User talk:Before My Ken/archives 9 Nov-Dec 2008

ARCHIVE PAGE 9: NOVEMBER - DECEMBER 2008

Wow
You're so much more patient than I am. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I brushed up the Garbo/Brooks language and added more detailed refs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, good, direct sourcing, excellent. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So what are we going to have to do to keep it that way? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow indeed, Ed!    I think you are certainly the most patient transexual I've ever met!  Rossrs (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait till you meet my twin the transgendered tuna trainer . The patience he has with those fish! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Vitaliy Versace
I found a mis-speling of the actor article as "Vitaliy versace", and so was able to correct the redlink thusly: Vitaliy Versace. But then I discovered that User:Vitaliy9 diff and anonymous IP 76.233.85.235diff are SPA accounts that are doing nothing else but making sure Vitaliy is getting his name in all his projects already on Wiki... and with "Vitaliy9" editing the Vitialy Versace informations, it seems exceeding likely that with have a definite COI problem here. And with IP "76.233.85.235" doing the same edits at the same timediff, I feel certain that they are the same user. Sadly, and COI aside, it may be that this actor does have notability, though minor. Should this article go up for deletion? Or should he be advised that COI should have him not edit his article?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the article with my concerns for COI and Notability, and have left messages of concerns on the article's talk page and the talk pages of the two SPA accounts.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think these are all seperate issues, and need to be dealt with seperately by different mechanisms. The COI issue is independent of whether the actor is notable, and the inclusion of the actor's name on any particular cast list is about their role or function in the film, and not about their notability or whether they have an article.  Not every actor with an article is included in the cast list of every film they appeared in, and not every actor who is listed has an article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll watch it for a while. If notability is not asserted or sourced, I might tag it for an A7 speedy.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with this reversion diff. A cast does not list everyone who was in a film... simply the major players of note... and this guy is NOT of note. Best  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to explain...
this, since your edit lacked a summary? --67.155.253.248 (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, right after you explain why you deleted them. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As my edit summary stated, they were superfluous (i.e. "unnecessary"). To elaborate, none of the links were reliable, I mean we had anglefire.com, an unofficial website, starpages.com, a video clip of her from revver.com, a link to TV.com (which I think  can be edited just like Wikipedia), and a website that shows a bunch of cartoons of the characters in the show she was in.  None of those add anything to the article, nor do they pass WP:EL or WP:RS.  Also, your lack of an edit summary is a little frustrating. --67.155.253.248 (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to frustrate you. You seem to be saying that the links shouldn't be there because they are not reliable sources, so why not say that?  "Superfluous" doesn't mean "unnecessary", it  means "unnecessary because redundant or already covered elsewhere".  I reverted because the links were not in any way superfluous, and none seemed harmful to me.  If you want to push the issue, please feel free, but just so you know, I'd probably dig my heels in about the TV.com. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, honestly, when links fail a policy like that, they are unnecessary to me. I shall try to clearer in the future.  Is this a good compromise? --67.155.253.248 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems OK to me. Elsewhere, though, I see you deleted links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic -- those have been discussed and are considered reliable sites, I believe. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed and reverted, if you look those links are already in the article as direct inline citations. Also, the tag was a good faith tag, there are a whole bunch of WP:ELs in the article.  If you disagree, bring it to the talk page, or at least give me the benefit of an explanation of your edit while reverting. --67.155.253.248 (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, and now, why aren't you editing under your ID? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Forced wikibreak (which isn't working out so well). --67.155.253.248 (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you mean you're editing under an IP because your ID has been blocked, right? Can I suggest you stop, if you don't want to be reported for sockpuppetry?  Take the break, everyone needs one at one time or another. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean I am on a forced wikibreak (i.e. WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer). --67.155.253.248 (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, the advice still stands -- take a break, really, it'll be good for you all around.  I live in NYC, which I love, but which is very intense and can, after a while, really start to grind you down. Whenever I had the chance to work out of town, I always came back to the city with a renewed appreciation for its value, and was able to more easily cope with things.  Wikipedia's like that - it's a place of great value and almost unlimited potential, but it's also a place full of niggling problems, annoying behaviors and people with limited imaginations, and those things can start to overwhelm everything else after a while. So, give yourself a breather, refresh yourself and walk away for a while - I think you'll be better off for it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AGF
Ed Fitzgerald, you recently criticized another editor about lack of civility in resolving a disagreement over article content. I agree with you that civility is essential, but you may be creating an impression of your edits that contradicts that guideline. My perception of some of the discussion threads is one of antagonism on a number of parties' parts not entirely attributable to anyone's positions on the issues. Please be careful of how people may respond to edit summaries of "ridiculous" or "unwarranted", or creating the impression that you think another editor's work is "b.s.". I like a lot of your edits and your industry and skill in working on film articles is wonderful, so please be aware of how some of your communications may come across to others. Jim Dunning | talk  23:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jim: Thanks for the tip, I appreciate it. You're right that "ridiculous" and "b.s." are borderline, but I'd take issue with "unwarranted", which I only use when removing tags.  It's not necessarily a criticism of the editor who placed the tag to call it "unwarranted", because the situation may have changed since that time.  For instance, an editor puts an "unreferenced" tag on an article, people add references but neglect to remove the tag, I come along and there's a "this article has no references" banner on an article which clearly has references, so I remove it saying it's "unwarranted", which is true. Nevertheless, I'll try to be more circumspect in my edit summaries.  As I'm sure you've experienced, editing Wikipedia can sometimes be a frustrating experience, and sometimes it's hard to suppress it sufficiently to be judicious!  Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just happened to notice your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films. It is unacceptably pejorative, and not at all collegial. I suggest you not comment about contributors that way in future, the points Jim make are very apt. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lar: Thanks for your comment. I've looked again at my comment, and I don't find it particularly objectionable in the context of some of the remarks directed at me, or describing my actions, in the course of the discussion.  In fact, in some ways, I think it shows a bit of restraint considering John's posting, in a number of places, that I was "stonewalling" to preserve "cruft" in articles, and his numerous rather snarky personal comments during the discussion.  But I do thank you for bringing a third-party POV to my attention, and I will try to maintain an even greater level of composure. I assume you've posted a companion comment on John's talk page? Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your characterization of your remarks (Often, one is not the best person to evaluate one's own remarks, after all), and stand by my assessment of the particular one I highlighted. However, I'm glad you plan to take this advice to heart. In response to your question: No, I have not. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, we disagree then, and you've brought nothing to the discussion but your, apparently somewhat biased, opinion, so I think we can wrap this up. Collegially yours, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi Ed. I've opened a request for comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett It's fairly self-explanatory, I think. I'd welcome your input. I'll just say that based on perusing the editor's talk page, I felt like this was a better approach than trying to discuss it, and partly since he's not bothered to respond to my note about it. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mickey Rooney
Hi and thanks so much for your response on the Cate Blanchett issue. Rossrs and I have been trying to discuss an issue located at Talk:Mickey Rooney. We'd both like your perspective on the newest issue this week. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look, but the water looked quite deep considering the limits on my available time right now, so I don't think I'll be contributing -- sorry. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia
Ed, sorry to bother you. You queried here what I meant by "encyclopedic purpose", and I admit I had difficulty at that point assuming good faith. I know you've been around for a while and I know you know we are writing an encyclopedia. I am wondering if you are purposely winding me up by raising what seems, excuse me, like a rather disingenuous question. I'm really sorry we seem to have have hit it off so badly; I honestly hold no personal animus against you, but it seems we always find ourselves in opposition. Some of the comments you've made about me seem a bit below the belt; I note from your user page that you're currently "disappointed" and so I hope I'm not adding to your sense of disappointment in editing here, but I humbly apologize for any offense I've given, and I respectfully ask that you endeavor to behave as though you think I was here to improve the encyclopedia. We can differ in our views on the degree of coverage we accord to the popular culture reflections of an iconic movie, without descending to character assassination I hope. Please think about it, accept my apology and let's move onwards. --John (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * John, thanks for your words of apology, but they would be somewhat more appreciated if you showed any awareness that you've been "hitting below the belt" at me for quite a while now. According to you, in numerous posts, I've been "stonewalling" to include "cruft" in articles.  (I could dig up other examples, and you an probably recall them with a bit of thought, but my time is a bit limited.) How was that assuming my good faith, John? But, look, I agree that such commentary is neither productive nor really interesting, and is not what we're here about.  If you look at my last post on the Talk:Dr. Strangelove pagem you'll see that my comment questioning the meaning of "encyclopedic" was a genuine question and not intended as an attack on you.  I'm not familiar with your editing record on Wikipedia, but I know you've been around for a long time, and I assume that you couldn't have survived for so long, and become an admin, if you weren't contributing in positive ways to the project.  I hope you can make the same assumptions about my contributions, or that you've checked them out for yourself.  That two such contributors can disagree, both about specifics and general principles, is hardly Wikinews, but I have no doubt that we also agree on many things.  I hope that in the future when we do disagree, we can do so politely and without recourse to personal commentary. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

JGB
Hey, thanks for concurring with my argument on the JG Ballard talk page and reverting your reversion. I figured you just didn't notice the talk page section the first time around. Given how often editors change that sentence in good faith, I should probably explicitly reference the source for the statement. With a major new source now available in JGB's autobiography, the whole bio might be due for a revision anyway. Good work on cleaning up the formatting and things like that, too! Thanks. Snarkibartfast (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Like everyone else, I screw up, but I like to think that I can (at least at times) recognize when I do and reverse course.  Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing the trivia tag
Have you actually read WP:TRIVIA as I requested? Please do so, as it will explain why the tag is valid. If you do not have the time or the interest in reworking that list into a proper prose "Production" section, please leave the tag in place so that others can take it upon themselves to do so. Your constant reverting of a valid tag is not helpful. Rhindle The Red (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:TRIVIA. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you understand my point? I only asked whether you had read that article because you did not respond to my previous inquiry, but simply reverted the tag. Do you intend to leave the tags alone? Rhindle The Red (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you place a tag in an inappropriate place, and I happen to see it, then I will almost certainly remove it. There's no reason to leave a tag which concerns itself with lists of "miscellaneous items" on a list of items which are related by subject matter. I suggest you take a look at WP:TRIVIA yourself. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The trivia tag
The bit you are missing is that the issue is not the content itself, it's the list. Lists are generally bad if they can be reworked into prose. This is something you appear unwilling or unable to do, so please leave the tags in place so someone else can handle it. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid you're wrong. While lists are often better if they're prosified, it's not "lists" per se that are discouraged and the subject of the "trivia" tag, it's lists of miscellaneous items.  Please check WP:TRIVIA to see how you've confused two separate issues.  Many thanks, and happy editing. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Typographic changes
The ‘’’ character is the proper apostrphe. ‘'’ is just a typewriter substitute. Anyway, ‘can’t’ probably should not be used in an encyclopædical article, but ‘cannot’.


 * Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam
When an editor goes through and spams 50 articles in ten minutes I consider that vandalism. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes it spam, perhaps, but it's still not vandalism. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The action of spamming so many articles in such a short space of time makes it an act of vandalism. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Really. Where does it say that? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, don't bother to respond. I'm not interested in talking with you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You're doing God's work!
Hey, great job with all you're doing (especially with restoring things that some over-zealous editors are removing.) GREAT JOB! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.242.200 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

just wanted to mention...
many of your edits are being reverted without comment or notes.

Thanks for the notice, Ed
I've since replied in the AN/I against William. Imperious? Really? No - really? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(Note: Placed here by mistake, meant for User:EdJohnston Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Oops. sorry about that, Mr. Fitzgerald. I guess you also often get his newspapers and utility bills as well? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but unfortunately never his paychecks! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

American
Sorry, Ed, it's nothing personal, I certainly wasn't stalking you. I came across this while disambiguating links that incorrectly directed to American (word), which happened to have been made largely by you. Some of your more specific links may be appropriate (especially for the films) but linking to cinema of the United States at such places as Claude Rains is not accurate, since he was not just a film actor but a theater actor as well. (And in that particular case, why not a more specific link for English.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Claude Rains is known because he made films, not because he did plays. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

BASEketball
Well, I reckon there's a good reason to make threatening comments towards people who made one move. For the life of me, I can't imagine any reason, but you must have a pretty good one. Unless you were just being uncivil for no reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Informing you that your behavior could result in blocking isn't a threat or uncivil, it's meant to be helpful information. If you think I've been uncivil, please feel free to report me. Oh, and you moved the article twice. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm lost as to why "moving an article against consensus" is a blockable offense (mostly because it isn't). If I was repeatedly moving it in a short period of time and edit warring maybe, but "disagreeing with you" is not exactly a reason to threaten a block, and the only way a threat that I may be blocked would be if you assumed bad faith. Which is a big no-no. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me a break -- I'm not an admin, go I can't block you, so I can't threaten to block you. If you believe that continuing to move an article against consensus is not blockable, then you've obviously got nothing to worry about.  Now, go away, please, and don't darken my door again. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Four Power Vienna
Ed, did you ever see a map of four power Vienna? It has two Russian zones, two British zones, an American zone, a French zone, and an international zone. Was there any reason why you had to revert to the less accurate term 'four zones'?
 * It's irrelevant as far as the film is concerned. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed "four". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Dr. Strangelove
John and Ed... knock it off. These edits, , and  are edit warring. Reverting something with a comment like "(Undid revision 252414006 by John (talk) as per discussion, no source required, straightforward description of a media item)" would require that there BE discussion on the talk page. I don't see it, Ed. Reverting something with a comment like "(rvv)" would require that the previous edit be actual vandalism, not just a good faith disagreement, John. You both know better... Bring the disagreement to the talk page and talk it through. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Janet Waldo photo.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Janet Waldo photo.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Britneysaints (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:World Henry Orient Tippy Walker.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:World Henry Orient Tippy Walker.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Britneysaints (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stewartmrsmith.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stewartmrsmith.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Garion96 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

your comments
I see you are disappointed with Wikipedia. If your approach is the one you have taken in calling my edit summary "snide," I can understand why. Why the hostility? Others have as much right to edit as you.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. Have a nice day. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Marketing
Hello, I am working on adding a "Marketing" component to MOS:FILM, and I think it would be proper to merge the "Tagline" component into this. In the process, I've reworded the guidelines about taglines to be clearer about excluding them from the lead section and suggesting an alternate placement. Can you let me know what you think? The draft is here. Thanks! — Erik (talk • contrib) 19:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Reminder to myself...
...to make the exhibit I promised to show why the spacers are useful. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Most Dangerous Game
The film is cited as public domain by several reviewers, including DVD Beaver. There are several low-quality, low-priced DVD issues from various distributors. It is likely available on the Internet Archive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

Bacall-Bogart-Fonda photo
I like your tight crop -- makes it even more dramatic. Thanks! Cool photo, no?

Full agreement on the general frustrations of dealing with Wikipricks -- I've also had unpleasant run-ins with the Future Perfect dude.

Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I like it too. I'm glad you found it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!
Hi, Ed! I know it's been quite some time since we last communicated and that my activity around here has been pathetically low the past several months, but I just wanted to drop by and wish you a Happy Thanksgiving Day!!! :)

I just realized that it's been a little over a year since I first joined the 'pedia. . . Wow! But y'know what they say, "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." :) You have always been willing to collaborate with me, and for that I am forever grateful.

I regret that my inactivity here will continue for quite awhile, as my schedule has become increasingly busy, what with school, extracurricular activities, and health issues regarding my mother and myself. Regardless, I sincerely hope you enjoy yourself this holiday season! :) See ya around!  :D  &mdash; Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 16:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cinemaniac: Nice to hear from you!  Don't worry about the ebb and flow of your contributions -- after all, it's not a job, it's an avocation.  I've cut back quite a bit myself due to work constraints. I hope your holidays are pleasant and restful (something I've found a little difficult to achieve for myself!).  Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A Night at the Opera
Ed Fitzgerald, I do not understand why you reverted my removal of "Notes" from this article. Philip Cross (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The "References" section in that article encompasses both "Notes" (i.e. numbered superscripted in-line citations enumerated at the end of the article) and "Sources". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments welcome
Would you care to coment or contibute at the new discussions at where it is being determined just what parts of IMDB might be considered "generally reliable" and which parts might not? Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

JRR Tolkien
I made numerous changes to JRR Tolkien, would you please at least delineate which were, in your opinion, unproductive? Anarchangel (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The reformatting of quotes out of blockquotes. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks. Why? Anarchangel (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the quotes were selected for the importance of what they say, and integrating them into the body of the paragraph obscures them rather than focusing attention on them. For this reason the blockquoting is preferable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting every quote on JRR Tolkien in block does not jibe with the rest of Wikipedia. They're just quotes. In what way are these quotes beyond the ordinary? Blockquotes reduce the amount of space taken up by text in the article if the quote is a large one.From block quotation lead paragraph: "A block quotation, also known as a long quotation, block quote or extract, is a quotation in a written document, set off from the main text as a distinct paragraph or block. It is typically used for a longer passage than a run-in quotation, which is set off with quotation marks." Single sentence quotes look abandoned, and they take up more space, both because they are surrounded by two lines of blank space. Aesthetic sense, space considerations, and standard practice, in order of importance, indicate that these quotes would be better in quotation marks. Your contention that these quotes are exceptional in some way is not automatically invalidated by these, but it is contended pretty strongly, and in the absence of strong reasoning of the exceptional nature of the quotes, I will have to stick with my original reasoning. Anarchangel (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for expressing your opinion. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your response lacks a key element of cooperation; responding to assertions (WP:EQ). Have you anything to add? Anarchangel (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Palm Beach Story poster.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Palm Beach Story poster.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Britneysaints (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ida Lupino photo.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ida Lupino photo.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Britneysaints (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Miriam Hopkins photo.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Miriam Hopkins photo.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Britneysaints (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ed Fitzgarald
Dear Ed Fitzgerald,

I am so amused that you undid my paltry edit of “Miranda”. I laughed out loud at your comment of “nah, awkward hyper-grammaticism”. I am a pedant and have never before encountered  the expression “hyper-grammaticism. “ I love it. I am guilty of it. My edits show my age and the tradition “in which I was educated”. [Never end a sentence with a preposition.] I am not offended by your “undoing” of me at all. I am so pleased to know that there is someone “out there” who likes this film. It is a film I enjoy and am so pleased that you care about it too. Enough to “undo” me. Bless you, and “undo” my edits to your heart’s content.

ProxxtProxxt (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

G&S operas
This has been discussed to death. There is a Wikipedia project that has created over 300 G&S articles, and there is consistency on this point in Wikipedia. There is plenty of good authority for calling them operas, most importantly, respecting the wishes of the authors. I never understand why editors who do not participate in a WP project decide to just do their own thing. See Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, so G&S aficianados have decided that, unlike the rest of the Western world, they will call G&S's works "operas" instead of "operettas". I look forward to following your efforts to bend the remainder of the world to your will.  Happy editing. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. When you come calling, please remember to respect my wishes that my pet four-legged mammal which goes "meow" is called a dog. Oh, and let's notify the opera project that they must include all of Robert Wilson's works in their purview, since he calls them "operas" as well. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminder to myself...
...to make the exhibit I promised to show why the spacers are useful. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a history of valued contributions, but I disagree with you on the spacing issue, as did others in your talk archive. Until you show the specific browser issue you are trying to correct, there is no apparent value in the non-standard spacing that you insert into articles and I will correct it as I come across it.  davewho2 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dave: Thanks for continuing to prompt me about this. I've begun to build a demonstration of the purpose of the additional spacing, which you will find here.  Any comments you may have can be placed on its talk page.  Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jokes?
Can I ask why you reverted my edit here? You said "rem joke link", but the point is... well, the character's name was a joke (and one which would have been more immediately understood in the 1970s); this is a link which explains that joke. Shouldn't we include the link, then? DS (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong link, you mean this. I've changed my mind, and self-reverted to restore your link. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Palm Beach Story McCrea Colbert.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Palm Beach Story McCrea Colbert.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Britneysaints (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Palm Beach Story
I made some different alterations to your version of the page. They reflect a couple basic changes, but I repositioned some of the images, that perhaps might help. You know my predilection for images not lagging over sections, and I won't be offended if you change that. I probably will be offended if she does. I also took out that insufferable deleted image note that Britney keeps returning. I have a huge issue with her not liking the McCrea-Colbert image, so she nominated it for deletion. Bad faith. Besides, like I've said, it is as valid as any on the Commons page. This is an old issue I've come across with this editor before. Her version is better in her opinion, but the rationale is generally lacking in content or logic. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ed, I think the article was fine before Britney started messing with it. You know I don't always agree with you, ("I have a feeling you may not agree with me entirely"), and I tell you when I don't, but I think you've put up with more bad attitude in recent edits to this article, than you should have to deal with.


 * Wildhartlivie, when you say "I've come across with this editor before", are you saying Britney isn't Britney?  Because I have my doubts.   There are a few issues here, but it's dripping with bad faith.   Rossrs (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, dear. I've dealt with Britneysaints before, or rather, I should say I've tried to deal with him/her before. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too. But what I meant was... before I go to work in the morning I put on my shoes and Britneys....   Rossrs (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see if you can hear my intercontinental groan on that one. Besides, a lot of people have come across... oh, never mind. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I heard a distant rumbling. Rossrs (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My thanks to both of you for your support. I took a quick look at the article and it seems fine to me, but I'll look more closely tomorrow, when I'll have more time -- tonight it's time to examine my bed! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Rossrs (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the layout and the sizes a bit. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You folks should also check out this - nominations of images of Ida Lupino and Miriam Hopkins for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did and I commented. My only comment on what you changed on the Palm Beach Story would be the positioning of the image on the left side below a sub-heading. I'm not fussed over any of it, though, just trying to help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also did. I've added further comments regarding the Palm Beach image, and I think the Louise Brooks image should be kept, so I have commented there also.  Even assuming good faith as far as I can, I don't think it's likely that we'll be able to have any kind of meaningful discussion with BS.  I've noticed that many edits/comments are copied and pasted from the comments of other editors, and in some cases from policies/guidelines - that's OK, we all do it sometimes - but there's nothing original to suggest any kind of interpretation or discernment.  Any original comments, make no sense to me, like the YouTube/TCM comment.  That's just plain wrong, and whatever point was being made, I couldn't comprehend it, and I did sincerely try to work out what he/she was trying to say.   As for the other images, I'm conflicted.  I think it's highly unlikely that those images would have been randomly discovered unless the editor involved went looking for them.  The editor hasn't edited either of the articles, but finds the two images at the same time.  So, now my assuming good faith is stretched even further.  Unfortunately you and I have discussed those images before, and I was borderline and prepared to accept your viewpoint but I feel that neither article has been expanded to the point that either image is mandatory.  I see your point, I truly do, but I'm also trying to relate it to image use policy and I believe it falls short.


 * Think of another actress - unusual first name, played fluttery characters, dead a long time (I'm not naming her because if I do I suspect we'll see another image listed for deletion). I uploaded a free image of her, with the intention of using it in the cast section of the film article.  It's a terrible image, and fails to convey anything about her.  There's no better free image, but a lovely unfree image which you later uploaded.  In that case, I think the unfree image wins hands down, and I wouldn't try to remove it.  The free image, in all its awfulness is sitting in the middle of the article where it is not really hurting anyone.  In the case of the other two ladies, I see it differently.  I think choosing free images over unfree is an important aim, although I don't always agree with the narrow-minded viewpoint in some discussions.  To put my opinion simply, if there are two images, one free and one unfree that both fall broadly within the category of "satisfactory", I would choose a low-quality-satisfactory image over a better-quality-satisfactory image.  That's what I think we have here.   Yes, one of them is crappy, to use your own description, but it does the job.  It doesn't do the job as well, but it does it just the same.   So I'm conflicted, because I think the main reason they've been listed is because you uploaded them, and that's not acceptable.   I won't participate in the deletion discussion, as I think it was a bad faith nomination.  Much rather keep it to a friendly chat between two (well three here) mostly-like-minded editors.  Rossrs (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect anything less from you than an honest evaluation, and I knew that we had somewhat different perspectives on the Lupino and Hopkins pics -- but honest disagreement, along with collegial working compromises among good-faith editors, are something I have absolutely no problem with, being the grease that makes Wikipedia work. That's clearly not the case with these nominations, though, as you say.  As far as I can tell, images are being nominated simply because I uploaded them, or am involved in the editing of the article involved (this is the case with the Louise Brooks image).  I haven't been making a case of this to date, preferring to deal with each image as if the nomination was in good faith, but I shall do so before long, when the evidence will, I think, be quite clear, and damning. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... looking through BS's edit history you have to go back to December 2 to find an article (I'm Not So Tough) that you are not involved in. I'd love to say "take it as a compliment" but you ain't gonna buy that, are you?  Rossrs (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah...probably not. What about the wooly footwear issue? The editing pattern looks to me like someone who's switched over to another identity in the middle of an editing session -- is there any way you can think of to identify who this could possibly be? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a similarity in style, content and attitude with this editor and several others that I believe to be the same user. Requests for checkuser perhaps?  Rossrs (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be game for that, if you're willing to hold off until next week - I finish my current gig shortly, and will have a bit more time available. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That suits me.  I'm happy to potter about here doing bits and pieces, as time allows,  but to embark on something like that I'd prefer to be fully available.  Until the New Year, I'm not sure if I'll be here a little or a lot. Rossrs (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I noted a bit of an agenda here myself. BUT I am so very pleased to see that someone managed to pare away bits and pieces of Angela Lansbury. I keep saying it - people have been trying to do that for years!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had another go at Polly Bergen, sans Angela Lansbury. Just for fun, I'm now thinking of adding Angela Lansbury to a few images.  Opinions welcome, of course. Rossrs (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good, hair less spotty than mine, and the guy on the left out. Still looks like a deer who's seen better days caught in the headlights, but until she passes on or someone takes another shot of her...  (You'd think some of these celebs and ex-celebs would make pictures available so they weren't badly represented on Wikipedia.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Film article infoboxes
Appreciate the comments, though I only chose to format the infoboxes in that way, based on other film pages I had seen. So it wasn't personal preference, rather, I thought most infoboxes were preferred to be edited that way. I don't know whether I can change all of them again, but I'll try. Blackjanedavey (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Spacing after first paragraph
I noticed that you reverted my edits to Powell and Pressburger and A Matter of Life and Death (film), where I removed blank space after the first paragraphs (as well as a comment asking that I leave that blank space). Leaving a line after the first paragraph isn't standard practice on this wiki (for example, the major pages United States, Water and Central processing unit do not have them), so I was wondering why this was. It's probably just a matter of personal preference, and it doesn't affect the quality of the article either way, but I'd like an explanation. LiamUK (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing for an explanation. Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image
You might want to check the source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that when I uploaded it, and couldn't figure out why it was happening. I tried a few things to fix it, but struck out, then was distracted and had to leave for some hours.  On top of that I compounded the problem by uploading the wrong image.  Instead of putting up the one I had taken from the trailer at Spout and cleaned up a bit, I uploaded the very similar image (for the same scene) that had previously been deleted from WP.  So I've now tried to cut through the b.s. by re-uploading the correct image, and nominating the previous upload for deletion.  What a mess.   It's too bad that the old shot couldn't have been used, since it's cleaner than what I ended up with. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Welllll, in my mind it was a bad faith deletion nomination to start. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably so, but I could kick myself for making it easier by uploading the wrong image. In any case, I just uploaded another, which I think might be a bit better, and have inserted it into the article, replacing the previous one. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I've had a look at the tomfoolery. They spring up like weeds don't they? Were there several versions made of the trailer? I know this could be the case, but I don't specifically know about this film. The trailer looks vintage but the voice-over and text appear more recent. I'll give it some thought, and wait for your clarification. I may not be here much over the next few days, but I'll try to check in and see how things are going. I don't know if you observe Christmas but if you do, I wish you a merry one. If you don't - I wish you a happy holiday. Rossrs (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays
My best wishes.....it's me Lou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.160.121 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! My best to you for the holidays as well. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandinista!
If you would be so kind, would you please revert the recent anonymous edit to this article? I would do it myself, but a condition of 1RR is in place, and I would be in violation. As the user has violated said condition, and has promised to continue to do so, I am going to request he be blocked (again), and the page protected. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed! I am supposed to be on Wikibreak right now, preparing to travel down to New Orleans.  But, as the man said, just when I think I am out, they drag me back in!  Cheers to you for the New Year! --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Third Man
Hi there. Could you explain me why there is a space needed there and nowhere else on the film articles?... Klow (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The spacing is needed between the lede section and the table of contents (or between the external links and the navboxes at the bottom) because of a rendering problem with Internet Explorer that butts these items up against each other if there isn't a space there. The problem is not seen with Firefox or Safari. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

DVD BS
Hmm. Gee, Ed, are you a girl? That would be the only explanation I could come up with for having gay love for ya!! Surely they will do something? Resolve it with the editor?? Puh-leeze! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey you two crazy, gay, transsexual, highschool, teenaged film fans!!!   I'm interested to see what more you could possibly do to try to resolve this.  Short of juggling and riding a unicycle, I can't think of anything you haven't tried.    Once we get past this busy time of year, we really need to look at that check user option.  Rossrs (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Most definitely! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Twentieth Century (film) Edit
Would you kindly explain your reasoning for undoing my edit to Twentieth Century (film) wherein I added credits for the writers (Ager & Yellen) of the song Happy Days Are Here Again which was featured in the film (source IMDB)? BuffaloBob (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, the song is sung a capella by one of the characters, and is not a major element in the film, so mention of the song's writers in the infobox is not warranted. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

(My unblock request) Hello, I would appreciate a review the circumstances of this block, please.

Although I do not deny that 3RR was breached, I would point out that, as shown by both my edit summaries and my comments on Talk:Casablanca (film), I continually attempted to get the other editors involved – User:2005 and User:DreamGuy – to discuss the disputed material, which had been in the article since August without controversy – but instead they continued to delete it without any discussion. My reverts were made in the course of attempting to return the article to the existing status quo while awaiting a discussion to determine consensus, the results of which (as, again, I pointed out on the talk page) I would happily follow.

I regret having breached the bright-line rule against edit-warring, but plead exigent circumstances for doing so. I would like to be unblocked, if possible, so that I can continue the work I was just engaged in, creating articles for films included in the National Film Registry which do not currently have them, but if the reviewing admin does not feel that the block should be overturned, I'll wait the 24 hours and pick up the work again then -- I have no desire to create a fuss.

My thanks for your time and consideration.


 * There is no deadline for Wikipedia to be correct. You don't have to keep reverting in order to facilitate a discussion - you can have a discussion while the page is on the "wrong version".  The case you describe is exactly what the 3RR is designed to stop. --B (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never quite understood the theoretical distinction between "preventative" and "punitive" blocks, which I think comes into play here. A simple friendly notice to me from an uninvolved party that I was in serious danger of being blocked would almost certainly have resulted in my backing off from the dispute, so being blocked certainly seems punitive to me, as blocking to prevent me from continuing (while, ironically, allowing the other parties in the dispute, who provoked the circumstance, to continue) amounts (at least from my personal point of view) to preventation overkill. In any case, so be it -- I've fallen afoul of the system, and the system has responded by forcing me not to edit Wikipedia until an hour into the New Year here on the East Coast of America. I'll just have to find something else to do for those hours... Happy New Year to all! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My sincere thanks...
...to Michael Q. Schmidt and Ecoleetage for their kind thoughts - they are much appreciated. Happy New Year to both of you! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)