User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 32

Good call on "Dear God" source
It never even hit me that that was a blog. JayHubie (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  12:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Punk cabaret
As the only person recently to make a contribution to this article, I thought you might be interested to know that I've proposed that it be merged with Dark cabaret since you might want to join in the discussion. Paul S (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  23:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dubious reasoning
I don't appreciate being twice accused of dubious reasoning by you in your edit summaries when you reverted me without bothering to check the credits of the film or ever commenting at Talk:Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. You were wrong on something that was plainly visible on the poster, linked right there on the page, but instead of doing any research or checking your facts you made uncivil remarks and reverted. Twice. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Was it really necessary to post your opinion here as well as on the article talk page? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  01:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Dali & surealist
you post on Living Still Life that  Category:Surrealist paintings using HotCat---Dali was no longer associated with Surrealism.) 

What ?? Where Dali is no more associated with surrealim ? I am the french autor of most of article about Dali and that's a decision really... surrealist!v_atekor (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Has you can read in the french article I wrotte, at this time he (dali) declared :
 * Il déclara alors être un « ex-surréaliste »[71], bien que selon Robert Decharnes et Gilles Néret, il le restât plus que jamais.
 * [dali] declared to be an ex-surrealist, even if for Robert Decharnes & Gilles Néret, he reminds more surrealist than even v_atekor (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It is generally a bad idea to base articles & categories on direct declarations of artists, even more in the case of Dali. Sorry for my bad english

BTW, french article is much more improved than the english one, if you want to translate ... v_atekor (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Green Man Page
I noticed that you're one of the main contributors for the Green Man page. I'm a student in the US, and I'm putting together a proposal to do research on the Green Man in churches in England, but I've been frustrated collecting literature and other information on the Green Man; it's so scattered across psychology, architecture, religion, etc. Are there any other sources in addition to the ones listed on the wiki page that you're aware of? Cheers! TheHumbucker (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow! I have not looked at that article in ages.  I am afraid I will not be of much assistance to you, alas.  If I think of anything, I will post a message on your talk page.  Cheers! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  02:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Godfather
Hello, I ask you in the future that if a situation like The Godfather flares up, to contact the editor directly (not merely through edit summaries) and tell the person about WP:BRD. If the editor already reverted a second time, ask the editor undo his/her revert and continue the discussion and to post a notice at WT:FILM if needed. The less combative editing activity on an article, the better. Like I told Ring Cinema, we can think outside the box. There can be a case made for not necessarily having it in the lead sentence, but perhaps it can be mentioned later in the lead section or in the article body. That source was not the only one I found calling it "epic". We should strive to find a way to accommodate. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message, Erik. If I had seen the talk page discussion first, I would have posted there rather than reverting.  But, I understand your point. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  12:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Dear TheOldJacobite. Please if too long (I'm checkiing guidelines), don't revert to the unaccurate version, but edit the new version there, which I edited as I was watching the film on TV, due to the existing gross inaccuracies. The wording was clunky and inaccurate as was, and even if it's long, it's now improved. Thank you for the hint, but it's probably more helpful to move forwards than backwards! Your advice on optimal length for synopses, and a pointer to the wikipedia guidelines on that, gratefully received! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardhod (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Edit: I've found the guidelines here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:FILM#Plot and will try to get it to 700 words, although this is an unconventional plot, although not as much as some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardhod (talk • contribs) 03:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Edit2: It's oly 830 words which is definitely not egregiously long. Shouldn't be hard to edit down.
 * This should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  03:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Big Lebowski genre
Please take a look at Talk: The Big Lebowski: genre and leave an edit of what you think. DanteLectro (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The Descendants
Greeting Jacobite, I want to talk to you on this problem on the article, The Descndants starring George Clooney. One user by the name of User:Tomer T made edits on the infobox the user added one actor on the starring infobox. The actor's name is Nick Krause, Nick Krause is just a minor actor. I know you remove non-starring actors on the infobox. So, I remove one actor on the infobox, then I write on the edit summary "Remove one minor actor, he's not in the main cast". User:Tomer T begin to write comments on my talk page. User:Tomer T begin to say "Why did you remove the actor on the infobox?" I am very positive that Nick Krause is a non-starring role. And then the arguments begin between me and User:Tomer T. User:Tomer T starting to get angry to me and I was begin to cry. I want you to resolve between me and to User:Tomer T. Could you talk to User:Tomer T on do not add Nick Krause on the starring infobox, if User:Tomer T continues to add Nick Krause on the starring role on The Descendants, beacuse he's a non-starring role. Go to the article The Descendants for possibly remove Nick Krause on the starring infobox. Because no non-starring roles should add into the infobox. If you read my message, Write me back on my talk page so I will keep you in touch for this resolving edit controversy. Write me back and I will reply you soon. Bye. PS, Go to the The Descendants article and if you see Nick Krause on the starring infobox remove it right away and talk to User:Tomer T at the user's talk page. 17:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello once again, Sorry to bother you, I know you've been very busy. Did you read my message earlier at the top it's about that controversial edit on non-starring role on the movie article "The Descendants". I did tell you earlier that Nick Krause is s non-starring role and minor actors should not add in the starring infobox. User:Tomer T starting to get angry and begin arguments at each other causing edit controversy. I remove that non-staring actor in taht article on the infobox and I write the edit summary "Remove one minor actor, he's not in the main cast". Did you check the starring infobox on "The Descendants" article on minor actor Nick Krause. If it's on the infobox remove it right away and talk to User:Tomer T by not adding non-starring roles on infobox. This is between me and User:Tomer T for it's resolve. If you have plenty of time you can still read both of my messages and I will still keep you in touch for you to resolve. Thanks so much I will talk to you soon. Cheers. Steam5 (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Terry Gilliam
Hello, why the article ""should be a straight list of films he directed" ? It is a Wikipedia article, and so it needs to be precise. Writing or starring in a movie is important enough to be noted, as well as saying for each movie if he was also writer, producer or director. It is the way filmographies (for what I saw) always are in wikipedia, like you can see in Peter Jackson's article or J.J. Abrams one, except maybe in the case of a director who isn't a writer or an actor. If you judge it is too much information for the article, then we can just create a Terry Gilliam filmography page, like for Tarantino or Spielberg. But writing and acting are important enough to be noticed in an article directly concerning Terry Gilliam, as I think. --Hyliad (d), 12:24 6 June 2013 (CEST)


 * This should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. I made my opinion clear in my edit summary. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Prufrock (citation style)
I hope you don't mind if I bother you with this, but since you were the first to introduce citation templates into this article, you might want to reply to this debate. Greetings, --bender235 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the reverting of any infobox changes I may have made using the billing block argument
Go for it.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  20:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Groundhog Day (film) vandalism
Hi! Just wanted to let you know that I amended your reversion of the vandalism on Groundhog Day (film) a bit. I made an error when I first reverted the vandalism and accidentally left one off the edits by the editor whose IP starts of with 115. Thank you for catching that! However, the edit by the editor whose IP address starts with 108 is not, in fact, vandalism, but that edit was caught in your reversion. Everything's fixed now! Cheers, Cymru.lass in America (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your revert and thought you had erred, but then realized it had been sorted out. As you said, everything's fixed now.  Thanks for your message. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  12:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You're being discussed at ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages
Since you are the leading registered editor in terms of edits at Dashiell Hammett, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)