User talk:Clockster

Welcome To Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Clockster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Acalamari 18:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And let's hope I reply to this correctly. The four tildes protocol breaks my brain, for whatever reason. Clockster 09:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Match Point

Hi, Clockster. I'm trying to do a bit of genuine consensus building over at Talk:Match_Point on the issue of spo1ler tag placement. Since you placed a tag there before we could use your input to the debate. Tomgreeny 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronicity

Hi Clockster,
Apparently I accidentally clicked your username at Talk:Spoiler, because your user page suddenly appeared. Then I saw your Monte Python userbox. How synchronous.
It was a Monte Python article I created, Blancmange (Monty Python), that had its spoiler tag deleted and re-deleted in May 2007 — which caused me to get into the Great Spoiler Tag Debate: A Million Bytes Served (more or less). (Please reply here if desired) Milo 05:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the spoiler issue. It makes me want to drink. Heavily. Clockster 18:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ! Milo 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

These are the notes I've made of movie sites I've surveyed with or without spoiler notices. This is here simply so I can recall what I posted (since the discussion will surely be archived soon.) Thanks to Parcifal and Samohyl Jan for corrections.

1. IMDb: User-submitted synopses and external reviews which have spoilers. I was unable to find their policy on spoilers. Per Parcifal, Marc Shepard, and Samoyal John there is a spoiler policy - spoilers must be tagged. Here is an example of a spoiler tag in their trivia section: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052218/trivia

2. The rec.arts.movies.past-films FAQ (at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/faq/past-films/): SPOILER should be used in the subject, header, or text to indicate a spoiler. I can testify to this; I've been a member there for over a decade and have been chewed out a few times during heated discussion for not labeling an item as a spoiler.

3. allmovie.com: Spoilers in plot synopses, no policy listed. I've never been to allmovie before, though, so someone more familiar with allmovie may have different info. -- Thanks to Samohyl Jan for catching my typo.

4. Netflix: No spoilers. Per their guidelines: "Don't spoil a plot by giving away endings or key plot developments."

5. Amazon: No spoilers. Per their guidelines: "No spoilers! Please don't reveal crucial plot elements."

6. TCMdb: I was unable to find their policy and have emailed them. However, it appears they have a segment called Brief Synopsis, with no spoilers, and later a Full Synopsis, which is a detailed account of the whole movie, spoilers and all. The Full Synopsis is on the main page and has no spoiler warning.

7. Yahoo has no spoiler policy [1] and users have complained about spoilers [2] being posted by Yahoo.

8. movies.com (which appears to be owned by Buena Vista) has articles with spoilers but they're marked as such [3]. The same goes for the forums [4].

9. AOL's movie site has a blog at cinematical.com which labels spoilers in its articles [5]. As for their movie boards, I wasn't able to find any policy about spoilers [6] but their TV boards have specific spoiler forums which are clearly labeled [7].

10. MSN Movie Guide has synopses with spoilers (example here [8]) but their content is almost exactly the same as allmovie, and MSN indicates all synopses are from the "All Movie Guide". I think MSN and allmovie can be counted as the same thing and not two separate entities.

Of the 10 sites I looked at, allmovie/MSN, Yahoo and TCMdb have spoilers in their descriptions without any kind of warning, tag, or click-through. Yahoo has user complaints about their no-spoiler-tag policy. The other 6 sites -- IMDb, Netflix, Amazon, AOL, movies.com, and Usenet -- have specific spoiler guidelines. I know someone mentioned that Usenet doesn't count for anything, but even dismissing Usenet that still means most major sites use spoiler notifications. Clockster 07:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lymphadenopathy Syndrome

According your research, why should lymphadenopathy syndrome be abandoned? Steven (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else said the term "lymphadenopathy" should be abandoned, so I was researching that. However, I found nothing except a few notes that said "lymphadenopathy syndrome" was not used anymore. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4989&page=303 is one site which says "Like the term ARC, the term "lymphadenopathy syndrome" is now considered antiquated and no longer used." I'm sure you could Google for more information. Clockster (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Liquor GA review

Clockster,
Thanks for looking over the article George Liquor. I have made the changes to the prose and the references, so feel free to check it at your earliest convenience. Thanks,
Gak Blimby (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect copyright concern (URGENT)

Clockster,
I understand that earlier, I made a large mistake on the article by taking too much from my sources and I'm going to fix it as soon as I can. But I think that you put the article on the copyright violations page incorrect reasons; you said that the article was lifted from this web page: [9]. However, THAT ARTICLE WAS TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA, not the other way around. That web must have been taken from an old version of the George Liquor article, because it has the “citation needed” marks in the same places. Its disclaimer even says: "Some pages may contain portions of text relating to certain topics obtained from wikipedia.org under the GNU FDL license." Neither I nor any other editor for the article plagiarized from that page.

Here is proof: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc.

I'm fine with the fact that the article failed the GA nomination, but PLEASE REMOVE the article from the plagiarism page. Thank you,
Gak Blimby (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will check into it; the reason I didn't feel it was a mirrored article is that the wording is different in the amazines.com site, plus not all the errors in spelling are duplicated. Also, you used the amazines.com site as a source, did you not? If it's a mirror of Wikipedia, how can it be used as a source? I will check older edits of the article and if I find one that confirms that it was mirrored, I will indeed take it off the plagiarism list and note the talk page accordingly.

Please note I already removed the sentences you took from the Forbidden Animation book. Clockster (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering the issue. I'm very sorry for overacting and using all caps. I got nervous and I didn't handle the issue properly. Still, thanks for taking the article off the list.

Gak Blimby (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Daniell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TCM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cooper

Thanks again for your informed comment on the Talk page! Using your Brown reference, and another that can also be read online, I added the following to the article as there was no mention of Cooper's early screen persona. I didn't use the word effete, or effeminised, which is probably more accurate.

"Cooper's screen image, which was to transition significantly to a more rugged persona, was in the silent years one of a boyish sexual glamour. This was deliberately fostered by Paramount, including by the use of heavy eye makeup, and backlit soft-focus closeups that were more usually employed for female stars." The citations are:

Brown, Jeffrey A. "Putting on the Ritz: Masculinity and the Young Gary Cooper" Screen, Vol 36 Issue 3, 199
Sheehan, Steven T. "Costly Thy Habit as Thy Purse Can Buy": Gary Cooper and the Making of the Masculine Citizen-Consumer, American Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1: Spring 2002

The user Collect who is objecting to this new addition, prompted reverted it adding: "'so NOW you want to have "he wore female make-up" - I suggest you try an RfC on that bit of fluff - b/w movies always used heavy make-up by the way

I get the feeling I'm dealing with a pointlessly vindictive nonagenarian in a Sarasota care home who expects me to launch an RfC for every edit I make. Of course he won't acknowledge the citations, and I expect the gender study Brown one would induce heart failure. Can you please have a look at this addition, and if necessary reword it. Thanks! Engleham (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- first of all it appears you think you are showing good faith by name-calling about other editors. I read the cites and there is now an RfC, which I trust will result in a consensus of some sort. Collect (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request both Collect and Engleham keep their personal conflict off my talk page, and the discussion about Gary Cooper on the Gary Cooper talk page. Thank you. Clockster (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional astute comment on the Talk page. You may wish (or not) to bring your cinema knowledge to this RfC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Full_Service_(book)#Proposed_merge_with_Scotty_Bowers It could do with some fresh eyes, whatever your opinion. Engleham (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marie Prevost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Beautiful and the Damned (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]