User talk:MarnetteD/archive51

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.

Legal threat Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Jim1138. Looks like things were taken care of while I was catching up on my zzzzzzzz's. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 16:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reformatting the Allen Ritter article comment. I have not edited that article since January 2016. I left a reply stating that I do not watch list all the articles as to which I review edits and perhaps the user should leave more specific reasons and explanation on the recent editors' pages.y.

As I have mentioned, I have been busier than usual this year. I have been extraordinarily busy this month so I have been offline for much longer than any time for several years, I am sure. I do expect to have this pattern continue for a few months. I am always grateful for your comments and help and I know you will look in on these things. Since I may have this on and off pattern of editing for at least a few more months, I think I will put a version of the "friendly talk page stalkers" welcome template on my page. I am not sure whether that actually attracts watchers but my latest time off may be enough to give it a try for awhile.

I hope you are doing well. Donner60 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Donner60 I'm hanging in there. I'm always glad to help if I can. It was a funny day as you had back to back posts on your talk page without new section headers being created. The template you mention is a good idea. I have also seen {{busy}} used quite a bit. I have even seen a couple editors who put it at both the top and the bottom of their talk page to try and make sure that others will be aware of why new posts may not get an immediate response. OTOH nothing is foolproof so those of us who are around will try and help. Best wishes to ya in these busy busy times. MarnetteD|Talk 02:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

(Well, we were – what? – three months ago....) I found Denial (2016) to be an enjoyable and informative film – a true story about Holocaust denial. It stars Rachel Weisz as Deborah Lipstadt, Andrew Scott and Tom Wilkinson as her attorneys, and Timothy Spall as Holocaust denier David Irving. The story is fascinating. It is, however, the only film I've ever seen where Rachel Weisz is the weak link; she's a great actress, but she can't quite manage the New York Jewish accent 100% consistently, and she wears a red wig (Lipstadt is a redhead) without bothering to dye or color her jet-black eyebrows. Anyway, I gave the film 8/10. You might wanna check it out if you haven't already. :) Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Softlavendar. Ooof my stack is getting bigger not smaller :-) I did just pick up Spall as [[Mr. Turner}} but I don't know when I'll be able to get to it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah rats messed up the ping so let's try that again Softlavender 03:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping still didn't work -- you typed five tildes instead of four and thus appeared to sign my name instead of yours. Oh well, it's a slow news day on the wiki so I saw your posts from afar. :-) Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Good grief Softlavender. That is what I get for trying to get the message finished during a commercial break AND for not using the show preview button. Enjoy your Sunday! MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just (literally) copied the description from the File:Example.jpg page. I just needed an example image for a test table that would actually mimic the (general) look of the final table's images. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Calton. No worries at all. We try to keep that category clear. When I come upon something that I haven't seen before I try to be thorough in my edit summary to cover as many possibilities as I can. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MarnetteD. I've seen you editing recently and you seem very knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience, and every little bit helps). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks very much for your consideration. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon M,
Anticipating the perennial "silly" editing we always suffer on this article, and making sure I still had it on my watchlist, I posted my revision with some trepidation, guessing you would spot it today.
So pleased to receive your "thanks". Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 15:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC).

I was happy to send the ping thanks G. It is that time of year. Now I wonder how soon someone will think Jamie flies to Portugal in Love Actually :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I am ready and waiting with my digit poised.
Wishing you a lovely Sunday. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 11:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Still (just) in November and it has started. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 18:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I just saw that G. Our annual holiday watch(list) revelries are underway :-D Ho Ho Ho. MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

hi my dear friend. Could you proof-read/grammar check Disappearance of Sheila Fox please. Also you can re-word and clarify the wording where you need to. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Paul. Thanks for this request. I just finished working my way through the article. I made a few changes to tighten some sentences. Otherwise I think it reads well. As always the edits are just my take on things and if you dislike them please feel free to change them back. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No issue at all, Marnette; sometimes we have different advice but we have our hearts in the right place. I took no offense and I think moving it to another venue after is for the best, I just wanted to get them a clear answer from my experience with the issue in the past :). Nate • (chatter) 22:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good Nate. Thanks for your message. MarnetteD|Talk 22:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MarnetteD. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Look before you revert.

1. Walk of Live
2. Walk of Life
3. Walk of Life

Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Try reading WP:CATDEF. The info has to be in the article - not out in the ether. MarnetteD|Talk 02:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You will also need to grasp that "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose" MarnetteD|Talk 02:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 10:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome G. I finished Trust Me last night. Well done series. It has the added fun of seeing Jodie playing "a" doctor before she becomes "the" Doctor :-) Cheers and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought you'd enjoy it and there will be more. We are more than halfway through Love, Lies and Records which stars the wonderful Rebecca Front. All the best! Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 19:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I placed a few warnings on the user's desk. He has since begun a campaign against the depiction of dinosaurs with scales on his userpage complete with uploaded stick-fuigures. He went to the help desk to ask why he was being singled out, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#About_a_warning_that_I_have_received. if you have any interest in the matter. Otherwise feel free to delete this w/o response. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Medeis. Based on this exchange that eventually I removed I'm fairly certain this editor is WP:NOTHERE. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Folks, you should be placing your comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, rather than on MarnetteD's Talk page. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Says who? I don't see any thread about the user on ANI. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That is because there isn't one - yet S. David was suggesting it because this user clearly is WP:NOTHERE and was hoping a thread there would bring their nonsense to and end more quickly. At the moment the three of use are either busy off wikiP or would rather avoid the drama board. MarnetteD|Talk 01:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The guy asking about Germans interred during WWII has how many edits to his name? It's less than two. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I am 99.999% sure you are right Medeis. Naw make that 1000% but we get accused of removing legit questions so I thought I'd give a tiny bit of rope. Thanks for your post and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Great pic M. Thanks for dropping it off :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

— JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help JJMC89. I hope that you enjoy your weekend in spite of the trolling. MarnetteD|Talk 03:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A little trolling isn't going to spoil my fun. Enjoy your weekend! — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Marnette. I have a question about non-english sources, in relation to Bør Børson II. Would the fact that they are not in English be sufficient as a reliable source? I'm thinking about nominating the article for AfD, as a non-notable film, and I'd like to get a second opinion before proceeding. Thank you in advance for your response. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 00:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Boomer Vial. I know that non-English sources can be used but I am not up on all the ins and outs of what has to be done to make them acceptable. I'll ping Erik, Betty Logan and Lugnuts to see if they have suggestions. Now it is a busy time of year so they may not be able reply quickly. You could always check at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film page. Sorry I couldn't give a clearer answer. I hope you have an enjoyable holidays!! MarnetteD|Talk 02:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That's no problem. I'm patient. Happy holidays! :) Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 03:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-English sources can certainly be used to assess notability. I have seen some AfDs fail simply due to the fact that non-english sources could be found. Sourcing isn't the only criteria when it comes to notability so you should check out WP:NFO too. In short, if the film has an recognition at the national level (i.e. a nationwide release/reviewed in national media/won national awards) then it satisifies notability. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG says, "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." The last word links to WP:NONENG. Sometimes it is worth plugging the foreign-language title into Google Books to see what results appear. Also sometimes I've posted a notification on the relevant country WikiProject's talk page (in this case, Norway's) to ask for fluent readers' input. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to make these posts Erik and Betty Logan. These are good suggestions Boomer Vial. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No, tell me it's not so! I have always imagined you "Marnette" as the younger version of the Reverend Mother Maren. Now I see on your user page that your are a person reading Anthony Burgess for his pleasure. Given Burgess is an unpleasurable ex-parrot, I can only assume that it is you who are he! Oh, the embarrassment...

In either case, may you enjoy the Sacred Flame and be made whole by the Sacred Fire. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

HeeHee Medeis. You are not the first to have that happen and, I'm sure, won't be the last. So many interesting things have happened here at the 'pedia around the subject that it can be considered a "light the blue touch paper and stand clear" situation :-) Cheers and best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the articles underneath the "films about psychopaths" category don't have sources for said category. I wonder if this could be used as an argument against arbitrary categories such as this one? I also wonder how we define "films about psychopaths". 108.26.186.205 (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:CATDEF is policy thus not an arbitrary argument. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is akso not a valid reason for a cat being on a page. MarnetteD|Talk 21:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding. The arbitrary category I was referring to was the "films about psychopaths" category. I feel like with categories such as that, it's easy to make unsourced claims due to the lack of objective criteria in the category's definition. My argument was, considering the catdef policy, if categories like "films about psychopaths" should exist.108.26.186.205 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see apologies for my confusion 108. I think you have a point. You could always try a WP:CFD and see what others think. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)