User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 27

Thank you, RJ, for your continued help in getting me towards being a "regular"!

 * Be assured that I will
 * Thank you for your kind comment. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Category changes for castaways etc
Hi, I'm puzzled by some of your edits today, removing some of the navigation links that I had provided on articles about castaways and islands.

You reverted one of my edits removing Cast Away from Category:Solitude in fiction as unexplained. The reason was simple: the latter was a head category of Category:Fictional castaways, and direct membership of Category:Solitude in fiction was therefore deprecated according to WP:SUBCAT. However, you have not only unlinked those categories, but removed Cast Away from Category:Fictional castaways on the grounds that the category should only pertain to characters. If the book Robinson Crusoe had been titled anything else, would you have removed that as well?

Rather than revert your work, please could you explain why you consider that Category:Fictional castaways should be strictly restricted to characters? Would it be acceptable to rename it, and reinstate the deleted members?

I also considered it particularly useful to have the castaways category within the categories for Solitude and, but you removed both of these; please explain. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems very clear to me that Category:Fictional castaways is a character category, as a castaway is a person who has been lost and washed up on an island. Castaway, the film, is about such a person, but the film article itself should not be thus categorized.  And, yes, an article about the book Robinson Crusoe would not belong in said category either, but an article about the character, if one existed, would.


 * Category:Solitude in fiction makes sense for the film, as that is a running theme, even long after he is no longer on the island; indeed, his isolation is the main theme of the film. As for your other question, are castaways in fiction always on islands?  If not, the categorization does not fit, but I supposed that is open to debate. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  23:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SUBCAT allows for occasional exceptions. Even so, I will set up as a head category over Fictional castaways, and use "see also" rather than hierarchical links with "solitude" and "islands" as castaways do not always fit these. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Hi. You removed an edit I entered on The Revolution Will Not Be Televised with regards to the fact that the work was covered by Labelle, as I forgot to include sources. I didn't think it was necessary, since the wikipage for the album Pressure Cookin' already links to the page on which I placed the info, i.e. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
 * There are various sources, e.g. allmusic.com which simply credit Gil Scott-Heron with the songwriting alongside the song title, but is that sufficient as a source, and if so, what is the correct way to include such a source? Sorry, new to this...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu byrozen (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * erm, I'm not sure if I just broke the page in question... I tried following the guide for quoting sources and it now returns a database error... Stu byrozen (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

RefToolbar
Sounds like the old JavaScript is cached for you. You can either clear out your browser's file cache or wait a few days for it to expire. Let me know if that doesn't work. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, first let's figure out if this is a server-side problem or a client-side problem. Can you try logging into your account from another browser or computer and see if the behavior is the same? Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That means that the problem is on the server-side and not specific to your browser cache. Can you double check that you have "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" turned off in your editing preferences. That checkbox is the only thing that should determine whether you get the old toolbar (with RefTools 1.0) or the new toolbar (with RefTools 2.0). If that doesn't work, you may want to try resetting your preferences completely by clicking "Restore all default settings". Kaldari (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Road (2009 film)
I added reasoning for my plot, I took time to get to it but I was wondering if you would way in. --JTBX (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your note
Thanks for your note. The name your looking for is. Although genre arguments are one of his main problems he did lots of other things as well. As you say it is a good idea to keep an eye on this person for a while until more is revealed. There was another editor that we did this genre stuff too but I can't remember who that was at the moment. I'm headed to the dentist so if the drill jogs my memory I'll get back to ya. You should also be aware of this thread User talk:Jonchapple since it is about you. I don't know if you will hear from J and I hope that redacting the items does not become a tussle with other editors but your reason for handling it the way you did are sound as far as I'm concerned. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 13:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your second note crossed with this one of course. I went ahead and tagged the IPs and the new user with suspected sock tags since there is no reason to mess around with that pest. Now I really do gotta head out the door. Later. MarnetteD | Talk 13:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have spent the last 45 minutes or so putting together this Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo Sheesh those take a lotta time. While I was doing that Star made his admission and I added it to the report. I appreciated that you caught it too and made an admin aware of things. I'll go and let that admin know about the SPI report as well. Not too apinful a day in the detists chair but I wish nano technology would advance so that little unseen machines could fix things :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll probably see it anyway but I wanted to let you know that I added this opinion at Fl's talk page


 * "'I would also point out that he is still all to willing to make personal attacks on Andrzejbanas and a full and heartfelt apology to that editor would be in order before any return to editing should be considered'"


 * A has been enduring those attacks for years now and they make it as hard for me as the vnadalism to ever AGF with Pe. On a side note it looks like he might have moved to Sao Paolo or at least he knows how to switch IPs to that city even if he is still in Rio. Lets see do I remember how to make a regular edit now? MarnetteD | Talk 16:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Glitter and Doom
Hi I only removed that section because it was practically the same as the album review section which the page already has. The review that is in the reception section is in the album reviews, and I thought since it had all the same info. as the album review section removing it would be fine to avoid duplicate not needed information    Cjones132002 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Mystic River
RJ,

Don't mind going back to the LOOONG list of 20 main & small & fleeting cast - but do believe that the killers should be included in the cast listing!! Trouble is, adding those two critical characters brings the list to 22, as compared to such wiki articles as Gran Torino with 15, The Departed with 18, and The Town with 10. If all 22 are so important that they must be included, perhaps a new page - like the one for List of Gran Torino characters - should be added.

The wiki cast listing also states that they are in 'credits order'. The order does not match the film I watched on tv a few days ago - nor the "Cast overview, first billed only" on IMDB. The film shows actor Tom Guiry 8th, not 20th (behind "uncredited" actors!), in keeping with his importance and screen time throughout the entire film. It shows the killers, actors Spencer Treat Clark and Andrew Mackin, before most of the Savage brother characters - rather than missing from the present list of 20 names on the wiki. Not sure why Michael McGovern - who appears for a small bit as a reporter for a 30 year old tv clip - would get listed on the wiki, while the killers and the integral character of one killer's mother/almost mother in law of the victim/wife of the man that Sean Penn killed years ago/recipient of $500 per month from Penn (actress Jenny O'Hara) is not in the wiki.

A last item... they talk repeatedly about 'Pen Park' and the 'Bear Cages', and show long/lasting images of the park and the victim's body in one of the pens. Given the prominence in the film and the unique aspect of the pens/cages as it relates to the film, just thought it would be well worthy of a wiki link within the article.

I do think there may be some room for a little adjustment on these.

Look forward to your thoughts, suggestions.

Thanks.Jmg38 (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome!
No harm done, man! We all make mistakes with our edits sometimes, but that helps refine articles for the better because it creates healthy discussion. I got into a pretty iffy edit war over at the "Snuff film" page about a BLP, but in the end a "higher up" confirmed that my edit stayed within the guidelines and the "rebel user" backed down.

You do great work here. Keep it up! :) QValintyne (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Notes on a Scandal
Hi, it seems you have removed essential parts from the above article. All that remains now is an outline of the plot (and even that is incomplete because the beginning is missing). Could you please reconsider your decision? All the best, &lt;K  F&gt;  15:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For continuity's sake, please see my response here. &lt;K  F&gt;  18:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries at Talk:Alexander Cockburn
Frankly, this edit summary makes it harder for me to judge what's going on at Talk:Alexander Cockburn. With more civil edit summaries, it might be easier to see how the other editor is behaving—and potentially block him for it. When the flames are getting fanned, though, it's harder to do. —C.Fred (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction or oxymoron?
Out of curiosity how do you explain the contradiction that is your user name. Is it meant to be an intentional oxymoron or are you inadvertently being contradictory? You can't be a Jacobite and a Republican can you? Mabuska (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel it is neither a contradiction or an oxymoron. But, my reasoning is more complex than I intend to get into here. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Coffee's for closers
I noticed you reverted an edit improperly. The section was added per discussion Talk:Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film) with the outcome saying: ''A separate article is unnecessary. A section within the destination article would best serve visitors.'' If you disagree with this please start another discussion. Valoem  talk  14:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

American Beauty
Haha. I'm glad you caught my mistake. I thought I was reverting to social alienation from Marx. Thanks. NTox · talk 02:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Talk:Corporals_killings". Thank you. EarwigBot  operator /  talk  22:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What a joke. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

William S. Burroughs
Hello RepublicanJacobite,

I wanted to apologize about changing the top part of the article about William S. Burroughs. I thought the wording could have been done a little differently to make the summary better, it was not my intention to be disruptive. I didn't see your first message about it not being constructive, and I didn't know how to respond to other users at the time, which I know is embarrassing. I know it's been nearly three years since this happened and you probably forgot about it, but I still would like to clear this up. I'm sorry it took this long to respond to you, and I hope you can forgive me. If not, then that's understandable, but if something like this happens again, I will contact you to clear up any problems.

See you later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream Fence (talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Real Genius
TheOldJacobite, hey man got reading through your comments on my real genius edits. reading the citation policy of wikipedia, i tend to agree with you. However, i want to validate what ES has documented. I am reaching out to the author and others to confirm and validate. Hopefully, that should resolve things. -cheers Greyteo (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Memento in-universe
Regarding this are you sure that it's more in-universe? Starting with (as you changed it) "A backwards sequence is shown." could be taken as a film-within-a-film (I know it's not), which is a cinema technique used in a lot of films. Expressly identifying the viewer or that the work as the film expressly moves it out-of-universe. --M ASEM (t) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, instead of "The film starts..." we can say "The first scene of the film is shown in reverse." or "The viewer is shown..." We just need some keyword that asserts that this is the media that starts in reverse, and not a show-within-a-show. --M ASEM (t) 15:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

90.200.85.84
Would you have a look at this please (worth a look at my two edits). I would report to AIV myself but I want a second opinion first (feel free to report if you agree). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These edits are by a person who lives in Burton-on-Trent. They consistently violate the MoS and have never replied to comment, request, or warnings on their talk pages. The admin that usually blocks them is busy moving at the moment but I will let him know about this new IP. Their is the occasional edit that seems innocuous that you could leave in if you want but it you can also revert everything as their IP hopping and other disruptive edits cause no end of hassles for other editors. Thanks to you and OldJacobite for your vigilance in this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to MarnetteD for the rundown. He got it exactly right.  His edits are always a mixed bag, with a few of them actually being helpful, some being blatant violations of MoS and consensus, others just being nonsensical (as, in this case, changing "in the UK" to "at the UK").  But, the larger point, I think, is that this is an IP sock of a blocked user.  As such, all his edits should be reverted on sight.  I have been reverting him all day.  As Marnette said, he has stubbornly refused to use edit summaries or to engage in any discussion.  He is, in a word, disruptive. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  18:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Could you let me know who you think this is a sockpuppet of? Don't want to block them without going through a checkuser just in case this supposed pattern keeps recurring. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is definitely this guy, but I suspect that he has used numerous other IPs, and that this is actually an IP sock of another long-term abusive editor. I just have not determined who... --- The Old Jacobite The '45  23:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can checkuser on that :( PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban
Per the consensus of uninvolved administrators in this AE thread, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, broadly construed across all namespaces for a period of 3 months. This topic ban may be appealed at AE, and every six months thereafter. Per WP:AC/DS you may appeal this ban the appropriate noticeboard (currently Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or directly to the Arbitration Committee-- Cailil  talk 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You and your fellow "uninvolved administrators" are a joke. After flat-out refusing to do your job in the case of Fergus, you allowed the situation to spin out of control, then you decide to punish everyone the same as if everyone is equally to blame.  Congratulations, you have utterly failed to act with conscience, decency, or good sense.  What a way to build an encyclopedia. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A Simple Plan
Hello. I was just wondering why you reverted my edits. I am not criticising you, but I often read articles and then endeavour to improve upon them. I honestly thought that I was making a positive difference upon the article. I am not suggesting that all of my edits are perfect. I am sure that you are a more experienced user than I am. I just want to learn more about the best means by which to enhance articles. I would be grateful for advice you, especially since I noted that you are an author. Thank you. (Galaxycat (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for your prompt reply. Your message makes sense. If I ever want to make huge changes on an article, this is when I place my suggestions on the Talk Page. Thanks again and have a happy weekend. (Galaxycat (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC))

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Country_for_Old_Men_(film)". Thank you! Jasoncward (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Tom Waits' Alice
Hi!

I'm in my final stages of writing my master thesis in musicology on the music of Tom Waits. I would like to contribute to this page, in correcting some of the mistakes it has. I don't understand why you reverted my edits for this entry.

For starters, the instrument Waits uses on, amongst other tracks, "Everything You Can Think, is called Chamberlin, not Chamberlain. It even says so in the liner notes. So please undo my edit for this. I think a link for this page is in order as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlin)

The Chamberlin is an early sampler (much like the mellotron, and "Chamberlin Vibes" is simply one of the sampled instruments on this. A link for Vibes (Vibraphone) should be made, seeing as it is just a setting on said instrument. "Chamberlin Vibes" is not a separate instrument from "Chamberlin", much like two different drawbar settings on a B3 organ doesn't make two different instruments.

In the liner notes on "Alice" (the track) there is no reference to "Chamberlin" or "Chamberlin Vibes". But it becomes apparent (when listening to the track), that the vibraphone samples on the Chamberlin is in fact being used - throughout the entire track. It missing from the liner notes must simply be a mistake from the record company. Since the only person playing the Chamberlin on this album (and on Blood Money) is Waits himself, it must be safe to assume that he was the person playing it on the track "Alice" as well. So I would argue that "Chamberlin" or "Chamberlin Vibes" should be added to this track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.136.231 (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And now I've got a name :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonevariations (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Films
Thanks for WP:FILMPLOT film-specific style sheet I did not know about. For a novice, Wiki is a big resource. I also get hooked into a subject chain and forget to quit after midnight when judgement can fade. Suggested lengths are 400-700 words long - do you not find 400 easier to swallow than 700? How could I vote to reduce the maximum? I also find puzzling why so many leads go on and on about trivia and omit "a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body" as in WP:FILMLEAD. Someone deleted when I tried to comply. Thanks also for lesson in shortcuts.AnEyeSpy (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

12 Monkeys
Although I understand that people are on eggshells with that article and it needs to be kept completely neutral from interpretation-based info, I don't see how absolutely anything I added falls into that category. Could you elaborate please? At the very least, the plot summary should refer to the use of "time travel", the key plot device of the entire film. The single current line about "scientists send him on missions to the past" is not clear in its context. Thanks.Planet-man828 (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)