User talk:MarnetteD/archive20

Thanks
Thank you for catching two instances where the British English spelling was more correct. Sorry I missed them. I did look at the list of articles changed, and left one with British English spelling. I'm glad you caught those two. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with the work now
So thanks for your hanging on. --CatholicW (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Facetiousness is unbecoming. The only work that you did was to try and alter the sentence to make it look like he said something in the Mar 11th interview that he did not. Other users mentioned that you should not do that before I added my requests that you stop. Also, the article main space is not the place to work out your final edit that is what the WP:SANDBOX is for. MarnetteD | Talk 21:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Trey Parker
Yeah, but they might've taken it wrong had I said that. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Eliminator Award

 * I should thank you for erradicating the vandalism! I had noticed that same thing and was going back to revert the page also but it seems you beat me to it! Cheers and the same to you. Just out of curiosity, do you do much recent change patrolling? Bped1985 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome! RCP appreciates any help we can get, in whatever form it comes. Thanks again!

Bped1985 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I will look into it. Bped1985 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for suggesting that TV show "Slings and Arrows". I have watched it and am really enjoying it! Again, thank you! Bped1985 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My edit to HJM's user page
My edit is supported by his statement, ''I've surrendered my mop (and wow, it's strange not having all the extra buttons after a year of getting used to them) and so I am entirely at your mercy. I look forward to any constructive comments, pro or con, that people have to offer in the coming week! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)'', found on the RfA page. Striker force Talk Review me! 20:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice that you did not go back and add the userbox back upon the successful completion of his RRFA. Oh well I should have expected that. MarnetteD | Talk 19:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pan's Labyrinth has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  04:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mary Poppins (film)
It occurs to me that Mary could be described as "pompous" and strict when necessary, in the film. But a fair amount of that was for effect, as her actions ultimately showed her to be very kind and giving. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the IP was obviously on a minor rant of some kind. I should mention that I never read any of the books, I only know the character from the film. It's one of my all-time favorites. They don't make 'em like that anymore. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And they don't make theaters like that anymore, either. A movie was an event. It still is to some extent, but not like it once was. One thing about Mary Poppins is the great old movie stars that have cameo roles: Ed Wynn, as you mentioned, who most probably don't remember now; and Reginald Owen, Elsa Lanchester, Arthur Treacher... and Jane Darwell in her final screen role. The movie is mostly light and entertaining. My favorite part actually is when Mr. Banks is walking to the bank to be sacked, and reflecting on the situation he's in. Nothing funny about it... deadly serious. His walk is the turning point of the film, as he begins to realize what's really important to him. Another favorite moment is when Mary sings the lullaby to the kids... especially, to me, the poignancy of how short a life the young actor would enjoy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After blabbering on about it for awhile, I decided it was time to pull out my DVD and watch it again. Beautiful. :) Although the Chim-Chim-Cheree song won the Oscar, my favorite is the minor-keyed number about feeding the birds. It's the serious number in the picture, underscoring the serious scenes. Note that it's the very first tune out of the gate at the film's start. Supposedly this was Disney's favorite tune from the movie. P.S. We always loved "The Sound of Music" too. :) It was incredibly good in the theater. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Julie Andrews was great. The young'un in 10 was Bo Derek, one of John Derek's series of lookalike wives along with Ursula Andress and Linda Evans. Bo's character was about as shallow as the Los Angeles River, and Dudley Moore's character figured that out once he sobered up, in that memorable closing scene. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The resemblance among the 3 women was startling. It's fair to say they weren't all equally talented. I was reading about William Campbell just now. I didn't know he had first been married to Judith Exner. Just think, if she had stuck with him, history might have changed. He was excellent in those two Trek original series episodes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, so I inspired you to watch it again. Jolly good. :) I know what you mean about long theatrical runs. One that sticks out in my mind is Star Wars, which had serious legs and played in the local shopping center's cinema for like 6 months. That doesn't generally happen nowadays. Although I had an interesting experience a few years back when I saw that Walk the Line had come out on DVD. I had already seen it in the theater, but I discovered it was still playing first-run in the theater, so I went to watch it again. And then got the DVD. :) You're right about the matte paintings in Mary Poppins. I'm thinking they did it that way on purpose. They have kind of a dreamlike quality to them, instead of being totally realistic, which they very well knew how to do, I should think. I don't much care for CGI. It's highly-sophisticated animation, certainly more realistic than the famous Harryhausen-style stop-motion, but it's still animation, and still looks somewhat "fake" to me. There's no substitute for the real thing. Another thing: From the adult perspective, it would have been interesting to learn more about Bert and Mary. There was definitely something going on there between the two of them. But it being a kiddy movie, they weren't about to get into that, and it would have been a distraction anyway. But we can fantasize our own take on movies. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No "manners" issues at all. :) I saw that Karen Dotrice had been in Upstairs/Downstairs as an adult. It seems like nobody can beat the British at producing class performances. I hope you saw and liked The King's Speech, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a fan site in the accepted sense
Hi, re - any web page whose URL begins   is not from a fan site as such, but is one of the pages prepared by the Doctor Who Restoration Team; the homepage is here. In the menu at left, select "DVD Releases", then "The Sontaran Experiment", and there you are. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Alec Guiness
Sorry I missed the reference on the article's section I removed. The text is cluttered by the footnotes which make it difficlt to read. I still say however, the tags date back to June 2010 which is now pushing a year since being deposited. When someone submits an unsourced remark, precisely how long does he need to substantiate his claim? That is my reasoning. 11 months is more than sufficient. Evlekis (Евлекис) 16:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have seen tags for citation needed dating back three years and even further. I don't think there is an exact time frame - though there may be in the guidelines somewhere. Some editors feel that the item can be removed after a period of time - though again that varies - and others feel that the cite needed tag is enough for readers to say "take this sentence/paragraph etc with a grain of salt."


 * However, here is the distinction that you need to make with this specific one. The tag is asking for a page number not for a citation. That is means that whoever added it just wants clarification of where in the book the item is not that they doubt whether it is in the book. The item is sourced and so removal will be more difficult to justify. For what it is worth I read that book, though it was a long time ago, but I do remember the situation mentioned being written up in it. Thanks for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise your points but as I said, I missed the reference. Easy mistake. Thanks for the explanation so we'll leave it at that. Cheers. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed this odd campaign?
User 99.56.184.54 has been routinely adding "religion" to the infoboxes of many actors and directors. It came to my attention at Billy Wilder, which had briefly been the target of some Holocaust-denial comments, but I see now that s/he's doing it at many other pages. It seems totally unnecessary and inappropriate in an infobox; I can see mentioning Wilder's Jewishness in the discussion of escaping the Nazis in the text, but not in the infobox. There's a secondary issue of sources (did you know Tina Fey is Greek Orthodox?), but I hate to see a footnote in an infobox. 99.56.184.54's edit history shows that s/he's making this addition, and this addition alone, to many articles. Am I out-of-line being unnerved by this? Thanks. (You can answer here, I'll watch) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note HS. I had noticed this - I also have a vague memory that another IP was doing this a month or so ago - In fact there seems to have been an uptick in this by both IPs and registered users since sometime last year. I checked and this IP has been blocked for 31 hours. IMO it is unfortunate that this is in the infobox. First, for most this is a private matter, unless a person makes it part of their public persona (a la Mel Gibson) what difference does it make. Next, what is the criteria that these editors are using - the religion of the parents? and what about those that change religions during their lives? and how do we confirm that they are actively a member of said religion? what about lapsed members. These are only a few of the problems with entering these and, of course, these are just my personal opinions and others will disagree with them. As far as Wikipedia is concerned this kind of info has the same need for verifiability as any other. Without sourcing I think that they can safely be removed. This does necessitate checking the article because, if there is sourced info in the article, I'm not sure that we can justify removal from the infoboxes. Also I am just one editor, if you feel that this is becoming a problem needing wider discussion you might take your concerns and ask for input at the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and/or the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. I notice that the IP has been blocked for BLP violations and you could certainly report them to that admin if they return to making the same edits when they return. On a lighter note you might take a look at this File:Infobox burning.jpg as IMO infoboxes often cause more trouble than they are worth. PS - my apologies ahead of time if this pic offends you. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I knew I came to the right place. I'm glad I'm not alone in my queasiness having it in the infobox. (BTW, the hellfire photo is very funny, especially since we're just hours before the Rapture.) Hopefully the block on the account might end it, but thanks for the help with the next steps if I have to take 'em. I'll delete on grounds of verifiability as I run across them. Thanks again! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I am glad that I could help. MarnetteD | Talk 18:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's now nine in the evening in the UK, and no-one seems to have been raptured yet. (I wasn't expecting to be, anyway, even if others were...) I fully agree about removing religion from the infoboxes. We seem far less concerned about a person's religion in the UK - unless they really make a nuisance of themselves with one. Peridon (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's him, alright
That "Spider's Web: A Pig's Tale" nonsense is all I need to be convinced it's him. If the IP resolves out of Mobile, Alabama or anywhere near it, it's a given. However, if he screwed around via his school IP, the IT department at the district will take action. I can't begin to tell you what I had to deal with last summer across the internet with this kid. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Marnette. Not only did I retire because of a lack of action, I had to fight him across multiple wiki projects.  I remain retired from all the Wikia projects I was involved with and I had to impose rangeblocks on his IPs on sites where I had bureaucrat privileges.  He followed in the tracks of a truly psychopathic banned user on this site who turned his attention toward me.  His school district finally put an end to him, at least as far as they were able to do. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes
I had a feeling that that wasn't the work of a new kid on the Wiki. I'll have a look into both those stylewise. Peridon (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dorian Gray Edits
Hello, sorry, I haven't made many edits to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if this is the right way to talk to you, but there wasn't space on the edit description on Dorian Gray. Just wanted to explain my changes. I changed Basil's quote because it was a misquote (both the 1890 and 1891 versions are the same on this), and I changed the A Rebours association because in Wilde's trial he explicitly admitted that he had A Rebours in mind when writing DG - the chapters he mentions in DG are deliberately wrong. I should have made it more clear I meant Wilde's trial not Dorian Gray (although of course Dorian Gray was brought up as evidence for Wilde's 'gross' indecency', but later dismissed).

Best, 94.169.116.196 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. First please be aware that new edits to talk pages go at the bottom not the top. We usually put things in chrono order from top to bottom and your post might be missed if you put it at the top. Next thank you for the new edit and for explaining things more completely. It looks pretty good though I will have to check it more thoroughly when I have time. Lastly, all to often Wilde's three trials get conflated into one. You may well be aware of this but in case you aren't it can be a good idea to point out which of the three you are referring to when making entries about them. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It was specifically the first trial, of the Marquis of Queensbury for libel, where this particular point was mentioned. Not sure if it is worth including into the plot though...bit of an aside! 94.169.116.196 (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Return of a problematic IP
Thanks for the heads up - not sure what is going on with that IP, but I have blocked it again. Ruhrfisch ><> &deg; &deg; 12:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)