User talk:MarnetteD/archive 5
|This 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.|
- 1 August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
- 2 Laurence Olivier
- 3 My second revert at Pan's Labyrinth
- 4 Ben Kingsley
- 5 WikiProject Films roll call
- 6 Leo Genn
- 7 Thank you, too
- 8 Palin
- 9 Vincent Price
- 10 Laurence Olivier
- 11 Torchwood
- 12 The Shining
- 13 2001 Monolith
- 14 Actor categories for deletion
- 15 Flags
- 16 RE: 220.127.116.11
- 17 BBC Shakespeare
- 18 The tag
- 19 WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
- 20 Scrooby
- 21 RFC:Conductor infoboxes
- 22 Moving the sandbox
- 23 Eyes Wide Shut
- 24 Scrooby/Scrooby
- 25 Kurosawa Book
- 26 Frank Dunlop
- 27 MERGER : The End of the Affair
- 28 Peter McDonald
- 29 David Fenner
- 30 Aidan Gillen
- 31 Tense
- 32 John Barton
- 33 Your note
- 34 Milton Shulman, the Evening Standard Awards and Q in Kew
- 35 Preity Zinta
- 36 Preity Zinta FA
- 37 Henry Kendall
- 38 WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter
- 39 Up series
- 40 Doctor Who succession box & minor edits
- 41 Thank you for the barnstar!
- 42 BBC
- 43 KB Hamlet
- 44 Joan Greenwood
- 45 Doctor Who serials list reversion
August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The August 2007 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. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 04:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It's usually Americans that assume that all Knights are KBEs or try to include all someone's various honours like "Sir Laurence, Lord Olivier" -- SteveCrook 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
My second revert at Pan's Labyrinth
My edit was accidentally submitted when I tried to add an edit summary, so I'm telling you here instead.
The plot is excessive. Last time I checked it was just at the border of the maximum limit according to the style guidelines, which is really only warranted for an exceptionally complicated plot, which Pan's Labyrinth does not have.
The fact that I hope to fix it some time is irrelevant. The tag should stay because then someone else may decide to fix the problem before I get the time to do it (I'm very busy right now). I can appreciate how annoying tags can be sometimes, but this tag clearly belongs. Atropos 23:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- The summary isn't even close to being excessive and guidelines at wikiP are not hard and fast rules. More than 10 days have gone by and (your hopes aside), as with so many editors who apply tags without supplying alternatives, you aren't willing or able to edit what is already so well done there. Above and beyond this many have come to the page, since your post, and been fine with what is there so edit or get off the pot. Your anxieties would be so much better directed to pages like the Lair of the White Worm plot summary. MarnetteD | Talk 10:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
How extraordinarily odd! That wasn't one of the edits I intended to make. I can only assume (a) my finger went somewhere strange while I wasn't watching - but if so, it made 3 separate keystrokes on its little journey off with the fairies - or (b) the software had a brain spasm. I'm going with (b). I've removed it now. Thanks for the alert, MarnetteD, and for the compliment. :) JackofOz 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films roll call
An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The things like 'notable roles' aren't part of an 'Infobox person', they are part of the 'Infobox actor' -- SteveCrook 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, too
I noticed your corrections, and your warning, as well. Yes, it appears to be a fan of one or two particular contemporary artists, doing a little publicity on their behalf. Thanks for your message, and keep up the good work. JNW 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There were quite a few more, from earlier this year, most of which I've reverted. It is possible that this person was plugging his own work by inserting his name into articles on famous artists and musicians--vandalism, Wikipedia style. JNW 03:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it can stay, I also don't care that much since I am not a big fan of infoboxes anyway. :) Perhaps it is not a real official site, but it's the closest thing to something like that. He also posts now and then a personal message on it. Regarding the commercial nature, since you can read all his travel books for free on the site, that doesn't worry me much. Garion96 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you have made a lot of contributions to the Vincent Price article. Please refer to the talk page, as I have added a new sources tag that best fits my concern. FamicomJL 02:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
13:42 Laurence Olivier (diff; hist)...(→Vivien Leigh - disambig a lazily added link)
I just want to confirm this; when BBC America airs Torchwood on tv, they cut stuff out for time, but they have the full version OnDemand? --DrBat 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. :) --DrBat 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This point has puzzled me ever since I saw the film, and maybe you can explain it. How is it that Scatman's character could sense that the kid was in danger, all the way from Florida, but couldn't sense that he himself was in danger from a malevolent guy hiding behind some object 10 feet away from him? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not got to do with the future, it's got to do with the present. Wouldn't he "sense" that an evil guy was standing behind something waiting for him? Just a simple "yes" or "no", and I'll understand the concept. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- And as far as "fancruft" is concerned, I only saw it once. And when this guy who supposedly has ESP was surprise-attacked, it didn't make sense to me, and harmed the credibility (so to speak) of the movie. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I ask again, a simple question, based on your perception of the book and/or film: Does he or does he not have the ability to sense danger. And I say again, it's not about precognition or telling the future, it's merely about sensing the "presence of evil". Please just try to answer that question, so I can let this subject drop. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- And as far as "fancruft" is concerned, I only saw it once. And when this guy who supposedly has ESP was surprise-attacked, it didn't make sense to me, and harmed the credibility (so to speak) of the movie. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for you comments!
Yes, thank goodness for DVDs restoring all those scenes. I have a lot of my favorite shows on DVDs now (including, not surprisingly, Doctor Who -- can't wait for the official Series 3 DVDs).
Anyway, yes the monolith in 2001 does serve the function of transporting the characters and viewers into the world of the fantastic (just remember that at the end of the movie it turned into a gateway), but the big difference between that and, say, the TARDIS is that the monolith isn't (or isn't disguised as) a mundane object. To the ape-men it's a new and unusual thing. Even to the audience, it's rather a strange object: it's not something you see every day.
Nice chatting with you. DonQuixote 10:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Actor categories for deletion
I would really appreciate your view on Category:Western film actors and Category:Spaghetti Western actors up for deletion. I know you don't often comment in afds but PLease see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 16#Actors by genre . The only alterative would be to create lists but I'd imagine these wouldn't suffice an article either. There are many actors associated with this genre including many who only appeared in them. I'd love to hear your view on it thanks "Talk"? 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should wait for the flag suggestion to become policy before you make large numbers of changes to Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have asked for a temp block on User_talk:18.104.22.168 at:
...if you want to chime in or revise request. IP4240207xx 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. I definitely won't edit-war with you about it. But I can confirm that I really do have all 37 plays on DVD in the "complete dramatic works..." series right here with me in this room. AndyJones 19:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is great to have a full set, although I did spend a whole year's bonus on it, only to find that the whole lot went on general release in the UK a few years later at about a quarter of what I'd paid! This isn't a moan, I made the right decision to buy them at the time and they're a great resource: especially for the less popular plays. AndyJones 19:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, MarnetteD, thanks for telling me. :) I was typing so fast I had forgotten to put an additional "-" between the "pp" and the "semi". Thanks! :) Acalamari 19:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
The September 2007 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. Thank you.
Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I do not know how to respond properly, so I am trying this way. This is just to say that I am stunned that you have taken away some if not all of my links to my various pages, and accused me of some sort of spamming. It saddens me that links that have been available for so long, have all of a sudden, today, been removed. I find it very unfair, to say the least. If in fact you took issue with the general link to the Kubrick page, I counter this with: how come the link to the Italian essay is available on both the general Kubrick page and also the "Barry Lyndon" page? How come you had no decision on that? Especially when everything available on my site is scholarly. And why you removed my Schnittke link is another blow, since I have it linked to nowhere else. And especially my link to my "Comus Downgraded" at the Milton (Comus) site. Obviously my writings are very different, so to call these various links spam or simply reiteration is clearly not a correct description. I am amazed that you could would do this to me.
You have responded with the comment "I am sorry to say that the links you have added clearly do not meet wikipedia's criteria" but you have not in the slightest degree explained or demonstrated how this is so, with respect to the other links made available on the various sites.
Moreover, you acted in a reckless manner when you removed the link to my site at the Eyes Wide Shut page, considering that I had nothing to do with the introduction of that link in the first place, and I suppose a look back to the history would have revealed as such. Hence, I can only conclude that the decisions taken are spur-of-the-moment and anything but considered.
- Replies to these unsigned edits have been made here  and here . A perusal of the website in question shows it to be one persons view of Kubrick's work. While this is fine in its own right it seems inappropriate as a link here at wikipedia based on WP:EL. MarnetteD | Talk 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, all the fight has gone out of me. For me this has been a year of one absurdity after another and I simply can't handle any more of it. When you say "one persons [sic] view -- it's "one person's view", mind you, you who are supposedly judging what is scholarly and what is not -- you seem to suggest any other link involves some other type of view -- perhaps an alien from outer space's view. All I know is that over 50 countries a month access my Eyes Wide Shut page, and just last week I received favorable feedback from a grateful reader. Scholars have commented as well. But all the fight has gone out of me. You have become the last straw. I give up. All I can say is that I believe that it is your behavior that is inappropriate. It has left me very sad and distressed, but no matter to you, you remain hidden. All I can point out is this: you can speak of "rules and regulations" all you want, but it is you, not those rules, which makes the decision. You can't hide behind them. I believe you are grossly misinterpreting the rules and regulations, but since I have no rights in the matter, I give up. The Eyes Wide Shut page, at least, will be the worse for it (no big deal, I guess, to anyone). Lastly, you fail to mention why you have removed my link to the Schnittke page (purely scholarly article), and the John Milton page. But no matter, I am forgetting wikipedia exists, because this last absurdity in a year of absurdities has left me heartsick. I cannot deal with some mysterious person who hides behind a fake name and parrots rules and regulations without proper explication. I believe your comments were not only simple but simplistic, and hence insulting to what I have done, and the contribution I have made to wikipedia. I have said my peace now. You have left me sad and dismayed and all the fight is gone. One can't fight absurdity ("one persons view" -- an editor (American-schooled) without proper grammar is interpreting what I have done! Such audacity!); I simply slink away slump-shouldered, shaking my head, and agreeing with all of the negative comments that have ever been said about Wikipedia at any time -- in any universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrooby (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, lets see.
- I mentioned signing your edits several times during this discourse including giving the exact instructions how to do this. I also provided several links to explain the policies that were being applied yet, as near as I can tell, you did not read any of them. Your obvious inability to learn about wikipolicy is your fault, not mine.
- A typo suddenly makes you an intellectual superior. Your use of the phrase "Shot by Shot: an deep analysis" in one of your link descriptions might show some of the flaws in this idea.
- If your page gets hits from all over the world what do you need the links here for? How can it be cutoff from people? If the only hits to your webpage are from readers at wikipedia then that is the very definition of the self promotion aspect of the external link policy?
- The nine edits that you made in your time here at wikipedia were all to add links to your webpage so your value to the project will remain unknown.
- Remaining anonymous on the web is a well justified right. Your hypocrisy in this is a bit shocking as I notice that you are not using your real name as an editor here.
- Your insulting snobbishness, combined with you incessant whining, makes me happy that I wasn't schooled in the same manner as you.
- Lots of claims can be made about the usefulness of your webpages. Evidence of this would seem to be lacking. At least now you will now be able to focus on them exclusively. Wikipedia will survive in all of its positive and negative aspects whether you or I edit on it or not. MarnetteD | Talk 01:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- This user claims to have left wikipedia. He has also requested that his real name be removed because I have used it on some discussion pages. It needs to be noted that he used it in his external links and he was the first to use it in any discussions when he used it as the section header at the beginning of this message (now changed). I think that it is a shame, but not unexpected, that he did not ask to have the numerous personal attacks that he made on me removed as well. MarnetteD | Talk 02:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please replace any instance of his real name with Scrooby. Fred Bauder 04:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It has now come to my attention that those who use the true name behind an anonymous username get banned immediately. If this is true, then editor MarnetteD should be banned immediately, for he has repeatedly used my real name on various pages. I am now in correspondence with Wikipedia on this issue. scrooby 07:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I knew that you wouldn't be able to leave gracefully. It will be quite easy for any admin that you wish to go and lodge your complaint with to find that you were the first to use your name, as you did in the when you first typed in the section above. You also used it repeatedly in your many efforts to keeps your website (which uses your true name) as an external link and in your many atrocious personal attacks on me. Perhaps, one day, you may become a true scholar. But you have a lot of growing up to do before that can happen. MarnetteD | Talk 11:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
To any who might be trying to follow this some new information has come to light. A sockpuppet request has been filed. On that request page wknight94 found this as the first time that the website was entered on the EWS page. The IP was from Montreal, Canada. You will note that the entry was made on August 8, 2006. Upon doing a little further research it turns out that there was an earlier attempt to add the webpage in question. In fact it turns out that the first time that it was entered was here  on July 4, 2006. CRCulver deleted it as linkspam (unfortunately it looks as though this member is no longer editing at wikipedia.) A brief edit war over its inclusion ensued culminating in this . You will note that the IP address is 22.214.171.124. This address tracks to Sheffield, England. When you combine that with this information  where Scrooby states that he went to the University of Sheffield, you will find that it is possible (I would say probable) that Scrooby was involved from the start. The connection to Montreal will remain unknown, but, it may have been easier for Scrooby to repeatedly swear on a stack of bibles (which may be shrinking) that he didn't make the original entry when he was aware of who had made it. I have noted this on the sockpuppet case page (in an altered form) but rather than make you readers search for it I wanted to put all of the information here. Especially in light of the numerous legal threats that Scrooby has made. MarnetteD | Talk 15:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- The sockpuppet case has been considered proven and this single purpose user has been blocked from further editing. His personal attacks on me remain in several locations so it should be noted that I take no pleasure from anything that has happened. I simply have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and will continue to try and protect them as best I can. MarnetteD | Talk 19:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
i know canvassing is a bit tacky, but currently underway is an attempt by a just a few editors to prohibit the use of infoboxes in articles of all classical musicians. in my view, the manner in which the policy was adopted was just a bit underhanded, and skeevishly done. if you are at all interested keeping the infoboxes, please go here and join the discussion. if you just don't care, or would like to loose them...well...just ignore this message. cheers! --emerson7 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Moving the sandbox
I think you meant to create your sandbox in your user space ranther than a main article, so I've taken the liberty of moving it to User:MarnetteD/Sandbox. Hope that helps! -- ArglebargleIV 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi MarnetteD. It's precisely because I'm not familiar with the situation's entire history (and because I have little or no experience editing film articles and, more specifically, applying WP:EL to determine what constitutes a suitable external link on a film article that I tried to open up some discussion on the talk page. I would note that if he is telling the truth about it being somebody other than him who added the link in the first place, updating the url would not be a violation of any portion of WP:EL of which I'm aware. I'd personally rather see discussion centre around whether the link would be worthy of inclusion absent any COI issues, since those are murky at best. On the civility front, I agree that User:Scrooby has been uncivil. In fact, I posted as much last night (). Finally, I trust you're aware of this, but if you think User:Scrooby has been using socks to circumvent the anti-COI provisions of WP:EL, you should report this at WP:SSP. Sarcasticidealist 13:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that his behaviour in this regard is problematic, and have advised him on the article's talk page that I don't consider the matter resolved. But I still think that the real question is whether this link is a useful one to have in the article. If it isn't, it should be deleted regardless of who added it. If it is, then likely somebody will re-add it even if we delete it under WP:EL's spam provisions. Either way, whether or not Scrooby violated WP:EL by putting the link in himself becomes a secondary question.
- I also want to make it clear that when I say that I'm assuming good faith, that doesn't mean that I think you're out to lunch in believing that Scrooby added the link himself. Instead, it means that I think that both your explanation for how the link got there and mine are reasonable explanations, and that WP:AGF requires us to work under the assumption that mine is correct (even though it's entirely possible that yours is correct).
- I think you and I might have gotten off on the wrong foot, here. I'm very much not on Scrooby's side (not that you've accused me of being). I just want to see this resolved, and in order for it to be resolved you either need to resolve the question of whether Scrooby is abusing sockpuppets (which will require you to go to WP:SSP) or find a different basis on which to argue removal. Just asserting on the talk page that he's using socks to promote his own sites isn't going to get us anywhere. Sarcasticidealist 21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added some background to your WP:SSP alert - thanks for going there, I really believe that that's the appropriate place. In the meantime, I'd encourage you to participate in the debate at the article's talk page, if one develops. Sarcasticidealist 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fully aware that an editor is not allowed to link to his/her own website. We don't know that that's what happened here, unless we ascertain that Scrooby used socks. According to Scrooby, somebody else added the link, in which case the rule that you can't add a link to your own website is inapplicable.
- I do apologize for accusing you of being unwilling to take this to WP:SSP. That was a conclusion to which I jumped after seeing you take it to WP:ANI after I had repeatedly advised you to take it to WP:SSP. I'm glad that it's there now, in any event. Sarcasticidealist 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added some background to your WP:SSP alert - thanks for going there, I really believe that that's the appropriate place. In the meantime, I'd encourage you to participate in the debate at the article's talk page, if one develops. Sarcasticidealist 23:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your research on this. He and I have been in correspondence off-wiki, and it doesn't sound like he's going to actually pursue legal action (although he has my address, if he decides he wants to). In fact, despite the fact that I am "idiotic and absurd, pigheaded and redundant", he thinks that I should join his beloved Citizendium. In any event, this is mercifully behind us now. I'm sorry we got off on rather the wrong foot; I'm just a stickler for WP:AGF, even in cases such as this one, when it turns out that people who aren't buying good faith are correct. You're clearly a good editor and an asset to the project, and if there's ever anything I can do for you please let me know. Sarcasticidealist 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- No offense taken. As for grammar, I agree that good grammar is not an absolute prerequisite to contributing to Wikipedia (see, for example, my comments here). My path often crosses that of User:Cloveious who, despite his non-perfect grammar, is certainly one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors on Canadian politics.
- As for the personal attacks, you are actually incorrect that they can't be removed. As long as you confine yourself to removing the attacks themselves, as opposed to the entire paragraphs/passages in which they're found, you can certainly delete them (or archive them if you prefer, as long as you're not doing damage to ongoing conversations). Just note that that's what you're doing in the edit summaries and you shouldn't get any trouble from anybody. Sarcasticidealist 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple of questions regarding your position in the back and forth on the Kurosawa book listing: Can you point me to a WP guideline that says that nothing can be added if it's somehow beneficial to the person adding it? I'm not trying at all to be argumentative, not a bit. It's just that I get the impression that your position on this is that an otherwise legitimate entry in an article is not allowable if it's submitted by someone with something to gain by its promotion. Is that an across-the-board rule? And also, just technically, how did you know it was submitted by the publisher? All I saw was an IP address. At any rate, it's a new, legitimately published book very much apropos to a page on Kurosawa, and had I known about the book previously, I'd have submitted a reference to it to Kurosawa's article anyway. So please consider the current embodiment of the reference to be mine and not the publisher's. Thanks! Monkeyzpop 01:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I understand the reasoning behind discounting submissions from this source. But that said, the book is listed under FURTHER READING, which to my mind obviates the necessity for a book so listed to be referenced or quoted within the article in question. Furthermore, had someone other than the publisher listed this work under Further Reading, no one would be questioning it now, I believe, because it seems to be a completely legitimate book, available through WorldCat, published by an (otherwise? ;-)) reputable publisher, and quite pertinent to the topic. So it appears that merely the source of the information is at question, as the information seems (to my mind at least) to be absolutely of value to the article, especially placed as it was. So why can't I now place it as an example for Further Reading? Do we really have to read every book listed under Further Reading in every article in order to legitimize the listing of said books? Is every allowed Further Reading listing actually utilized or quoted in some fashion in the article in which it appears? I sense that this book is being disallowed simply because the publisher had the bad taste to be first to list it, and now no one can. Is there anything we can concur on here? Thanks again for your reply. Monkeyzpop 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your nice reply. No apology is necessary, no offense taken. Tell you what I'm going to do. I've got practically everything ever written about Kurosawa in English or Japanese, so it's no skin off my back to pick up this new book. I'm ordering a copy. I'll look it over and see if it's indeed legit and then list or not list as appropriate. That'll settle it -- until someone who thinks Kurosawa is a make of motorcycle comes along and deletes it! Monkeyzpop 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have a strong feeling that I am "the source" here, and so I would appreciate a little wikipedia tutoring, forebearance, mercy maybe? Why would it be "bad taste" for a publisher or the marketing director at a not-for-profit University Press to list a book as an external link or a further reading? Is this a COI, do I stand to benefit? In the extreme abstract and in iddy-bitty micro amounts, maybe, but I doubt it. I've been posting links such as these on wikipedia with the notion that this is information people may want, and that it may be useful to seekers. And I'm sure it would be a COI if an author posted this---indeed our authors might benefit from it. So I posted (maybe too early in this case since AKIRA KUROSAWA: INTERVIEWS is not printed yet) to let people using wiki to explore Kurosawa or Joan Blondell or any other subject we publish about learn about a source of further information. I do this because the author shouldn't according to the Pillars, because it's quite unlikely anyone else will, and because disseminating information about scholarly and trade books from our press is my job. If this is antithetical to all that is wiki, let me know, please, and I will move on.Sbyates50 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I included AKIRA KUROSAWA: INTERVIEWS along with a good number of other books on AK in the Further Reading section because it's available for pre-order on Amazon, it's been covered by Publishers Weekly, its publisher's credentials are no less than the other books on the list, and it's going to be widely available (as opposed to its current narrow but real availability) in a matter of weeks. It seemed silly to me, the more I thought about it, to exclude a book from Further Reading simply because it wasn't submitted by someone UNconnected to it. If I'd been the first to post a reference to this new book, no one would be discussing the matter. At least, it seems that way to me. I appreciate your reluctance to get into an edit war, MarnetteD, and it was in part to make one unnecessary between you and Sbyates50 that I put the submission in myself. I AM a disinterested party in this matter, and with personal interest removed from the equation, I cannot see why this book isn't a useful reference and fully qualified for inclusion here. If I were researching AK (as I always am, at least passively), I'd want WP to indicate the availability now or in the near future of a new work on the topic. While I understand your original position, MarnetteD, I'm convinced your original concerns have been addressed and hope that you'll let the item remain. Thanks. Monkeyzpop 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- RE your feeling hurt that I placed the INTERVIEWS book back on the AK page: I certainly didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I did mean to appeal to your sense of fairness and open-mindedness, of which I have no doubt. Since my previous statement about buying the book, a good deal more information has come my way (not to mention the availability of review copies, pre-publication), and that additional information led me to rethink the matter. Perhaps, as you say, WP is not merely for lists, but what exactly is a Further Reading section for? It's certainly not for analysis of the books mentioned. It's what it appears to be, a reading list for those looking for more information. Not more information that has passed scrutiny of everyone who might care to analyze the works, but simply a list of works for people to utilize in doing their own analysis. At any rate, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I'm not really clear on why this one means so much to you. There are certainly thousands of worse scenarios among the Further Readings to be found on WP. And I really would like an answer to the question of whether we would have had this difference if someone unaffiliated with the book had been the first to post it among the list of books for Further Reading. If you don't mind answering. Thanks. By the way, was it you who told me about the new Kurosawa DVD collection coming out, the one with SCANDAL, ONE WONDERFUL SUNDAY, THE IDIOT, etc.? If it wasn't you, then you should know about it. I'm very excited. Monkeyzpop 08:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen THE IDIOT, as well as ONE WONDERFUL SUNDAY and NO REGRETS FOR OUR YOUTH. In fact, I think I can correctly say I've seen all of Kurosawa's films. Most of them only once, and long ago, but I've managed to see them all, with the possible exception of MADADAYO, which I have but can't remember if I've seen. I share your affection for SUNDAY and NO REGRETS. While some of AK's films are more fun to watch than others, I've enjoyed them all. I think Kurosawa is the only director with whom I've made a point to collect all of his films. Even my favorite director, John Ford, made a few that I don't care if I own or not. DRUNKEN ANGEL I love. And you're right about Shimura. He's one of my favorite actors of all time, so much so that I tried to convince my wife to name our first son Takashi. Neither of us being Japanese, she had a bit of a problem with that, but then we didn't have a boy, so it became moot! Monkeyzpop 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- MarnetteD -- Thanks for setting me straight. I'm very sorry for my naivete and the trouble I have caused you. Sbyates50 13:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You will be interested to see my completely new article on the British theatre director Frank Dunlop, whose career was so creative and influential, that I was astonished no-one had written about him, other than a brief mention under Nottingham Playhouse.
Best wishes John Thaxter 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone has now claimed that my article is 'not wikified' and asks for internal links (whatever they are) when I have put in maybe 150 links to other wiki articles.
It also asks for a citation for his theatre training at the Old Vic school, but what more can one do than say, as I did in the Edit summary, that most of this material (including all his educational details) came from his own CV in Who's Who in the Theatre 17th edition. Look it up chaps yourselves, it's there in black and white in the premiere theatre reference book, if you do not believe my citations.
The Chevalier award was listed by his agent Macnaughton Lord, whom I also cited when setting up the article and with whom I am in touch! Really, what is a fellow to do if his Edit summary citations and references carefully listed are found wanting?
Incidentally I have also written to Frank Dunlop himself, inviting him to view the article. Mainly on the grounds that we virtually share a birth date (I am four days older) although we have never met. Best wishes John Thaxter 23:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, And as you say, a bit cumbersome. I have added a < r e f > link to both the bit about Dunlop's trainining (citing his CV in Who's Who in the Theatre 17th edition) and his Chevalier award (citing his agent's website where this award is listed).
Small numbers have appeared against each item but, despite attentively reading the bumf, I have no idea how to make these links from the smal numbers jump to the references. I expect it is really quite straightforward, but perhaps I can claim the folly of old age. If you have a spare moment perhaps you could do the necessary (?). Once these two citations are in place, I presume the accusation that 'this article needs to be wikified', can be deleted. I do hope so. Best wishes, John Thaxter 10:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. Your adjustments make all the difference, I had thought that by putting the reference icons front and back of the notes, they would then appear automatically.
You will be pleased to see I have changed 'blooming' to read 'A late flowering', which is the more usual description for oldsters coming back into creativity.
But adding page numbers for all the references I make would be a complete killer. Eg. the Joseph mentions supporting my single note are on three different pages, and it would also be quite possible to have them in two or three different volumes. I do masses of cross-checks between the Who's Who CVs and playbills; but also with my own copies of programmes (of which there are now several thousand). Another major resource is the Theatre Record archive of reviews, backed up by the Theatre Record Indexes (now running to 26 separately bound books (plus cumulative indexes of play titles). Then. on top of all that I have hundreds of other books on my shelves which come into play briefly without necessarily getting a Sources listing.
The Who's Who CVs are a difficult source material because individuals make up their own rules about punctuation, etc. And most actors, playwrights and directors have a libertarian way with chronology, as well as fallibly getting dates just slightly wrong, which need to be checked. That's why it can take me a couple of days just to uplift an existing article with a theatre career listing.
But it seems worth doing and I hope that the subjects themselves will also find the organised material of use. John Thaxter 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
MERGER : The End of the Affair
I am asking for your input about an article merger at:
- Talk:The End of the Affair / Discussion > Article MERGE suggestion (October 2007)
- Thanks! - IP4240207xx 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As you may have seen from my Stage review of Glengarry Glen Ross, Peter McDonald, is giving a fine performance as Williamson despite taking over at short notice. I had already admired his work in Lieutenant of Inishmore at the Garrick (although I hated the play), and also in Brien Friel's Aristocrats and James Joyce's Exiles at the National.
When I looked at his stub article I thought it was time to give him a stage listing, which I did, adding a < r e f > at the bottom of the list, I seem to be doing something wrong as, again, the number came up but it leads to nowhere even though I had created a References cross-header.
I know you are busy and it's unfair to ask, but if you could tweak my ref entry to make it work, I would be most grateful.
Best wishes, John Thaxter 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I have now turned it into a complete article, with film and television added, and the paras rearranged for clarity. John Thaxter 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sad that David, our friend and knowledgeable colleague, seems to have given up on wiki (or gone on furlough) or am I looking in the wrong places?
He received two jabs to the solar plexus, one deleting his item on the Gate Theatre, London then, in short order, another about Paris Pullman. Whoever deleted the Gate Theatre item (stated to be due to a lack of 'notability', but listed under David's contributions as due to 'blatant copyright infringement') was clearly unaware of the needs of theatre researchers and students for ready access to background material on important London theatres.
The story of the Gate in Notting Hill is an oustanding example of recent London theatrical history, having fostered the early careers of Stephen Daldry and Thea Sharrock, to name but two of its briliant line-up of artistic directors. Thus, not to have The Gate described and detailed on wiki is a disgrace. Is there some way we can rescue David's original text from the archives and perhaps make it more acceptable?
I could of course start again from scratch, but as you know, this is damned hard work. John Thaxter 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that David Fenner is quite happy about the deletion, saying his Gate Theatre article was 'incomplete', although I recall his questions on the matter. So I must steel myself to write an article on The Gate. Meanwhile I have been busy putting the Aidan Gillen article in better order, which has suddenly presented me with an interesting moral dilemma.
The article was labelled 'insufficiently referenced' and — quite apart from his career — I thought it needed more domestic background. I happened to find it in a BBC News item, dating back five years, to a moment when he had a rash encounter with a cab-driver and with the Police in Dublin and was fined for bad behaviour.
The news report had the advantage of naming the exact area of North Dublin where he hales from, so I made it a source of reference to the locality. Now I am feeling guilty about giving further publicity to a moment of folly when he was just a little drunk. But if I delete the reference I presume I shall also have to delete the information about his Dublin provenance.
Oh dear, what to do? I guess this is not a unique problem for wikipedians. Best wishes John Thaxter 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. and I have deleted the reference (if not the locality referred to) as I feel it quite wrong to cast Gillen in a poor light in this way, since it was a minor incident not worth retailing and re-telling in such a prominent area as a Wikipedia article. John Thaxter 21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well thank you at least for pointing out the relevant rule. Thats more than bully Matthew ever did. It is still a riduclous policy that makes no sense, if a TV programme has finished originally airing than normal people would refer to it in the past tense. It simple logical. But of course Wikipedia is not, and never has been, either logical nor edited by people who are in the real world. I am particularly annoyed by Arthur's Treasured Volumes, only a few minutes survive so to say "is" not "was" is simply stupid. 99% is wiped, yet 1% makes a difference. That you cannot justify...--BritTV 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Help! I was inserting a paragraph about John Barton's work on his 1980 adaptation of The Greeks at the Aldwych, and while adding a couple of refs, I seem to have lost the rest of the article.
I would be very grateful if you could recover what has been lost, without also losing my new paragraph about The Greeks, which was planned to go some way to making the point that Barton's work was mainly as a theatre director and not as a creator of TV recordings and films.
Sorry to bother you in this way again. John Thaxter 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks once more for your valuable help. I tried again to separate the refs; but it resulted in the same loss of text, I then created a spurious article with a copy of the text to practice various approaches, but finally realised that I had to dump the refs and transfer the information in plain form to the text and to the References footnote. But I took the opportunity to upgrade the 'early years', taking details from Barton's Theatre Who's Who CV to give a more rounded perception of the man.
I've left the Mysteries/Norse radio item as is, although it's a pity the originator did not provide a Tx date.
My first adult encounter with HAMLET was the Olivier film, although even then I recognised that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had been quietly eliminated from the plot! But an earlier encounter was at the old Lyric Hammersmiith in a matinee for schoolchildren - although we were not told beforehand what we were about to see, and were not given a programme listing! So I have no idea who was playing what. Thanks again,John Thaxter 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I am convinced the IBDB entry refers to the same John Barton as the article. In his CV he writes: "Aldwych, Mar 1961, devised and took part in the Anthology, The Hollow Crown.......(and then)....made his first appearance in New York, at the Henry Miller Theatre, Jan 1963, in The Hollow Crown."
I suspect the sportive W comes from his mother's maiden name, Wale.
Now that the references are in plain text I think we can leave them without the magic leap, which may still lose us the rest of the article!
I never saw the Nic(h)ol Williamson Hamlet, which won him Best Actor from the Evening Standard in 1969, a performance which also played the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre in NY in May 1969, prior to a tour of the US. I missed it on purpose because (a) I was broke at the time, having just bought a new house on a huge mortgage; and (b) I found Williamson too mannered an actor - all top nervy show, with nothing beyond.
Mentioning the Standard awards, I have made a start on building the complete Awards listings, starting with Best Play. But I am balked by a break in 1979 and 1980, when the Celebration book listing ends at 1978, and Theatre Record does not kick in until 1981.
In fact, 1980 was a disastrous year for archivists: the Theatre Who's Who playbills end at December 1979; Plays & Players stopped publishing in May 1980; and Ian Herbert launched the (then) London Theatre Record in 1981. Back then I made my own (incomplete) index of the major productions of 1980, but it was feeble compared with the luxurious acres of information in Theatre Record.
The result is that everyone has to scratch around in memoirs and programmes of the period, hoping the data is not spoiled by poor memory or undated programme listings (theatres always put the date and month, but usually omit the year).
Best wishes John Thaxter 23:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note about ibdb. I shall return to it when I next do a link.
Nicol Williamson (and Halliwell) spells his name minus an 'h', possibly because, for professional reasons, it had to look different. Incidentally I suddenly felt ashamed last evening when I recalled that in 1969 I was not just taking on a new house. The chief change in our life was that in 1969 our family suddenly grew from three to four with the arrival of a second child, our daughter Emma (who now works as a Sales manager for Playboy Fashions in the UK)! She would be furious to know I forgot the real reason for our staying at home in 1969. Cash did have a lot to do with it, but so did the need for baby-sitting!
The two missing years of Evening Standard awards could easily be filled in if I had access to the two relevant copies of the Evening Standard (although of course, which?). Microfilm in our local libraries is now non-existent: all newspaper archives are held in Colindale, in north west London - a bit of a trot from here. My good friend Robert Tanitch told me to visit the Theatre Museum archive at Blythe Road in West Kensington, which I have done occasionally. But it's only open two days a week and one needs to book a place in the reading room weeks before. So I much prefer to use my own resources — I feel sure if I scour my cuttings files and bookshelves I shall eventually come across the lists of winners! Best wishes, John Thaxter 10:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Milton Shulman, the Evening Standard Awards and Q in Kew
I frequently met Milton Shulman when he was a critic for the Evening Standard, although the closest I came to him was when he read out and discussed a review of mine on the Radio 4 show Stop the Week - one in which I had admitted that although I was reviewing the show (by an Italian company at Riverside) I had to confess a total aversion to the process of combining live performance with puppetry. A week later I was at Riverside, apologising to the PR for giving a bad notice to a visiting international troupe, but he laughed, saying that after my review was aired by Milton, the run had completely sold out with queues for returns - thus proving there is no such thing as a bad review, just so long as it gains public attention.
But I am writing this note to draw your attention to the Evening Standard Awards article, which after a lot of hard work, is now a virtually complete listing of all the awards from 1955 to 2006. The missing ones are 1979 and 1980, but I have asked Nick Curtis (deputy editor at the Standard and a good guy) to look out the lists for me.
You may also be amused by the lift I have given to David Fenner's stub about the Q Theatre. The new material is largely based on my journalistic reaction to Kenneth Barrow's superbly documented history of the theatre. Alas, shortly after his book was published he died of AIDS, a real loss to theatre research. John Thaxter 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello how are you - you;ve done an exemplary job on the British list. I am steadily working through the American list still. Hey Could you quickly read the Preity Zinta article and participate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Preity Zinta when you have a moment. Your words would be much appreciated cheers - i'm looking for an FA asap. I also uploaded some Eastwood images for Pale Rider and the Eiger Sanction "Talk"? 13:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Preity Zinta FA
Hi. I'd like to thankyou personally for your comments which helped the Preity Zinta article achieve A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Man I'm gonna stay away from the FA candidacy for a while I think. I hate wiki couselling and confrontation anyway and I promised myself after the Casino Royale (2006 film) four month nomination that I wouldn't go fo an FA again but I think this is up to FA standard. If you compare it to the Gyllenhaal article it is much better I think. When theres so much else to do on building stubs etc I'd rather stay away rather than having to justify everything to people who object at the most minor of things. Thankyou for you contributions and input anway. Hey have you got Pale Rider on dvd? ~?? "Talk"? 12:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words they mean a lot friend. I must admit I find it utterly ridiculous the fuss made over certain things and I personally don't think its worth the trouble so I'll be staying away from it - I'm done my part - they can fuss over it. Wiki cousellors and strong critics who appear rude over minor issues take any enjoyment away from wikipedia -what fun is there in sitting around and debating something when there is a whole encyclopedia to build and explore?. I'm certain some people have lost sight of what this is about, and notice that any strong opposes to FA candidates never seem to actually address the actual content given in the article , it is always minor issues that nobody normal really cares about. As I said anybody reading that article in the context of the encyclopedia would think it is a valuable edition and most would be quite surprised at the level of development on an article on an INdian actress which gives alot of information which is what this is about. So no stress, I'm keeping well away. Yes I've ordered Pale Rider for Christmas -in fact it is mostly DVDs I'm after - I am also trying to get the film Himilaya from 1999 starring Lhakpa Tsamchoe as you know I have a deep interest in that region "Talk"? 09:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the Barnstar, I am chuffed!
Since I last wrote I have created an almost totally new article on Henry Kendall, directly arising out of my work on both the Q Theatre article and the associated article on See How They Run. The latter had nothing about the original productions and it offered a tortured summary of the plot.
Every time I looked at the Q Theatre article I seemed to add a bit more detail. And I also took a side turn to amplify the article on Philip King who wrote See How They Run while a very junior erk with the RAF during the war!
But I was appalled by the sketchy nonsense in the article about Henry Kendall, an actor whom I saw many times on stage in the West End. He was being described as best known for his performance in the title role of The Shadow both in the West End and in the 1933 film, every word of which was totally wrong-headed. Henry now nas the article he deserves and I wish he had lived to see it, since it gives full credit for his work as an actor, busy director and superb revue artiste.
I draw your attention to the Kendall article because you will see I took your advice on making links to IMDb and IBDb, for which I thank you.
Alas, so far there has been no reply from Nick Curtis about the 1979-80 Evening Standard Awards, although there is already so much information on the page that it is unlikely that anyone will notice the lacuae!
Thanks again for the Brownie point. Yours John Thaxter 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter
The October 2007 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. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right -- page protection might be a little heavy-handed. We've had someone delete portions of the page today, but I don't think it's likely to be a large problem in the future. Thanks! Graymornings 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Doctor Who succession box & minor edits
About the Doctor Who succession box on the John Simm page -- I tend to agreed with you. I think I either removed it or altered it a while back, and it was immediately restored by a Doctor Who complete-ist. In the end, I don't think it harms the page really, especially given that the article is not in great shape to begin with, and certainly, if the succession boxes for the Master are going to be deployed, they should be deployed for all the actors. But more important, I wanted to gently point out that your removal of the succession box did not really qualify as a minor edit, which covers only spelling corrections, simple formatting, layout errors, links, and vandalism. Your edit removed content that other editors, rightly or wrongly, may consider significant. And as the ME page states, "The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. ...Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text." Just wanted to remind you not to hide this kind of edit. OK, I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming... --Melty girl 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note that based on my edit summaries it is hardly likely that I have tried to hide anything. MarnetteD | Talk 05:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- :) --Melty girl 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar!
I really appreciate it that others appreciate my work. I will try and do as many as I can in future, so thank you for your support! ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) review me! |my chatroom] 08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes Winter's Tale may have been the subject of debate: BBC makes it a comedy. The problem plays get that issue, too, and the BBC Shakespeare classify those (even Troilus & Cressida) as comedies. AndyJones 02:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I'd not necessarily remove it all. I'll keep an eye out for any appropriate sources myself, though. I've got a few books here at home. Some of the points strike me as wrong, though. I'd be surprised if Jacobi's Hamlet wasn't full-text, for example, although I'm prepared to be proved wrong! AndyJones 22:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the link to the silversirens web page. It isn't a spam site but instead an interesting and informative tribute to Joan Greenwood and Margaret Lockwood. Have another look http://www.silversirens.co.uk/ regards -- twitter (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Doctor Who serials list reversion
I object strongly to the removal of the material I added. I do not feel it was adding too much detail. In any event, I cannot accept the 2007 Series 3 synopsis only being about the Face of Boe and Mr. Saxon. There is a third arc that has to be addressed, and I have done so by putting this one item back. If you still feel this is too much detail, then the references to Boe and Saxon need to be removed as well, because without the Rose aftermath arc, the synopsis is incomplete and erroneous. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)