User talk:Merry medievalist

Welcome!

Hello, Merry medievalist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 18:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Merry medievalist, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Merry medievalist! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Below Deck

	Nice to meet you ~
	Thanks for your edit ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summaries for Films

Hi, Merry Medievalist. I notice you have recently put lots of hard work into good faith edits expanding a number of short or incomplete "Plot summary" sections in film articles.

Just want to direct you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot, which adds some guidance on writing these summaries, including "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words" and "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail". Your recent summaries – such as your 2,400-word "summary" for the previously 200-word (definitely was a bit short) The Enchanted Cottage (1945 film), your 2,200-word "summary" for the previously 170-word (definitely had some room to expand) Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939 film), or your 3,000-word summary for the previously 600-word (a proper size) Black Narcissus – must have taken immense time and effort on your part. While this is a true dedication to the articles, it far surpasses the limits set out in Manual of Style (MOS), using 20 films' worth of words on just three films.

I reverted some of these WP:PLOTBLOAT items, and marked some others with "Template:Long plot". I hope you might take some time to readjust your information within the guidance of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot, and point out that your research is not lost, as you can use the "View History" option to see your previous expansions, providing you material to pull from if you do go back to do a a bit of expansion within the MOS guidelines. One tip to give you more words to use in the "Plot" section, is that the names of the actors playing the roles go into the "Cast" section; this will give you an additional 20 to 30 words of substance to add to the plot summary.

Your recent work on The Conquerors (1932 film) is a terrific example of the overall goal for any editor, taking a 400-word summary and adding clarity, detail and corrections that improved the article's summary considerably, while staying inside the 700-word normal limit.

I only wish I, or some other editor, had noticed earlier and given you this information, before you put what must have been a tremendous amount of time into all these over-expanded "summaries". Thanks again for your enthusiasm and dedication to the Wikipedia project. Jmg38 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your edit to the note on Looper was technically incorrect. As noted above, WP:FILMPLOT stipulates a maximum word count of 700 words, not 600. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Merry medievalist: I wanted to chime in on this too.

I am watching Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939 film), and I started reading its plot. I saw the tag that the plot is too detailed. I read with an eye to see if I agreed. I was so impressed with your writing, I didn't have the heart to delete any of it.

For better or for worse, we have agreed upon rules, and some--like the word count limit on plot--may seem arbitrary. When new editors make good faith edits (like yours) and bump up against the rules, the experience with volunteers who enforce those rules can at times be an unpleasant experience. Not everyone is as thoughtful in their responses as Jmg38. I have seen talented people who have exceptional knowledge of a content area leave Wikipedia in disgust, because they were not given the respect and deference they felt they deserved--a respect they may routinely get in their field of expertise in real life.

Your writing is so good, I very much hope you will stick around. We need more editors with your writing prowess. (I am assuming it's your writing and not plagiarism.)

If you run up against editors who are telling you that you are breaking rules and you feel you have been unfairly or rudely treated, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, and I will try to help you work through it. Other editors can help too at the Teahouse and other places, if I am unavailable.

I have an advice section for new editors at the top of my user page that may be of help if you encounter conflict here. Happy editing. I hope you stay. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do see that you have almost 2,000 edits and started in 2015, but have not been active until about January 2019. So you are not exactly a "new editor", but would be classified as an Apprentice Editor. I probably wouldn't have spent so much time writing the above response if I had noticed your edit history is as long as it is. Anyway, the offer above to help still stands. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing my messages and I am sorry to see I never thanked you for this. Hope late is better than never.

This is serendipitous, because I may need your help. TCM recently aired the restored version of the 1934 silent film “Enchanted Cottage”. I looked it up on Wikipedia and found a plot that was inexplicably riddled with important errors of fact. I wrote a replacement, following the film, sticking to less than 700 words. Someone undid it, citing “plot bloat.” I have just reverted to my version, but I doubt it will stop there. By this person's reasoning, the plot in the WP article on Casablanca should be drastically cut.

As you know, I have been using Wikipedia for many years, and not only for film history. But when it comes to film history, I am not alone in turning to WP because it can be trusted in ways that fan sites—IMDB included—cannot be, and because WP does not balk at spoilers.

We are able to search for important points in works of art—particularly when the many versions are so dramatically different—and find answers that other online resources do not provide, particularly when it comes to denouements. The different versions of the [[Three Godfathers]] story—on paper and on screen—come to mind. Some may use WP to decide whether to watch a film, or which version to watch—I would cite Three Godfathers again.

Wikipedia is also the only place where one can note the errors of fact made by contemporary reviewers or by TCM. (I have caught a few of those.)

To get back to The Enchanted Cottage. I would argue—as if any argument were necessary— that it deserves the best possible treatment because it has only just been released in its restored form. The You-Tube version was unwatchable.

Managing Wikipedia is a massive task. 10 years ago I assumed significant contributions were reviewed by an Editor and either critiqued or given a thumbs up. Unfortunately, there has been a steady increase in what we used to call “blue-pencil syndrome”—the irresistible impulse to make unnecessary changes. (Yes, I was a professional writer and editor.) I am not just talking about my own work. There is also a proliferation of articles that are rife with errors of grammar and usage but have not been flagged by an editor. Sometimes one can copy-edit such things, but often one needs knowledge of the subject to figure out what the author is trying to say.

Recently, I have come across a number of ancient hatnotes. Some “citations needed” had been remedied years before. I removed them. Some “long plots” had not been addressed.

I copied the plots and edited them in a program that shows word count and retains links, then pasted the edited versions into the articles. This may appear as if I rewrote the pieces from scratch (and sometimes I did), but I learned the hard way that editing on the page itself is an invitation to disaster—the loss of hours of work.

This has turned into an Apologia. I conclude by paraphrasing the immortal [[Judith Martin]] of The Washington Post, who famously observed that giving advice about grammar, spelling, or punctuation guaranteed making one or more errors in the same.

Thanks for “listening”. This has been on my chest for a while… Merry medievalist (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

von Sternberg ariticle

I noticed your corrections on the article. I am going to be re-editing the films of King Vidor soon, with some suitable sources, Brownlow, Baxter et al. Would you mind putting the Vidor article on your watchlist? would appreciate your observations/edits as needed. Lord Such&Such (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for never getting back to you with thanks for this. Merry medievalist (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sons of Katie Elder

I was just reading through the work you did on that article. I loved it. Thank you. — Ched (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Audience scores such as those from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are not allowed, per WP:USERGENERATED. Do not add them to Wikipedia articles as you did in the article The Sons of Katie Elder.[1] -- 20:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also Memoirs_of_a_Geisha_(film). [2] -- 109.77.210.114 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Fitzgerald under FA review

I have nominated Zelda Fitzgerald for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. As you edited this article in the past, your input there and further contributions to the article would be appreciated. — Flask (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your superb work on Ice Station Zebra. Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul have brought renewed interest to this old, forgotten film. If it wasn’t for your improvements, we wouldn’t have much to go on. Thank you again for your commitment to quality film articles. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Merry medievalist (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Alun Armstrong, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it! Merry medievalist (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

When you add a new fact to Wikipedia, please also add a WP:Reliable source that verifies the fact. See WP:V for more information about this key policy. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What fact, please. I have been citing madly for years (just received access to the library) , so I would really like to know where I slipped up. Merry medievalist (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of a Nazi Spy

Hi Merry medievalist. Thanks for reducing the plot summary of Confessions of a Nazi Spy. I've put the tag back on it because I think it is still too long. Please don't take that personally. It is definitely better than it was before you edited it. DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right, I wax going to work on it more off line, and life got in the way. I'll fix it. Thanks for letting me know Merry medievalist (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is under the limit. 696 words, so I won't work on it anymore. But I still thank you in principle. Merry medievalist (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Busman's Honeymoon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my response to Michael Maggs

Hi Michael,

You recently reverted an addition I made to Busman's Honeymoon because it “lacked a reliable source” . The reliable source was the Wikipedia article about the series. I have copied the entry below so you can follow the link.

In 7 years editing Wikipedia , this is the first time I have seen anyone suggest that it was necessary to add a formal citation of a WP page in addition to the internal links to Wikipedia articles. If that is true, a vast number of paragraphs need to be revised, including the one to which I appended this information, which relies on the link to Edward Petherbridge's WP article.

“(Petherbridge starred as Lord Peter in A Dorothy L. Sayers Mystery, a 1987 televised adaptation of all the Harriet Vane novels except Busman's Honeymoon. The BBC could not obtain the rights. )” Merry medievalist (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also curious to know why you reverted the text instead of employing a “citation needed” note. I would never do that unless the text concerned was problematic in some other way. Merry medievalist (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merry medievalist You're right, and I've reverted myself. I think I saw the unsourced statement "The BBC could not obtain the rights" without noticing that A Dorothy L. Sayers Mystery was in blue and was a thus a link to a separate page where the information could be found. Apologies. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! Merry medievalist (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Flame Within (film)

Hey, I've removed the "Reception" section that you just added. Adding too many quotes like you just did presents two problems. Firstly, it violates Wikipedia:Overquoting. Secondly, it could be considered a copyright violation. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing says Extensive use of quotation from non-free sources is generally not acceptable. Even if content is attributed, it can still create copyright problems if the taking is too substantial. To avoid this risk, Wikipedia keeps this—like other non-free content—minimal. You are welcome to add the content back with less quotes if you please. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. — The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 19:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did that in July Merry medievalist (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James A. FitzPatrick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natchez.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is Natchez on the Mississippi, not Natchez, Mississippi. Lacking the video to review, there is no way to tell which is meant. Merry medievalist (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]