User talk:MarnetteD/archive14

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.

Hey, this is Jordancelticsfan. I was adding a lot of new stuff to director Vincent Sherman, and I saved it, but it said that I'm trying to save an email address on the article, which I'm not. How do you report this? Thank you. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake, I fixed it. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Quick question - ok fair enough someone self identified themselves as Irish however that doesnt change the fact that Ireland as a country was part of the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at that time. The book was realsed before Ireland became independant and a self governing nation-state. Why has concensus been reached that rubs out historical fact? Looking at the discussion page on Dracula, there is no mention of modern nationalism changing the fact of where the book originated from and the Bram Stoker page is just littered with various nationalist argument; where is the concensus, why is modern nationalism affecting historical truth? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.87.120 (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You yourself are doing a great job fixing up that BBC America article. Oh, also A few months I ago tried putting in a "former or inactive programming" list after the "current programming" list, but right after I put it in, I decided that list would be completely unmaintainable and you beat me to the punch in removing it, which I really had no problem with. It added nothing to the article to note that BBC America has the US rights Torchwood or that it used to show Life on Mars. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I am about to log-out myself and get some shut-eye. But, yeah, just a cursory glance at the history indicated that this has been an ongoing problem. A request for semi-protection probably would be a good idea. Send me another message tomorrow, reminding me, and I will add my tuppence worth. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fisher Queen has blocked one of the underlying IPs, although it's a University, so we can't be too sure of much success on that. I'd go through the socks and block them, but he would just start another account, as he usually does. Meanwhile, all we can do is semi-protect and hope he'll go away. Fortunately, there's little collateral damage in doing that. Rodhullandemu 23:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My hope is that he will, sooner or later, tire of this and go away. Until then, vigilance is called for. *sigh...* On and on it goes. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence on this sock puppet, MarnetteD. You'd better watch it though, because apparently "you're being very rude". Oh BTW, I realized that our sock has been at this for over a year now; see my last entry to the talk page. --prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha, sometimes my wit can be dry to the point of non-existent. [1] I've never seen "The Concert for George", I'll have to look for it this November 29th; thanks for the tip. Have a good day, MarnetteD. Prhartcom (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For patiently and tirelessly extending good faith (and playing The Heavy when necessary) on the George Harrison article. --prhartcom (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and can I have a barnstar too? My first one ever?  :-D

BTW, more ongoing dialog added to User talk:Sp1955 --Prhartcom (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

By all means, hack away if you think the plot "summary" too long, so long as the English stays simple. I won't object. HLGallon (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've requested semi-protection for this page. IP followed me there and asserts he'll introduce the material elsewhere if semi is applied. Studerby (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP was trying to assert the I was from Germany, but phrased it confusingly. I have the "de-1" language box on my user page, beginner German... He did not seem to "do nuance" very well. Studerby (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, MarnetteD. I've changed the first "years active" date in the David Morrissey article back to 1982, as this is when Morrissey got his Equity card and became a "professional" actor. The Everyman Youth Theatre was/is an amateur youth organisation, and if we just rely on his first performance with them, where do we draw the line at his earliest performance? School plays? Playschool nativities? The scope is endless and risks becoming undefined. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. In Britain, it hasn't been a necessity to have an Equity card to be a "professional" actor since the 1980s. I suppose it's just a matter of checking infoboxes as we go and changing dates if they're obviously wrong. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't have been too long after his LAMDA graduation in 1972. If he went straight into repertory theatre then he would have worked for maybe six months until he got it. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Stage archive has an article from 1971 mentioning him but I'm afraid I can't read it without paying a 24 hour access fee (which I won't be doing until I have a long list of articles I want to look up). It looks like a diary piece though (perhaps mentioning him as a promising young actor!). Bradley0110 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The May 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) 03:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like our sock puppet added that nearly identical entry to every guitarist's article who appeared in that random list he found. Thanks for taking the time to remove their entry from each one of those articles. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

From now on (apparently until the end of time) he shall be known as the "sock poppet" (see User Talk:Firstlove1111). —Prhartcom (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't enough that he added that list, with no context or indication of why it was relevant or important, but he had to add it to the article twice. Thanks for removing it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment and your compliment. I truly appreciate it. There are times when editing becomes so trying of my patience that I consider giving it up. Knowing that there are people who appreciate one's efforts helps. I, let it be known, appreciate your efforts as well. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should keep this new section, although you are correct we would need to cite it (it is true fact). Or should we keep it out as the burden to cite it is is on the editor who added it, not us. This new section could also include that time the two men endorsed Beatles Rock Band. Prhartcom (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What tool do you use to geolocate? And do you have a way to learn a Wikipedia username's IP address? Thanks. Have a good one. —Prhartcom (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering those questions on my talk page. In many ways I am still new here (I started editing in 2006). I'll try the Help Desk next time; I've never tried that. I wish we could easily determine the IP of a username, then we could use it to help ID the next appearance of our sock (not that it won't be obvious). Hey I used to be your neighbor; I recently moved from Denver, CO. Have a good weekend, see you around. —Prhartcom (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you clarify this edit summary for me, please? [2] Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that all makes perfect sense to me. I just thought I'd check since there was clearly a bigger thing going on which I didn't know about. Now I'm up to speed, these edits make much more sense to me. The item on the Angus Young page isn't important at all, and I'm happy to see it removed, particularly now I understand more about the editor who added it. Thanks and keep up the good work! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Working Title have been developing the film for a good few years now. Even if it doesn't happen, there will still be plenty of information for the adaptations section of the book article. Given though that John le Carre worked on the screenplay with Peter Morgan, I'm sure it will be going ahead and will be as good as the TV version. I don't know whether you were able to hear the recent radio adaptations BBC Radio 4 did of all the Smiley novels, but they showed that even modern-day adaptation methods can stay faithful to the original text. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand why I have been warned about adding George Harrison's ranking on Gibson.com's Top 50 Guitarists list. Rankings from other places are part of his page. Why not this new one, which was just released last week? Thanks! Wawzenek (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)User:Wawzenek

Just to follow-up, I'm not a "sock." I don't even know what that is. I don't understand why adding these guitarist accolades is a problem. Each profile that I edited already had other awards and similiar lists referenced. Why is it wrong to add this one? I thought they were all removed yesterday because I included an external link. (Sorry about that, I didn't know that was forbidden. I was using a bad example from another page.) If I had known that wasn't the only reason, I would have asked first before re-editing today. My mistake. I don't want to cause trouble. I just thought this information would make sense in the context of other lists and awards. Wawzenek (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict - my reply was being worked on before the second edit was made. However, why it was moved back to the top of the page is another cause for concern with this editor.

My first concern is, as is stated on your user page, that you are a sock of Dmerkurev. It has been pointed out to these socks that they are not welcome to edit here. Next, and there are other editors who feel this way, this list is not all that notable for an encyclopedia.

You can answer the first concern by submitting to a WP:CHECKUSER. If you clear that hurdle then you would need to make your case for this list on the talk page of the various articles concerned.

If you do turn out to be a sock then I can only say that this edit [3] states the case better than I can. I mean how do you expect me to believe that someone who has not edited here before knows full well how to add a reference to their edit but does not know how to see an edit summary as you state here [4]. Your lack of knowledge about socks is not credible to me.

You have taken up a great deal of my time in the last two days and at this moment I feel that you are trying to WP:GAME the system. Until you go through the checkuser process it is unlikely that I will respond to you further. MarnetteD | Talk 22:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

First, let me apologize for taking up your time over the past couple of days. It was not my intention to cause trouble here. I am new to being a Wikipedia editor, and it's clear that I should have taken some more time and asked more questions when I began.

The reason I was able to learn how to add a citation was because I used another user's example. Unfortunately, they also had external links in that passage, so I incorrectly assumed that was OK. When I saw that my edits were being taken down, I thought it was because of the external links. Now I know it's because you think I'm a sock. I'm sorry that you don't believe me, but I'm not looking to play games with the site. I can submit to the checkuser thing you mentioned. I don't know what it is, but if it will help you believe me that I'm not here to do damage, I'll do it.

In addition, I'm sorry for moving this to the top of the page. It was my mistake, and now I know that the next entry should be at the bottom. Thanks again for your clarification. I hope I can prove to you that I'm honestly trying to add positive entries to the site. Wawzenek (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek

You are only adding one item to this site and multiple editors have deemed it non-encyclopedic. I realize that I forgot to mention that this may also have WP:COI problems. My last (hopefully) suggestion is that you read up on wikipolicies as posted on your talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see sockpuppetry here. I see good-faith attempts to add content, with which other editors disagree as to its relevance. Checkuser is specifically not intended for proving innocence and would be rejected by the CUs on that basis. I think Wawzenek, as a new user, needs to understand our policy on reliable sources, and I think he should be given a chance to justify his edits. Tricky, perhaps, because there are so many venues for discussion, and it would seem sensible that the central locus of discussion should be here, so that all interested editor may contribute. That's the best I can think of at the moment. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, one more thing, how do I submit to a Checkuser? Let me know and I'll do it. Wawzenek (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[Wawzenek]

That should not be necessary; see above Rodhullandemu 23:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, thanks to both of you for your quick responses. I appreciate the opportunity to state my case. I'm sorry that I didn't present a clear opinion from the get-go. I think the rankings of the Gibson.com Top 50 Guitarists list should be included on artist profile pages. As it is, most (if not all) of those pages already have lists referenced to give historical context as to how they are revered in the musical community. For example, many pages list where artists ranked on Rolling Stone magazine's 100 best guitarists list. Why is it wrong to present another opinion, which differs in many ways from the Rolling Stone list?

I'd like to present a few instances where this could be beneficial to the reader. Jazz musician Wes Montgomery (a well-respected guitarist among musicians and one that many cite as an influence) was not ranked at all on Rolling Stone's list, possibly because of a pop music bias. However, he is listed on the Gibson.com list. Another example is AC/DC guitarist Angus Young. He was ranked very low on Rolling Stone's list (96, I think), but he is number 25 on Gibson.com's list. This ranking shows he is hugely popular and influential among hard rock and metal guitarists. Should readers be denied another opinion? They can see the Rolling Stone ranking and the Gibson.com ranking (and any other future rankings done by major publications and websites with a global reach) and then gain a grasp of that musician's legacy.

Also, the reference links provide insight into the talents of each guitarist on the list. I don't see how this is spamming. It is a useful, and easy to navigate reference. I've seen many pages with uncredited or poorly explained information. Example: Mike Campbell's page, which I think only has one reference for the whole piece. I'm puzzled as to why my edits are taken issue with, when almost his entire profile isn't supported by referenced facts.

I think there's a very good case for my edits, including precedents that have already been set. Please let me know if you have any further questions and thank you for your time. Wawzenek (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek

Also, I have reposted by defense on my own talk page. If you would rather have the discussion there, that's fine by me. Thanks! Wawzenek (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek

You think so? Well, with all due respect, I have to disagree. Too many superfluous details, including unneccessary quotes, and the style does not befit an encyclopediac entry. Suggesting that you look a bit more closely at other film entries like Kick-Ass (film), El Dorado (film), or Iron Man 2, and then decide whether your version would be just as suitable.--91.32.247.36 (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So, then what about your RoboCop 3? Not excessive in detail, is it?--91.32.247.36 (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently in Spain. Reply later. No tildas on the keyboard. JMcC (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's hard to say if that info necessary. I'll have to think about it. However, since the accents of Alex's parents are a bit tougher for us Yanks to understand than some of the other characters and since they explain the new law when Alex comes home, I think that bit is easy to miss. Of the nearly a dozen times I watched Clockwork Orange, I watched it once with English subtitles turned on, and although that's in some ways distracting, I did pick up some bits I had missed, including the stuff about the new law. The script has also been published as a book and online (not an early working draft like 2001, but the final script.)

If you want to use Kubrick DVDs for some whimsical fun, most American DVDs of 2001 have a French audio track (I guess since Quebec is in Region 1). The actor's voices are definitely more expressive. Switch to French audio and watch HAL get disconnected while he slows down singing "Au le Clair de Lune". It's a blast.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the return of our sock to the George Harrison article. So he's a UCLA student. I'm glad Rodhullandemu removed the link from music fans [5], as our sock added that several weeks ago and I've been meaning to remove it (that was the one single edit the sock added that wasn't immediately reverted). And I'm glad you removed the link to the other list. [6]

As for how to proceed, I suggest a very boring approach:

• No interaction. I didn't sign up for this business of interacting with a mentally challenged person. I'm finished interacting with him—It's sometimes dangerous and always pointless.
• No discussion. Making it a drama on the talk pages and edit summaries has become old. We can just refer back to the Sock Puppet section on the article's talk page.
• No edits. Nothing he adds or deletes must stand. He's hopelessly incompetent. Revert it. The edit summary could always say the same thing, i.e. "Reverting sock puppet, see talk page."
• Tag him. Put the sock puppet tag on his newest user page. The list of all his usernames will remain complete.

There's always the chance that we'll misidentify him (I was right there with you on that last guy; same M.O., right up to the end when it no longer sounded like him) but I suppose we have no other choice. The only other thing I would add is to possibly reopen the sock puppet investigation. Prhartcom (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re. the new user: We'll tag him later if more evidence arises. Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously new evidence arose. Anyway. Hey, I see you're moving up in status, nice. —Prhartcom 20:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

look at Chronology of stage, film and television performances given by Laurence Olivier 1920 not 1926 82.12.185.189 (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Amateur performances do not count in the years active section. There were dozens of children in these and whether they would continue a career in acting was unknown at the time. We tend to use an actors earliest professional performance. MarnetteD | Talk 03:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that last edit by 67.158.174.203 was appropriate? It removed an unsourced statement, improved a single word, and increased the accuracy of the fact being described (not generic "sweets" but jelly beans really were pelted at George after his published statement that he liked "jelly babies". Suggesting their edit could be a vandalism is going a tad overboard, IMO. Prhartcom (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Please see WP:PLOT these are to be kept short and concise you have added way too much unneeded detail". Do you really think that the version you approve reflects the plot of the novel that accurately? I've read the books, and therefore I ought to know what the plot really is like - and this version of yours certainly isn't that accurate. 91.32.200.186 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For your info I have also read the books. I have my doubts as to whether you have read WP:PLOT. Your additions are fine for a blog but an encyclopedia does not need all of the detail that you are trying to force on the article. Your long run on sentences give detail that is unnecessary. I am not the only one who has noticed this. MarnetteD | Talk 00:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see you write an essay sometime.91.32.200.186 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Snarkiness is not the way to go in these things. I have written plenty of essays and if you would read WP:PLOT you would see that essays are not appropriate here. MarnetteD | Talk 00:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Other Usagi Yojimbo characters have this kind of appearance also listed as "In other media", so I think this heading is appropriate.91.32.200.186 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say the heading was inappropriate I said that removing the tag was. MarnetteD | Talk 00:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I want you to know that I appreciate your message. This frustration I am feeling could be a temporary situation that will pass in a day or two. Maybe it won't. At this point, I cannot say. So, it seems to me that the best thing to do is take some time away from the site and see how I feel. Either way, your sentiment is appreciated. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Marnette - I just saw you on Bretonbanquette's page. You sound like a v nice person, so heres something you might like. Bookmark it and you never have to search for your edit count again. Enjoy - :) http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pc Markdask (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Markdask (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me why this page has a strap across the bottom right hand corner

labelled "Ignore all rules"

okay got it - thanks :)Markdask (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I have to take issue with your edits to the Miyazaki films. Disney is indeed the distributor in the U.S., but saying that they have nothing to do with the production of his films isn't really correct. They oversee the English translations, conduct the casting of the voice actors, and produce all the voice work for the dubs. You might want to reconsider. Henrymrx (t·c) 13:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion here if you would like to add an opinion. magnius (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I cropped out the signature and added the separate image in from the pic yesterday, maybe try clearing your cache? With that, I've restored the separate image. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. About clearing your cache, Ctrl+F5 should do the trick. See you around. Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Indeed, the SFO article is still closely watched (I live here!). Our docent manual may have something about the colors, but if not I'll check when I'm up there this week and the get the answer from the production director. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this was really necessary? Not only can it be considered biting, it was completely inappropriate for an IP who was trying in GF to edit an article. Please be careful next time and use only one template per edit. Thanks.  – Tommy [message] 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The templates added were entirely appropriate. We assumed good faith with the first edit and warning and upped them as the IP would not respond to them or our edit summaries. MarnetteD | Talk 01:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also odd that there were three editors that removed the IP's edits and you have only chosen one of them to leave this message. MarnetteD | Talk 01:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm messaging you because you're the one who templated the user wrongly. Not saying everyone else was right, but the user sufficiently felt bullied. The templating was out of line.  – Tommy [message] 01:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict Another piece of info it was the adding of the first warning template here [7] where the term nonsense was used. A) that term is in the template I did not use it and B) I did not add that template. MarnetteD | Talk 01:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A look at this IP's other edits (which I did on the fly in the middle of the editing supplied above shows only one [8] that is not suspicious and even it did not improve the article. All others have been reverted. I have no reason to believe that you are not a good editor who was using WP:AGF in its best possible form. Perhaps you might gather all of the facts of a situation in the future. Thanks for your vigilence and my apologies for upsetting you. MarnetteD | Talk 01:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The user felt "bullied" (their words, not mine) so I really don't know how else to tell you that. I messaged the other user too.  – Tommy [message]

Edit conflict againAnd now we have this [9] which bears all the hallmarks of a troll. The IP's source is a fansite? Hurt feelings is a part of life around here (though I am not saying that this IP should have known this) IMO this IP should have been warned for edits before the A. Hepburn ones. Oh well you tried cheers and continue the good work that you are doing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)