This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for your note about the return of our sock to the George Harrison article. So he's a UCLA student. I'm glad Rodhullandemu removed the link from music fans [1], as our sock added that several weeks ago and I've been meaning to remove it (that was the one single edit the sock added that wasn't immediately reverted). And I'm glad you removed the link to the other list. [2]
As for how to proceed, I suggest a very boring approach:
There's always the chance that we'll misidentify him (I was right there with you on that last guy; same M.O., right up to the end when it no longer sounded like him) but I suppose we have no other choice. The only other thing I would add is to possibly reopen the sock puppet investigation. Prhartcom ( talk) 16:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Re this, actually, just to complicate matters, UK TV does have miniseries, but the definition is not as clear cut as in the US! The average network season of, say, House will have 22 episodes filmed from August to March, with the filming of later episodes overlapping with the broadcast of early ones. On the other hand, a miniseries, like The Pacific, will have a shorter run of ten episodes, all filmed and edited entirely before broadcast. Compare this to UK TV, where a returning series (like *shudder* My Family) will often have only six or eight episodes per season/series, which are all filmed and edited before broadcast. "Miniseries" is generally used here either as a comparitive term (the third series of Torchwood was only five episodes long compared to the usual 13, so was a "miniseries" (that was also a serial!)), or as a glossy phrase by Me Too media publications trying to show off how UK TV is equal to or better than US TV. Short-run series/serials (like costume dramas) of only three or four episodes will often by referred to as miniseries, so people don't confuse them with returning series. There's a good chapter in a book about this but I can't remember the name or author! I'll have a look on Google Books for it and post a link for you here if I find it. Bradley0110 ( talk) 19:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The last couple of Bambifan socks were rather cleverly disguised and I think this may well be one of them. I'm going to block the account, but I'll leave the talk page open just in case. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 01:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The June 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, MarnetteD, The Citations in Great Dictator should stay exactly as they have been. The revised URLs which briefly appeared are the ones that would be used if a student at the University of Washington was in a university computer network that required a University ID to view specific blocked websites on a University computer (very common in University libraries- this prevents members of the general public who walk into the library from using library computers for personal business, but students with a proper ID can do so). These URLs are however useless for anyone checking citations on any and every computer that does NOT belong to the University of Washington. So of course reverting was the right thing to do. I think I'll also post this on the GreDic talk page. Cheers-- WickerGuy ( talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that. I know it is SkagitRiverQueen with her cellphone edits. They can't block all the ones she's used and I did request page semi-protection, but they blocked the IP and didn't protect the page. I let the administrator who blocked the IP know. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
But we'll see. She does not realize that the pages go to the playwrights, when they must go directly to that link ..... at least I had the same problem as me for some time withOscar,which had a valid link and you said no. Thanks. -- 83.45.245.43 ( talk) 22:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Just saying. Up in Sierra Mountains-- WickerGuy ( talk) 15:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
... for reverting the nastiness on my User page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello there, MarnetteD, hope you are doing well! Just for fun I am running this past you, as it is almost finished: The article for Dawn Wells, of Gilligan's Island fame, has no mention of her arrest for reckless driving (and for aledgedly finding marijuana in her car). I have been grinding away for over a month at the editors who hang out over there and it looks like we're finally going to mention it. My biggest shock was when Jimbo Whales weighed in on my little topic.
I would like to ask your opinion of something the editors there have repeatedly accused me of, which I am having a difficult time agreeing with, but is probably true. It is this: The editors there have, until now, steadfastly refused to entertain even the slightest mention of this unpleasant topic in Miss Wells life. This, to me, equates to censorship of Wikipedia, and exposes the (to me) obvious motives of these editors: They are protecting the image of Miss Wells. Yet, when I point it out, they deny this is their motive, and I am accused of bad faith. I think I must still be learning how to interact with others in Wikipedia. Yet I haven't changed my mind on what I believe they have been doing. What do you think? I respect your opinion. (And feel free to reply here on your page.) Thanks! —Prhartcom (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
May I probe you for a question? Do you use Netflix or other DVD rental places to get DVDs when you're writing and researching articles? Bradley0110 ( talk) 08:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow! This is all very quick and awfully nice! Assuming DVD Verdict's review is accurate, there is apparently a lot of info in the commentary about the casting process. Any information about the filming would also be very useful. Once I expand the reception section I'd hope to be ready to take the article to FA before the end of the year. As for The Special Relationship, that was supposedly getting a theatrical release in the UK in May but that doesn't seem to have happened. Variety indicates it will be shown on BBC Two before the end of the year and it's being released on DVD in September here too. It's quite amusing to note that each film in Peter Morgan's "Blair trilogy" has a different copyright holder! Bradley0110 ( talk) 22:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the film-book diffs in the Shining. Almost all were trivial and many of them were already covered in the prose section of the article. (Who the hell cares if J&W don't "have sex" in the movie?).
This is somewhat off WP-topics, but someone posted a mostly hilarious YouTube video parodying videos claiming to find secret symbolism in the Shining. The first half is funnier and then the parody wears thin. The subject of his parody is clearly YouTube user "!!Truth111!!" who finds occult Masonic symbolism anywhere and the Internet work of Rob Ager. IMO, Truth111 is completly nuts, while Ager has a wee bit of method in his madness (Ager IMO makes rather shrewd observations and then makes utterly unwarranted conclusions from them. He's self-published and it is with some reservations that I cited him once only in the actual Shining article.) At any rate, I laughed my pants off watching this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl3fExL_jlo -- WickerGuy ( talk) 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The July 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 06:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The reason people go through the trouble of formally banning sockpuppeters is that 3RR does not apply to reverting banned users. It does to reverting merely indef blocked users. The process of banning allows people to revert on sight without fear of being blocked, and that is why there are more and more of these discussions. Courcelles ( talk) 06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the renamed section from the article Red Sun, are "trivia" sections no longer welcome in movie-related articles? Its been a while since I've actively edited them, but many articles I know and have contributed to use them...-- -Jackel ( talk) 00:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back. I appreciate it. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 00:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the mention! Your move (and fix) are fine with me. JeanColumbia ( talk) 12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I haven't had the opportunity to see it yet. It seems that all of the usual (pirate) sources don't have it (usually TV films turn up on some of the big sites). I doubt I'll get it on DVD since it's going to be shown on TV here in October or November. Interestingly (or not!) the film was originally supposed to have a theatrical release in the UK on the day after the general election, but the distributor pulled it because of "negative" reviews from US critics. This, despite a) critics actually being quite favourable towards it and b) the original release date being some three weeks before HBO's original premiere date! Mad people! Bradley0110 ( talk) 22:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
As a trusted editor on WP, you're invited to look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cagney, Jr. and comment. Thank you. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 20:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The August 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you! I am well. I've been busy and haven't been able to do much work here, but I'm still chugging along. I can't take advantage of the Barnes & Noble sale it seems as I'm in Canada and the sale does not seem to work with Canadian buyers. No good! The The Story of a Cheat does look pretty interesting, I'm especially interested in The Story of a Cheat, but I'm not sure if I'll get it just yet. The America Lost and Found set is pretty awesome but I'm not sure if I can afford it, (I just picked up The Three Silent Classics by Sternberg and pre-ordered Hausu, so I can't really justify buying it just yet). Maybe sometime in the future! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't pay attention to the discussions over at that talk page, and this was obviously a mistake. The move of "Infobox actor" to "Infobox person" is probably going to result in a lot of infoboxes that look like this, or worse, in a lot of edit wars over those infoboxes. If there was a long-standing consensus not to include things like "notable works" or "height", then how does this page move make any sense? It's going to let all those sections back in the infobox by default. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you've previously had a chat with 121.54.51.22 ( talk) about removing links to eggnog. I think it may have started again at 112.203.239.188 ( talk). I've just restored a link from within ketogenic diet and this is the second time. Based on the edit summary "Trim internal links to reduce overlinking. You can help....", is this being done by a bot or tool? What can be done? Colin° Talk 17:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Good job taking on that persistent IP editor. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd point out that we can't go back through old edits made by a user and issue them another warning for each one; every warning must be made after the user has had sufficient time to read and understand the warning, and has made another problematic edit after the last warning. The user has made no edits since I issued them the first warning, but you have issued them three more regardless; I ask that you remove the warnings you added so as not to bite the newcomers and since they're not appropriate warnings. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an article about four books, not one book. Articles on books tend to be quite long when done properly and divulge the entire plot. See, for example, Kim (novel), The_Lion,_the_Witch_and_the_Wardrobe, Gulliver's Travels, and others. Student7 ( talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Saddhiyama ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. This guy is going to keep it up 'til he is told, in no uncertain terms, to stop. I do not believe his rant at ANI is going to help his case at all. But, I understand, and applaud, your decision to step away for awhile. I am always ready to help. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 02:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC){{unblock|1=First and foremost as mentioned on the on the ANI page here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tiiischiii_and_Talk:Lovejoy I have stepped away from the article in question for the weekend so this block is punitive not preventative. Second, the trivia list in question was discussed by numerous editors on the talk page for the article and consensus is that it should not be in the article, thus there was no reason to seek dispute resolution.. Third, Tiiischiii has edited the page as both an IP and under the account created today/yesterday (depending on your time zone) and was reverted by several other editors. I was simply following the consensus as stated on the talk page. Lastly, although is a separate matter from my block, Tiiischiii altered my talk page entries at least twice (here [3] is the first one. I know that 3rr blocks sometimes wind up being punitive, as this one is, and that is just the way things go so I understand why this one is likely to stay. I am mostly posting this for the record as just looking at the edit history page for the article does not tell the whole story. Thanks for taking the time to look at this and enjoy the rest of your weekend}}