User talk:MarnetteD/archive16

Thanks

Thanks for updating me on the sockpuppet news. I think it's quite easy to get it wrong sometimes, but you definitely handled it in the right way. Keep up the good work, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also for your update on this subject. Like another editor said to you, "No bother whatsoever." There is more I would like to detail, but not here; suffice to say I believe you nailed it correctly. Have a good one, MarnetteD. Prhartcom (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter

The September 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) 04:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Prime Suspect and The Closer

Hi, MarnetteD, I looked at your user page, and you are obviously smart plus "wiki-smart"!!!! However, I was surprised that you deleted an entire section (supported by references including USA Today and NY Times) that I had added to the article on Prime Suspect, noting that some observers note similarities between those two shows. I do not have the experience or achievements you have on wikipedia, but when I add comments, I always try to support them with references -- so, although a few comments of mine have been questioned, they have rarely been deleted without a discussion between me and the editor who poses the questions. For that reason, I have undone your revision and posted the question on the discussion page for Prime Suspect, a move I hope you will respect for now. If others agree with you that this section should be deleted,then I will learn from the discussion! But I think that the statement that some observers (and I could have said "many" observers, since there are a lot of comments out there, in print, making the statement that there are obvious similarities) is a fact. I don't think we need to find a statement from the writers of The Closer that they found inspiration for the character or the story in Prime Suspect to make it a fact that there are significant similarities which others have noted. (I did not say that The Closer is "based" on Prime Suspect -- which would have been a claim that would need substantiation from a writer or creator....). Anyway, I hope that reinstating the information and asking for discussion is acceptable to you at this point. Meanwhile, I'll see what else I can find.... I very much hope this is acceptable! And I do want to say that I am very impressed with all that you have done! (And -- we are both obviously fans of British TV!). :) Thanks -- NearTheZoo (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your note. I just felt that opinions (even sourced ones) comparing the two shows are just not that notable. It would become notable if there was an interview with the creators of The Closer stating that they admired Prime Suspect and were trying to make their show with PS in mind. Having said that this is just one editors opinion and if you want to put the info back in please feel free to do so (oops I only just noticed that you have already done that - no problem). Thanks again and happy editing MarnetteD | Talk 16:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding--and support! :) I have made some changes based on the discussion, including repositioning the comments (right above the "spoofs" section, as an "impact on other series" section), and have added some other "hard" references, stressing that the similarities are being noted by reviewers, and also Kyra Sedgwick and her manager -- but have not yet found any direct reference made by one of the creators. In any event, I think the discussion has already been helpful, and I appreciate your graciousness! NearTheZoo (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who in US

Please read the press release and BBC America announcement regarding the filing in the US. It clearly states this is the FIRST time Doctor Who will be filmed in the US. The Eighth Doctor film was made entirely in Canada, which the press release notes -- use of purchased stock footage, which was used in the film, does not constitute filming. Moreover, your interpretation of the film as having been filmed in SF because it used stock footage, particularly in light of the press release, is WP:OR. Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice job of cleaning up an edit that was a grammatical mess. Nice job on posting a screed long after the item was fixed too. The footage of SF was not stock but filmed solely for the TV film and this is mentioned on the DVD so it is not OR. If you think that the person who wrote the press release has any knowledge of the shows past you are fooling yourself. MarnetteD | Talk 19:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you come back I made an error in my edit summary. RTD did not go to NYC but per the items here Daleks in Manhattan#Production James Strong and his film unit flew to the US and filmed sections of NY specifically for the story. This was not stock footage and I assume that Doctor Who magazine interviews with the people that did the filming is a RS. As I stated it seems like the person who wrote the press release was unaware of the filming history of the show. MarnetteD | Talk 19:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between second-unit photography for establishing shots and principle photography. You're still in the world of WP:OR. Drmargi (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the differences much better then you I expect. The sentence in question had nothing to do with these differences. The OR claim is laughable. I apologize for any incivilty and wish you happy editing in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 22:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your message

First of all, you are entirely welcome, and "scurrilous" is one of my favorite words, but I do not have the opportunity to use if often. I am always happy to help out. Thanks for your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

As a respected WP editor, you are invited to participate in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination)

Country field

Regarding the country field, I know that you support its universal removal. I made a suggestion on the infobox's talk page about starting with a more limited approach of not using the field only when it is contentious. This would not preclude universal removal if the limited approach does not suffice. Please share your thoughts. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're 100% set on universal removal since you asked some questions, but I responded to you at the discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't really have anything to add. As I said I don't think we can get to a place where the field will ever make any sense but I am also not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I appreciate that your heart is in this but I am for removing it. Cheers on all future editing! MarnetteD | Talk 00:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy editing to you as well. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

My very strong suspicion is that the anonymous editor who made the rude comment is a serial vandal based in Brazil. I have tangled with this guy before, and the edit summary matches his m.o. He is very rude, combative, pushes his opinion very strongly, and should be dealt with ruthlessly. Some time back, he edit-warred over the genre of The Godfather for two straight months. Keep your eyes peeled. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message identifying the culprit. He clearly has a vendetta against Andrzejbanas, whose edits he reverts wholesale, and allmovie. Another of his IP socks has just been blocked, but he'll just jump to another. I really wish he'd find another hobby. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied your welcome banner

Hi I've copied your welcome banner - because its cool. I hope thats okay. Mark^Dask 05:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian vandal

Our Brazilian vandal friend is back, hopping IPs to vandalize The Godfather. Keep your eyes peeled. I reported the IPs to AiV, but have been rejected. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you revert this please? An overzealous editor or admin. may give me a 3RR warning if I revert again. I think it is clearly vandalism, but someone else may not see it the same way. Thanks.

By the way, sometime soon, we need to put together an ANI report on this fellow. This has gone on long enough, and AIV is obviously not working. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sockpuppet template! That is something I always forget about. That will be helpful. Thanks, in general, for the advice. You are correct, I am skating the line of 3RR, which he attempts to avoid by hopping IPs, the little hypocrite. I have to watch out, lest I end up blocked. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am just about to depart, myself. It might behoove us to make other members of Wikiproject Film aware of what is going on. And, yes, an ANI with the stated desire being to have him banned. I think it is high time for this result. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am once again reminded of the need for an ANI report on this menace. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent messages. I will take a look at the ANI. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This was marked as resolved far too quickly. I now doubt that further messages will even be looked at. Another, more complete, ANI report will be necessary. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

NHF

No Hard Feelings. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Greg Hicks

Yes I left the final article tag there intentionally. I feel it's fair to wait to see any details emerge about what aspect of the article's neutrality is actually disputed. In the meantime I guess it's accurate to say that the article's neutrality is indeed in dispute, but that should probably be removed if there's nothing new in a few days. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Butoh reference: http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/news/interviews/view/item71748/Greg-Hicks/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.77.128.4 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome for butoh reference. He graduated from Rose Bruford in 1973. He practises capoeira to prepare for his roles. Butoh he used fundamentally in preparation for his role as the Ghost in Michael Boyd's 2004 RSC Hamlet. Best regards 81.38.0.13 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary Peach

I added a more appropriate reference for the The Avengers casting comment in regard to this actress. I have noticed that you are very strict about wiki rules, which is not something I am critical of, but I do think you could be more helpful in your editing. It took me about 1 minute to find a reference and insert it into the text. Could you have not done the same? I think wiki can be improved enormously if we work to improve articles by helping them, not just by deleting everything that doesn't meet the criteria. It's surely better to work with editors to help improve articles than it is to simply delete contributions because they don't meet exact standards. I'm not advocating retaining anything that is inappropriate or does not meet the wiki rules, but my approach is always to help, not simply to delete and move on. You probably spent more time in an edit war with this minor contributor than it would have taken you to improve the article. I see this is your normal approach to most edits. Can I suggest a more positive attitude? TVArchivistUK (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI we are all volunteers here each with our own editing quirks. If you wish to cleanup after every little edit that is certainly your prerogative. There is no requirement that others edit the same way that you do. While I appreciate your sentiments it would be wise to be cautious in your telling others how they should edit. There are some editors that will react in ways that are not very nice. MarnetteD | Talk 17:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Interested

Someone recently added to the Kubrick article something about the forthcoming DVD of PofG and yes, that is very good to know. I'm a bit behind on the DVDs I have and am just a bit maxed out, but will still look into the B&N sale.

I was in grad school from Sep 03 to May 10 (not to mention on disability leave all of 2002) and had a few part time jobs and internships here and there, but am now once again a real working person. I am working as a substitute teacher currently about 4 days a week, and seem to be developing a kind of split personality depending on whether I am in a school where students are respectful and responsible or one where they are chronically rowdy and rambunctious. At the latter, I seem to be developing a strict mean marine sargeant persona and at the former I seem to be regarded as the suave, savvy, swinging, & mellow substitute. So I'm either a non-obscene version of Full Metal Jacket's Sargent Hartman or I am Nick Nolte's Alex Jurel in Teachers depending on where I am on a given day. I won't name places on a WP Talk page, but as I have your e-mail I may say more privately.

I have been accepted into the San Francisco Digital Film Institute's hands-on one-year immersion program, but want to earn some money and make a dent in my student loans before taking on a second loan, and so haven't entered. I have four relatives in the film industry (two now deceased- they and a third in the Internet Movie Database), so have a slight inside track, but like my secure income for the moment.

In grad school, I earned both a Master of Arts in Religion and Ethics (thesis on William Blake) and a Master of Divinity. I had considered being a Unitarian minister, and am now completely convinced that is something I just do not at all want to do. I was a software engineer for 21 years, although my undergrad degree is in European History.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 00:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and unrelated FYI

I really can't watch the Turner thing right now, I'm afraid.

Your recent revert to CloOrg was the second time someone in recent weeks tried to say one of the ex-droog police who picks up Alex was Billy Boy. I reverted the first, you reverted the second. As I noted in my own edit-sum on Round 1, it IS BilBoy in the novel, but NOT the film.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Grayssake

This guy's edits are a mess. I've issued him two warnings and am reverting everything he's done. Corvus cornix_talk 05:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Dungeon of Dr. Dreck doesn't seem like it's a notable film, so the prod is probably okay, but Michael Legge seems notable enough. Corvus cornix_talk 05:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in the West

I don't believe that all those other movies satisfy the criteria that you set for me for Sholay. Some of them have an incomplete reference to "Frayling", High Noon has a reference to an article that does not mention High Noon, and some have nothing. Actually, now that I read this again, its supposed to be films that came before "Once..." and were an inspiration for it, not the other way around, right? In that case, my edit was wrong, but the section could use better citations. BollyJeff || talk 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about some of the flaws and please feel free to prune the section or add "citation needed" tags as you wish. MarnetteD | Talk 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in the West Pt 2

Thank you for showing me Wikipedia:POINT, and I am sorry to have done that. However, I don't understand why you and RepublicanJacobite are ganging up on me over my edits. Here is the basic question that I have: How can you justify for example that Pirates, which is not even a western, be included in that list, just because it has 30 seconds of similar music, and Sholay, which is a western, and has maybe 10 minutes or more worth of scenes directly lifted from ...West, and also similar music, not be included? I have all three movies on disc and have seen them multiple times, so I know that I am right on this. Also, neither one has a valid reference, so why revert my good faith edits? I see that you are a senior editor, so please answer these questions that I may understand. BollyJeff || talk 13:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your question shows that you do not understand several of wikipedias policies. First, as you state "you have watchedall three movies ... multiple times" so your post is Original research. Since you are the one determining that the scenes are related to each other this also violates WP:SYNTHESIS. There are numerous films that have scenes that seem to be the same as those in another film. That does not necessarily mean that the makers of film A are referencing film B, or indeed that the have even seen the prior film. The only way that the info can be posted in the article is if you can find an interview with the makers of Sholay wherein they state that they were directly referencing Leone's film. Otherwise it is just your opinion (See WP:OPINION). Now that may be a well thought out one and be aware that there are numerous message boards and blogs on the net where your opinion can be posted - it is just that they don't belong in an encyclopedia. MarnetteD | Talk 17:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand. But tell me why is it okay for Kill Bill, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Australia, etc. to be listed there, when they do not have "an interview with the makers of" x "wherein they state that they were directly referencing Leone's film"? BollyJeff || talk 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with me. If you want them removed please start a discussion on the talk page for the film to try and gain a consensus for there removal or their inclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so that unverified data is alright with you only because it got in when you were not looking. Apparently I was just unlucky, thinking that the bar of verifiability was low on the page based on what was already there. I am not going to go to that kind of trouble to remove material; I would rather spend my time trying to add to articles. Since you are now protecting this page, which is also against WP policy, I will move on. Have a nice day. BollyJeff || talk 21:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. I just noticed that there are only 8 references for the entire article. That's really bad for an article of this size; meaning it is loaded with kind of stuff that you do not now allow. I might have stayed around and tried to improve the article since I like the film, but since I feel that I am being held to a double standard, perhaps not. BollyJeff || talk 22:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The War Games

Hi, I won't revert this edit of yours, indeed I nearly removed the entry myself: but why should it have been removed "yonks ago" when it's only been there since 10:15 today? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Whale Wars

.32 seconds to find a source via google. If there is something that is easy to source, please try to construct rather than destruct the encyclopedia to prove a point.--Terrillja _talk 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. As you have done today I am trying to assist a blocked user. If the info is accurate then putting it back in as fine. I was NOT trying to prove a point and your lack of AGF is not helping. I am in the middle of tracking a user from Florida who is doing damage to numerous articles as we write don't have time to do more than this. MarnetteD | Talk 22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have a second I was acting on the request of User:AussieLegend as you had done earlier today. I am glad that you were able to fix my inaccurate rvt. To make the claim that I was being pointy is out of line. I mean what point was I trying to make? MarnetteD | Talk 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The "problem" (if it can even be called that) had already been fixed before you showed up on the scene. If you had no time to look at the article and understand the history, then you had no business touching anything. There was nothing to fix, yet you decided that you had to do something. That is being disruptive to prove a point. Anytime you want to apologize for reverting my fix to the problem that was linked would be great.--Terrillja _talk 00:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not what showed up when I edited it. I mean how can I be making a point when I have never edited on the page in question before. Honest mistakes can occur here and, since I have had no interaction with you before, it would behoove you to try and understand that. If you will read my earlier post I have already apologized to you so I will ask you to acknowledge that fact and let this drop. MarnetteD | Talk 00:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)