User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 15

Welcome back!
Enjoy your break slacker? 2 lines of K 303  15:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did! Thanks! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of County Derry
There's a bit of an edit war over County Derry versus Londonderry again. Been watching it. Could you revert? I'd do it, but while we are mediating the religious question, the admin has asked us not to edit. Thanks. Malke 2010  02:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Wrong key. Malke  2010  02:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm trying to do three things at once here. Irish American. Malke  2010  02:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the edit I was talking about. I had the impression that County Derry had been decided on at some point.. Malke  2010  08:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) (IMOS) for how issue is addressed. RashersTierney (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus & Roberto Calvi
Hi RJ, fellow lover of fine films!

In these edits you removed my note connecting Tony (Heath Ledger) being found hanging under Blackfriars bridge with the murder of Roberto Calvi by hanging under the same bridge.

This statement was sourced in this reference (Vanity Fair, Peter Biskind), so I believe that the statement is verifiable; perhaps my phrasing was suboptimal: “critics have suggested that this is a reference to Calvi” – or I might’ve not clearly referenced it (I put the note and reference next to each other, rather than specifically referencing the statement in the note).

Some searching shows that in fact Gilliam referred to this as an “homage to Roberto Calvi” (quoted in article at Times Online), so I’d like to restore it, including the “homage to Calvi” language.

Is this ok with you, and have you any preference on formatting? I would tend to put it in a footnote (so as not to distract from the plot summary) and as a rule I separate notes (comments) from references (sourcing) – does this sound ok?

Thanks!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Banksy
Just to let you know, the IP was correct in his recent edit and so I have reinstated it. The reference is incorrect (it is, afterall, The Mail) and the painting is of a marker pen rather than a gun (as reported by the BBC and clearly visible in the picture). Thanks,  raseaC talk to me 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference was already there stating pen. Both The Mirror and BBC quote gun, both are incorrect.  raseaC talk to me 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Dawn
I saw you are removing the map on the above page. Would you please consider discussing that on the talk page first. While it might be fragrantly WP:OR, I personally see it as helpful to the article. I would like to see if other editors have an opinion as well. Thank you. Outback the koala (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
See this thread on the Administrator's noticeboard. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "Talk page deletion"
I've replied on my talk page. Paul August &#9742; 13:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Back again?
Honestly, you're up and down more often than Princess Diana's breakfast! Oh wait, wrong analogy.... 2 lines of K 303  15:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have always been the traveling sort. Since I was 16, I have never gone more than 18 months without jumping on a train, a car, bus, boat, or plane and heading off somewhere.  I'll be off again in a little more than a week. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Blade Runner
Actually, Methuselah Syndrome is what Sebastian himself calls it in the film. IMO the inclusion of "progeria" in the article is actually speculation, since it isn't the word/term/sickness referred to in the film. Progeria manifests at an early age, usually before 5. Sebastian prob wasn't suffering from it specifically since he says he's 25. Then again, considering that the movie was set 35 yrs in the future (from 1982), and it's sci-fi, a new form of the disease could've sprung up in the fantasy world the novel's set in.

Plus, I forgot to get my reason for the edit in there, I was pressed for time, sorry.Tommyt (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate
Please note that |an attempt is being made to redirect / delete Tannhauser Gate without reopening the AfD which closed with a consensus to keep...... --Michael C. Price talk 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you keep an eye on this please?
Appartently a disruptive editor thinks that because a book physically exists the referencing can't possibly be fraudulent on 1989 Dewsbury race riot. "Wikipedia - the encyclopedia any fucktard can edit" might be a more appropriate slogan.... 2 lines of K 303  11:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Republican legitimism
I note your revert of my edits.

Several people (including myself) have been trying to append criticism of this article for a long time, but our attempts have been dishonestly reverted on the basis that the commentary was uncited. This time, I added many cites, to dispose of that spurious argument. The content of the quotes were relevant material to the discussion.

If the addition of quotations were the issue. most of the article would be invalid, since it consists largely of quotations from narrowly sourced texts.

I propose to revert your reverts, but before doing so, I am contacting you as a courtesy on the basis that you may misunderstand the background.Michael of Lucan (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

JimSteele9999
RepublicanJacobite--

I would like any advice that you could provide on this issue. I have been followed across multiple pages by user jimsteele9999 -- a user it is important to note that has been involved in several Wiki disputes in the past, including at least one with you. He has been caught with multiple accounts and has been suspended. He has committed vandalism on one page, made false reports on other users (which were subsequently shot down by respected senior editors) and consistently edited certain pages with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel. As you pointed out some months ago, he adds material that has no citations and cuts material that is properly cited. He seems particularly obsessed with J. D. Salinger. He admitted in a November 26, 2009 post that he has a "personal investment in this author's works" and has altered pages haphazardly where Salinger is mentioned. One possible source of his personal investment may be a COI related to Salinger: J. D. Salinger's literary agency for 50 years has been Harold Ober & Associates. In an earlier version of JimSteele9999's user page he actually says "Hello" to Harold Ober employees. Here is a link to that page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jimsteele9999&diff=prev&oldid=354198560

I pointed out that his wiki name "Jim Steele" was one of Holden Caulfield's aliases in The Catcher in the Rye. He responded by saying that his name was not connected to CITR but rather comes from a professional athlete. The only problem with this argument is that it turns out he has posted MORE THAN 100 TIMES on various boards related to J.D. Salinger, CITR and other Salinger short stories. It is extremely revealing what material he has chosen to delete.

Tonight he tried to claim that "HOA are the initials of [his] great uncle Harris Ossenburger Adelstein" but respected senior editor Atama shot this down and provided the link above. "Ossenberger", of course, is yet another name pulled from The Catcher in the Rye.

Clearly if he works for Harold Ober and Associates, it is a COI and you may consider reporting this to the COI board.

In addition, JimSteele9999 has been warned many times about attacking contributors who disagree with him and revert material that JimSteele9999 wrongfully deleted.

Here is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimsteele9999&diff=prev&oldid=329444260

and another example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaydec

(see 1/2 way down the page)

I crossed paths with him on the Shane Salerno page. JimSteele9999 consistently deleted all information related to Salerno's Salinger documentary. And when citations were added, he cut the material AND the citations which appears to mirror his pattern on the Salinger pages that you edited.

I would be interested to know about your history with him as well as any thoughts or advice you might have on this matter.

Thanks for reading. JAWW123 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear RepublicanJacobite,

I have a few questions about a few things JimSteele9999 has done that should be reported.

1. Are you allowed to go into other people's posts and change and manipulate the wording and then RESAVE that page so that you create a false impression for anyone reviewing the current version of that page? If the answer is "No", how could JimSteele9999 edit John7512's comment on JimSteele9999's user page the way that he did here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimsteele9999&diff=prev&oldid=356061816

This is a pattern for JimSteele9999. He also did this to you and myself two days ago.

User WhatamIdoing warned JimSteele9999 about this issue on October 16, 2009.

2. Doesn't JimSteel9999 accusing someone of being a publicist, the subject of the page and all kinds of other things across multiple Wiki pages violate Wiki policy as a personal attack?

3. Does removing chunks of verified and properly cited data constitute vandalism? If "Yes", wouldn't JimSteele9999's deleting of Off2riorob's properly cited and sourced work on the Salerno page constitute vandalism?

4. Respected senior editor Off2riorob has now repeatedly told JimSteele9999 to "move on" from the Salerno page and related issues. He has not. At what point do the warnings become actionable?

I'm new here. What would you do if you were in my shoes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAWW123 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

refimprove on Heat?
Please place your foundation for adding the refimprove tag on Heat within Talk:Heat_(1995_film). Srobak (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs
Firstly, I don't agree with the title and it should have been challenged long ago, if it wasn't. Secondly, to refer to convicted murderers as "martyrs" in regular text (not quotation) gives the imprimatur of the encyclopedia (Wikipedia in this case) to that political belief or POV. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I guess I was smart to resist my first instinct to rv not knowing about the WP:1RR. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

templates
Please don't stick templates on my talkpage. The content is not widely reported and is also worthless POV, please consider moving on. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My edit
May I ask why you reverted the edit on April 7, 2010 on Sweet Thing (Chaka Khan song)? SwisterTwister (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, go to the history and look at the recent edit. Someone added a renidition of the Sweet Thing song. You just simply reverted the edit, and I'm asking why.SwisterTwister (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember?
Hello RepublicanJacobite. I have been noticing these Special:Contributions/Jordancelticsfan edits by User:Jordancelticsfan. You dealt with his edits on several pages. He seems to like to change peoples nationalities. Most edits are of the busy work kind. Some of it is okay but some of it seems unneeded. He has also edited as an anon IP Special:Contributions/174.23.72.231 making the same kind of changes. Considering that the IP is from South Jordan, Utah I think it is safe to say that they are the same person. He has also been adding categories and that jogged my memory. A few years ago we had an editor somewhat like this who was always making up new categories that were deemed unnecessary. I think that they were eventually blocked but I could be wrong. I am wondering if you remember any of this. If you don't don't worry about it. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Godfather
What do you consider a "notable" source? Do you think that information is made up? Lou72JG (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Elephant Man (film)
Hello, I'm curious as to why you labelled this edit as vandalism? According to the IMDb, the film is American, so the change by the previous editor seems reasonable.-- Beloved Freak  01:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. In reply, the editor who made that change has a habit of repeatedly changing categories, infoboxes, templates, etc., in film articles without explanation.  He never uses an edit summary, and makes the same changes again even when other editors revert him and give their reasons.  Multiple messages, including warnings, on his talk page have had no impact.  My revert was a knee-jerk reaction motivated by frustration.  But, at the same time, my recollection was that the film had British financing, and since he offered no explanation for his change, I reverted.  If I am incorrect, please revert me.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the reply. I can certainly understand, it can be very frustrating when an editor has a mixture of constructive & unconstructive edits, with no communication. I've reverted it for now because the IMDb entry says its only American. Of course, IMDb doesn't always have all the answers, so you may be right, it may have had British money involved or something, so if someone finds a source to that effect, that's fine.-- Beloved Freak  10:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. If the editor in question is definitely being disruptive in their edits, it might be time to report them to WP:AIV; they've certainly had plenty of warnings.-- Beloved Freak  10:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you get a second
Could you chip in at Talk:Andrew Brons please? Thanks. 2 lines of K 303  13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)