User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 31

User:Cosprings
Please see User_talk:Cosprings. This has apparently been going on for some time. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! I intended to leave him a message, but got distracted. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  02:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your email
Go ahead. -- Jayron  32  04:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've looked things over. I don't see anything that requires a block or administrative action in any way.  This is a new user who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and needs to be gently directed that way.  Ask him to use the article talk page and discuss the matter cordially with him.  The sort of things you sent me go one many times every day on Wikipedia.  I could find a dozen or more conversations in the last 24 hours that look functionally identical to the one you sent me, and it isn't particularly unusual or out of the norm.  It's just someone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and upset because they don't understand how Wikipedia works.  In the spirit of WP:DOLT we need something like WP:DOCOI: Don't Overlook Conflicts of Interest.  People with conflicts of interest may have valid concerns about article content, we shouldn't brush them off as though they don't have something valuable to add to the discussion.  We should instead try to work with them in alleviating their concerns, or at least educate them in Wikipedia's policies (keeping in mind they are an outsider).  Be gentle and clear.  That's my advice.  Also, direct him to express his concerns on-wiki rather than via email; discussions of article content should happen in the open.  -- Jayron  32  05:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wondering what you think
Hello TOJ. I agree with your removal of the multitude of run times in the Once Upon a Time in America. On the other hand I would ask you to consider including the European run time of 229 minutes. Various considerations include the fact that runtime is the one that premiered at Cannes also we include both the Cannes and US release dates in the infobox and we could label the two runtimes the same way. One other thing, while I can't remember the exact time frame but I know the 229m version did get showings in the US within a few months (maybe weeks) of the short versions release because, much like the two releases of Brazil, I held off going to the theater until I could see the longer version. If you disagree that is okay this was just a suggestion. If you want to move this discussion to the films talk page that is okay too. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. If the 229 min. version was show at Cannes, that time should be in the infobox.  That was a mistake on my part.  Thanks for letting me know. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

America: Freedom to Fascism
You removed the a "Conspiracy Theory" category from that article, as being already in a subcategory. I don't see it. Perhaps you intended to move it to Category:Documentary films about conspiracy theories, but it wasn't there, and I'm not sure it is accurate. It's more "Documentary films which are conspiracy theories", but I'm not sure of your intent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what I was doing earlier... but, I think Category:Documentary films about conspiracy theories is accurate. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  22:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Jjjakegittes/Jkta97
At it again... already reported to WP:AIV. Just thought you'd want to know, since you've been warning him for a while now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the heads up! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They just dismissed it as 3RR and I don't feel like chasing noticeboards... was your SPI suspicion ever confirmed? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, never confirmed, and, since neither account is blocked, it's not a violation. But, I do see strong similarities between the two. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry, but I'll respectfully defer to someone else, suggest you request someone at WP:AN. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning
Please read my comments and warning at ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 15:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this acceptable behaviour? –&#32;
 * No, this is clearly canvassing, with Wink beating the drum. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  15:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for a completely unacceptable personal attack in your edit summary while violating the three revert rule in an edit war, as you did at The Name of the Rose (film). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Red Dawn (2012 film) box office gross
Hello Old jacobite. I'm here to request you for help. Some user allegedly keeps reverting the edits on the Red dawn article where I've used Boxoffice.com as a source. The box office gross on Box office mojo is incorrect. To prove that just click on the foreign tab for the red dawn film. You'll see that it states the fireign gross for the film is "n/a" however at the same page box office gross for many countries is given. Probably the user thinks that the gross on box office mojo is correct. If you can then please inform him about this mistake. Also if you can then please maintain a vigilance on the page to make sure the edits are not reverted back again since I'm not very active these days. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also sorry for your block. These users who are inexperienced and revert other's edit without even informing them or caring at all how much time the other user might have given into making that edit, they annoy the heck out of me too. However it is important that you do not make a personal attack even if they personally attack you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: The Milagro Beanfield War
Dear TheOldJacobite...I received your message about the deletion of my edit/entry of The Milagro Bean Field War page. I don't necessarily understand why I cannot write a "post script" of sorts; especially since my addition was perfectly accurate. Perhaps I edited the wrong section, or perhaps, I should have edited the Production section. All I intended to do was simply state that there is an actual Milagro, New Mexico. In fact, there is a line in the movie that says, "...we need to go to San Ignacio..." San Ignacio is actually another New Mexico town a few miles east of Milagro. Can you please further explain your decision and guide me on how to include my deleted information in this article. Thanks in advance... Frank culpepper (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Boogie Nights. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Doniago. Along with "Don't template the regulars" two edits in four days does not meet the criteria for this warning. I know that you have wikipedia's best interests at heart and that you are trying to prevent worse things down the road but, adding this template is not likely to achieve that goal. If it were me, I would have asked TOJ to please go to the talk page before anymore edits were made to the article. MarnetteD | Talk 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi TOJ. I hope that you will forgive my sticking my oar in and I hope that you can hash things out on the talk page for the film. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm seeing is a ping-pong match between TOJ and JesseRafe that began on March 31. Both editors have had ample time to take it to the article's Talk page but have not to this point opted to do so, and it was my estimation that they might not have opted to do so without being prodded in that direction. Consequently I gave both of them an edit-warring notice. As for not templating the regulars...they've both been around long enough that I don't believe I should have had to say anything to begin with, which admittedly makes me a little cranky. I'm sure they both also know that they're welcome to delete the template and disregard it if they feel that's the most appropriate course of action; I won't take offense. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the talk page and/or RfC was my next stop. I got called away earlier, or I would have done it then. But, yeah, two edits in four days is not edit-warring for either one of us, and things had not gotten heated or contentious. I don't take offense at the warning, but I do think it was premature. Nor do I take offense at your comment, MarnetteD, because I know your intentions are good. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  20:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this assessment! I have to admit, in the case of known editors who I believe are operating in good faith, if with different goals, I'd almost prefer to give an edit-warring advisory prematurely than after things have gone too far. In an attempt to lighten the mood slightly, I'll point out that there is WP:Template the regulars, which is as authoritative as WP:DTTR. Doniago (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: American Tabloid
Dead TheOldJacobite, I received a set of general guidelines from you when you reverted back over my recent edit to American Tabloid where I added more links to the people pages for real pepple that appear in the novel. Can you give me a bit of guidance as to what I violated that dictated their removal? I mean this question genuinely, so thanks in advance for any guiding advice........ Spawn777 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to William Blake Task Force
Hello! I wanted to invite you to the new William Blake Task Force. This new task force will help organizes and coordinates Wikipedia's coverage of Romantic poet and artist William Blake. In Fall 2013, I, User:Sadads, will be having a WP:GLAM internship with The William Blake Archive, and has started the project to organize and support efforts to improve content related to William Blake, the collection of The William Blake Archive and other topics related to Blake's contributions to both literary and visual culture. Some of your previous contributions indicate an interest in Blake, so I wanted to invite you to the project! Hope you join us and happy editing!Sadads (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinatown anecdote
You really think that anecdote belongs in the article? It's pretty thin soup. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's notable and referenced, and I object to it being removed without any explanation. If you want to start a talkpage discussion, I will chime in.  But, it should not be removed without so much as an edit summary. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  23:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Heathers Story Edit
I want to remain respectful about the "Revert" you made but in all honesty I didnt think I was doing anything wrong as most of the Information in the Edit was taken from a detailed spoiler from this link; http://moviepooper.com/11/5096heathers.html I felt that it fleshed out J.D.'s Unhinged Socipathic behavior but your welcome to use it as you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalOutcast (talk • contribs) 03:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your plot expansion was unnecessary, too long, and poorly written, that is why I reverted. If you want to discuss the matter, please do so on the article talk page. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)