User talk:MarnetteD/archive36

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies
Obviously, I missed that line. Thanks for cleaning up after me. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for fixing the redirect on that page. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Marnette, I created this dab page, and I'm wondering if you could check I did things right this time. I believe there should also be a redirect from Neo Chorio (disambiguation). 83.168.23.138 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks good to my eye . I made a couple edits to clean things up. As to your question about a redirect I have not worked with them enough to give you an answer. You might try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect - I think editors there will be able to give you the answers you are looking for. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. [Yup, pings don't work for IPs.] 83.168.23.138 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian silent cinema
The average Russian silent film is a lot better made than American ones in general at the time I have to say. The actors and filming seem a lot more natural. You don't get any of that flailing around and exaggerated impression stuff in early Russian movies which grate on you after a while in quite a few of the Hollywood ones of that period. Yet they seem to tell a tale better. Have you seen Mother (1926 film)? Quite brilliant. Over the next few weeks I'm going to beef up on Russia silents I think, they're impressive to watch. I may even revisit Battleship Potemkin! I gather Mondo cane isn't to your interest? BTW if you're wondering how I'm covering so much I have a 28 inch screen monitor which allows me to do other things while watching films on a split screen! If a film is particularly good I'll watch it again at some point with close scrutiny. I'd guess when you watch a film you have to scrutinize and give it 100% first time?

BTW I can't help but notice your name regularly lighting up on Audrey Hepburn on my watchlist. I had intended getting her to GA if not FA sometime. First I have book on Kubrick and Meryl Streep I need to work on though. Problem with articles like that though is high maintenance because of the traffic they get.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info . Apologies for not responding on your lists talk page. For some reason I didn't get pinged on your post about MC yesterday and I've only just read it. I saw it a couple times back in the 1970s, though not since then. Definitely unique. I wonder if it would be considered as shocking if it were released today.


 * In answer to your question (well sort of) I do try to give my undivided attention the first time. But I also know I will miss things and will need repeat viewing to absorb all that is there. Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson are great examples of that. In the years before VHS and DVD I made numerous pilgrimages to various theaters for repeat (including midnight) screenings of my favorites. Then there are the changes in understanding that getting older brings. As a teenager I can remember watching Jules and Jim and Ikiru and thinking "Okay that was good". But it wasn't until I had lived through life's travails that I came to know how great they were.


 * As to your Russian silents viewing I have to say that for some reason I have more memories of watching Alexander Nevsky than any other Russian silent film. Odd in that I know I saw BP and Ivan the Terrible: Part One more often. Maybe it is because Bakshi's Wizards, which incorporates scenes from AN, is one of my guilty pleasures. You are 100% (or maybe 1000%) right about the high maintenance that some article require :-) Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw Jules and Jim quite recently, excellent! Have to get around to watching A. Nevsky. My goal right now is just to see as much as I can and to mark those which really seem great films and come back to viewing them again sometime and in a way in which I fully absorb and study them all the way through. I think I'll probably start doing the list update at the end of every week. I have a number of books through a wiki grant (including at least four books on Kubrick) I got back in April. To date I've only done Althorp. I had begun working on User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick but got sidetracked and partly put off by light show's constant sniping. I suspect long term the article will go to the dogs like Paris has done so I think I'll just compile material from the books in my sandbox and then decide how to distribute it. I have a book on Meryl Streep, an article which is high priority of course too. I'm not sure long term whether it's really worth working on such articles unless they're protected once promoted to protect from excessive editing and clueless editors. I have a book on A Clock work Orange itself which would be good to get up to GA. If long term you think you could help protect Audrey's article from degradation, I think it would be worth working on. It seems a fair amount of the content is already there, the article just needs a structural overhaul and reinforcement I think. Emma Thompson I believe is already near enough FA quality and might be a viable candidate at some point. Her book work could use some reinforcement though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I recently picked up this edition of ACO . Although I've known about the final chapter - and it has been available here in the US for a few decades - I've never read it. BTW as a bibliophile I can't recommend The Folio Society's books highly enough. Yes they are pricey but they are crafted with such skill and creativity that I can't resist them. When the budget allows at any rate. Cheers again. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am happy to keep an eye on Audrey's article. As you say it garners more than its fair share of unneeded static. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read the book, just not in that jazzed up version! BTW I'll add Nevsky and Wizards to my to see list!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't guarantee that Wizards will grab ya but there is some fun stuff in it. I will say that it was made at a time when animation was basically dead in Hollywood. Only Don Bluth and Bakshi were keeping it alive as an art form. To show how times change Bakshi's films were heavily criticized for his use of rotoscoping to save on costs. Today a filmmaker like Richard Linklater is praised for his use of the technique. Add to that the extensive use of motion capture and one could say that RB was ahead of his time :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My mother's clearing out her house, and found a paperback copy of ACO which she passed on to me. She's never actually read it... mainly because she knows what it's about and fears that she won't like it at all. Why did she get it? She won't say: but at the time that this scandal occurred, she was a teacher at the same school. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Amazing coincidence R. Thanks for sharing it. In the intro to TFS edition Irvine Welsh mentions AB's ambivalence to the fact that ACO had become the only (or main thing anyway) that he would be remembered for. He also had conflicted feelings about Stanley's film. He wasn't the only one was he? I wonder if the Doctor could be called on to bring Thackeray to our time to watch Barry Lyndon with us. ;-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit in Gandhi
I edit Wikipedia as an user and when I saw The Peacemaker, I recognize the actor who played Gandhi killer and tried to find his name. I had enormous difficult to find it (even in IMDB), and trying to help other users - as this information does not appear in any part of the article - I inserted the appropriated info. But you must be an expert in wiki rules and did your job - unfortunately the info is not necessary for the users. And also sorry for the "minor edit", I thought it was Caiaffa (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not worry about it . The info is in the article, though not quite in the way that you wanted. In the plot section it states "As Godse shoots Gandhi..." and then the cast section mentions who played him. As to what is and isn't a minor edit you can check here WP:MINOR. It isn't a major problem but it can effect things on some readers whatchlists. Cheers and happy editing.

Shakespeare, Shakespeare, wherefore are Thou
Hello MarnetteD: Your edits on Shakespeare suggested you might be able to form a position on the Romeo and Juliet page. Harold Bloom has initiated a discussion that the play was adapted by Shakespeare from a pre-existing source and SilkTork and I have had discussion on the best section where it should go in the article there. If you could offer the tie breaker and place it where you feel is best, then you would likely be supported by both editors. Cheers. FelixRosch  (TALK ) 16:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thanks for your note. The only discussion about this that I can find is from last July and it is brief. There is not enough info there - either Wikipedia policy based or about Blooms' theory - for me to form an opinion. I suspect that you are trying to avoid WP:CANVASS but I am not sure that you succeeded. The best advice I can give is that you try asking for a WP:3O on the R&J talk page. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello MarnetteD: The small RfC written by another editor was closed as poorly formed with the following comment:


 * NAC: This RFC was not well-formed in that it did not request !votes and it is difficult to identify specific opinions. However, to the extent that there is consensus, it is that Brooke did not criticize the play before it was written, but that he was an influence on it before it was written because his previous work was one of Shakespeare's sources. A better-formed RFC with a Survey section would be useful if this consensus is disputed.


 * My brief exchange with SilkTork follows the closed RfC on the Talk page there. No canvass here intended of any type. Since the issue is one of properly attributing the source which Shakespeare used for his version of it, then it seemed you might have a viewpoint based on your Shakespeare comments elsewhere. If its uninteresting to you then that fine too. Cheers. FelixRosch   (TALK ) 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If they should happen to pop up again...
Sockpuppet investigations/1wikideb1. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks . I suspected something of the sort but it was late last night (for me anyway) and I didn't pursue it. This will certainly help in any future encounters. Thanks again!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Last of Us
You reverted your edit but your rationale still intrigues me - do you think it's crystal balling to report the possibility of a sequel? They're direct quotes from the developers stating that they are considering it; I would have thought that isn't speculation, as it comes from the horse's mouth. But you've given me pause for thought. What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post . I know you saw that it is the word "possible" in the section header that I found problematic. IMO it is speculative. Also I think WP:CRYSTAL comes into play because, according to the one source, "He stressed that the team had no definite sequel plans". I had WP:NFF in mind as well. But that applies to films I don't know if video games has its own MOS with guidelines about this sort of thing. As you saw I didn't remove the info from that section I only altered the header. All of this is just one editors opinion and that is one of the reasons for the self revert. Thanks for your time and for your efforts here at WikiP. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. For what it's worth, I took "no definite plans" to mean "we're considering it but haven't decided on anything yet". It didn't discount that the sequel was possible. Popcornduff (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Charles C. Coleman (director)
Stumbled across him while filling in Rita Hayworth's filmography. Check out his assistant director credits!! It's like a what's what of Golden Hollywood gems.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Thanks for making me aware of him. Stalag 17 is one of my all time faves. It is one of those - if I am channel surfing and I come across it the surfing is done until the film is over - kind of films. I suspect you know the story about why Holden gave the shortest speech on record when accepting his Oscar for this film. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Farrah Fawcett's performance in The Cannonball Run is close to the worst performance by an actress I've ever seen!! Terrible acting! The film was so bad I enjoyed it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember thinking that film was just an excuse for a bunch of friends to get together and party. They seemed to have a good time whether cameras were rolling or not . The sequel was even worse :-) I always enjoyed The Gumball Rally when it comes to the "race across the US" films. It has a very early Raul Julia performance. Enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny but I was going to ask about and ask if anybody could recommend a good film catalogue which has more than just cast. I knew about the AFI catalogue but it was just American films and extremely expensive. In sourcing just now I discovered The Blockbuster Entertainment Guide to Movies and Videos which even reviews each one. Even better I discovered a 1600 page 1999 copy with 22,000 odd films in it here which I just bought for £2.81 including postage, free because I have a voucher from the competition on here I won recently! I thought it worth checking out. If it's no good I can always pass it on to somebody. I just thought it might have some reviews on older B movies!♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have used this one in the past . I used to buy it for my local watering hole as it was a great resource to settle bar bets. It is comprehensive and done with a sense of humor as they use a bone (naturally - woofwoof) rating system. I don't have any idea if it is available in the UK though. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that they publish a new version every year - it is thicker than a New York City phone book now - wait what the heck is a phone book?! So, if it is available, you might be able to find an older one for a good price. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I may get that updated one at some point, a whopping 2100 pages! On wikipedia of course we could easily beat it and list every film worldwide in an A-Z. It's difficult to maintain the A-Z full list we have though. I was thinking about requesting a bot operator to update the lists by ransacking each category by year. I don't update that list, and I don't think any of the others I know creating film entries do either!♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW do you remember the Just for the Record (Randall and Hopkirk Deceased) episode with Ronald Radd playing a deluded character stealing documents to claim heir to throne? Remember Randall chased him along the Thames and he and his two thugs were in a boat? One of my favourite R&H characters and episodes. I started him in 2007 when there was only a tiny photo from the Avengers site of him, now google him! I spotted him in The Offence the other day and recognized him instantly. Great actor, a pity we didn't see more of him. He was highly underrated and should have been a much bigger star.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sadly the original R&HD never aired anywhere that I lived :-( The remake version with Tom Baker (Happy 51st Anniversary Dr Who!) did but by the time I found it there were only a couple episodes left in its run. I would love to see it one day and I know it has been released on DVD so maybe one day. The blurb here mentions a couple other things that I forgot. It also has a "actor" index as well as several other "cross index" ones. I think its only drawback (a minor one I suspect) for your research purposes is that it only lists films that have been released on VHS, DVD, Laserdisc(?) or bluray.

Seen Ernst Thälmann (film)? Worth getting on DVD, a masterpiece. Some of the closest resemblances in the film to Nazi officials I've ever seen too, particularly Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for cluing me in on this . I will look for it. Of all the actors to play Hitler IMO Anthony Hopkins in The Bunker (1981 film) is one of the best. He even catches the changes in H's voice over the years. Bruno Ganz in Downfall (2004 film) is also very good. Speaking of Ganz I know you saw Herzog's Nosferatu weeks ago. I wonder if someone from the production team has that crazy skull/black death skeleton clock in their home. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So many films to see.. The Blockbuster book arrived a few days ago and it's a real small compact one thankfully, I was expecting a massive book! It has a section at the back with filmographies by actor and director and I realized how little I've really seen (comparatively speaking)!! There's like 23,000 odd films in the book. Everyone's in the same boat though!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Realized I've already seen A Man Called Peter. Have you seen it? Richard Todd should have won an Oscar for it IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It sure sounds familiar . If I did see it it would have been 40 years ago so I need to add it to the list. 23,000 films eh? I suspect you will have cut that down quite a bit by New Years Eve :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha, well I'm getting there :-). I am cheating though as I have a split screen on a big monitor! Films which are particularly great I'll watch again sometime and "scrutinize" them. I have a particular thing for 1955, for me the peak of Golden Hollywood. While the early 60s were hotter for French and Italian cinema I really do think 1955 is the best year in American cinema. I just love the look of films and actors from that period. 1955 in colour for me gets me excitable!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose 1999 might be a good candidate for best year in American film, so many ground breaking films released that year, but I think 1955, 1962, 1959, 1960, 1939, 1968 and 1973 are particularly strong years.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Shock horror, not yet seen a film today!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yowza . You may be suffering a case of the shakes but they will pass. Maybe watching a couple trailers will help :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost tempted to watch Porgy and Bess (film) but I'll pass and get on with Kubrick instead!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Cinerama
Please explain the errors in my edits so that I may make a new one that is more accurate. Best, Markhh (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In the red lettering (that appears when checking on an edit) it looked like you spelled "film" as "flm". however you did not make that mistake my eyes did, so my apologies. OTOH Windjammer was filmed in the three strip process and it was originally shown in three strip, but after that it was shown without - in the later Cinerama format - so it was an error to add the wording in the notes section for that film. Again my apologies for my errors. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well it turns out my eyes weren't playing tricks in this one case. Oh well, maybe my reading glasses needed cleaning. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?
Have you seen Independence Day?  Smokey TheCat  16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I spend 45 minutes adding a constructive, factual and informative edit to the 2001: A Space Odyssey article and you delete in it a minute with no discussion. Why couldn't you have improved on it if you didn't like the style. Haven't you got anything better to do with your time?  Smokey TheCat  16:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Aside from the snark in your message you might try reading WP:BURDEN as WP:RS is required with any edit. Sine you are going off your watching of the film you will also want to read WP:OR Your post edit to the article was written as though you were posting on your blog or facebook page. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Quotes in titles
I have restored the quotes in the title, as the MOS actually has nothing to say about quotes in title. Each title is accompanied by a link explaining the addition of quotes (and I will reignite the discussion). 23:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the MOS does have something to say about quotes in titles. WP:TITLEFORMAT explicitly states Do not enclose titles in quotes. While that alone should be enough for you to revert your reversion of my edits I will add that these "forced quote marks" have only been used in season eight. If there was a discussion about this I did not see it but it certainly should not override the policy that I have linked to. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But the beauty is: they are not "enclosed" in quotes. The quotes are added by CSS, and therefor not part of the title. But I refer you to the discussion at WT:TITLE for the technical details.  00:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes no difference as well you know. They are still there and enclosed when a reader views that article. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Bette Midler
I notice you have removed Bette Midler as being a comedienne a couple of times and wondering on your reasoning for this. In addition to winning a number of American comedy awards appearing in many comedies and releasing a live stand-up comedy album thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedgarau (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * She is wonderful with her jokes but she does not make a living as a comedian. I still have a vinyl record of Mud..., however, one record (on which she also sang a song or two) still does not qualify for the term. OTOH I think that, using your references, you should feel free to restore the item in the lede. I would leave it out of the infobox tho. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Serenity
Noticed some minor, factual edits made to Serenity Writing and Development sections were immediately changed. Was there a reason for this change? What can we do to keep them permanent? Thanks for your help. 74.62.205.146 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires WP:RSs for any new info added to articles and you did not provide them. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
Vandal-only account up to it again, after your warning. Quis separabit? 15:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thanks for letting me know. It is morning here and I have only just gotten online today. It looks like they have stopped now so I don't know whether it is worth reporting them to AIV at the moment. I'll try to keep an eye on things but RL is busy at this time of year so please feel free to make your own report should the nonsense resume. Thanks, also, for your work here at WikiP. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Samantha & Darrin Stephens' Daughter, Tabatha
Hello, I'm LavGreen I've read your message and I think I've figured out how to reply:

Well, the reason I have been changing the name to its correct spelling is due to this video that I uploaded myself from the show - I personally watched the episode on ANTTV (AntennaTV - New York), recorded it, then uploaded it: Please Note - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdJxzRpF0aU - ff 1:54

I'm aware that MANY people, sites and groups spell it with an 'i' in the middle, but that isn't correct. Correcting the spelling is wrong somehow? I've left the links with the incorrect spelling as is, so the links stay valid

Also, there is this blog: Please note - http://www.harpiesbizarre.com/tabstory.htm

I hope that this is a correct way of replying back to you

What happens now?

LavGreen (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. Please be aware that you are watching the the episode that introduced the child and that is the ONLY time it was spelled with an "a" . That may have been an error by the makers of the episode but they changed it to an "i" in all subsequent closing credits. Also if you look at all of the other episodes of the spinoff series you will see the "i" in the opening credits. In fact the picture in the infobox here Tabitha (TV series) shows exactly what I am talking about. Also note that, per WP:RS, blogs are not a reliable source for entries at Wikipedia. What happens now is we leave the "i" in all info about the show. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Followup: This "a" is mentioned in the article for the series and you have provided a reference for that. Thanks again. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope that you noticed that the harpie link uses both an "a" and an "i" at various spots. As it is a "fansite" it also would not meet the WP:RS criteria. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that I have had more time to check into things there are various ways to spell the name as is mentioned in the Tabitha article. Please try and understand that this is not a "right or wrong" situation. The fact that the spelling did change during the run of Bewitched probably merits a mention so I have started a thread at Talk:List of Bewitched characters. Your input is welcome there. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I record the episodes each day, so I will check as soon as the character matures - right now she is a months old baby, so not in the credits. Thank you for the invite to the chat, I will save the link. LavGreen (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to be more tolerant
Hi M! Some months ago now I was chastised by our friend, for stubbornly refusing to watch any commercial television station because of the advertising interruptions and so missing Broadchurch. Well I have just watched and thoroughly enjoyed the excellent two-parter on the Murder of Joanna Yeates in ITV's The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies. Whilst watching I was made very aware that the second series of Broadchurch is to start on 5 January 2015. I have today ordered the first series (at least I shall be spared the commercial breaks) and look forward to viewing, clearly, an excellent programme before watching ITV again—. All the best to both of you! — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 20:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi G. Yes commercials are such a drag - sadly BBC America is full of them so Dr Who etc are affected as well. I love using my DVR so that I can fast forward through them :-) Just as bad are all the ads for other shows that are at the edges of the picture. My bluray set of Capaldi's first full season as the Dr arrived yesterday so now I will be able to enjoy them they way they were meant to be seen. I will keep an eye peeled for the show that you mentioned. Have a wonderful weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My DVD player - a cheap Sony DVP-NS355 that must be nine years old - has a zoom feature with three levels: 1:1, 1.4:1 and 2:1. When a recording has undesirable side and bottom margins, it's often possible to set the zoom to the 1.4:1 level, and by carefully sliding the viewport about, it can trim off all the adverts. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey
I see you are confused about the gross. I think Wrath is editing in accordance with Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film) (and should have really linked to it in his edit summary) where I point out that the gross given by The Numbers is wrong. There are currently two plausible figures (with links). In answer to your question about the discrepency it is highly likely that one of the sources has omitted some reissue earnings, although it is not something we can prove unless we can find another source to corroborate the figures. Betty Logan (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. For me it may just be one of those infobox things where there are a batch of numbers without any explanation of where they come from or what they mean. Also it is late here so I am being cranky without a reason to be so. Off to dreamland then. Thanks again for taking the time to fill me in - it is much appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I Know Where I'm Going!
You seen I Know Where I'm Going!? I'd guess has seen it several times and you've seen it. What a masterpiece of a film, right up there with Powell and Pressburger's finest IMO. Whenever I watch one of their films it's like there's some sort of magic at work. Technically they're absolutely spectacular filmmakers, I can see why Scorsese and other masters also think so!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . Many years ago the revival film theater showed a batch of P&P films including this one. I completely agree with your assessment of them. I hope that you have a great holiday season and a wonderful (and film watching packed) 2015. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, have a great Christmas!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Wrong Mans
Remember this? New series of The Wrong Mans starts tomorrow. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up . I just checked and Amazon UK has the first season for 6 pounds. I couldn't place my order fast enough. I wonder how Cordon's writing and performing for a series like this is going to be affected by his taking over Craig Ferguson's late night talk show. Cordon was interviewed on Colbert's show and Stephen warned him to get some sleep as the five night a week grind will keep him busy. Best wishes to you during this holiday season and have a stupendous 2015. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Two one-hour episodes. Can't wait. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 18:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks . Best wishes to you and in the year ahead. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

 * Many many thanks . Best holiday wishes to you and may your 2015 be full of good times on-WikiP and, even more so, off. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

More happy wishes

 * Thanks so much !! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!! And thanks for fixing the signature.  I'm garbage with templates!  --Drmargi (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And you are welcome as well . BTW don't forget to check your email - there is a Jacquie Lawson treat awaiting you. Wassail cheers to you!!!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus
 Martinevans123Santas Grotto ... wishes you and yours: "Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"



May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace!


 * Many Many thanks . I hope that you have a big feast laid out at Santa's grotto for when the jolly old fellow gets back from his trip around the globe :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Merry Christmas to you too, MarnetteD!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

 * Many thanks . best wishes for your 2015 on-WikiP and much more so off. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What'cha think
about this... the longest article I've written to date and a fine way to wind up 2014: The Centrifuge Brain Project.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about this . Life is a bit rushed as you can imagine and I want to read it in more depth but it does look like you've done a good job on the article. The film itself looks mighty interesting. For some reason, as I read the article, I was reminded of the three films that are part of Peter Greenaway's The Tulse Luper Suitcases. They probably aren't anything alike and its been several years since I've seen TTLS but it was interesting to have that brought to mind. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Enjoy it as probably the best 7 minutes you'll spend this year. On a sidenote, filmmaker Till Nowak has friended me on Facebook and thanked and praised my work on creating the article. Pretty cool. .  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The Secret Invasion
Coincidentally, I too remember this film as a bit of a swashbuckler that popped up late night on television many years ago. I'll see what my memory and a few resources can do in adding to the wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
re: talk page entry Thanks very much for trying to clear that up; however, the removal of legitimate citations over a considerable time has been malicious edit warring, not in 'good faith'. In closing, I must ask why did you comment on my talk page regarding this as I had not issued a vandalism warning to any editor, rather I stated to one editor in comments that the nasty edit warring was vandalism as it was a malicious removal of legitimate content? Twobells (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You used false and misleading edit summaries more than once which shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on your part. This summary claims that you reported vandalism so it is immaterial whether you had or not. In this one you claim that there was consensus on the talk page for your edit when there clearly wasn't AND you claim that you notified an admin which is also a false statement. These are not the actions of someone acting in good faith and they clearly justify the notice on your talk page. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just found this where your refactored your post to make it read differently then it had when I was replying. That is also inappropriate. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Luise Rainer
We've lost another! Kirk Douglas, Louis Jourdan and Olivia de Havilland and precious few others are all that remain now! We've really lost a good chunk of our remaining Golden stars this year. I loved her in The Great Ziegfeld. Funnily enough I was planning on watching The Good Earth today and will most certainly be doing so now!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutey . This year saw so many talents on both sides of the Atlantic pass away. I will particularly miss Bob Hoskins. I was also sad to hear that David Ryall died on Christmas Day. A fine character actor he had a wonderful role in Quartet (2012 film) - BTW this film is a wonderful tribute to those who make the performing arts their profession. I got to see him on stage in 2000 in the epic play about the Trojan war Tantalus. Cheer so you in these last few hours of 2014. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quartet is one I've been meaning to see, I keep confusing it with A Late Quartet though!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the sequel to both of those Quintet (film) isn't quite as enjoyable - hee hee. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not seen that one, and judging by the reviews not exactly top of my list to see hehe! Best of luck for 2015! With a bit of luck I'll have Kubrick updated soon and can resume writing it with the biographies!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just read of Edward Herrmann's death . It sort of puts the cap on a year where we lost so many talented people. This morning I watched his early film The Paper Chase (film) which makes this news a touch spooky. He was also great as FDR opposite Jane Alexander's Eleanor Roosevelt. He and Maureen Stapleton gave two of my favorite performances in Reds (film). Ah well I am glad that I have a couple fun things planned for tonight because this news (along with LR's passing yesterday) is making me sad. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's wish for a great 2015

 * Thanks so much . I only seem to make it to midnight every other year or so and I can't remember if this is one of those years :-) This link contains a fun mix of shows that we've watched over the years. Benedict reciting Will's words only makes it better. Enjoy your last 2= hours of 2014!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Tonight we have the third (of three) hour of this treat. They have been shown this week concurrently at nine o'clock on BBC One. Look out for them! As Miranda's mother says, "Such fun". — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 21:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you are enjoying both the link and the new series of Mapp and Lucia. The 1980's series is so iconic for me - such a great cast - but this one has an excellent cast as well and I look forward to seeing it. If you scroll down this page a bit you will see the beautiful boxed set of the books that I picked up from The Folio Society a few years ago. Less than 2 hours to go for you now! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Scotland gets a two-day hol (1-2 January), whereas the rest of the UK has Friday as a normal working day. I'm watching Jools's Annual Hootenanny. Happy new year! -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Many thanks and mucho best wishes for your 2015!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").


 * Thanks so much . Best wishes for your 2015 on-WikiP and even more so off. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR !!! Thank you for the kind thoughts and for all your consistently excellent work through the years. Last year was a hard one, both physically, thanks to medical ailments, and on Wikipedia, thanks to a plethora of Wikitrolls. Colleagues like you make staying here worthwhile. Here's to a better year to all! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the wonderful message . I too hope for a better year for all and especially for you healthwise. Cheers!! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"Pimpernel" Smith
See revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good . Thanks for letting me take a look at it. The only thing I would suggest is moving the "Inspiration for Raoul Wallenberg" section below the "Reception" section. My preference is to have all of the info about the film come first and then items related to the film (which came after its making and release) come later. But, as I say, that is just me (and I can't remember if it is addressed in MOSFILM) so if you are happy with it then it is fine. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Belated holiday greetings
Happy New Year to you. If I haven't said it enough, THANK YOU for everything you do here. You're truly a class act.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 02:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much . Your words mean a lot. I hope that your 2015 is off to a good start and that it just keeps getting better. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Belated Happy Holidays!
Just wanted to wish you a belated happy holidays! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I hope that your 2015 is off to a good start and that it just keeps getting better. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't what to do
You're telling me to give you a source and I am but you're keep saying it's wrong and I just don't know what to do anymore. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC))
 * A) The source comes up as a 404 link so it is not WP:V B) Interviews with Matt and/or Trey are WP:PRIMARY sources and don't always qualify for an item to be added to an article. So what you need are WP:SECONDARY sources who comment on their being satirists. C) One mention in one source does not necessarily meat WikiPs requirements for an item to be in the article. Please see WP:GNG and Significant coverage. So in the case of Matt and Trey it would be better to have more than one source. IMO the main problem is that you are not using the articles talk pages for discussion. You could open new threads on M and/or T's talk pages (or at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and you might find that other editors will even find links that confirm the "satirist" designation that you want to add. This took a bit longer than I had intended to finish so my apologies for not getting back to you sooner MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)