User talk:MarnetteD/archive15

Sock
Thanks for your note about the return of our sock to the George Harrison article. So he's a UCLA student. I'm glad Rodhullandemu removed the link from music fans, as our sock added that several weeks ago and I've been meaning to remove it (that was the one single edit the sock added that wasn't immediately reverted). And I'm glad you removed the link to the other list. 

As for how to proceed, I suggest a very boring approach:
 * No interaction. I didn't sign up for this business of interacting with a mentally challenged person. I'm finished interacting with him—It's sometimes dangerous and always pointless.
 * No discussion. Making it a drama on the talk pages and edit summaries has become old. We can just refer back to the Sock Puppet section on the article's talk page.
 * No edits. Nothing he adds or deletes must stand. He's hopelessly incompetent. Revert it. The edit summary could always say the same thing, i.e. "Reverting sock puppet, see talk page."
 * Tag him. Put the sock puppet tag on his newest user page. The list of all his usernames will remain complete.

There's always the chance that we'll misidentify him (I was right there with you on that last guy; same M.O., right up to the end when it no longer sounded like him) but I suppose we have no other choice. The only other thing I would add is to possibly reopen the sock puppet investigation. Prhartcom (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Re. the new user: We'll tag him later if more evidence arises. Prhartcom (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thankfully Mr. Sock has not returned. I guess I really shamed him into giving up. —Prhartcom   (talk)  10:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"UK does not do miniseries"
Re this, actually, just to complicate matters, UK TV does have miniseries, but the definition is not as clear cut as in the US! The average network season of, say, House will have 22 episodes filmed from August to March, with the filming of later episodes overlapping with the broadcast of early ones. On the other hand, a miniseries, like The Pacific, will have a shorter run of ten episodes, all filmed and edited entirely before broadcast. Compare this to UK TV, where a returning series (like *shudder* My Family) will often have only six or eight episodes per season/series, which are all filmed and edited before broadcast. "Miniseries" is generally used here either as a comparitive term (the third series of Torchwood was only five episodes long compared to the usual 13, so was a "miniseries" (that was also a serial!)), or as a glossy phrase by Me Too media publications trying to show off how UK TV is equal to or better than US TV. Short-run series/serials (like costume dramas) of only three or four episodes will often by referred to as miniseries, so people don't confuse them with returning series. There's a good chapter in a book about this but I can't remember the name or author! I'll have a look on Google Books for it and post a link for you here if I find it. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I smell venison...
The last couple of Bambifan socks were rather cleverly disguised and I think this may well be one of them. I'm going to block the account, but I'll leave the talk page open just in case. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS June 2010 Newsletter
The June 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) 05:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Revised Citations in Dictator- Keep old & explanation
Hi, MarnetteD, The Citations in Great Dictator should stay exactly as they have been. The revised URLs which briefly appeared are the ones that would be used if a student at the University of Washington was in a university computer network that required a University ID to view specific blocked websites on a University computer (very common in University libraries- this prevents members of the general public who walk into the library from using library computers for personal business, but students with a proper ID can do so). These URLs are however useless for anyone checking citations on any and every computer that does NOT belong to the University of Washington. So of course reverting was the right thing to do. I think I'll also post this on the GreDic talk page. Cheers--WickerGuy (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My talk
Thanks for reverting that. I know it is SkagitRiverQueen with her cellphone edits. They can't block all the ones she's used and I did request page semi-protection, but they blocked the IP and didn't protect the page. I let the administrator who blocked the IP know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. For all of the ups and downs of your editing here I want you to know that I wish you well in your life off wiki - and on should you ever decide to return. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you MarnetteD, I wish her well and I also hope that she will return to editing. I saw that SRQ was hitting your page, she did it to me too, so I asked Moonriddengirl if she would semi-protect your page and she did. If SRQ starts up again after the protection expires than go back to Moonriddengirl who said she would protect it again.  If I continue to get hit by her I'll also ask for protection.  I removed one of SRQ's attacks and Jack Merridew removed one I missed.  Anyways, hopefully she'll get bored with all of these attacks.  We can hope, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so very much. It truly is appreciated!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Gambon
But we'll see. She does not realize that the pages go to the playwrights, when they must go directly to that link ..... at least I had the same problem as me for some time withOscar,which had a valid link and you said no. Thanks. --83.45.245.43 (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of Internet Contact from July 11 to July 18
Just saying. Up in Sierra Mountains--WickerGuy (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for reverting the nastiness on my User page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Wells
Hello there, MarnetteD, hope you are doing well! Just for fun I am running this past you, as it is almost finished: The article for Dawn Wells, of Gilligan's Island fame, has no mention of her arrest for reckless driving (and for aledgedly finding marijuana in her car). I have been grinding away for over a month at the editors who hang out over there and it looks like we're finally going to mention it. My biggest shock was when Jimbo Whales weighed in on my little topic.

I would like to ask your opinion of something the editors there have repeatedly accused me of, which I am having a difficult time agreeing with, but is probably true. It is this: The editors there have, until now, steadfastly refused to entertain even the slightest mention of this unpleasant topic in Miss Wells life. This, to me, equates to censorship of Wikipedia, and exposes the (to me) obvious motives of these editors: They are protecting the image of Miss Wells. Yet, when I point it out, they deny this is their motive, and I am accused of bad faith. I think I must still be learning how to interact with others in Wikipedia. Yet I haven't changed my mind on what I believe they have been doing. What do you think? I respect your opinion. (And feel free to reply here on your page.) Thanks! —Prhartcom  (talk)  18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Prhartcom. I am doing okay except for the 100 degree temps we are having (I love my air conditioner!) and I hope that you are okay too. Thanks for your note and thanks also for the compliment that you pay me in requesting my opinion. As I read through the conversation I see some of the typical use of wikiguidelines to prevent information from going into articles. This is not uncommon and I have been in the middle of it a few times over the years. As I remember it when Bob Denver passed away it came out that he had been protecting Ms Wells by taking the marijuana charges onto himself. I know that this is probably inaccurate and I haven't done any research online or off about the matter. IMO it is certainly notable info in regards to her friendship with Mr Denver but it may not be worth the frustration levels that you are going through on her talk page to get it into the article. Sadly, censorship occurs all over wikipedia, just try editing articles about politicians or Fox or MSNBC commentators. WikiP also works on consensus and if it is running against a given argument it can be better to just let things go and move on to other editing. I fear that my words may not be very helpful or encouraging. I have a couple of other things that I would like to share with you off wiki if your "email this user function" is enabled on your talk page. If not don't worry about it. WIkipedia has its strengths and flaws. Readers who come to Ms Wells page looking for info about this will think wikiP sadly lacking for there being no mention of it. Thus, they will only see wikiP as flawed. From another aspect I would ask those that don't want the item mentioned "what all the fuss is about?" As more states move toward some form of legalization the "stigma" of mentioning this on her page will just seem like an anachronism. One item that I found interesting is the mention of those against its inclusion wanting the page to be about Mary Ann and not Ms Wells. When this info came out several years ago my warped sense of humor relished the fact that there was finally an explanation for why she was always making such delish coconut creme pies on the island. Munchies attack! I hope that this is of some help even if only marginally and I also want to apologize if any of this has caused you offense. You are a good editor here and I don't want the frustrations that can occur to drive you away. Cheers and may happy editing resume ASAP. MarnetteD | Talk 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's done. Thanks for your support.  —Prhartcom   (talk)  18:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Question
May I probe you for a question? Do you use Netflix or other DVD rental places to get DVDs when you're writing and researching articles? Bradley0110 (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The reason I asked was because I was interested in expanding the production section of the The Deal (2003 film) article to its maximum potential, but to do that, would need someone to access the writer/producer commentary that is available only on the region 1 DVD to make notes. I was just wondering if you'd be interested in that sometime, but am obviously not suggesting you should go to any expense to do so! Bradley0110 (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I wouldn't want you to go to any expense for it, but it would be good to cover all the bases. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Review like this mention a commentary on the R1 disc. Not even the slightest extra on R2! Bradley0110 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Hopefully it's worth it! Bradley0110 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This is all very quick and awfully nice! Assuming DVD Verdict's review is accurate, there is apparently a lot of info in the commentary about the casting process. Any information about the filming would also be very useful. Once I expand the reception section I'd hope to be ready to take the article to FA before the end of the year. As for The Special Relationship, that was supposedly getting a theatrical release in the UK in May but that doesn't seem to have happened. Variety indicates it will be shown on BBC Two before the end of the year and it's being released on DVD in September here too. It's quite amusing to note that each film in Peter Morgan's "Blair trilogy" has a different copyright holder! Bradley0110 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that some people like to use time stamps when citing commentaries, but I personally just refer to whichever speaker it is (in the case of The Deal, I'd have two separate refs for Morgan and Langan and just lump everything they say into the one footnote. Thanks for all of your efforts with this! I'll have to come up with a way of returning the favour! Bradley0110 (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that scene is one of the goofs in the film; the EastEnders actress who was at Granita was Susan Tully, who had already been in the soap for nine years. A couple of days after the film was first shown on TV, the owner of Granita had a letter published in the Guardian in which she picked fault with tiny details, like tableclothes in Granita! Notes can go in User:Bradley0110/sandbox. Thanks again for doing this! Bradley0110 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very very much for doing this! I'll get to work adding this to the article this week! Some of the stuff is already in the article but very little of the sources give the information in such a straightforward way (and believe it or not, there is no reliable source that states outright that filming was done at Granita!). Bradley0110 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I never really noticed the Patsy Palmer resemblance. I would have thought the reference was more likely to be to Martine McCutcheon, since she turned heads more than Palmer did when she joined (although the dates don't add up for her). Morgan seems to be a bit of a television and film snob, so I doubt he bothered to research the behind the scenes history of EastEnders! Bradley0110 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Shining Reverts and Shining Commentary/Parody
Thanks for reverting the film-book diffs in the Shining. Almost all were trivial and many of them were already covered in the prose section of the article. (Who the hell cares if J&W don't "have sex" in the movie?).

This is somewhat off WP-topics, but someone posted a mostly hilarious YouTube video parodying videos claiming to find secret symbolism in the Shining. The first half is funnier and then the parody wears thin. The subject of his parody is clearly YouTube user "!!Truth111!!" who finds occult Masonic symbolism anywhere and the Internet work of Rob Ager. IMO, Truth111 is completly nuts, while Ager has a wee bit of method in his madness (Ager IMO makes rather shrewd observations and then makes utterly unwarranted conclusions from them. He's self-published and it is with some reservations that I cited him once only in the actual Shining article.) At any rate, I laughed my pants off watching this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl3fExL_jlo --WickerGuy (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter
The July 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) 06:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Banning sockpupetters
The reason people go through the trouble of formally banning sockpuppeters is that 3RR does not apply to reverting banned users. It does to reverting merely indef blocked users. The process of banning allows people to revert on sight without fear of being blocked, and that is why there are more and more of these discussions. Courcelles (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Trivia sections
Regarding the renamed section from the article Red Sun, are "trivia" sections no longer welcome in movie-related articles? Its been a while since I've actively edited them, but many articles I know and have contributed to use them...---Jackel (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the welcome back. I appreciate it. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 00:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunday in the Park
Thanks for the mention! Your move (and fix) are fine with me.JeanColumbia (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Special Relationship
I haven't had the opportunity to see it yet. It seems that all of the usual (pirate) sources don't have it (usually TV films turn up on some of the big sites). I doubt I'll get it on DVD since it's going to be shown on TV here in October or November. Interestingly (or not!) the film was originally supposed to have a theatrical release in the UK on the day after the general election, but the distributor pulled it because of "negative" reviews from US critics. This, despite a) critics actually being quite favourable towards it and b) the original release date being some three weeks before HBO's original premiere date! Mad people! Bradley0110 (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for objective participation in discussion
As a trusted editor on WP, you're invited to look at the discussion at Articles for deletion/James Cagney, Jr. and comment. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS August 2010 Newsletter
The August 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) 03:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open
The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Exciting News
Hello! Thank you! I am well. I've been busy and haven't been able to do much work here, but I'm still chugging along. I can't take advantage of the Barnes & Noble sale it seems as I'm in Canada and the sale does not seem to work with Canadian buyers. No good! The The Story of a Cheat does look pretty interesting, I'm especially interested in The Story of a Cheat, but I'm not sure if I'll get it just yet. The America Lost and Found set is pretty awesome but I'm not sure if I can afford it, (I just picked up The Three Silent Classics'' by Sternberg and pre-ordered Hausu, so I can't really justify buying it just yet). Maybe sometime in the future! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? That good huh? Okay now I'm even more curious. I'll see if I can somehow at least watch that one. Sounds great! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox actor
I didn't pay attention to the discussions over at that talk page, and this was obviously a mistake. The move of "Infobox actor" to "Infobox person" is probably going to result in a lot of infoboxes that look like this, or worse, in a lot of edit wars over those infoboxes. If there was a long-standing consensus not to include things like "notable works" or "height", then how does this page move make any sense? It's going to let all those sections back in the infobox by default. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Eggnog and overlinking
Hi,

I see you've previously had a chat with about removing links to eggnog. I think it may have started again at. I've just restored a link from within ketogenic diet and this is the second time. Based on the edit summary "Trim internal links to reduce overlinking. You can help....", is this being done by a bot or tool? What can be done? Colin°Talk 17:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Lovejoy
Good job taking on that persistent IP editor. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect warning of User:173.48.189.84
I thought I'd point out that we can't go back through old edits made by a user and issue them another warning for each one; every warning must be made after the user has had sufficient time to read and understand the warning, and has made another problematic edit after the last warning. The user has made no edits since I issued them the first warning, but you have issued them three more regardless; I ask that you remove the warnings you added so as not to bite the newcomers and since they're not appropriate warnings. Thanks.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding warnings after the first one has not always been restricted in the manner that you set out and I was operating under an outdated set of guidelines. My apologies. I will point out that you removed only one of the many spam links that this IP entered so you weren't very thorough in checking out this IP's edits. If you had been then I would not have had to remove the other pages that were spammed and I would not have felt the need to add anymore warnings. It should also be noted that this is a single purpose IP editor and "AGF is not a suicide pact". However, if you wish to remove the warnings please feel free to do so. If and when this IP returns we will have to add them again. MarnetteD | Talk 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't look through the IP's contributions, I simply reverted the recent change made to an article on my watchlist and warned the user appropriately. This was their first warning so I saw no need to look through their contributions in case there were more. AGF is not a suicide pact, but we can't wait until the user has made 4 edits and then hit them with four warnings all at once. If they continue, by all means issue further warnings and report to WP:AIV if it continues after a final one.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also bear in mind that since they had never been warned or had the issue explained to them, we should assume they were unaware of policy until the edits continue after the explanatory note I left and it becomes clear that it is no longer the case.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Tripods
This is an article about four books, not one book. Articles on books tend to be quite long when done properly and divulge the entire plot. See, for example, Kim (novel), The_Lion,_the_Witch_and_the_Wardrobe, Gulliver's Travels, and others. Student7 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tiiischiii and Talk:Lovejoy
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Saddhiyama (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lovejoy, etc.
Thanks for your message. This guy is going to keep it up 'til he is told, in no uncertain terms, to stop. I do not believe his rant at ANI is going to help his case at all. But, I understand, and applaud, your decision to step away for awhile. I am always ready to help. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 01:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Lovejoy. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realised that this had been raised at ANI, I was acting based on a report at WP:ANEW. You did make five reverts in under 24 hours, but I don't have too much time on my hands right now, so I will defer to the judgement of whoever is patrolling the unblock requests at this hour (03:30 where I am). Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards accepting, will think on it. Any other admin feel free to accept/decline though. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 24 hours may have been a little long and you make a good case in your request. I hadn't realised it had been dealt with at ANI. Consider this a reduction of block length to 9 hours and 50-something minutes, which would make it time served. Best wishes (and try not get into any more edit wars), HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My thanks to you both for your consideration. I know that it probably took more time than you wanted to put into it so please know that I appreciate said time. HJ Mitchell, if you still have my page on your watchlist the unblock request seems to be cut off after a sentence or two. It is probably no big deal and I will archive this in time, but, if there is an easy way to fix it that would be nice. If not don't worry about it and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 04:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I fixed it, but now it looks ugly. Feel free to remove it or archive it or do whatever with it. Happy editing to you, as well, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)