User talk:MarnetteD/archive13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MarnetteD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The February 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting vandalism and warning users. Would you please use the "subst" parameter in the standard warnigns as there were several you issued today without? Thank you for your attention. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a close call. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources. If we entirely trusted the word of the subject of each article (Hitler, Stalin, Castro) or (George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove) we could allow them or their sycophants to write their own articles as they pleased. As an experienced editor you should know better. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right about one thing it is not a close call that it is a fact that his father is ill. Just put in your edit summary that you think that this is a lie and be done with it. None of the other names that you use have anything to do with this situation and your need to mention them is, sadly, very suspect. Also, please do not hide behind any more posts to this talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 00:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you like to go Glenn Back (not a typo). It is clear that you have an agenda of your own by deleting this small little detail. It shows bad faith in your editing of articles. What do you want? A picture of KO in the hospital next to his dad? You would probably say that that isn't enough either because they could simply be faking for the photo.--69.209.114.49 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, MarnetteD. The material you recently deleted from the Kubrick article almost certainly did not belong there. The definitive biography by LeBrutto makes absolutely no mention of such an incident, nor does anything on the Internet.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please feel free to e-mail me via the UserPage link, but leave a post on my talk page that you have done so. I have two e-mail addresses and will need to check which one of my mailboxes by WP account is linked to.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I received your thoughtful e-mail, but won't be able to reply until Monday.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Le Grand Choral always creates a frisson, but it is maddeningly short. As you probably know, there is a clip from the Truffaut film on YouTube. I watched the first Doctor Who episode (An Unearthly Child with William Hartnell, also on YouTube), but I haven't recovered from my loss since Katy Manning left the series! JMcC (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I recorded 'Life Story' on to DVD. I have just checked it. The music was re-recorded, probably by the Radiophonic Workshop because the sound, is electronic not orchestral. I always liked the quote from Ron Grainer about the work of Delia Derbyshire of the RW on the Dr Who theme. "Did I write that?" JMcC (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am posting this link this to help me keep an eye on this directors pages throughout the celebration of the 100th anniversary of his birth in case of increased test edit/vandalism. MarnetteD | Talk 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD. I've been looking for a long time a photograph of this great actor to put it in his biography, but got no worth. Can you help? Do not put the image to vandalize, but I do not understand how. Thank you. --فيكتور غوميز مارتينيز (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you look through WP:FA#Media, you can see how screenshots are supposed to be used. Each usage in those Featured Articles supports a specific point made in the text. In the DVD and Taming of the Shrew articles, they're just decoration. See the difference? Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Each of the texts mentions where the shots came from. Nice narrow job of interpreting the GUIDELINES not rules. MarnetteD | Talk 21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is not a guideline. And as for the "narrow" interpretation, the Foundation dictates it: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (boldface mine). I don't see why you're getting so bent out of shape about this. This not a commentary on you as an editor or your judgment or anything like that. There are obviously acceptable and obviously unacceptable uses, and there are a bunch in the middle where it's hard to tell. These usages fall far to the unacceptable side and if you ask anyone familiar with the policies, you're not going to find anyone disagreeing with me. I've been doing this for a long time, so I do know what I'm doing here. howcheng {chat} 21:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The March 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I just found your edit to Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner, with your edit summary including, "...ones referring to Wile E. should go on his page...." What makes you think he has one? He doesn't, and there has been discussion on the talk page, Talk:Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner, although somewhat scattered. A separate article for him is just not the least bit likely to happen. I advise reworking your edit a bit. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Put back in what you wish (maybe give them a separate subsection for WileE by himself) but you know as well as I that, if a deltionista comes along the whole thing may go. Again my apologies for not being more thorough and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you remove the Harry Worth external link from the Delgado page? Rothorpe (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your question RothorpeTo the best of my knowledge youtube links are to be avoided. This is only based on the conversations that I have seen in various areas of wikipedia. Of course I could be wrong or at least the consensus towards them might have changed since I last paid attention. If you want to put that one back on his page please feel free to do so. MarnetteD | Talk 22:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your civilised reply. Yes, I've restored it because I think it's interesting and it's probably too ancient to have any copyright issues. But we'll see: if anyone else removes it I expect they'll give a good reason. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I took heed of your advice after my edit on the Foyle's War and did a further adjustment. I think it works much better. Thanks for checking! Derekbd (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome Derekbd. Thanks to you for the extra work in making everything work better on the page. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 04:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I am, naturally, jealous that you are watching the new episodes at this moment. Fortunately, I have a region free DVD so I won't have to wait the year or more til they finally show up in the US. MarnetteD | Talk 04:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I am in Texas. I use bittorrent! Derekbd (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for not reading your user page and learning where you are. I am a bit of an old-timer and I like watching the shows on my HDTV so I order the DVDs from AmazonUK. Keep enjoying the show and happy editing here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem! It seems I've missed some other items on the list that I just updated. I'm glad I'm not the only person who is watching the article. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

90% of the way I think the new guy(/gal?) has done an excellent job of trimming, especially the pop culture section in which he rather deftly managed to salvage most of the references while trimming the explanations. (S?)he also did some very good work merging some sections. The Jonathan Romney review quotations could have used some cutting, but (s/)he cut a bit more than I am happy with. I may put back about 30% of what was removed there, but on the whole fairly judicious, I think.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem: glad to help! --xensyria^T 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

...on the George Harrison sock; I'll let the involved admin know. MPFC1969 23:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, he did one here, too. MPFC1969 23:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI report here FYI. You're already being reverted by one of the socks. This guy is busy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and thanks for your help :) Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes things really do work smoothly! Thanks again, and you enjoy your Sunday too. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's great to hear from someone on your side of the pond that appreciates F1! I bet that all those overseas races make it a real labour of love to follow the sport, but as you say, at least technology is on our side now. I was up early today to watch the Chinese GP and it's certainly a bit of a struggle on a Sunday! Keep enjoying it, and all the best :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion that resulted in this decision? BLGM5 (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I am simply following what I have noticed other editors using as their edit summaries. Anymore most films have multinational financing, acting casts and behind the camera crews so it is a little dicey claiming that they are one countries films. This also applies to older films though not as often. You may want to post this question on the film wikiproject page to get a wider discussion going. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You make valid points, so the edit makes sense. It's such a WP:BOLD initiative though, but doesn't look like you're taking much flak for it, so kudos for the good work. BLGM5 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and understanding. If you ever see a conversation where the community changes this please let me know and I will reverse my pattern. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 18:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: No, I am afraid I do not. As his edits come up on my watchlist, I generally revert them, same with the anon. But, I am not certain that he has violated any specific policy. As you say, just busy work, and pointless busy work at that. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't ring a bell specifically, although the editor's work at least raised my eyebrows and made me go look to see what he was up to. If he's hiding behind an IP too, it's something for SPI, isn't it? Tied to the earlier thing, I'd think it would go easily? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering why you deleted the infobox reference to RH's being an American picture. It was an American studio, American producer/director, American writers, two of the three stars American... it is indeed an American movie. Just because it was filmed on location doesn't make it a multinational production — its financing, development, production, postproduction, personnel and distribution were strictly American. Think maybe we could restore that item? Regards — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See my answer above. Add toi that the American distinction is noted in several other places - infobox and categories but if you feel the need to change it plz feel free to do soMarnetteD | Talk 11:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in CA or Colorado per stuff you rightly deleted.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think you got it all nailed down, though I hadn't noted the Stapleton airport scene. BTW, using Google Earth (a separate piece of software that does not use a browser) I was able to reconstruct the opening shot of the Shining exactly sans Jack Torrance's car.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you use 10% of what computers can do, I think I am about up to 55-60%. Google Earth uses satellite photos, but allows you to "tilt" the image, and then computes what the tilted image would look like and can have a "terrain" feature turned on or off. The terrain feature works fantastically for natural landscapes, but poorly for human buildings unless it is an area where GooEar has "stored" info about it. When terrain is turned on, it tends to place dents in highways when they go over overpasses that isn't there.

Now if only I could find some of the areas in Monument Valley that were used in the StarGate trip in 2001. I have looked for one of them without success. No road to follow.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, how are you?. See this. Can you add the new films he has added to the British/American film lists? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dr B. Long time no bump into. I am glad that you are well and still around. I haven't worked with those tables for awhile but I am sure it will come back to me and I will get to these when I have a chance. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edit warring over such rubbish content, you must be joking, don't you want to discuss at all? or ask at the noticeboard? Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You may feel that those items are rubbish but Gibson said them they are on the record. Thus, they are as fair game for an online encyclopedia article as anything else that he may say. To claim, as LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (who has not added to the discussion either I notice) does, that Media Matters can't be used as a source is nonsense. Fox News is used as a source all over wikipedia and they could not be more POV. I notice that you did not leave a message like this on that editors talk page by the way. I know that you will find some, or all, of my comments inflammatory so I need to add that I think that you are handling this situation in the wikipreferred manner (with the exception of the item mentioned) and you should be complimented for that. I will remove that page from my whatchlist. Hope you have happier editing then you've had in having to deal with me. MarnetteD | Talk 21:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The April 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

These stopped working about a year ago, I think. Following on your recent removals from The Edge of Destruction to remove the {{OG}} and {{OG review}}, I've removed this one too, which wasn't templated. I suspect that a general sweep will be needed for all three varieties; there seems to be a discussion at WT:DW#Links to Outpost Gallifrey site. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

As I explained to Rodhullandemu, I do not actually understand why this goes against Wikipedia's policies (although you have made things slightly clearer now.) I did check out the policies for succession boxes, and I do not see anything to suggest that the edits I make are not notable. You may say it is only a minor documentary series, but it is still technically a title that is passed on, and there are boxes for presenters of shows such as Crimewatch, Loose Women, and the short-lived quiz show The People Versus - are these necessarily any more notable than Doctor Who Confidential, particularly when Doctor Who Confidential is a spin-off from a massively successful BBC Drama? Another reason I put them back up when you removed them is that I thought it was likely you had classed me as a 'troublemaker' and were just reverting edits I made. I came to this belief when you reverted perfectly legitimate updates I made to the character list of BBC drama The Cut. As this programme is not particularly well-known, I thought it was probable that you just had me on your watchlist. Rodhullandemu said that my reasons are fair enough, but it is "up to me to show their importance, and other editors may disagree". However, they did not make it clear how I was to do that, so if you or them could add any suggestions that would be much appreciated. I do not wish to be blocked, and I do not want to get into a conflict with other editors, but I do think these boxes are important enough to be on the article and I do not see why they are "not notable" and why it only being a "minor" series is not just someone's opinion.

Thank you for contacting me about this,

George 82.32.35.81 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Except you did not explain it since you deleted the message that you left on his talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, its Jordancelticsfan. I can see British film means a lot to you and American film means a lot to me. I'm interested in all kinds of cinema, and I love British movies. Britain has made a major contribution to cinema. I love Britain. I just thought Frenzy was an American film, because this was British filmmaker Hitchcock's Hollywood era, but I guess I was wrong. On IMDB, it said Frenzy was an American film, but now it says its British, so I won't change it anymore. Sorry about the trouble dude. I feel, honestly, quite stupid about this. Jordancelticsfan talk May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

Maybe I shouldn't have brought this issue up when discussing Doctor Who Confidential, but please get things straight when updating the article for The Cut. If there is a problem with brief plot overviews, then they can easily be merged into a List of Characters article, but please do not just delete them without discussing it on the talk page. You have been removing perfectly legitimate updates - for example, the character called Frankie used to be a future character, but as she is now appearing on screen, she is now a regular character and so is perfectly eligible to be in that section, as are all the other current characters. If you have a problem with the way that I edit, please bring it up on my talk page, the way you did with Doctor Who Confidential, but I would appreciate it if you would not make any more unnecessary edits to this particular article without discussing it. This is particularly relevant because it says on your user page that you live in America, and to the best of my knowledge, The Cut doesn't broadcast there, so you have probably not even seen the program.

Best wishes,

George George.millman (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are use of multiple accounts to edit which is not the way to do things around here. Next a message was left on your talk page last February regarding WP:NOTPLOT which you seem to have ignored. I can simply reprint the statement that you did not discuss with the other editor.

• Please don't add back in those plot descriptions for each character. Feel free to write a brief and sourced account of the plot in the Plot section, but giving a blow-by-blow account of each character is not what Wikipedia is for, especially when no sources are used.

All of your edits on that page are unsourced (see WP:RS) which means that they are your interpretations of events in the show. Per WP:OR that is also not allowed. There are plenty of other blogs and Facebook style pages where you could make your edits, but Wikipedia has guidelines that need to be followed and you are not, currently, doing that. MarnetteD | Talk 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, let me get a few things straight.

I do not use multiple accounts, I just can't be bothered to log in sometimes when I'm editing, is there anything necessarily wrong with that?

Secondly, that notice from February was about something altogether different. Originally I made a really long blow-by-blow account of each characters history. Fences&Windows made me realise that was not the right way to do it, and I have significantly reduced them from what they were before (which was basically a wall of text - too much to read.) I am only putting up brief mentions of significant events on the programme. And as for sourcing them, how am I supposed to do that - it's on TV!

I will leave the DWC narrators alone in future, but the edits I make to The Cut article are productive and beneficial, and as it says on Wikipedia: Ignore All Rules (which there is a link to on your talk page) 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.' George.millman (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually not logging in means that you are using multiple accounts which is a violation of WP:SSP. There is a little box that you can check that means you will always be logged in but that may be too difficult for you. Wikipedia's guidelines are obviously beyond you so good luck when you bump into an editor that wants to make you follow them. MarnetteD | Talk 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)