User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 39

Thomas Peacock (American Army Officer) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thomas Peacock (American Army Officer). Since you had some involvement with the Thomas Peacock (American Army Officer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jim in Georgia Contribs  Talk  02:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  11:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:TheOldJacobite. Neil N  talk to me 21:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NeilN was faster then I was but I will leave this anyway just to say - Hello ToJ. I hope you are well. An IP opened a rant about you at AN/I. Hopefully it will be closed by the time you see this but they didn't notify you so I thought I would. You might also ken know who it is a sock of. I hope that you have a pleasant week in spite of this nonsense. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to add for the record that "if this site is here for another 15 years" it will be greatly improved by your work as an editor!! Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for notifying me. Thank you, as well, MarnetteD, for your kind comments. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  22:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Chequers and User talk:175.103.25.136
I would appreciate some advice. I am having a problem with the above editor on the Chequers page and I see you have experienced similar difficulties in relation to the user's edits on Independence Day (1996 film). He is determined to insert mention of the movie Ali G Indahouse into the article, firstly on the absurd grounds that it was filmed there. When this was pointed out to be incorrect, he re-inserted on the grounds that it purported to have been filmed there. I've tried reasoning and discussion, both on his Talkpage and on the article's but, as his Talkpage shows, he's not amenable to a reasoned discussion. Would you recommend that I list it as an edit war incident? Grateful for your advice. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated. Heavens, it's tiresome on here sometimes! KJP1 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll see if that does the trick. Edit-warring is taken seriously, so he'll find himself blocked if he doesn't cease and desist.  I'll check in later and see what the status is.  Cheers! ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  14:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Star Trek Deep Space 9 episode in Casablanca
Please explain why the reference to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode Profit and Loss was removed from the film Casablanca. This episode's story line is based heavily on the film which is substantiated by the following links:

http://www.startrek.com/article/21-years-later-profit-and-loss

http://startrekfancompanion.blogspot.ca/2016/10/deep-space-nine-2x18-profit-and-loss.html

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Profit_and_Loss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt the veracity of what you are saying, but none of these sources are adequate to source the claim. Blogs and wikis are not allowed per WP:RS and the Star Trek site just makes a passing comment about the connection, without offering any evidence.  What we need is a source in which one of the writers, producers, or someone else involved in the production talks about the influence.  These sources are not going to work. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  21:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

How does this look
Hello TOJ. I saw your edit summary and went to work on this The Last Place on Earth. I culled some and added links. Many of the Norwegian actors do not have articles but, since the series was so balanced between the two expeditions, I didn't want to remove all of them. Thus, I left those where the historical people they played had articles. Feel free to make any improvements as you see fit. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thanks for taking that on.  I have only just started the series and am having trouble keeping people straight, so I knew I was not the one to take on fixing the cast section – at this point, I really have no idea who the main cast members are!  Anyway, thanks again.  Best, ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you enjoy it TOJ - or at least find it interesting. I found it to get better with repeated viewings. I saw an interview a little after this aired on Masterpiece Theatre with Ousdal and he related how art had imitated life. The filming of the Norwegian part of the series had seen mild weather. A month or so later when the filming of the British cast got going things turned colder and stormier. That same year I saw the film Burke & Wills - the polar :-) opposite as far as temperature is concerned. At one point Wills is writing in his journal and, as he lifts his pencil the lead melts and plops onto the page. I don't think I've seen anything that made me feel such heat in an air conditioned movie theater. I did notice an interesting connection between the series and film. TLPoE starts with a scene of Amundsen learning from a tribe of Eskimos how to survive in the frozen north. B&W has a few scenes of aborigines living and thriving in the landscape that is sapping the strength of the members of the expedition. For me it showed the pitfalls of thinking that ones race is so superior that they don't need to learn anything from others. Cheers to you. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I found the first episode very slow going, which has sapped my enthusiasm a bit. But, I will get back to it in the next day or two.  It was highly recommended by a close friend whose opinion I value, so I am sure it will get better.  Thanks for your thoughts, as always.  Cheers! ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  02:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Barton Fink
Thanks for removing the "unrelated" stuff. I just thought it would be interesting. :) Espngeek (talk)

Clear and Present Danger (film)
Can you please explain why you reported a content dispute as vandalism? --Neil N  talk to me 13:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This was not a content dispute. An anon. changed the article and was reverted; he changed it again and I reverted him.  At that point, he should have dropped the matter or posted on the talk page to explain his edits, instead, he chose to edit-war.  To my mind, reverting back to the stable version was consistent with policy.  This was not about content, this was about one anon. editor trying to force his own way despite having been reverted by two editors.  When he then logged in and continued, and was reverted by a third editor, it seemed clear he was not going to discuss or abide by policy.  This could have been settled yesterday – the difference in content is very slight, but the article's factual statements should be accurate – if he had used the talk page as he is required to do.  Instead, he chose to edit-war because he finds himself in the unique position of owning a DVD of the movie and is thus a self-appointed expert.  Is this really the kind of behavior we should allow? ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is very much a content dispute. Please do not misuse WP:AIV that way again in the future. --Neil N  talk to me 14:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read my response? The content question was and is secondary to the anon.'s behavior – and the behavior of the editor who using the IP as a sock.  If your opinion is that an editor can use an IP address to edit-war, then log-in and continue to edit-war, safe in the assumption that there will be no consequences at AiV, then Wikipedia is in a lot of trouble.  As soon as the anon. failed to abide by BRD and chose to edit-war, then the decision to revert his edits as vandalism and post warnings on his talk page was the only option available.  If you think otherwise, you might want to reconsider your adminship. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  14:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of you were edit warring. You had five reverts of the IP. I note that another IP suddenly showed up to revert Dibol's changes. And failure to observe BRD is not vandalism. Continue to think that way and you'll be blocked, sooner than later. WP:ANEW exists for a reason. --Neil N  talk to me 15:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't threaten me. Once again, if you can't see that there was a qualitative difference between my edits and those of the anon., I think you should seriously reconsider your adminship.  And, despite your insinuation, the second IP who reverted Dibol had nothing to do with me.  Feel free to run a check if you don't believe me.  But, frankly, I find this whole thing tedious as well as insulting. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  03:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner
Please don't revert indiscriminately. Read MOS:POUND on the use of # sign. Hzh (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I really don't know what you're talking about. I was reverting unhelpful anon. edits. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  01:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You should really read what you are reverting. Hzh (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Revert of minor El Topo edit
Why did you revert this? It is correct and appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Topo&diff=prev&oldid=778882165 Matttoothman (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Your edit got caught up in the revert of several unhelpful edits.  Please feel free to restore it, or I can do so, if you prefer. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  23:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Patrol
My goodness - did I cut you off in traffic, or insult an edit you made in the past, to earn your patrol duties on my various edits? If so, I truly apologize! The edits on the Sully synopsis may have been a touch flowery (yes - I did repeat the point about what information the simulation pilots had), but that did not make the entire change some random "Unnecessary plot and cast expansion". The final product was still well within the guidelines for plot size while adding a few details, and the cast list was actually a reduction from 26 to 18, with a group statement about the television people. The edits on the Shutter Island synopsis are discussed at its talk page - which is still unresolved and has not attracted any other editor's concern other than some ip address editor who did add the word/key plot point "lobotomized". If you are, indeed, patrolling, then you know that I don't expand-movies-like-crazy. You will have already seen that I have many many articles where I've gone in to help tighten a bloated plot synopsis, while trying to maintain the integrity of the actual story being told in the synopsis. I have also acquiesced on some of my edits when I felt that the change back or forth was not important enough to worry about, while on others I have gladly dropped an edit and accepted the reasoning provided in discussions with fellow editors. Just not sure what's happening between us over the last week or so. Jmg38 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I really have no idea what you are talking about, nor am I interested in your ranting. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  00:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Rant? I'm trying to start a legitimate discussion with a fellow editor.  I've laid out the reasons for starting the discussion, tabled some information, and closed by reiterating a concern that something seems to have gone off kilter. I'll assume from your initial response that you may have run into some "ranter" in the past - but trust that you won't let that colour your view of all interactions. Jmg38 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you were truly trying to start a legitimate discussion, you would have directly addressed the issue at hand, rather than beginning with some strange accusatory tone involving someone being cut off in traffic. If you have a legitimate complaint or question, please state it directly, rather than burying it in the middle of a long paragraph.  I still do not know what you are actually talking about. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  15:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

One False Move
Hello. Please tell me how my plot edits do not comply with Wikipedia policy. I've made other contributions in the past and never received a notice.Tasdau (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Plots should be brief and to the point, free of unnecessary details and links. What I left was not a notice, it was a welcome message with links to rules and guidelines for editing. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  00:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yikes
Hi TOJ. I know I'm getting old and losing touch with today's pop culture but if these are erotic films then I've got to check for marbles around my bed each morning because I've lost too many :-) Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no idea what that edit was about. I have trouble imagining that Kubrick needed to see those travesties before making Eyes Wide Shut.  Cheers! ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  12:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Heat (1995)
Hi, you reverted my edit on "Heat" removing that fact that it is a remake from the leading paragraph, I am just wondering why. Is there any other remake that doesn't state it in the leading paragraph? "King Kong", "The Mummy", even "Jingles the Clown" seems to include this sort of thing in the LP, is there a reason the "Heat" article is getting special treatment? Damiantgordon (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, "remake" is not accurate. Second, there is already a section that deals with this in the body of the article.  I don't think it's necessary to mention it in the lede. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  12:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think remake is inaccurate? Have you seen "L.A. Takedown", Heat is an almost verbatim remake in many scenes. It was written and directed by the same person, so in what sense is it not accurate to describe it as a remake? Second, I am aware there is a section about this, my point is there there is no other remake that doesn't have the origin of a movie in the leading paragraph, that I can see of. If you can show me one (that you haven't edited), I'd be glad to drop this issue, otherwise we should keep the same standards for all articles and avoid exceptionalism. Damiantgordon (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion needs to take place at the article's talk page, not here. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  12:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Damiantgordon (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Sirens
Hi! I noted your reversion of my edit to Sirens (IP edit, I neglected to sign in at the time), regarding Geoffrey Burgon's rejected score. I found this reference, but lack the experience to know if it's adequate (excuse the long link): https://books.google.com/books?id=at_MBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=rejected+music+1994+sirens&source=bl&ots=YSb189lKqd&sig=PepsijbzeIKFRPDQ7gmkrOy6gxo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid-MXuvLjUAhUCyyYKHQXnBKUQ6AEILDAD#v=onepage&q=rejected%20music%201994%20sirens&f=false

Additionally, the piece appears to exist on YouTube, however without a source. Would be grateful if you could assess the above, thank you. Bennycat (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, as interesting as it is, that book would not be considered reliable because it is self-published (the listed publisher is lulu.com). You would have to find a third party source.  It would have been nice if that fellow had quoted a source for his self-published claims, but he didn't, alas... ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  22:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Band of Brothers
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I undid your revert of William Guarnere at the Band of Brothers miniseries page since nicknames are included for many of the other members of Easy Company and it seemed to be more consistent to include it. I guess that at least it's good the editor who originally made the change didn't type Gonorrhea as the nickname... Yojimbo1941 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I think the nicknames are all unnecessary, but it's not important enough to pursue the matter. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  16:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Beguiled
Hi, I wanted to let you know why I reverted your edit. The production section as it was did not read in a very prose instead reading very stiff and like Proseline This is an issue with a lot of Wikipedia:Film articles as of recent however ideally this shouldn't really be the case, and if you look at featured film articles on this site you'll notice they are not written in this manner. I also added ample information about the process of how the film came to be and Coppola feelings about it. It's not perfect and I'm still trying to tinker with it, but I think it's better for the project as a whole. --Deathawk (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Home Alone 2: Lost in New York
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)