User talk:MarnetteD/archive23

My Edits on Michael Palin
Well, first of all I have no idea why you are saying that my edit on that page is unsourced. If you go to Royal Geographical Society. you will find out that Michael Palin is stated as the president of the Society. Anyway, I have now quoted a source, which is the official website of the Royal Geographical Society. I hope my edits will not have to be undone again. Thank you. -- 7D HMS (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS and WP:REF it is up to you to add that as a reference when you make the post the first time. I am glad that you have done so now. MarnetteD | Talk 15:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election
Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn
To avoid trouble at Audrey Hepburn, may I suggest that you wait a few hours before reverting the IP again, after their next edit. It is likely that I will notice and revert them, but bad luck with timing has meant that so far you have arrived at the page first. It would look much better if more than one editor were involved. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Full Metal Jacket
Hello, I see that you've edited Full Metal Jacket the most. You may be interested in this discussion! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Dollars Trilogy
As it happens, I will be house-sitting for a friend with a DVD collection that has to have surpassed 3,000 by now, and I know he has the trilogy. So, I will be watching it this week. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 04:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Judy Gold
agreed on unsourced, which i almost changed it to. i did check the linked-to sources in the article to try to be sure that the new date was wrong and didn't see anything, but since i'd just chased the IP through a number of pages where it did exactly the same thing with years (provably wrong in many of the cases), and since i haven't been editing that article at all, i thought that the safest thing to do was just revert the IP and let editors who are working on the article actively figure out the truth, which it seems they did!&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours
Hey ! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Variables in Internet Archive film template
Hello! I would like to ask that you do not remove the id= and name= parts in the Internet Archive film templates in articles. A script I run depends on finding them in the wiki markup. Thanks! --Bensin (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is fine although I hope that you got the script approved by the wiki-community. Please don't add it to IMDb or other film EL's. Those templates have been updated so that they aren't necessary and it will be easier to teach newbies that they don't need to add them to make the links work. MarnetteD | Talk 03:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As for the script, it's not a bot but a script that queries the database via the API to maintain local data, so there's no permission needed for that. --Bensin (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great thanks for filling me in. I'm afraid that I removed them on several articles on the EL template cleanup project that I mentioned above on so my apologies for creating more work for you. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry! I'll spot it and fix it when I run across it. Happy editing! --Bensin (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Jim Broadbent
Re your recent reversion of my birth place for the subject, and your edit summary. There is no ref proof added for him for a birth at Lincoln. Yes, I did indeed read the Louth Leader article that says he owned a cottage near Louth. Please scroll down to the bottom of the article where it identifies Holton cum Beckering as his birthplace. I'm sure you will, out of courtesy, want to revert your edit to his birthplace with the legitimate reference. Could you also revert the same that you removed from the Holton cum Beckering article. As for the Broadbent article's ref date style, both that were shown in the article are WP correct. However, it is WP advised that only one style is used throughout the refs for clarity. I usually add ref dates in the style that you have used, but as virtually all the other refs (yr-month-day) are not in our style it is only logical, and helpful to readers, to go with the majority style that exists. I hope this is helpful.

Here is another Louth Leader, online version of the newspaper, link that supports his birth place: Acabashi (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your measured reply especially since my edit summaries were so curt. Many apologies for not being more thorough. A county in Ohio claims the great (sorry POV violation I know) silent film actor Lon Chaney was born there in spite of all evidence to the contrary, so I am leery of locals claiming a birthplace for someone. However, I was in completely in error here. It would be great if there outside sources for the birthplace for Mr Broadbent but it certainly isn't required. Once again mt apologies and thank you for your work here at Wikipedia. MarnetteD | Talk 20:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem sir. I hope we cross paths, or swords :), again. Very best wishes. Acabashi (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century
Well done for your quick action on this page. As you may know the same thing has happened on a semi-regular basis for a while now. Secretariat fans just don't give up, it seems. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. You will have also seen my comments about the criticism of the list on the talk page. I got tired of arguing with the IP but I am glad to have seen your note regarding the author of that criticism. That would seem to confirm my suspicions about WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. I don't know if it is worth pursuing further (though I do wish that more editors from the thoroughbred project would make their thoughts known) but I do think that today's media and fans have boxed themselves into a corner of "what I just saw is the BEST EVER." It devalues the past and throws the present out of whack the minute the next thing comes along. The most overused phrase in sports today is "That was unbelievable" which makes me wonder why we watch at all since we can't believe anything that we see :-) Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If people took the list for what it is- an example of informed opinion- there would be no problem. Unfortunately some people seem to think that it proves something, hence the silly vandalism. It's best not to get into a discussion with the more obsessive Secretariat fans. They are impervious to logic and never back down. The king of recentism in real life was Frankie Dettori who could be relied upon to opine that his latest big race winner was the best horse that ever looked through a bridle. Makes him a fun source of quotes though. I'm trying to cure myself of the vice by working on early 20th Century redlinks- Windsor Lad, Coronach, Fairway etc (all listed on my user page). Take a look if you get the chance, I would appreciate any comments or advice. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter
The October 2011 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. Thank you. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Punch Bowl (1959 film)
The English-language title is from the producing studio's website (ref. 1). I'm quite sure they never released it outside the Eastern Bloc, but if they give it an English title, I guess it's their call. Bahavd Gita (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the IMDb malfunction. Bahavd Gita (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page
Thank you for that comment. I am glad you have been paying attention, and I accept the criticism. Glad you're in my corner, even if it is to remind me when I'm screwing up. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I think we may need an essay called "reverse bullying" as I keep seeing IP's who want to force their edits into articles - in spite of numerous editors pointing out their impropriety - then crying out that they are being treated poorly. Ugh. Dealing with them wastes so much time and energy that could be put to better use editing. Cheers and hang in there. MarnetteD | Talk 17:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I truly think that would be a good idea! The other option is to begin a concerted effort to limit or end the editing of IP users.  That would be one hell of an uphill battle.  But, maybe it's time for that battle to be joined.  Best wishes to you, as always. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  02:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up question
Why? I understand a lot of your edit here, but why did you remove See also? (Please respond on my talk.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure I try to do a lot on Wikipedia, so there are times when I go to fast or make mistakes--I'm trying to cut back on that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

VCV
Hey there! I just removed more stuff he snuck in (and added more IPs both newer and older to the list). When I reverted him here I screwed up the table - could you have a look at it? Thanks :> Doc   talk  20:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I didn't disrupt the article. What I added was correct and you should assume a little bit of good faith and judgment. 24.146.224.106 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea right looking at your edits tonight my actions are proper and prudent. MarnetteD | Talk 00:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence you keep on reverting in the article I'm mentioning is semantically equivalent to what I wrote, anyway. So why revert it? 24.146.224.106 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Serial vandals get reverted. That's the way it goes around here. MarnetteD | Talk 00:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These mean the same exact thing. Are you literate? 24.146.224.106 (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bill Nighy
Thanks for your note.

As you are a guardian of the Bill Nighy page, do you understand why this reversion was made. There is a Ref for this on The John Fisher School page which I am assuming is good – though I refuse to pay the evil Murdoch empire to check it myself!


 * Avoiding Infobox bloat is fine with me. I was just curious about whether Bill Nighy attending John Fisher was disputed – and only curious because if he did my route to/from school would have overlapped with his from 63 to 66, so I just idly speculate about whether I might have shared a bus with the schoolboy Bill Nighy.


 * Jim Craigie (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Kim Thomson
Hey, I don't hate it. I'm glad you spotted the section and wikilinked to it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Edit summaries only have so much room and they can cause offense when none is meant so I am glad that everything made sense for you. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Third Doctor logo
(d) it's not the same logo. UK DVDs have what is known as the "Black Sheep" logo, which had first been used for the opening titles of Doctor Who (1996 film), and which was also used on the VHS release of the movie in May 1996. It was then used on all subsequent UK VHS releases, beginning with The Green Death (Oct 1996), and for all UK DVD releases right from the start. The first release (in 1999) looked like this; all the rest (2000 to date) look like this.

This logo was based on that used in the opening titles from Spearhead from Space to The Green Death, but was not identical. All of the letters differ in some way: for example, all the strokes are narrower in the 1996 version; but the easiest way of spotting it is to look at the top-left corner of the letter "D", the ends of the letter "C" and the top-right corner of the letter "T" - in the 1970 version, these are all vertical, but in the 1996 version, they slant (as does the top-left corner of the "T" in both versions). -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actors and actresses
I see you have changed a couple of actresses back to actors because they self-identify as actors. The reason is clear, and I won't do that any more, perhaps ask you if there seems to be an error, but this makes it difficult to maintain articles and particularly list and category memberships, which is why I made the changes. For example I have found and removed one male actor from a list of actresses. You mention Manual_of_Style which refers to "clarity and precision", so I would like to see the article stating clearly if the person concerned prefers to be referred to as an actor rather than actress (both to inform the reader and help the editor).

If you look at Helen Mirren, you will find two comments:

which is why I did not change her article. Looking at the article again, I see no mention of this preference in the article text itself (although I may have missed it of course) and thus no reliable source. If an editor adds "Helen Mirren prefers to call herself an ACTOR" to an article I expect to see a reliable source for it (if only in the sense that I would most certainly have found one and referred to it if I added such a comment and thus I ask myself why there is none here). I suggest you go through these special case articles and add comments or notes and reliable sources so that other editors need not waste their time making unwanted corrections (and indeed you don't have to waste your time undoing them). Particularly with some articles annotated and other not, it becomes practically impossible for every wikipedia editor to make the content decision you prefer. Bear in mind that without any reliable explanation the term "actor", applied not generically but to a particular female person, seems incongruous when considering common usage, award names often appearing adjacently and the usage in most article leads. I'll also add this to my "little list" of things to become interested in. --Mirokado (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the six plus years of these discussions here at wikipedia the movement to the gender neutral term continues. Interview shows like The Graham Norton Show now refer to males and females as actor. In the US documentaries on the Biography Channel (as well as Tru TV and others) now use the term actor when identifying the profession of both males and females. We now have style guides like this one as well as numerous dictionaries, here  and here  all of which use gender neutral definitions. Most notable is the fact that the Merriam-Webster definition uses as it example "my sister went to drama school to become an actor". The Screen Actors Guild has done away with the use of the gender specific terminology and if you watch the opening of any of their last few awards shows you will see all the women who introduce themselves as actors. DVD commentaries on shows as divergent as Mad Men and Dr Who have both those in front of and behind the camera using the term actor for both genders. These sources would seem to meet wikipedia's requirements for reliability and verifiability. The related essay mentions avoiding "unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes", and I think that this is applies here. Terms like poetess, authoress and comedienne have all been in use in my lifetime and now no longer are. I know that this one is still in flux but it could be just as easy to require that sourcing be provided that a person prefers the gender specific term as requiring it for the gender neutral one.


 * As to incongruities - that is something that will always exist here at wikipedia. The best example is that the abbreviations BC/AD and BCE/CE are both in use. Wikipedia has tended towards allowing flexibility in these which is why I make the statement that I started this paragraph. As to Mirren - in her autobiography she uses the term actor on numerous occasions. In regards to your questions below I rarely look at the persondata section and I think - though I have no evidence of this - people either edit the article or edit the persondata field and don't always sync them up. I have noticed birthdates and places info being different from time to time. I am sorry because I am sure that I haven't answered all your question but I am have to log off soon and there are other things that I still have to do before tha. MarnetteD | Talk 22:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Gigi Rice
Please have a look at Gigi Rice. The lead says actress, but the Persondata says actor. The infobox says neither. I have not changed those details, but they should be consistent. Please correct one way or the other, and add a reliable source if you decide on actor. --Mirokado (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also Mercedes Ruehl, where the inconsistency is the other way round, with lead and infobox saying actor and Persondata saying actress. There is a reference in the lead entitled "Mercedes Ruehl, Driven; The Manic Actress On the Road to Oscar", so it looks as if actress would be appropriate here. --Mirokado (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And one Diana Muldaur where lead and infobox say actress but Persondata says actor. In this case the Persondata is clearly inconsistent with the article so I have updated it. I will correct any like this without further comment here. --Mirokado (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Our Brazilian friend
Look who's back! And up to the same tricks! God bless 'im, he never tires of it, does he? Would you do the honours? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 16:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, good, good! Thanks for the tag.  I was thankful he'd been quiet for a while, too, but I always assumed he'd be back.  How long before a rant about "sucking the cock of AllMovie," a very strange comment I have seen him make dozens of times.  Alas... some people have nothing better to do with their time.  Unlike ourselves.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  16:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pickin on the Pickens Article
Thanks for your note.

I once knew a method in WP to check up on the exact number of watchers an article had, and now I seem to have forgotten it. WP will not tell you WHO has an article on their watchlist, but there's some software online maneuver you can make to get and exact count. When I checked the Kubrick article had over 200, but I'm now curious about the Pickens article. If you know and remember it, drop me another line. Otherwise, I'll be researching it.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, that was it. Gracias. Currently the Pickens article has less than 25 watchers.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A Christmas Story
The page has now been semi-protected, so we may have caught a break. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 02:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Disgraceful edit summary, stop trolling, stop making edits on things you don't understand, pathetic. And English is not my first language. --Nutthida (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing more pathetic than you response. He is from Wales and thus Welsh. Claiming that he is british and that is somehow neutral is the real trolling. Your pathetic POV on this is well know and rather sad. Please use spell check and grow up. MarnetteD | Talk 22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh really, I'm an anti-nationalist - I have a POV that C.S Lewis is Irish just like I have a POV that Christian Bale is English - Which hardly matters, but I'm right in both instances. How dare you accuse me of having any sort of POV. "He is from Wales and thus Welsh" a moronic statement typically made by nationalists. "Claiming that he is british and that is somehow neutral is the real trolling." - I have just wrote why he is described as British on the Talk page. Go point out any other "POV" I might have, and I would be delighted to show you I talk about the person at hand with facts and not my own POV. --Nutthida (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Nutthida (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll withdraw this if you want to just talk to me, but I think you've gotten me and my whole point of being here very wrong indeed. Lets be reasonable, but I wont tolerate personal attacks, yes, even against my spelling, I find it hard to deal with right now. --Nutthida (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm

 * I think you've gotten me and my whole point of being here very wrong indeed. Lets be reasonable, but I wont tolerate personal attacks, yes, even against my spelling, I find it hard to deal with right now. Please don't do that. I don't have a POV I only go by technical details, I have never voiced my own opinion on Tommy Cooper. I just explained on the talk page why British might be a better description for him, and I always avoid using the term British to describe British Nationals. If you have a problem with me in anything else...please explain. --Nutthida (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * After several edit conflicts I have restored your earlier posts here for the record as you seem to keep refactoring your edits. Also for the record the first personal attack was here with a huge overreaction and unfounded and unproven claims of trolling etc. Next was a unfounded claim of vandalism here . This is all smacks of an obsession on your part and I will not edit Tommy Coopers page further if that will calm things down. I will certainly apologize for my words. But they were, in every case, a response to your personal attacks on me. The outcome being that I will certainly be looking to avoiding any interaction with you as far as possible in the future. I also will not be responding to you further and will be archiving this after you have had a chance to read it. If you feel the need to seek redress elsewhere I would suggest WQA as the matter would have been redirected there if not closed down completely at AN/I. I know that some or most of this will still leave you upset so I will also say that I wish you will well at this time of year and also hope that you have a good 2012.MarnetteD | Talk 23:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I am allowed to refractor my comments, if I refractor them it means I regret them. And I apologies for being far too-hot headed. I was rude and childish. And I'm not upset about this anymore - your original comment on my spelling was a stupid thing to get upset about, I know my spelling sucks. Anyway, if you don't want to talk to me, please go read my note to self on my talk page, as I'm sad (And this is the only thing I am upset about) that you think I have some sort of agenda here. "obsession" - no, I'm just hot headed sometimes about anything. Please accept my apologies and thank you for not wishing me merry Christmas. And sorry for the edit conflicts. --Nutthida (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your words. I most certainly accept them. These things can happen and I am sorry that I fanned the flames to add to your upset this evening. I just noticed that I misspelled a word in my post (which is too funny in the circumstances) I used the strike will through command to change it which is what I have been taught is the thing to do when you want to refactor a comment or retract something that you have said. I don't know whether there is a hard and fast guideline on this or not but I do understand why you deleted some of your earlier posts. Cheers and now back to normal editing - if such a thing exists :-) MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for yours too. And likewise, and ah...no, well sort of did, but really it's me having to have needle relocated in my arm. Also, I smashed my head open not long ago, and a nice Irish doctor patched me up - and for the record, he knows my regular Doctor, a woman called Sarah Shackleton. Haha. ;) - And some Wikipedia terminology arne't even real words at all! So we're all guilty of it. Hehe. Thank you, really, and thank you again, I don't delete them because I'm trying to hide them for other people, more myself. If such a thing exists? It doesn't. Unless you're doing, what I like to call Janitor work. Er, thanks and good will. I'm not going to change anyone's nationality to British again btw, I don't like it, and shouldn't do it based on my own uncertainties and possible lack of knowledge) --Nutthida (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)