User talk:MarnetteD/archive 8

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 edits made by the IP 86.42... to the article are complete fiction. The user changes IP address frequently and seems preposessed with tragic deaths, making various kinds of disruptive edits. I'm just tracing back his edits and removing them. I've added the real funeral info from one of the cited books. Not entirely necessary for the article but should deter further nonsense edits. Just a heads-up. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one doing the reversions! I'm tired of vandal fighting but sometimes, as in this case, it's necessary. The user has definitely seen warnings i've sent or hidden as comments in articles and just keeps going with the same edits. I'm just massively confused as to why he persists, surely reversions annoy him as much as his editing annoys us? I have to say he's been the source of my least pleasant wiki experiences. Keep up the good work (and keep an eye out!) Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Marnette, you are just so nice to the banned user Diamond Joe Quimby (talk · contribs), I am not as nice. I am a big meanie! ~ WikiDon (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Marnette, I just wanted to apologize to you personally for abusing your trust. Read my comments here. Please carry on with some of the good things I tried to do. Once again, I am sorry. 4.240.165.59 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi sorry I got sidetracked from filling in the film lists myself, I as you can see have been attempting to take over the world lol. Yes people think I am a bot sometimes I'm sure, which is ironic as I'm probably more friendly and humane than many of them on here! I wish I had time to dedicate to completing all the lists but so much needs doing on world geography and culture that I got kinda busy. If the side plate is causing problems, which you should be able to adapt the tables so they fit, I would recommend converting it to a horizontal one across the top. If people are browsing the lists then it would be better to have it at the top. Other than this you could place the CinemaoftheUK twmplate itself at the top of every list article. Excellent work for filling those in!! I'm afraid many of the American and world lists need a lot of work which I had hoped given the size of wikipedia other people like yourself may have continued my work on them. Some of the have developed but particularly the odd years are poor! We have lists like South Korean films of 2005 but Italy, France and Hong Kong are my main objectives to fill aside from USA. Hopefully once the new WP:GEOBOT project that I proposed is up and running I'll have more time to address the lists again.Hope you are well ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the page and it looked fine. What distortion did you mean? If the table doesn't fit then it can be adapted ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Three new articles. Recognize them? Wolfgang Lukschy, Sieghardt Rupp, José Calvo. I want to set up a western film task force sometime. I need to get some members together though ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How did you get that Good, Bad & Ugly thing so fast? It was about 5 minutes ago. Do you have some kind of cell phone alarm, ala Ebay? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The June 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for definitively clearing that up for me. Yes, I saw "series" instead of "seasons" in the All Creatures Great and Small article and corrected it. Then I saw it a second time in the same paragraph and corrected that. When I saw it a third time in a different paragraph, I figured it probably wasn't a mistake after all, but rather a Briticism I didn't know - as you have now confirmed. Cheers. Krakatoa (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, thanks for the clarification on the Victoria Cobbleton article. I understand what you're driving at and agree the page looks dubious. Generally hoax articles (except perhaps for the most obvious) are removed via the prod or afd method, just to gather more input. I have gone ahead and tagged it as such. I hope this is alright with you; feel free to keep the page watchlisted and let me know if anything comes up. Many thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Contacting the creator of the article is probably not a bad idea. I must have missed your comment on the talk page. Thanks again and let me know if anything else arises. Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern. I am indeed fine, but trying (desperately) to finish my master's thesis. My editing has been rather sporadic. Cheers, --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done everything to make this section to fit the guidelines and have not contested some deletions that are unsourced and are indeed obscure, but when you start deleting things arbitrarily, and saying things are non-notable and indisicriminate without any justification but your own personal whim, you're just being ridiculous and refusing to come to any common ground.

Furthermore I have not violated the three revert rule unless today is still July 18 before 3:30 PM Wikipedia time, so please check your facts before you make accusations.206.41.234.41 (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that title edit. The BBC had it listed as "Setting" and I stupidly assumed they were right. Thanks for fixing it. Slowmover (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read instructions in Category:Date of birth missing. It should only be in Talk pages. Tasks performed by User:Yobot are approved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The bot hasn't finished running yet. It ll run once more to remove Category:Year of birth missing if Category:xxxx births exists. Still Category:Date of birth missing should not be in the article page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I accidentally blocked you by clicking on your link instead of User:97.88.198.14's, but I've reversed my error. Sorry about that. Nightscream (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think admins like me have that ability, but I left a question at the Help Desk here. If it can't be done, though, I wouldn't worry about it. I was blocked twice in the course of my first two years here. The first was a 3RR block, which occurred because I wasn't familiar with the 3RR rule at the time. The second was also for 3RR, and I had that block undone by citing the exception that says removing obvious vandalism does not count toward it. Both blocks were thus explained when I was up for RfA, and it didn't stop me from being made an admin by a unanimous vote. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. One other thing I can suggest is that WP founder Jimbo Wales has the ability to have selected versions of an article history (and I presume a block log) hidden from public view in the Wikipedia version logs, in effect removing them from all but Wikipedia administrators' view, as seen here. I don't know if he'll go so far a to do this for a user, but I thought you might like to know. Nightscream (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The July 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) 02:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MarnetteD. Over the next few days I should be able to find references about the authorial intents on the three Kubrick so-called 'remakes'. I can also reframe the entry to refer to remakes of Kubrick's source material rather than the film itself. IMDB generally refers to works like this as "new versions" of an earlier film rather than as remakes of a film, so it would indeed be appropriate for Wikipedia to honor a similar distinction. It does seem to me that given that SK made only thirteen films, if in three cases authors of source material get closely involved in a subsequent version of the material that this is significant.

WickerGuy (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that the trivia sections of Imdb might be regarded as a not fully reliable source (in spite of Imdb's editors making efforts to verify material from film magazines etc.). However, It is surely reliable in other areas such as release dates, awards, and so forth.

At any rate, I was commending Imdb here on the basis of their terminology usage, not their facts. By Imdb's vocabulary usage in their ubiquitous "movie connections" link, Jackson's "King Kong" is a "remake" of the older "King Kong", but Adrian Lyne's "Lolita" is (according to Imdb) a "new version of" the Kubrick film. This may not be the best option for word-choice, and I myself would suggest referring instead to a "remake of the source material". (See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/movieconnections and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120787/movieconnections for examples.) Alas, Imdb is ONLY consistent on this when you click on the "movie connections" links, but not elsewhere. For example, if you go to the Imdb entry on "A Perfect Murder" and click on "movie connections" they appropriately list this as a "version of" "Dial M for Murder", but their "plot summary" says it is a "remake of the Hitchcock classic" which as you and I would agree it really is not.

The distinction can get hazy. As I myself noted on the page of the Kubrick film "Lolita", Edward Albee's play of the same novel follows Kubrick rather than Nabokov with regard to the notorious guidance-counselor scene. This is a massive and significant plot-change so it's quite obvious, yet no one would say that Albee has overall based his play on Kubrick's movie. Perhaps here it would be best to say that Albee's play "pays tribute" to the Kubrick film.

I have looked again at the Wikipedia OR section. It states you are not supposed to put out a "new ...synthesis of material...not advanced by the sources." Is this the area of concern about my entries?

Regards,

WickerGuy (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My point in noting these on the Kubrick page is precisely in the fact that all three non-remakes/new-versions consciously avoid Kubrick's approach. They are all consciously non-Kubrickian in their adaptations, and as such the shadow of Kubrick is there. And all three had the authors of the source material involved in the production process, all of whom had expressed dissatisfaction with Kubrick's work. Given that SK made only 13 films, this seems to me to be statistically significant, though it certainly verges on OR. I should at least be able to cite sources re the involvement of Dmitri Nabokov, Stephen King in the related works, and Burgess' intent in making a stage adaptation of Clockwork Orange.

WickerGuy (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to challenge User:CIMorse - it is a real pain when people behave like him/her! Let's hope he/she gets the message now! --Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Marnette, thank you for putting forth the effort to make sure that my connection of Akira Kurosawa's Ikiru to Goethe's Faust is a valid one. I admit I do not have a source, but I also stress that the influence is obvious to anyone who has both read Goethe's Faust and watched Ikiru. This is true for a couple of specific reasons, besides the more general resonances: (1)The novelist obviously functions as a Mephistopheles character, as noted before; and (2)Toyo functions as the divine feminine that leads Watanabe away from hedonistic indulgence, much the same as Gretchen in Faust. If you disagree, I'm okay with not editing it another time, but I thought you'd like to know that I had at least had reasons for adding such a line. Just get back to me on whether you think such an addition is appropriate. Thanks, Tommillay54 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference is to the 1881 burning of the Ringtheater - however that doesn't explain the statement about the Barcarolle and the 'Communist Govt' - probably best deleted as you did. Best. --Kleinzach 05:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Caves of Androzani I see that you took out my addition to the Production. It was unreferenced - so fair enough. I know that I'd read that and went to find out. Added the reference - only to find there were precious few other references. So now tell me, why haven't you removed everything else that doesn't have one? I'm more interested in creating articles/adding to articles and sharing my knowledge (however limited) - whereas you are obviously more interested in deleting other people's work (from your recent history), so I'll leave it to you to take everything else out.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI this page is only protected against moving - saw your comment on my watch list. If you feel it needs further protection, head over to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and leave a request. JRawle (Talk) 09:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD Sorry I didn;t realise the link to the 'Miranda Online' website broke the rules. The link had been there quite happily for ages, and when it disappeared I tried adding it again. I didn't see any explanation for its removal the next times, so re-added it. Definitely not trying to spam, and as far as I can see the only reason it is an invalid link is because I run the site. I still think it is a worthwhile link to include, and note that many other actors/actresses have fan-page links (some of which I also run) on their Wiki pages. I won't try and add it again, but would like to stress that it is not a money-making site and I don't care about driving traffic to it, it is a personal labour of love, and the intention was to direct people visiting the wiki page to further information about Miranda. Indeed there are links to articles and research I have done within the existing wiki page. Threecard (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD: We fail to remove import information from the article by Sir Michael Gambon. That you do not want to complete it does not mean that others do not want. Everything that is fully completed and tested Gambon, if you want to check it looks this link, if you have to make ready. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.208.16.195 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits show that you lack understnading of wikipedia's guidelines and rules. IMDb Spanish or otherwise is not a reliable source. For example you provide no verifiable sources for the changes that you make. You break existing links and add links that don't go to the proper pages. You try to add semiprotection templates to pages that aren't protected. The fact that your English is minimal at best shows that you probably should be editing somewhere else. MarnetteD | Talk 19:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

can i have a source for the codes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATMarsden (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish version if it is reliable. The one that is unreliable and also imcompleta is yours. Do not you get the ready, beautiful.

By the way, stops amend this article, if you do not mind that this incopleto, of course.

Thank you - Good Job on signing your message per wikipedia guidelines.

Just click on any two of the links that you create and you will find that they don't go to the pages intended. No one has time to amend the mistakes that you are making. MarnetteD | Talk 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But you delete information if they go to their pages designed, fails to clear the site, yours is very incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.208.154.9 (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thought you may be interested The Bald One ^{White cat} 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment on deletion of the link tot he Criterion essay was literal -- when I go there I get the introduction to the essay, and nothing else. Do you see an essay? I have no objection to the content, because I can't see the content. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked using Firefox and Safari (I'm on IE), and got the same result. The extent of the essay visible to me is "As a filmmaker, G. W. Pabst" and then comes J. Hoberman's bio, which presumably is meant to appear at the bottom of the essay.

I can send you a screenshot, if you're seeing the whole thing, and it would be helpful to see what I'm sesing. Could this be a subscription thing? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. You might want to take a glance at other Criterion essays, because I have a vague recollection that I've seen this problem before. Perhaps they changed their policies and a subscription is needed to see the essay?

P.S. I didn't seek this out, I went to the link to read the essay! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I viewed the source of the page, thinking that perhaps some HTML coding error was preventing the rest of the essay from appearing, but all that's there is what we see on the page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Here: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.234.188.136 ) you warned a user for inserting spam links in Straw Dogs, and told him not to do so again. His contributions show ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.234.188.136 ) that he has done so again to yet more pages despite the warnings. He is very, very prolific, I have removed the links already, but there are so many links put in over so many pages that it's pretty much impossible to get them all.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)).

I tried to report him, but haven't gotten a response yet. I may have been doing it wrong, so i thought I'd try here again, sorry for bothering you!

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Schneider_(writer)

Not only is the page too long, he insists on inserting his spam links, (he knows better than the admin he says, they're what's wrong with wikipedia), so he ignores the warnings.

Also, that's certainly him, you can tell from the writing style. Conflict of interest. Please, please ban him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenEdmondson (talk • contribs) 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC) (StevenEdmondson (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The August 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) 00:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"this loser IP has provided no veriviable source yet despite violating the 9 rvv rule" - you are also in violation of the exact same revert rule.

If two editors are giving contradictory information about the same source, perhaps you should make some effort to discuss this, in case you're referring to different editions of the book? It doesn't seem impossible that a particular political reference could have been dropped from a later edition, or an American printing. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And okay, the book's searchable on Amazon.com - the version there clearly mentions the changing of the will and "iron-clad, redneck Republican Wayne", but the anecdote seems to be more about Price correcting a presumed misunderstanding than the POV edit of "prevent[ing] her from bequeathing money". It also seems fairly trivial as part of Price's life, so I wouldn't push to re-add it to the article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do the extra research on this. I am afraid that I have let some off wiki stress spill over to my editing. My apologies. I have only had a chance to cursorily look at my copy of VP's bio of her dad and missed what you found so easily so again thanks for your work. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How about you google info on the Monty Python team and read their interviews, and learn that others might know more than you about subjects, before calling someone's info nonsense. To settle you down, a source has now been given, so you don't need to get your knickers in a twist anymore.

And in future, try to be a bit nicer to people rather than throwing insults from behind a computer screen.

Turns out your info was nonsense

that's very odd. i realized what i had done and went back and corrected it (i thought). in fact, my contribution list confirms that i did. hmmmm.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you have undone apparent vandalism to Mason Turner. However, I have deleted the page as a hoax - it is in fact a copy of Brian Turner (American poet). HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that a while back you deleted the awards table I made for the Stanley Kubrick article. The table in question was adapted from the same table used in No Country For Old Men (film) article, which has been identified as a GA. The table used the same X's and check scheme to identify wins and nominations, which appeared to be sufficiently clear. I understand the phrase you used at WP:Lists for the basis of removal, however as the table has been used in another article without complaint, I don't believe it was questionable in its presentation. As such I wish you would have at least notified me, or inquired at the talk page before removing it. Awards sections themselves are included in the body of most director related articles (and this was my original motivation to include the table since the article did not have a specified awards section at the time). It seems that these sections are where such lengthy lists of awards are typically kept while the infobox is generally limited to Acadamy Awards and Golden Globes. For this reason I believe the article merits an awards section, whether it be presented as a table or prose. S. Luke (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I saw the note on the WP:Films page, which is why I went over and ran the checkuser tool on the version with the apparently deleted essay. The tool I use is here and one only need type in the correct article title to check the links in the article. It will sometimes give you an archive address or redirect address if one or the other exists. The place that Collectonian was suggesting was The Wayback Machine, which has archives for a great many web pages. In fact, it does have an archive link for Grand Illusions, so it may have the others which you may have to replace. Hope that helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those rare times when Ed and I are on the same side of the page. You can practice with the checklinks tool all you want, even hit the "save changes" button. It will pop up a new window and you can see the changes, just like a regular preview. You don't have to save it and it will give you practice. Glad to be of help! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Of note, I have posted my comment re Canada Post stamps for a second time. It is a matter of public record and does not need a reference.

If you have a problem with this entry, take it up with the conflict resolution service at wiki. I plan to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do as it is obvious, since I am not the only person that has reverted it, that you do not understand wikipolicy whatsoever. When you learn how to sign a post on a talk page that will be a start for your fragile cyberego. MarnetteD | Talk 07:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I wanted to do was add a small fact about Hepburn, which is a matter of Canadian Public record, but it seems that was a bit too much. I don't have enough time or energy to deal with these issues (Wiki was much easier back in the old days) so I think I'll just work on my Hepburn book and let you guys do as you must.

All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatch23 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh what a whiner. You had time and energy to edit war. You had time and energy enough to be rude and incivil about me. You gladly ignored wikipolicy and the good advice that you received from Primehunter. Old days? You're first edit is January of 2007. All of the policies that other editors and I have been asking you to follow have been in place long before then. It is true that you must be somewhat tired since typing four tildes must be beyond you since you have yet to sign a single message that you've left on the talk pages. How, in heavens name, will you ever finish (or start) your book on Hepburn when this simple task was almost beyond you. Sheesh and again I say sheesh. MarnetteD | Talk 11:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Marnette,

I did not add the bizness of putting the film "The Shining" in "Project Colorado" which you deleted. Although none of the The Shining was filmed in Colorado, it is explicitly set in the state of Colorado, and as such might be worth including depending on what the criteria for Project Colorado exactly is.

I added two better references than Imdb for the bizness of King wanting to cast Jon Voight as Jack Torrance. I knew the info was reliable, but was admittedly a bit lazy in providing Imdb as a reference. Happily, I have been able to find both the original interview with King in which he said this, and also a published book in which this is stated. I restored the Voight line and added both of these as references. With the Imdb reference, there are now three citations for this.

Is there a Wikipedia guidelines page which overtly states that Imdb trivia is not a reliable source? According to the Imdb website, if you submit a piece of trivia to them, they won't add it until their editors check it out, though I have no idea what their process involves.

Regards

--WickerGuy (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you are over the 3RR limit yourself. Lots42 (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, No I am not. When reverting someone who won't discuss on the talk page I am reverting vandalism. You have a lot too learn here before you start throwing around threats as you did on the talk page for this episode. Also try getting your facts straight. You claimed that there were only two editors involved in your note on Islander's talk page when there were actually three - the anon IP, Edoktor and myself - and now Islander has also reverted the edits and blocked the IP. MarnetteD | Talk 08:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No claims were made to two anything. I am bowing out of this controversy. Lots42 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do the letters t-w-o used in this edit [1] mean the number 2 or do they mean something else? MarnetteD | Talk 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't contact me any more about this matter. Lots42 (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your request. In my experience liars always have a hard time dealing with their lies. There is no need to compare you to a fictional bad guy. You've acheived that in reality on your own. MarnetteD | Talk 07:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, you might want to be a tad careful. What you were reverting wasn't what most people would call vandalism - an anon. editor who pushes their point of view without discussing is a disruptive editor, but not really a vandal. Clearly I'm not going to do anything more in this case, but please bear this in mind. _TalkIslander 09:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, enough, both of you. This situation has been resolved by my blocking the anon. IP - no need rehash arguments one way or the other any more. I suggest that this discussion is allowed to die now, or else one or other of you is at risk of violating WP:NPA (that is assuming you haven't already). Also, please try and preserve the ordering of talk page messages. _TalkIslander 08:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for zapping the erroneous snowmobile reference in "The Shining". Actually, in the novel it definitely is a snowmobile (or at least is called that), which is perhaps how that editor got confused. However, you didn't catch an earlier plot-reference in the article to Hallorann's snowmobile, which I changed to snow-tractor (which I think is correct although not all are enclosed. H's vehicle in the movie is a slightly lower-tech version of this http://www.bmclark.org/accuwx_blog/snowtractor_small.jpg). I fixed that and I put back that editor's change and used "vehicle". It IS certainly worthwhile to note that Danny escapes with Wendy and how.

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum

An online store selling snow vehicles actually does identify Hallorann's vehicle as a snowmobile. It's official model name is a Sno-cat, and the site can be found here. http://www.snowmobiletrailgroomers.com/. Nonetheless, it would be more common to view this as a snow-tractor, so I'm keeping it as is.

--WickerGuy (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The September 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. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for attracting my attention to your genuine concerns. I am a serious student of the genre of horror films for 35 long years. Many persons now genuinely believe that Stanley Kubrick had the unique ability to combine eroticism with horror, and he does this twice very successfully in this film. So if we have to give a fair critical comment to this film, we must add this section. I respect your point of view, but may I say that the general view of academicians on Kubrick is what I am saying and thus these pages should be restored. With regards Anil Aggrawal Anil1956 (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a place for academic theory. The items that you are adding violate WP:NOR, WP:POV and WP:PLOT. There are plenty of places on the web where you can post you theories. This is not one of them. There is usually not a general view of academicians since some will agree with your theories and others will not. MarnetteD | Talk 05:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Properly sourced and contextualized, Anil's material could go in a critical reception section of the article on The Shining, but even properly sourced it does not in any way shape or form belong in the plot summary of the article.
(In case you hadn't noticed, Anil has had lots and lots of his contributions to WP deleted.)--WickerGuy (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note but you may want to double check what you are commenting on. Critical reception sections tend to be focused on (though not always) what the reaction to the film was when it came out. Anil is trying to place in one persons interpretive theory. These tend to come much later and also tend to revolve around highly personal interpretations of a film. They often have more to say about the author then they do about the filmmaker and what he or she was trying to present on the screen. MarnetteD | Talk 08:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)