User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 25

DYK for Call Me Burroughs
The DYK project (nominate) 05:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Question
Would you be willing to tell me what happened here? I'm simply curious what caused that statement of yours. SwisterTwister  talk  05:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather
Hello again,

Please take a look at The Godfather. You probably do not want to get involved, I know. Some stranger has made close on 200 edits over the past two days uninterrupted. I have just e-mailed MarnetteD. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your fast response. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re- your postings earlier today on the WikiProject – both subjects – excellent!
 * Regarding this new editor, I have followed your advice and posted a warning on his/her talk page, and opened a new section on the Godfather Discussion page.
 * Thank you very much for all your input. Best regards,  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, Wrath X is still busy editing The Godfather – after a brief respite – and is catching you up fast. You have 178 recorded and he has 155 (not counting 48 on The Godfather II) but he/she is leaving Edit Summaries every time, thanks to you.  Cheers!  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

AFI
Thanks for you input on the lists. A month or so ago a couple editors were removing all AFI mentions from film articles. Then this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 40 discussion took place. I thought that a compromise had been reached that we would include the wins but not the nominations (I think the sourcing on the was dodgy but my memory could be faulty) so I restored some sections that had been removed and removed nominations. Then another editor came along and removed them again so I washed my hands of the situation. Since then I have come across several articles where the AFI info remains so IMO it was one of those WP:POINTy things as they only removed the sections from certain articles. No problem with your restoration I just didn't want you thinking that I went on a removal spree for no reason at all. I hope that things are going well for you and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Woody ty
OK, I have left a message to not attack other editors. Let me know if you're still getting similar posts. ... disco spinster   talk  03:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI SPI closed. I think we will see him return i awhile. Murry1975 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Tuco
Hi RepublicanJacobite. Thanks for your interest in cleaning up disambiguation pages. But please be careful with deleting entries as you did here with Tuco. Red links are allowed as long an article links to it (see MOS:DABRL) and Nevado de Tuco was linked before I created the article. Also, items appearing in articles are allowed (see MOS:DABMENTION), piping at the start of the entry on the other hand is not allowed. (It is also allowed to link Tuco Salamanca directly via the redirect, but personally I'm no fan of that since it lets people think a separate article exists for that topic). Best wishes LittleWink (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a wonderful life
Hello!

What a lovely surprise. Thank you so much! I am delighted.

We have had a wet and windy day here, and just watched the great James Stewart in the 1946 "It's a wonderful life". Then came up to check My watchlist to find your award and ... it really is a wonderful life!

Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Be aware you do not need to reach 3RR to be in violation of WP:EW. I fully agree with your last revert, the academic sources are more than enough and there is no need for the blog one. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankie and Johnny (song)
You recently deleted the article's only image with this comment "No indication picture is relevant". I found it highly relevant. Care to explain your POV before I reinstate it? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, you want this on my talk page, so I replied there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?
This is a content issue. Do you consider this an appropriate use of Twinkle to label it as vandalism? Cresix (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you and I have a different interpretation of the words "deletion" and "change". I see some wording changes and addition of content. I actually see some deletion in your edit. But that is beside the point. At the very least I think you could have explained your edit more clearly rather than referring to vandalism. Cresix (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)