User talk:LargoLarry

Hello
Thanks for your note. I appreciate your taking the time to write. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Just a note to let you know I appreciate the comment you made about my writing at Talk:The Lover. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncategorised films
Not only do I not know what article you are talking about but even if I did, the fact is the uncategorised films category exists and considering there are a wealth of film related categories out there (by year, genre, director, etc) and I have no clue how best to categorise them, wouldn't it be better to leave it to people who do? Or is that too obvious? Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore
It's been promoted. Thanks for your help! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
TitanOne (talk) 17:30, 09 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your message about the DYK. I appreciate the fact you thought my contributions to the article should be acknowledged. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar expedition
Corrections done for the hook of Madagascar expedition. Thank you! PHG Per Honor et Gloria 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Revolution (Miranda Lambert album)
Somehow I doubt that anything's going to change in only 20 days; the album's already been delayed once, and rarely does a country album get delayed more than once. Would saying "is slated to include…" help matters? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would work for me! LargoLarry (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator election comments
Just wanted to give you a heads up that I've moved your comments to the correct page - you were originally commenting in the talk page for the previous election. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Film articles
Thanks for your suggestions and your help in tidying up the articles I created. I have not been involved in film articles before, so your suggestions are most welcome. My interest for now is in the films of C. Gardner Sullivan, who had over 350 films to his credit, most during the silent era. Press coverage of him from 1915-1927 was extensive, and he was regarded as the dean of the Hollywood screenwriters or "scenarists," as they were sometimes called. He was ranked in 1924 as one of the 10 most important individuals the history of the motion picture industry industry. Yet, he is essentially unknown today and had only a small stub of an article. In reading a bit about him, I was motivated to substantially beef up his bio article and create articles on some of his more significant films. Will probably keep working at this for a few days. Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook For Turkish Airlines Flight 452
CeeGee (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK Prep 1
Thanks for filling it. I thing yiur hooks gained an extra ellipsis. They said ...that ...etc - and it sould say just ...that etc. Anyway major point was to thank you Victuallers (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help since all the queues were empty. LargoLarry (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception
I think the narrative reads awkwardly if one uniformly identifies the name of the critic and the full name of the publication in the main text of the article. For example, the narrative, IMO, reads more smoothly to say: "A critic in Iowa said the film was 'Boffo,' while a critic in Chicago said it was 'Stupendous," rather than saying, "A critic, Irene Milligan writing in the Des Moines Daily Register & Mail, said the film was 'Boffo,' while Duane Zimmerman, a critic writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, said the film was 'Stupendous.'" So long as the complete information is in the reference, shouldn't that be enough? Of course, if it's a well-known critic, then I would agree it makes sense to use the name in the narrative. Do you disagree? Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had not been aware of the prior discussion, but it looks to me like the comments of User:Wildhartlivie and User:Ssilvers are directly in line with my comments above. Cbl62 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments were precisely in line with those of User:Wildhartlivie and User:Ssilvers.  I don't see any guideline, rule or overwhelming consensus to the contrary.  As a matter of good writing style, I have no doubt that the placement of the critics' full names and publications in a footnote in the example given above results in a narrative flow that is smoother and easier to read.  We need to have good citations and references, but there's no need to clutter the body of an article with all that information.  That's the purpose of footnotes.  Maybe I should just abort the effort to create quality movie articles and re-focus elsewhere. Cbl62 (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your tally of the consensus also appears to be off. In the discussion you linked, there are three users (User:Wildhartlivie, User:Ssilvers and User:decltype) who advocated precisely the same position as I do.  Like Wildhartlivie, I think the view advocated is middle of the road.  With my opinion, there are at least four in that camp.  That's not so far from the six who you say advocate always citing the names of both the critic and newspaper in both narrative and footnote.  I agree that a well-known critic should be named in the narrative (and possibly also the newspaper), but imposing an unbending rule lends itself to cluttered writing and fails to leave room for a varied (and thus less tedious) style of writing. Cbl62 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Gigs (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the Bette Davis film articles I expanded and I appreciate your taking the time to send me a WikiProject Films Award. Many thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ChildWaitingPoster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ChildWaitingPoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for the Musical Theatre Barnstar. You're going to give me a swelled head if you keep sending me these accolades. . . but please don't let that stop you! :) LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)