User talk:MarnetteD/archive9

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.

As you opened the case on Cooksi, I wondered whether you might take a look at the contributions of Jeffreymoviechen (talk · contribs). H.G. 08:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We would import stop editing the article Michael Gambon. All links are good, but you do not stop to change them that you think is fine as is the editing, but leave the article imcompleto. For example, you take away the filmography in the video gameGhosthunter, Gambon put the voice in that video game. Other examples are in the Laurence Olivier awards in the category of Best Comedy Performance, said that in 1986 was won by A Chorus of Disarproval and in 1990 by Man of the moment, but when I erase what the latest award. It already spoil my time, which is also valuable.

By the way, if you still keep editing bad article, which protect ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.151.172 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that your English is so marginal is only the tip of the icebeg of the problems that you create. Be aware that English wikipedia has rules that may be more stringent then the Spanish one. Number one and most important new entries must be reliably sourced. The IMDb website be it English or Spanish does not meet this criteria. 2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a comprehensive compendium of items. We do not have to list everything that Mr Gambon has ever done, especially video games. 3)My time is valuable too. Fixing the mess that you create would take hours, if not days. You should enter them correctly to begin with. If you can't then there is no reason to leave them. Along with vandalizing my talk page you have also tried, on other pages, to place tags that only an administrator places so AGF does not apply. MarnetteD | Talk 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hav you considered the old evidence concerning his age on Talk:Pedro Almodóvar#Year of birth before reverting the anonymous changes (not by me)? His offcial website indeed states "Born in the 50's". Other evidence includes [1], [2], [3], [4]. No doubt, 1949 is the most likely date, but Almodóvar himself seems to make a mystery about his age, so IMHO there is no clear answer to this question. Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm sick of you. Do not let evil to modify the article by Michael Gambon.

• 1: The filmography is fine, Why the changes?
• 2: The list of awards and nominations this well, Why the changes?
• 3: The awards are messy and incomplete, Why the changes?
• 4: The image of the article, Why the changes?
• 5: The theme of Oscar, and this more than talk, Why the changes?
• 6: The image of Endgame Why the changes?

And so it could continue to consume your entire page of discussion. Fail to disturb the writers of Wikipedia, they were not his fault that you are incompetent and vandal. Incidentally, I'm going to ask that protect the article to stop ruin. And the next time you remove something that is written and tested, I think another article by Michael Gambon and this will be good and you erase it. Do not you say goodbye, because I'm going to show your same education, ie, NO.

All questions have been answered above. The two items that you linked in number 5 and 6 are a great example of you not knowing what you are doing. Click on either link - you wind up at a meaningless disambiguation page - I can't tell what page you want to go to and I suspect that you can't figure it out either. The only protection that the page needs is from your continual ruining of it. MarnetteD | Talk 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you like it? Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

MarnetteD: It looks like not all of your message appeared on my talk page... In any case, on my talk page, you don't have to worry about NPOV. Personal messages are welcome. I'm glad you liked the show. It is a wonderful parody of the Jim Henson theme, with tremendous wit and insight about human nature. A perfect new musical, if you ask me. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the assist on the my entry on Wilde (film). Obviously you are an Oscar Wilde fan, and I wonder if you have any input on this. One thing that is is so impressive about some of Wilde's literature, especially the Happy Prince stories, is their acute understanding of God and grace. Religious/biblical themes seem to be very prevalent in his work (but I'm far from an expert). Yet, I see essentially nothing about this in the write-up on Wilde, and no real reference to it on the article The Happy Prince. This seems like a dimension to Wilde's writings that should be mentioned to get a better sense of who he was. PS: I find it ironic that the evangelical community (which I am part of!) often thinks Oscar Wilde is one of their own. I did some looking for sources for this, but didn't find anything (though I did find a rock opera called "The Selfish Giant", which is based on the short story! It's in itunes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobwhitten (talk • contribs) 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You might consider joining WikiProject Friesland for we allways need more participants. We can always use someone to help us to cope with vandalism on our articles or to create templates, upload images. No real knowledge is required. Just more members is what we need and a more international participant list would be great. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Clarke stated in an interview that HE was an atheist but he wasn't sure Kubrick was. During the filming of The Shining, Kubrick notoriously phoned Stephen King in the early morning hours asking him if he believed in God. This sounds like the behavior of a questing agnostic rather than an atheist.
The earlier Clarke statement was with in response to claims that viewers had seen the sign of the Cross in 2001 re the alignment of the 5 moons of Jupiter vertically and the horizontal appearance of the monolith across it about 2/3rds of the way up.
Kubrick DID say he believed in none of Earth's monotheistic religions. If there is a WP category of American agnostics or of "American agnostics or atheists" than I would included it, but not in "American atheists".

FINAL NOTE. Many within the atheist community want to expand the definition of atheist to include agnostics, those who are unsure. That is the 'a' is a modifier of "theism" rather than a modifier of "theos" (not a theist rather than overt certain belief in the non-existence of God). But this is a rather eccentric use of the term, and is not the normative use of the term outside of atheist organizations. Furthermore, most members of atheist organizations are atheists in the more conventional sense of the word although they wish to expand the definition to include agnostics. It might be an idea to look at who else in WP is included in this category.

--WickerGuy (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and I appreciate your suggestions and style points. The "is/was" thing confused me and I am glad you cleared that up. If you are positive about the Timothy affair, and if it is not controversial, please don't hesitate to add back in and sources can be found I'm sure.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you did a bit of a run through on the John Dillinger article and wondered if perhaps it was in relationship to the Version 0.7 release? If so, we've been working on the WP:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and WP:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force articles. I'm also trying to work on the articles from Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, on which we really need help, if you're interested. I've made a listing of the articles included from that project here, with some notes on what is needed. We've been noting the work done on the articles, and when we're done, we strike through the name. It would be great if you could even take on one or two of these articles for clean-up, etc. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you added a link to the "year in film" article 1983. As these links are hidden, and thus not many people will be able to make use of them, I wonder if you can explain your rationale for adding the link. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello John. These YiF links have been SOP in film articles for at least the three years that I have been editing here. There have been several discussions on whether they should be hidden or exposed and the last one that I can remember (though it was awhile ago so I could be wrong) came to a consensus on hidden. I know that the next statement does not apply to everyone but at least some readers become familiar with them and if they are curious about what other films came out the same year it is a convenient link to click on for added info. I know that things ebb and flow here at wikiP and the removal of all date links is a recent thing of which I did not follow too closely as I could tell the way that the wind was blowing. To the best of my knowledge these YiF links are still allowed (but again I could be wrong.) If you have more questions or if you want to start the move towards a new consensus on these you might try voicing your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Like I say I am going off of what I am used to from my years of editing but I could have missed something so my apologies if any of this causes offence. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I asked because I have recently been involved in a discussion at that project talk page, where we have one user who is very keen to keep or even extend this use of these Easter eggs, but nobody has been able to point me to a discussion where this was ever agreed, even within the project. Interesting. --John (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as I the conversations that I remember were conducted some time ago and it is even possible that no definite conclusion was agreed upon. They should be in the talk page archive somewhere though. I would be against any new hidden links because of WP:EGG but I also feel that these have been around so long that they aren't a surprise (except to brand new users of course) but if things change I will be happy to go with whatever is decided. Cheers again. MarnetteD | Talk 23:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see this. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to apologize - but at least I understand what you were referring to! Ironically, it wasn't I who deleted that C&C reference, but a previous editor, User:Abato piscorum. I've restored it, for the moment in the "Cultural references" section, but I plan to add a cast section, and I think it should move there when I do. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the non-free screenshots because per WP:NFC, screenshots need to be tied to critical commentary and discussion of the film. There is not a clear relationship between the screenshots and the article body, and there needs to be one to show that the screenshot is relevant (such as an iconic shot, demonstration of cinematography, or an aspect of the film that cannot be freely replaced). As for the DVD cover image, the poster image already serves as the identifying image for the topic, so any additional cover image needs to demonstrate significance as promotional material. For example, Fight Club (film)#Home media talks about the packaging of the special edition DVD. For Kagemusha, though, do you know if there are any particular shots that have received critical commentary? The article as it stands does not have anything that could support an image; maybe we could look for some coverage to see if one of the removed images or a more appropriate image from elsewhere could be added. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Malpezzi, Frances M. (1989). "The Double and the Theme of Selflessness in Kagemusha". Literature/Film Quarterly. 17 (3): 202–206. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Through the assertion of his personal desires for glory and ambition, Katsuyori places his own needs above the clan's and brings a bloody end to the social group. The thief, on the other hand, having watched the massacre of the Takeda Clan, grabs a spear and runs through the dead toward the enemy until he is shot. Bleeding, he falls into the water and his corpse floats by a partially submerged Takeda banner. This image captures the submerging of his individual identity by his sense of social responsibility.

The article goes in depth about this theme of selflessness, and the above passage seems to be a useful image. Are you very familiar with the film and possibly have access to this resource? The article could be expanded with this theme and supplemented with a screenshot of this particular scene. I think I can find some other resources, too, if this does not work. Let me know! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem; I admit that I was a little quick to remove the images since I was trying to get cleaned-up oldids for the 0.7 assessment (was a little late getting them in). I try not to actively remove non-free images these days since I know that there can be resistance. I try to encourage editors to tie such screenshots with critical commentary so their placement is indisputable, so hopefully we can do that here. I have to admit I have not seen any Kurosawa film besides Seven Samurai, and even that one may have been seen during a time when I was not so enlightened about cinema. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

HOW is the line, "but differs in how the principle characters are portrayed", POV on my part? I am not saying it is better or worse, merely that it differs in how they are portrayed which is blatantly obvious if you've seen it. Considering these are two dramas, what is the harm in that statement? I believe anyone who is interested in I Claudius would benefit from another view (ie less sensationalist) of the same period/characters and that is what The Caesars provides. Your rving of my small addition is needless.Octavian 1977 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The item does not need to be there at all but those of us that deleted it previously worked to create a version that could be in the article. Your very words state that the only reason that you want it there is that you feel that one of the versions is "less sensationalist" then the other and that is a textbook example of POV editing. This along with the fact that the info has nothing to do with the page in question show why there is no need for it to be there. MarnetteD | Talk 04:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I just encountered your edits on The Five Doctors and, being responsible for part of what you deleted, must ask just what part you claim to be "not true." --Ted Watson (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Marnette.

As you can see I've been policing and multi-reverting some highly inappropriate edits to the Stanley Kubrick article by user "Arturobandini". See Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Criticism_and_subsequent_removal. Now this may not be a strict violation of WP policy or even an indicator of sockpuppeting but I notice he is impersonating a fictional character. "Arturo Bandini" is a fictional writer who appears in a series of novels by John Fante, including "Ask the Dust" which filmed in 2006 with Colin Farrell as Bandini. The name is not a coincidence, since WP user User:Arturobandini claims on his user page to be a writer ("the greatest of his generation") and asks that we read his story "The Little Dog Laughed". This is in fact the actual title of a fictitious story written by the fictitious Arturo Bandini!!! Clever in a way. I don't know if this is something WP administrators need to really worry about or not. But I thought I'd give someone I've talked with before a heads up on it.

--WickerGuy (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup reply

Marnette, I may be overly quibbling, but ArBa's main commissions of sin are his violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and in fairly extreme terms. Nonetheless, it isn't clear to me he is guilty of OR, unless I'm just interpreting WP:NOR just way way too narrowly. It is an issue which concerns me, because there is a rather trivial addition to the Superman-movie WP page (not written by me) which was reverted 4 times (probably didn't need to be there) but there was a different reason given each time. In my own contribution on the Talk page to the discussion, I noted that two of the four reasons for reverting given seemed to me to hold up (especially non-notability), but for the life of me I just couldn't see why it constituted OR. Maybe I don't quite get the policy, but I wonder if OR is getting bandied about as a "catch-all" objection when more specific and focused ones are more appropriate.

I'm sure I will enjoy the Bond film. It's already out in the UK, and as such a few spoilers exist on the WP page on it, which I am therefore avoiding. Don't forget to vote.

Cheers, --WickerGuy (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. How dare you ;D Jk. Well you wont beat me in uploading a picture for A Remedy to cure all ills ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goku1st (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The October 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. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for this. Are you familiar with WP:DTR at all? If not I thought you might enjoy reading it. It describes why actions such as yours are seldom likely to effect positive change. Thanks and best wishes,--John (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are just being obtuse right? With this edit [5] you templated a regular so obviously you haven't read DTR. On top of that the vandalism tag was totally inappropriate since you are in a content dispute with Ed so it looks like trying to effect positive change is something beyond your abilities. In the light of this there was nothing wrong with the tag that I added to your page. On top of that you hide a goofy comment in the message that you leave on my page so it looks like you also have a WP:POINTy problem as well. Interestingly, I am not the only editor to notice the inappropriateness of you actions. Perhaps you will be able to contribute positively again one day, just not this one. MarnetteD | Talk 01:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you do know DTR. I warned Ed because his blind reversion restored a typo to the article. Given his recent editing behavior, yes that begins to look like vandalism to me. The comment I left, far from being goofy, contains wisdom that you may, if you choose, internalize. I leave that up to you. --John (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A typo is vandalism. Interesting interpretation for one in the middle of a content dispute and one that would not hold much sway were others to look at it (as Lar has already pointed out.) Your continued WP:POINTiness would tend to show a lack of wisdom that is not very becoming in an admin. Perhaps you should read up on WP:HARASS before you leave any further messages on my talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 03:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lar has at least read up on the dispute and is helping to resolve it. You have not, and are not. Perhaps you should think twice about sending templated messages if you are unwilling to take part in a subsequent civil discussion of your actions. See you around, no doubt. --John (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not involved in the content dispute so there is no need for me to help to resolve it. You placed an inappropriate template on Ed's talk page and did not think twice about it at the time nor did you state your reason for doing so. Since then you have used the weakest of excuses as a reason for the template. I pointed out the inappropriateness of said template and it would seem that it was you who have been unable to accept the consequences of your actions. Your continued veiled threats here on my talk page are unbecoming of an admin. Since we have never interacted before I do not see why we would in the future. Unless you are willing to bring in an uninvolved third party to look at all of the actions involved please do not post more threats or anything else on this page. MarnetteD | Talk 03:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Threats? Please show where I threatened you with anything. I pointed out that it was a little silly and unlikely to be productive to send a templated message telling me that it was wrong to send another user a templated message. If you are uncomfortable with being held accountable for your own actions, you may wish to think twice before doing it again. You've mentioned WP:POINT and WP:HARASS; are you at all familiar with these documents? I will grant you the last word now in case I upset you even further. Goodbye and happy editing in the future. --John (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)