198 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IMDb was not a wiki orignally though they may have morphed into one. They have editorial oversight in certain areas and not in others. You may wish to remove all of wikipedia's articles on films and TV shows as the cast lists, production info, release dates and on and on come from IMDb. MarnetteD | Talk 07:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows IMDb under "External links," where it is a "for further reading" source only. It cannot be cited as a reference source. (As a personal aside, there are so many mistakes and uncited claims in IMDb that it is only useful as a place to search for leads.) --24.215.162.198 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Then please remove all cast lists from all film and TV pages. MarnetteD | Talk 21:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Edit

When an admin changes an article and cites an OTRS Ticket (see my comment on the talk page) it is an exceedingly bad idea to revert them without discussing with them first. OTRS generally means that Wikipedia has recieved an external communication about something and the admin is responding to this. Until you have discussed this with the admin you will not have the full facts to properly judge the circumstances and reinserting complained about material could create a problem for the project. Please do not do this again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First off , how was anyone to tell that you were an admin as neither your edit summary nor your note BJ's talk page listed you as such. Even if there was some indication that you were an admin that would not seem to be that important as admins are not omniscient. The recent Archtransit saga is a cautionary tale of why the term admin does not translate into reliable wikipedia editor (please please please do not get me wrong I am not equating you with that editor.) As to Barry Jackson's page WP:AGF would seem to dictate that, if we aren't going to rely on what has already been posted in a given article, that it is important to have evidence other than disliking IMDb as to why a particular item should be changed. Neither you nor I know where the editor who posted this date originally got it from. What is perplexing about your note to me is that is does not acknowledge that I went and found sources other than IMDb, added them to the article and noted them in my edit summaries, just after the edit that you have chosen to admonish me for. It is important to note that I have found IMDB to be more reliable than most sources on the net when it comes to actor bios - there is no better example then IMDb's having Helen Mirren's actual birthplace (Chiswick) correct when several of us who watchlisted her page were defending one (Leigh-on-Sea) that was cited in numerous interviews during her run of awards last year. I have seen little evidence that IMDb's cast lists, crew lists or bio pages can be proven as unreliable. Nothing that I can find at either the filmprojects or the biography projects pages seem to indicate this - although I might have missed them and I apologize if I have please just point me to these new guidelines. Along these same lines, if there is a cabal here at wikipedia that has decided that IMDb is no longer reliable (and I have no evidence of this except that after after 3 yrs of editing here I have two messages in a day stating this) then we need to delete most of wikipedia's articles on films as all of the cast and production crew lists as well as the release dates and numerous other encyclopedic items noted come from IMDb. I am happy to apologize for the curtness of this message as I am sure that it is more confrontational than you wish but I would suggest that, if anything that I have done is so extraordinarily out of line, that you bring in other editors and admins from the biography and film projects to look at what has been done and if a consensus is reached that I am in error I am willing to accept their findings. MarnetteD | Talk 07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who in NA

Can you take a look at Doctor Who in North America and make any suggestions? Type 40 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Type 40 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) WickerGuy (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Barry Lyndon Edit

Hi, Marnette. The reason for my note on Barry Lyndon having six actors from Clockwork Orange (which I could have made more clear) is that Stanley Kubrick has a particular penchant for often working with the same actors over again in both supporting and lead roles (two films with Kirk Douglas, two with Peter Sellers, three with Philip Stone in supporting roles), so having six actors from Clockwork Orange in Barry Lyndon is part of a pattern, and the Orange/Lyndon overlap of six actors is a sort of record-holder in Kubrick's oeuvre. I'm not fully convinced my contribution here was absolutely necessary, but perhaps there is a way to reword it to make it more noteworthy. I was generally assuming all readers of the article knew Lyndon was Kubrick's film right after Clockwork and that he frequently re-uses actors. Perhaps that was unwarranted. WickerGuy (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry

MarnetteD, I was not offended in the least. What I was doing is soliciting advice if there were any way to "frame" (introduce) the info to make it Wiki-kosher. I am a Wiki-newbie (as of 8 months ago). I have made 20-odd contributions to Wikipedia in the last year, 3 of which have been zapped on the basis of no original research, so I'm sort of figuring out what to do (or not do as the case may be). A few other notes I have added about Kubrick films here and there remain intact, so I'm trying to decide what does or does not constitute original research.
I have actually read that because the cast for Lyndon was unusually large, Kubrick was especially keen on choosing actors that he knew he could work with. So if I can track down that citation, and frame it as such, I may re-introduce the info, but I'm not in a rush. WickerGuy (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Price

As you certainly realise, we have been having disagreements in regards to the content of the aricle Vincent Price, I really do think that no reference to Karloff is needed in the first paragraph. Why did yo revert my last version of the article? I prefer to discuss the issue rather than just have a revert war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray-Ginsay (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

British films of the 1930s

Hi MarnetteD. Thank you for all your help and support, it is much appreciated. I am new to this, so I am just finding my feet. Are all links directly related to the film? If that is the case I guess I need to alter the link for The Blue Danube Morgan Creek (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

please try harder

dear marnetteD, as always with ethusiasts/amateur actors/sincere people,the historic reality becomes hagiolatrous. i worked for the rsc, as an actor and understudy (tim wylton, michael williams, michael jayston, hugh sullivan etc etc) from 1964 until the end of the 1966 season (3 seasons), and later at the rsc touring group. i was one of the very few people who regularly beat john barton at chess, in the RSC greenroom (he did not play bridge, which was the then rsc game). it was all ferociously hard work for very little pay and little acknowledgement. your reporting is hagiographic. please tone it down. i also knew t.church very well. he was a nice person and a chum, but just one of the rsc company like all of us then. you overwrite it all. kind regards, bruce condell bruce (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about. The only things that I have added to Mr Church's article are roles that he performed and the link to the obit of his death that was in the Denver Post. I have not, in any way, tried to turn him into a saint. If you can give some background to your rambling message it would be appreciated. Does the shift key on your computer not work? MarnetteD | Talk 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick external ink

Thanks for the notice -- I've commented there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a pointer to the guy being banned for absusing socks? Thanks. Strike that, I thought you were talking about the other ext. link that we've been discussing. My mistake. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my egregious error in such good humor. It really just hit me moments ago that both of your recent edits were in regard to a totally different external link, and I was debating what to do about it, let things lie or come back and grovel at your feet, when I got your message, which gave me a nice laugh. Thanks for that. I'm going to follow your links now and see what's up with this other guy, which sounds vaguely familiar to me. (Middle age, memory going.)

Best. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to say this, given how badly I just screwed up, but it looks like the link you sent me to on the EWS talk page that was to be "my comment at the time" [3] is a comment from User:EdJohnston and not me.

Anyway, it hardly matters, we agree about the removing of that ext. link. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Stephen Fry in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This includes edit summaries -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This statement is utter rot as I have made no post on Stephen Fry's talk page in any language other than English. MarnetteD | Talk 12:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your edit summary. Text speak is often hard to read. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No it is not you Berke. Three abbreviated words in a 13 word edit summary is hardly textspeak. A quick look at the recent changes pages shows over a dozen edit summaries doing the same as I did. A look at your edit summaries, when you use them, shows that you are happy to use abbreviations also. As noted above this thread is utter nonsense and a crock. However, if you feel the need to take this too an admin for further action please feel free to do so. MarnetteD | Talk 12:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

	The Space-Time Telegraph
	The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter
	Issue 1	March 2008
Project News We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002. One editor has left the project: StuartDD. The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33. Articles of note New featured articles None New featured article candidates Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) (FAC) New good articles Dalek (Doctor Who episode) Astrid Peth Delisted articles None Proposals A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here. A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here. A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here. News The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope. The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April. For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC) You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

Editing

Hi. I have been doing a bit less editing these days, I agree. The concerns over fiction restrictions is one, but I've also been soured by the whole image policy thing and a few other issues. The main reason I don't do as much editing, though, is more because of workload in the real world preventing me from spending as much time as I used to. I've been playing around with some of the "Wikia" sites of late, and depending who is in charge some of them are a bit more lenient than others when it comes to things like demanding every new line by cross-referenced by three major sources, etc. The one I do a lot of work with these days is the Bionic Wiki. I've also done some work with the Muppet and Terminator wikis as well. 23skidoo (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Monkeshine

You figure Scrooby's back? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the "damning evidence" column, this new account seems to have started editing six months to the day after Scrooby's banning. Checkuser can only check logs of the last six months, unless I'm mistaken. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an SSP report is necessary. If the account persists with this, I'd call that obvious enough for an immediate block (which I'll issue, since I've become an admin in the intervening months). I've also contacted Scrooby off-wiki (we had a surprisingly amiable correspondence not long after his block) to see if he's willing to 'fess up, or if he's prepared to swear on a stack of Bibles this time around too. As for Wknight, I believe he's retired or vanished or somesuch, although I could be mistaken. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Talk:Seven_Samurai (in the section about The Magnificent Seven)

Hi, MarnetteD, You reverted my edits to Talk:Seven_Samurai with the comment "not sure why any of this is here as it has nothing to do with this film and Heller isn't mentioned on the article paage". I added the information about the reasons Newman and Bernstein are not credited for the screenplay of The Magnificent Seven in response to duncan's comment that they were not credited because both were blacklisted. This was factually incorrect with regard to Newman; however, my speculation about Bernstein was just speculation, and I'm guessing that probably doesn't belong even on a Talk page (I'm new here). Hope this makes sense, and apologies if it doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.4.90 (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Won't add anything more to Talk:Seven_Samurai re: Magnificent Seven

I'm not trying to be contentious, but I don't understand your comment "you are still posting stuff that has nothing to do with this page or this film" in deleting a correction regarding the screenwriters of The Magnificent Seven from a Talk section about The Magnificent Seven. Duncan's point about the screenwriters of The Magnificent Seven is incorrect on its facts. Correcting that seemed to be on point for that section of the page.

Again, I'm not trying to argue (and won't edit the Talk section further), but I don't understand the reasoning.76.126.4.90 (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who participant clean-up help

MarnetteD...Hello! I have set up several pages for you to work with regarding WikiProject Doctor Who participants. There is the main page, active page, and inactive page. I put everyone on the active page for now, but you can sort through them and put people where they belong. If you need any more help, let me know. - LA @ 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment: It might be a good idea to comment out the reason the people are being moved to the inactive list to keep the list clean. - LA @ 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User name <!--comment-->

You are doing fine, what I meant by commenting the reasons for inactive listings is to hide them so that they do not display. I have already done the few that you already added to inactive, so look at what I did to get the general gist. That way the reason for inactive listing is there, just not displayed. - LA @ 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actors in Kubrick films

Marnette, as you see I moved the bit about common actors in Kubrick films to the Kubrick page where I thought it would be more appropriate. You kept most of it, but again zapped the bit about 6 actors being in both ClocOran and BarrLynd. Is the problem that it is OR, or that it is not cited and as such non-verifiable? 5 of 6 are easy to catch with a really good eye. If it's the facticity that is at issue the six actors are Stephen Berkoff, Philip Stone, Godfrey Quigley, Patrick Magee, Pat Roach, and Anthony Sharp. Except for Sharp, they are all in fairly significant supporting roles in both films.

I actually omitted 2 actors from 2001 who show up in CO and BL respectively, because they seemed fairly insignificant to me.

As you can see, I made a grammar and spelling correction to your edit of my stuff. "worked" should be changed to "did work" not "did worked".

VERY SORRY I forgot to sign this post.

WickerGuy (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Blinovitch Limitation Effect

Hi. Why did you revert my edit to this article, restoring the dead wikilink and re-inserting the text "unclear" which is no longer standard (as I stated in my edit summary)? 92.13.108.88 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurosawa's "Dersu Uzala" and "Rhapsody in August"

Hi. I'm a Japanese movie fan.

The correct japanese title of "Dersu Uzala" is "デルス・ウザーラ." The characters "Дерсу Узала" are not Japanese but Russian.

"八月の狂詩曲(Rhapsody in August)" is pronounced "Hachigatsu no rapusodī." "狂詩曲" is usually pronounced "kyōshikyoku." But the film maker had "狂詩曲" be pronounced "rapusodī(ラプソディー, rhapsody)." You can see examples on these pages (http://www.shochiku.co.jp/video/japanese/ha/dvd/da0721.html , http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006RD6F/).

I understand your point why Russian translation of the title is needed. But the head of the box is "Japanese." If you use Russian title in the box, the head has to be replaced with appropriate words. Though I agree that "Hachigatsu no kyōshikyoku" is widely recognized pronounciation of "八月の狂詩曲(Rhapsody in Augst)," that is not correct. Thank you for your kind advice. I apology for my not being used to the rules and awkward English.--218.217.211.68 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Kihachi

Thank you for your quick response and supportive advice. I will consult the pages you recommended.--218.217.211.68 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Kihachi

I wrote about Japanese title on the talk page of Rhapsody in August. Thank you for your help.--Kihachi (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted the issue on the talk page of WikiProject Films according to your suggestion. Thank you again!--Kihachi (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hellorawr

Hi - thanks for the message, and you're welcome. Since the registered account hasn't edited for the last 90 minutes or so (as of now) I think you should file the SSP rather than report/block Hellorawr right now. I can't block him indefinitely based on one night's insanity, and it could be another 6 months before Hellorawr shows up again. An SSP will give us some background, if both IP and username are notified on their respective talk pages, even if s/he deletes them. Thanks for your hard work, and let me know if I can help further - KrakatoaKatie 06:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for your suggestion. Could you please provide an example of putting a sentence in parentheses, (I know what the term means, but not quite sure how it's used on Wikipedia)? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilde

Hello! Re: your edit summary comments, it's my understanding the image of a film poster takes precedence over a DVD cover - at least that's what I've been told by editors who replaced the DVD images I added to infoboxes with poster images. Also, you removed most (but not all of) the flag images I had included in the infobox (I deleted the one you left to maintain continuity), a practice I started only when others starting adding them to infoboxes where I had excluded them. It's difficult to know what to do when so many opinions are bandied about! MovieMadness (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please also read WP:BRD and understand that you have to discuss now, not just revert again, that's the way the cycle works —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So your edit warring warning gets removed with profanity. Interesting no matter what name you use your tenditious trolling remains the same. MarnetteD | Talk 21:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for leaving the note about Brideshead. It's a tough task renaming and sometimes recategorising all the mis-named articles so if you'd like to join in then go ahead! Bradley0110 (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a firm policy or even a guideline with regards to TV films. Personally, I think TV films should go at "(film)" unless there's a theatrical film of the same name (case in point: Sweet Revenge (2001 TV film)). DVD films are at "(film)" rather than "(DVD film)" so why have "(TV film)"? Maybe we should start a discussion on the matter at WP:FILM. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'd rather not open a can of worms with both projects! I'll just carry on with correcting the serial articles for the time being, before moving on to the miniseries articles (they all ought to be at "TV miniseries"; many are just at "miniseries" or "mini-series" or "TV mini-series"). Bradley0110 (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dracula

Hello. I noticed that you reverted my corrections. According to the MoS WikiProject Film page, the desired order is: lead section, plot, production (subcategories: cast), distribution, reception (subcategories: box office performance, critical reception and awards, etc), influences (sometimes legacy), see also, and external links.

Currently, the order is incorrect. There's a lead section followed by a bullet point cast list (which is frowned upon), then two plot sections (also undesirable) and a series of other sections that don't conform with the project style guidelines. Personally, I would like to work with you (and others) to improve this article at some point. Regards, J Readings (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about deleting your "a." When I was typing my message I happened to notice it and thought it was a typo. Sincere apologies! Moisejp (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of support about The Stanley article. It's nice to know people are enjoying it. It's funny, I think at least a couple of other contributors became aware of the article because of the ongoing vandalism, so from that point of view the vandalism was a good thing. Well, I'm going to keep on working away at it. If you have a chance to respond to any more of the questions I have thrown out on the talk page, that'd be great. It's always good to get feedback and to know what others think about some of the choices I make, because I am not always sure myself! Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn

Lets ask for protection on Audrey Hepburn. I am getting sick and tired of this article being vandalized. Why? What a beautiful lady she was, giving the last 1/3 of her short life to charity, go vandalize Dick Chaney or something. Thanks. ~ WikiDon (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I put it in. But I am not hopeful. Later. ~ WikiDon (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

YEAH!!!!!! The gods are with us this day. Maybe we should buy some Nike's? Were do drive from TX or CO? Stop by for pie. Stay vigilant. ~ WikiDon (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

yep

Yep, vandals often go unnoticed. I once backed up a page with about a year or so of vandalism and improper restores, Number (game). Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, in fact, I often run across the same issue. Yes, VeggieTales receives the same vandalism all the time, it seems. Today I saw the same telltale edit (always a different IP) and decided to start issuing single issue warnings about vandalism from multiple IPs. You'll know what I'm talking about when you see an edit that changes the first airing date to something with the word "predisent" (which is a terrible misspelling of "president"). They also have a tendency to use the DVD date instead of the TV date, which I'm not even convinced is accurate. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Shootist

So you didn't like might part about Wayne making them write Dollor into the script of The Shootist? Guess I like animals as much as people? ~ WikiDon (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it was not clearly written. But, Wayne first rode the horse at the very end of True Grit, but fell so in love with the equine that he wouldn't let anyone else ride him, and by the time The Shootist came along, it was a condition for him doing the film, that 'Dollor got written into the script'. It was in the contract. And he did, when J.B. Books stables the horse with Moses Brown (Scatman Crothers; who I think is great in this, "That means I'm the best haggler!") and when he gives the horse to Gillom Rogers (Ron Howard). This was not in the book, but were changes from the book to the script on Wayne's insistence. So, it could be written more clearly. ~ WikiDon (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Price

Michael Jackson's Thriller music video was actually released in theaters on December 2, 1983 in order to be considered for an Oscar. Therefore, Vincent Price's voice contribution to this work is, actually, technically part of his theatrical cinematography, regardless of whether or not his name is mentioned in the text description of his works in his Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.160.17 (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

Looking at this edit, could you please explain why you changed a date format from International Dating (d-m-y) to American Dating (m-d-y)?. --Pete (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

You reversed my edit classing it as vandalism. There is a general consensus on Wikipedia to describe people from the UK as English, Scottish, Welsh, N. Irish as opposed to just British (if the information is available) as it is far more informative. Check the entry for any top name actor you can think of. It is indisputable that Peter Sellers is English - wouldn't you agree? If you look at the history of this particular article, he was correctly described as English for well over a year (28 October 2005 - 16 Aug 2007) with no problem until a single use account change it to British, then the user who is now reverting me reverted attempts by other users to change it back.

92.11.141.231 (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:A question regarding Allegro non troppo

Wow, uh, I really don't know, sorry. I had assumed that there were just many different sections to The Firebird, so Fantasia must have a different one, I never checked that out. I would have to do more research myself to answer this, and I'm too busy to at least tonight, but that's very interesting. Anyway, Allegro non troppo is indeed my favorite film, and I'm glad you like it too. Nice to meet you. -KingPenguin (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please learn what a minor edit is. Most of your edits are marked so, and almost none of them qualify. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Some less attack-y would be helpful, please

Your post here was far less than optimum in terms of civility, Marnette. Characterizing the edits of two fellow editors ("In the long run I am not sure what GA and FA status means other than to protect an article from the talons of TTN and Eusebius") is both unpleasant and uncivil, and is widely seen a s a personal attack on those two users. I would suggest that you re-edit your comments to striek out those statements, so as to backtrack an unpleasant tone.
With respect, I think you misunderstand what FA articles are, and would invite you to perhaps read them as examples not only of good writing, but of good writing created within a crucible of (mostly) polite editorial cooperation. Personal attacks do not show that you are more clever than the people you are attacking; it simply delineates you from them as attacker and attacked.
I hope you interpret my post in the spirit of helpfulness with which it was tendered. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not be changing anything. The editors in question have done widespread damage to wikipedia. The two editors mention have made massive attacks on numerous editors here at wikipedia. One result of this being that TTN was topic banned. TTN has also been caught trying to evade the ban. I do not misunderstand what FA articles are as I have seen some that would not a get a passing grade in a fourth grade class. In any event thanks for stating your opinion helpful or not. MarnetteD | Talk 00:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but while I understand what you were talking about (at least with TTN; Eusebius has a clean block log), taking pot shots at them doesn't make you better; it instead sinks you to the level of someone who takes cheap shots. I am sure you wouldn't want to be characterized as such. You may not care, but if you consider the reactions of those who are relatively new to the project who see your comments and consider you someone who will make personal attacks against users who aren't even present to defend themselves, and it would not make them want to offer you the benefit of good faith.

As well, I guess I am going to have to agree to disagree with you on your assessment of FA-quality articles, except to note that strong opinions against FA doesn't inspire confidence when we are all trying to render the articles into FA-quality examples. Might I propose that if you have significant concerns about how FA articles are adjudicated, you might wish to express those concerns constructively in the appropriate forum? This wikiproject doesn't seem the proper venue for it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I way that Eusebius hod been blocked. Looks like you have as big a problem with WP:SYNTH as anyone else. MarnetteD | Talk 09:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I can but agree, that this editor's style and edit notes are far, far too aggresive. I was about to put a similar coaching note here and noticed this debate - I was not surprised! Having cleaned up a poor article, I feel like I have been bullied. Marnette, you seem to want to add positively to the project, but the edit summaries, notes and even TalkPage messages from your edit record are just too attack orientated and resultantly wholly un-cooperative in style. You seem happy to quote guidelines and other wiki points of reference, so perhaps a brief period of time spent reading WP:5P and WP:AGF would help. I have noticed some good editors get to enamoured with vandal chasing go the same way, and it would be a pity for the whole project if you went further down this path. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because I politely point out the wikipedia policies that you are violating you feel bullied. Well, you could always start a blog to whine on. MarnetteD | Talk 09:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)