User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 22

Godfather 3
Have added a link but i suggest you werify this by also listening to the commentary. Whilst wikipedia does not always allow refs to dvd websites (amazon etc), this is usually fully justifiable without a ref when users can backup what has been written by verifying the source it was reported from. When it isnt present and someone claims it is, report them to wikipedia. thanks ToonIsALoon (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your note
Hi RJ. Thanks for your note. Yeah Pé showed up earlier this week for the first time in quite awhile. He was sniffed out pretty quickly and blocked. I think one of the things that gives him away is that he always uses the same cuss word when attacking other editors :-) Our paper had a great W.C. Fields quote today that I'll share with ya. "You should always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite, furthermore, you should also carry a small snake." Have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Cocaine Blues
"What you did was act without consulting your fellow editors or engaging in any discussion. The fact is, all of these different versions are related and should be discussed in one place." I think you may have intended to write this at User talk:Mnealon — he was the person who split up the Cocaine Blues article. I simply asked Mnealon what was going on, after I noticed the major change (as reported by STiki) and was confused. If you meant instead that you felt I had done something wrong here (even though, in fact, I never touched Cocaine Blues), I'd be grateful if you could clarify. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to his message on your page, because he had not responded to my message on the article talk page. I was not accusing you of anything, I assure you." Completely understood.  Thanks for reassuring me.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fear and loathing...
Your last 2 reverts aren't at all helpful to the article itself. Your first one, to remove red links, not only does not help the article itself, it makes it less useful. Why can't an infobox have red links in it (i see no mention of it in the MoS)? A page might be made for the producers and/or film companies and finding what to link to those pages will take a lot more time then. Your second edit, removing cast members from the plot section also doesn't help. You removed "(Johnny Depp)" but left in "(Depp)". How is that not repeating itself? Its the same as how it was before, but with your way, the reader won't be able to go to the actor's page. Not only that, some of the "repeats" are actually first mentioned in the plot section - Toby Maguire for example. I really do not wish to get into an edit war on this, and this is why im posting this here to get to hear why you think this way is better. I might even be turned to your side. --Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

UK External Links
Our friend is still adding those links to True Blood. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! Not quite sure why this person continues to do what s(he) does...Ravenscroft32 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Still being added, but on his/her talk page s/he asks why they are being removed. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption
Then address them. Reanimated X (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Andyscotlandlewis
sorry what do my edits contain you dont agree with ? PS what is an IP ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyscotlandlewis (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Page move
It's been moved WhisperToMe (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Irish mob
Sorry, but what did my edit on the Irish mob contain you don't agree with? It has been a long time since I made the edit but as I remember the issue was that people have the misconception that the Boston Winter Hill Gang corrupted a couple of FBI agents. This is false and I correctly pointed out that the FBI was already corrupt in Boston and referenced a supporting congressional report. What is it that you want? Is there a procedural issue or is there something else that displeases you? -DS-survivor (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)DS-survivor


 * If that is your contention, and the Congressional report supports it (I have no idea whether it does or not, and I do not care one way or the other), it is still irrelevant to the page, which is not about FBI corruption, it is about the Irish mob. The only information that is relevant is related to the relationship between certain FBI agents and the Winter Hill Gang. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  01:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then please correct or remove this false statement: "During the 1970s and 1980s, the FBI's Boston office was largely infiltrated through corrupt federal agent John J. Connolly." I don't mind your trying to follow a process, just that you have reinstated false information that will mislead the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DS-survivor (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that statement is attributable to a notable and reliable source. All that is relevant here is the corruption fostered by those agents at the behest of the Whitey Bulger, as documented in Black Mass. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  03:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No. The book Black Mass is not nearly as reliable as the original congressional testimony that you chose to ignore. How does Wikipedia resolve these disputes? You appear to have a bias in favor of Black Mass over original source material. I have spent thirty years dealing with this paticular bit of federal corruption so I'm happy to work this out anyway that is acceptable save for misleading Wikipedia readers. I am also one of those who testified before congress and was heavily involved with exposing the corruption. Incidentally, I would love to have the page number in Black Mass suggesting that this was all the result of FBI agent John Connolly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DS-survivor (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said before, this article is about the Irish Mob, not about FBI corruption. I have no bias one way or the other.  In fact, I do not care about the issue of FBI corruption in the Boston office.  Nor do I doubt anything that you are saying.  What I am saying is that it is irrelevant to this article. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How about a compromise? "During the 1970s and 1980s, agents from FBI's Boston office permitted Whitey Bulger to use his status as a government informant against his rivals (the extent of which would not be revealed until the mid to late 1990s)." This leaves the reader wondering how the FBI could have permitted this to happen without leading them to falsely believed that Connolly started all of this corruption. In truth Connolly joined a team of corrupt agents that for decades had been committing about every crime in the book.DS-survivor (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)DS-survivor


 * I think that wording would work, yes. However, this should be discussed on the article talk page, as well, to hear opinions from other editors not aware of the discussion we have had here.  I would suggest you start a discussion there, succinctly reiterating your objection to the implication that the corruption started with Connolly, and then offering the compromise statement you posted above.  I will then respond, saying I agree.  Hopefully, then, other editors will offer their thoughts.  If, after a week or so, there are no further comments, or at least no objections, we will change the wording, and add the source you quoted. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  17:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. As an involved party it is difficult to know how to correct such mistakes. I'll try this approach in the future. Thank you for your help. DS-survivor (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)DS-survivor
 * From too much personal experience, I know that it can be too easy to get locked-in and unwilling to compromise. I appreciate this exchange, rather than an edit war.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  00:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A bit of WP:OR on my part
Hi RJ. I thought I would share a thought that has been growing in my mind (yes it still happens occasionally) over the last several months. First, WikiP now has almost 3 and 3/4 million articles. Second, I have seen a couple of discussions about the fact that, in the last three or four years, the number of active (full-time non-vandal) editors has shrunk considerably. My theory is that there are now a large (and it could be very large) number of articles that are on no active watchlists. Then I came upon this nonsense today that I cleaned up. So indulging my OCD nature and dug into the edit history and found this gem showing that the vandalism sat in this article for almost two full years!! I don't know that there is anything that can be done about it so I guess it just means that we have to be even more vigilant than ever. Cheers - oh and speaking of OCD I saw the following on a t-shirt in one of the dozens of catalogs that I receive at this time of year - "CDO its just like OCD and the letters are in the right order the way they are supposed to be!" Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD | Talk 22:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. You are right "belief in the project" is the joy/slavery of idealism that leaves the factual (thoughtful? reflective?) editing so vulnerable. However, I too think that there is still some productive work that draws me back to edit in spite of the flaws. On the other hand the next time that I am having to argue like/with a five year old I could be off to enjoy my DVD and book collection. I know you resisted the peer pressure ;-) to display userboxes but make sure to look at the one that I have about IP editing just above the one about typewriters on my userpage. It corresponds to your to your all-to-correct thought that ending IP editing would be beneficial to the project. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories at Hipster (contemporary_subculture)
There was discussion relevant to it which you must have missed here[]. Roidroid (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks:-)
Hi again. Thanks for your response to my edit summary at Duck, You Sucker! and for the great section header. I was waiting for the Morricone music to come on as I read your post. I haven't studied the background of Leone's films as much as I have some other directors so I might have missed any info about the last three constituting a trilogy. I guess I'll have to buy the special edition DVD for Duck... that came out a couple years ago and see if there is anything about this in the extras. I bought all three in the "Dollars" trilogy and enjoyed the documentaries for their info and I especially liked the "Film locations Then and Now" features. Per your message you should feel free to adjust any info in the article lede as you see fit. On a side note in my teen years I used to get Duck... mixed up with Waterhole  when I would tell friends about them. I am sure that it was because James Coburn was in both films. The reason I mention it is that I can still remember a Junior High (70 to 73 for me) history teacher telling us that most gunfights in Western films and TV shows were bogus. He said that the scene in Waterhole #3 where Coburn's character gets into an argument - tells his adversary he'll meet him in the street - then walks out pulls his rifle from his saddle bags and stays hidden behind his horse while gunning down the other fellow - was far more likely to be the way most gun battles ended. I know this is a bit long winded but it always brings a smile to my face when I remember his lecture so I thought I would share it with you. Have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 03:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Coburn was the epitome of cool for me as a youngster. The Great Escape, his westerns, The Flint films and Dead Heat on a Merry-go-Round were must see every time the came on the TV. His appearance on The Muppet Show is also a memorable one - especially his scenes with Animal. Okay I gotta add one more Bite the Bullet is also worth a look. Its loosely based on a real horse race and was filmed in some of my favorite Colorado and New Mexico locations. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No Wave
Hi, I am planning on overhauling the No Wave page in the next month or so. I noticed that you were the most active and recent editor there so thought I would touch base before getting to it, just to be friendly in case you either want to work together to improve the page or in case you don't like the changes I make and want to discuss them.

I recently overhauled the page on Pub Rock and have worked on Sadcore and Slowcore as I would like the alternative music genre pages to be of a relative quality. An example is that I plan to remove the lists of "bands considered to be No Wave", as these are unhelpfully POV and are basically moshpits for IPs. I will save a copy on the discussion page to preserve people's input and keep the peace with anyone who's favourite band suddenley isn't listed. Silverwood (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ulster Scots people
The Ulster Scots ("Scotch-Irish") are a Germanic people. They're descended almost completely from Lowland Scots and Englishmen. In what way are they "Celtic"? JonC Talk 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Almost completely" and "completely" are not the same thing. As the Ulster Scots article makes clear, the term is not precise.  I am of Scottish and Irish descent, and am referred to as Scots-Irish in the United States, further indicating that the term is imprecise.  But, by your argument, if Scotch-Irish are not Celts in any meaningful sense of the term, then they are not related to the Irish --- assuming, incorrectly, that there was never any intermarriage between these Scots and the neighboring Irish, or that, even, a Lowland Scot and a Highland Scot never intermarried and had offspring, who would be, in some sense, at least part Celt, and that one (or many) such people might not have been part of the Plantation of Ulster --- this does not negate the Cornish being related to the Irish, and only makes your addition of the English more absurd. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And of the many thousands of English with Celtic heritage? When the Romans and, later, Saxons turned up in England the place didn't cease to be in any way related to the lands around it. And how many Englishmen have settled and interbred in Ireland (and vice-versa)? The English are as Celtic than the Ulster Scots! I'm just finding it comical that – apparently based on the modern conception of the "Celtic nations" – you think the Irish are somehow a sister ethnic group to the people of Wales and the south-western part of England but not of the rest of it. We're not all Sassanach's, y'know. JonC Talk 19:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

O Brother!
(blush). Thanks.

Lots of eyes helps. I don't know how many times, someone (else, usually) will catch a highly watched article and there are two "the"s back to back. Been there for months! Or, worse, a bit of obvious vandalism that we've all overlooked for a great amount of time.

We've all had a heck of a time with this article due to sometimes brilliant "observations" by contributors, which turned out to be uncitable. Thanks for watching this article! Student7 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Amen
FYI... if this goes anywhere, let me know. I agree with you. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 01:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will let you know. Thanks! ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  04:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)