User talk:Laurencebeck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your edits to Norman Lebrecht[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Norman Lebrecht shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Voceditenore (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Account unvanished[edit]

As you have decided to continue editing and have thus violated the terms of WP:COURTESYVANISHING, all of your edits to this page have been unvanished. While the edits from your previous account are still linked with the vanished username, this notice is to serve as a pointer to those edits in case they are needed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

tyvm (thank you very much). I was not aware of these terms — WP:COURTESYVANISHING — I was not given them. I was given a very nice - in its completness - the simple word, "done."
There was no decision involved in breaching the laws of allowed knowledge according to what we have here within Wikipedia. The opportunity for me, as i could perceive it to be, as it was presented to me, was the opening to recommence on a what would be a clean slate of wiki contributions. regards. --Laurencebeck (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thrilla in Manila[edit]

Information.svg Hi. Please do not add or restore unsourced material to articles, as you did with these edits to Thrilla in Manila, as this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. That material was moved to the talk page for a valid reason: Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. The fact that you think such material is "the requirement of this encyclopedia" does not mitigate the need to adhere to those policies.

In addition, please do not add notes to the reader or arbitrary indentations in the body of articles, as you did with the above edits.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


thank you very much, Nightscream.
I placed the added information on rounds 9 – 14 because there was no description of them in the article which led to the last round, round 14, and particularly round 14. I am by no means a fight follower but a general reader and on behalf of other general readers I took what was on the talk page to the article page.
Presently there is no description of those rounds and a paragreaph begins as it had before
Seeing the results of round 14, Eddie Futch decided to stop the fight
Well, thanks very much, I said to myself, what happened in round 14?
So that the reader of the article would know what the quality of the new information was from the talk page there was added by me the information to keep the reader alert and the indentation was intended to give further clarity to the, by Wikipedia standards, second grade information. ( which information gave the reason for the Frazier trainer Eddie Futch to call the end to the bout.) --Laurencebeck (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
". . . but a general reader and on behalf of other general readers I took what was on the talk page to the article page."
Thus undoing what I did back in January when I moved that material from the article to the talk page in the first place. Again, did it not occur to you that it was moved here for a reason? Did you not read what that reason was at the top of the section I began for it above?
Seeing yourself as acting "on behalf of other general readers" does not allow us to violate Wikipedia policies, including the Verifiability, Citation and Reliable Sources policies, which require that material in Wikipedia articles be accompanied by citations of reliable, verifiable sources. Nor does it justify bad formatting or addition of notes to the reader. The information in question was not "new", as it had been removed from the article almost a year earlier, and your note had no bearing on its "quality". The quality of material included in articles is predicated on its verifiability, its support by inline citations, its proper weight, and the quality of its writing and its presentation/composition. Indenting a chunk of the article and placing a note above it stating that it was previously on the talk page does not ensure its quality; it lowers the quality of the article.
If you find sources for that material, please feel free to re-add it, with citations of those policies. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Verify that now is added: Not exactly bridge work from rounds 8,9 to 13,14 but rounds 13,14 given description from the Daily Mirror sports writer of the day. --Laurencebeck (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-free image of Medesa book cover File:Medea_Diana_Rigg_programme_lo_res.jpg on Diana Rigg[edit]

Hello Laurencebeck, that non-free image of the cover of Medea booklet is not permitted in the article about Diana Rigg because it violates copyright. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images policy which states:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

So it's ok on the Medea (play) page itself, but not on the Diana Rigg page.

Thanks, Optimale Gu 14:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The photographic representation of the Medea programme for the 1992 production at the Wyndham's Theatre is placed adjacent to the paragraphs and within the section which is given to that part of Diana Rigg's career devoted to her life as a theatre actor.
It is commentary on the whole aspect of theatre and theatre going, and that is the theatre going experience of all those from the Upper Balcony to the Dress Circe to the Stalls.
I will give consideration to this later. --Laurencebeck (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page George Cole (actor) because it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fleming[edit]

Don't edit war. If you want to add an Idiotbox, go to the talk page and DISCUSS, rather than edit warring. There is a consensus not to have the box there, so edit warring to add one in is inadvisable. - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Diana Rigg, Alec MaCowen, Pygmalion, Albury Theatre, London 1974.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Diana Rigg, Alec MaCowen, Pygmalion, Albury Theatre, London 1974.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Diana Rigg photographed by Patrick Lichfield, 1981.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Diana Rigg photographed by Patrick Lichfield, 1981.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. January (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Edie Sedgwick[edit]

Please look carefully at what you did in this revert. Just as with this edit, the reference is so badly formed that the link appears jumbled with the other refs, and part of it extends out of the right-hand margin of the page. See WP:CITE for information on how to add references. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see what u mean . . . I do not recall it being like that in my first edit Sept 23 . . . . Even so, the link can be clicked, . .and take you to the full text of the Stein-Plimpton book on the Google Books extract.
Yes, it is "unsightful" as you might say, so I agree w u.
Mailer, a little patronizing to say the least, was not fully given his sentiment in the previous edit. (When I first read it in the published book I could have grabbed his nose and twisted it ( no kidding )! )
Wikipedia will not accept a "TunyUrl" – TinyURL – reduction of a link so the full Google Books URL had to be entered.
What to do? I will see if I can tidy the mile long URL so that it is more compact.
Nevertheless, clicking the URL as it is there will take a WIkireader to the Stein-Plimpton book extract (where you can enjoy reading a great deal additionally). --Laurencebeck (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is your previous edit; it has the same problem. URLs shouldn't be left bare, especially when they are longer than the column width; when a ref uses a cite template (in this case {{cite book}}) the URL should be put in the |url= parameter of that template, like this - notice that I've also removed the || text/citation > which as far as Wiki markup is concerned, is meaningless. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Amazing! I hope to follow the way you did it . . ! heh  :)
I was at time of receiving this message working on the edit through this page . .
http://reftag.appspot.com/
Which I found in ref 4 in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Programming_tools of WP:CITE
Your wiki-skill is very much appreciated . .and will be by all wiki-readers of the Edie Sedgwick page ( and other pages you have attended). --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Faye Dunaway[edit]

I just wanted to mention that edits such as this fall into the realm of original research and therefore should not be added to the article. Saying that her rise to prominence was "meteoric" is not neutral in tone and of questionable accuracy, as she had done quite a bit of stage work beforehand. A great deal of edits of a similar character were added recently by an IP user, and what we need to do now is reduce the volume of such edits, not add to them. Any additional text in the article requires proper sourcing in accordance with WP:V. Please do not add any further text to the article without sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The stage work was the launching pad . . .
"the meteoric launch of her film career in the 1967 ``Bonnie and Clyde.``"
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-11-01/entertainment/8703220767_1_film-and-stage-projects-deglamorized-role-film-career . . . about 12th paragraph.
But, dear fellow, "Bonnie and Clyde" was like an EXPLOSION of meteorites! And it was Miss Dunaway's extraordinary abilities and attractions that sky-rocketed it!
If Wikipedia has decided to wish to be neutral about the phenomenon of the necessity of publicity extravagance, please, I am honored too be Wikipedia's brief guest. --Laurencebeck (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
See my response on the article talk page. WP:OR has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, and your continued ignoring of it in a BLP is beginning to cross over the border into tendentious editing. Please stop.
By the way I don't know (and I don't want to know) if you were the IP editor who added so much material to the article, but it's usually better to edit when logged-in, so that editors are not confused as to how to communicate with editors. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
No,Coretheapple, I was not the IP editor you refer to as adding so much material. I AM responsible for this and this which were edits executed inadvertantly non logged-in. I wished to have your personal phraseology as part of the greater Wikipedia references on the subject.
I will add information which I believe to be interesting not loads of gay-based natter or informational rubble.
It will be up to you to decide upon the point of that information. --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
If the information you add isn't supported by a citation from a reliable source it will probably be deleted. If the information you add carries a point of view without being ascribed to someone with the proper expertise or credentials, it will probably be deleted. If the information you add is about a living person and is potentially libelous, it will probably be deleted. We're not a dumping ground for information simply because you consider it to be "interesting," information must be sourced, it must be neutral and it must not libel or damage a living person. Them's the rules. BMK (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Also you can't just throw in any random tidbit of information that tickles your fancy, as you did here, when you yanked out of a Youtube video a snippet from an interview at a film festival. It's also not accurate to call "divine" her "one word to describe working with Brando". She made other comments about him that, if usable at all, belong in Marlon Brando not the article about her. You've been editing Wikipedia since 2013 and you ought to know that if you care, which you obviously don't. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I will agree with you. But if I might place you where I was when saying that . . .
The question was to the actress' sense of her craft as she responded to her opposite actor's craft. That is to say when working, getting at a scene, an exchange, what was it like for Faye Dunaway, the actress? One word, "Divine..!" Oh yes, there was then added how grand he was arriving at the studio in a limo and a few other fillers.
But she put it in one word, the leading American actor of the second part of the twentieth century from one of the great iconic actresses of the same period. Craft for craft, she managed to put it in one word, "What was he like when the lights were on, when the camera was in close, when you and he had to get the right moment, get the right timing for each take?" In the context of that interview, she understood she was historically choosing one word.
But I think I will terminate here, "Yes, I will agree with you." --Laurencebeck (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It's fine. regards . .  :–)   --Laurencebeck (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, I get your point, but our job is to reflect what's in the sources and not function as if we're Rex Reed. She gave a brief answer to a casual question in a two-minute interview excerpt, at 1:09 here[2]. Q. "Getting back to the romantic film that you played with Marlon Brando, how was it to play with him." A. "Divine. He was a sweetheart. You haven't lived until you've watched Marlon get out of a limo, in his robe, having just got out of bed, he was so funny. He was unusual and unique. He was a lovely man, a lovely man." That was it. The interview was over. Unfortunately the article is overloaded with this kind of thing and it has been a chore to sort through and remove, especially since this is a BLP and it is necessary to be careful. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Inserting line breaks[edit]

Please do not insert line breaks in article text. Wikipedia formats the text properly for each readers particular system. Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia really thinks a line break is Wiki-mandatory where half the piece of info is at end of line: Faye
Dunaway
and the other half is completed on the next ? --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, now I verify, it depends upon the browser.
With Mozilla Firefox there is the line break in the name Faye
Dunaway
. . and in the Google Chrome browser the line break is in the name Shirley
Knight
. . .And Internet Explorer has the information all complete on one line.
That information is an advantage to know . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As they say on the Geicko commercials: "Everybody knows that." BMK (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I was telling you that that was something I found out due to your message. I have to say it was my "original research" but was from your message that I proceded. So thanks. :-) --Laurencebeck (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In which may be the most revolutionary development in World Health at the present moment there has been some attempted additions to what is most recent on the subject. Thank you~--Laurencebeck (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you added some content to Pearl Harbor advanced-knowledge conspiracy theory that appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint. Unfortunately, this edit appears to give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Yaush (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Laurencebeck. You have new messages at Talk:Dorothy Dandridge.
Message added 05:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well...I accept you meant well BUT[edit]

You really shouldn't ever change another editor's talk page posts, reverting or correcting someone else's talk page comments is considered to be against Wikipedia guidelines, take a look at talk page guidelines - editing other editors' comments. If you think another editor's comments are somehow incorrect, then mention it to them and leave it to them to fix it if they want. If the comments are vandalism, then of course (per "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" at WP:TPOC) reverting the objectionable content is acceptable. Shearonink (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much, but I was giving a capital letter to "Tremelo", a city and adding its Wikipedia page with the double brackets. And with "tremolo", the double brackets for the link to the Wikipedia article.
The edit revision page, so that your message and this exchange, may have proper relevance to a casual reader, is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Dandridge&diff=prev&oldid=651394860 Regards, thank you . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I acknowledge your correct notation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Dandridge&diff=651400839&oldid=651399911 --Laurencebeck (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I add the capital letter to the municipality of Tremelo to my observation and edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Dandridge&diff=654424638&oldid=651400839 --Laurencebeck (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Live and Let Die[edit]

Will you please be careful when editing the Live and Let Die article. This is about to go to FAC and your edits will ensure that it is opposed, which is not a desirible outcome. Your latest addition is a bloating of the plot, and is (as many of your previous edits are) poorly phrased, and not written in an encyclopaedic tone. In other edits you have introduced tangential and unsourced information, or information that has minimal connection to the subject, and no connection to the book. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mr SchroCat.
I can confirm my understanding to you that your use of FAC means that the article was under this consideration: FACWikipedia:Featured article candidates --Laurencebeck (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The voyage by Bond and Solitaire by rail down the eastern seaboard is one of the Fleming's set pieces in LALD.
It is notable for the bombing and tommy-gunning of the no-longer occupied compartment on the train Fleming names the Silver Phantom while the couple have continued their journey on the Silver Meteor with the change at Jacksonville.
I do not believe the brief description I have added interrupts the flow of the article towards FAC status. Indeed the absence of the voyage might. Regards --Laurencebeck (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Your edit was poorly written and it bloated an already full plot section, which is why it was removed. While it is one of the "set pieces", it does not affect the remainder of the plot in any way, and is, therefore, superfluous in this 'summary of the storyline. One of the reviewers at the recent PR commented that the plot section "tries to convey too much in too little space. May want to streamline a bit": adding yet more superfluous detail is not the way to achieve a better understanding of a plot. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
There are two things that you, (User:Laurencebeck), need to consider: one is WP:WIAFA criterion 1e; the other is WP:PLOTSUM, regarding which, I have previously noticed that you are in the habit of expanding the plot section of articles that other users had previously trimmed down. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much Redrose64.
re
"The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida"
in the status of the article by SchroCat (talk) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Live_and_Let_Die_%28novel%29&direction=prev&oldid=654301008
I read that you are very interested in the British Rail system. I ask you to consider that Fleming had set a great three Chapters in some novel (In Live and Let Die Chapters 10 to 12 –the greater part of– inclusive can be referred to) on the Flying Scotsman, from Euston to Edinburgh and that at York Bond and companion got off and waited for a following edition of another express and boarded that. Arriving later at their destination they learn that their compartment on the great British train, The Flying Scotsman, had been bombed and strafed with machine-gun fire. Fleming would have taken nigh on three chapters to describe this journey (another train set-piece written by Fleming is the journey from Istanbul to Paris on the Orient Express.)
When a Wikipedia editor writes, "The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida" he is reducing three chapters to four words and the name of a town and its state. Leave out the fact that a train has been halted, half a carriage bombed and the interior given a succession of tommy-gun blasts.
Here is the description of the train journey from Istanbul to Paris on the Wikipedia page of From Russia, with Love (novel)
(Romanova), Bond and Kerim board the Orient Express with the Spektor. Bond and Kerim quickly discover three MGB agents on board travelling incognito. Kerim uses bribes and trickery to have the two taken off the train, but he is later found dead in his compartment with the body of the third agent, both having been killed by Grant. At Trieste a fellow MI6 agent, "Captain Nash", arrives on the train and Bond presumes he has been sent by M as added protection for the rest of the trip. Tatiana is suspicious of Nash, but Bond reassures her that Nash is from his own service. After dinner, at which Nash has drugged Romanova, Bond wakes up to find a gun pointing at him and Nash reveals himself to be the killer, Grant. Instead of killing Bond immediately, Grant reveals SMERSH's plan, including the detail that he is to shoot Bond through the heart and that the Spektor is booby-trapped to explode when examined. As Grant talks, Bond slips his metal cigarette case between the pages of a magazine he is holding in front of him and positions it in front of his heart to stop the bullet. After Grant fires, Bond pretends to be mortally wounded and when Grant steps over him, Bond attacks him: Grant is killed, whilst Bond and Romanova subsequently escape. Later, (they arrive) in Paris_
The reduction, from Istanbul, to "The couple travel to Paris, France" is true but would leave out the stopping of a train, a bombing of a carriage and the strafing of its interior by tommy-gun fire were it in the USA.
—"The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida"
I trust you will see that brevity is brevity but to exclude major set pieces by one of the twentieth century's greatest descriptive writers because an editor is defeated in his capacity or careless or absent-mindedly negligent should properly leave a sense of responsibility to an independent yet diligent Wikipedia reader.
What you have noted elsewhere of my revisions to Wikipedia articles please give balanced regard to, and if you cannot, and would you wish further understanding, the wikipages are here to provide that. Regards, --Laurencebeck (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

If I see you undertaking further disruptive and WP:POINTy edits as this and this again, I will not hesitate to file a report in the appropriate administrators' forum. - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is on an open Wikipedia page and may be found and read by any casual browsing reader of Wikipedia.
I therefore feel that for an appropriate understanding by that reader of what has been said above I should add my part.
I direct the reader to WP:NOTPOINTy.
My edit which illustrated what I believed to be liberty of casualness to use the phrase "a/b travel to z" to formulate an abbreviation of three Chapters ( 10 to 12 ) of Live and Let Die (novel) lasted for less than sixty seconds from this, at 07:06, UTC 1 April 2015‎, to this at 07:07, UTC 1 April 2015.‎
I used the same formulation, "a/b travel to z",— "The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida", to describe the rail travel aboard the Orient Express from Istanbul to Paris.— "The couple travel to Paris, France."
I have received this communication from the editor explaining the position
It's an utter straw man argument to refer to FRWL. The events on that train are the climax of the book and tie up all the threads of the conspiracy against Bond, thus we describe it accordingly. The events on the train in LALD are minor. They add to the feel of tension within the book, but nothing happens that affects the progression of the plot. This is a plot summary and we cannot include every tiny event in the story just because we want to. As I have already mentioned to you, one of the reviewers at the recent PR commented that the plot section "tries to convey too much in too little space. May want to streamline a bit" - and that was without reference to the minor events of the train. If we overbloat with the inclusion of superfluous detail, we do not aid the reader in their understanding of either the plot, or the book as a whole. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
and it does seem those responsible for the article, Live and Let Die (novel) have been cast between a rather hard diamond and an intensely sharp Beretta.--Laurencebeck (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


. . . a memorable event regarded as minor not included in the Wikipedia article, Live and Let Die (novel)

Note
"Your compartment was tommy gunned and bombed. Blown to bits. Killed the Pullman porter who was in the corridor at the time. No other casualties. Bloody uproar going on."


Chapter XII : Location now — St Petersburg, Florida     [ Bond and Solitaire travelled as Mr. and Mrs. Bryce. ]

        Leiter wiped the sweat off his forehead and sat down opposite Bond.

        Suddenly he looked at Solitaire and grinned apologetically. ‘I guess you’re Solitaire,’ he said. ‘Sorry for the rough welcome. It’s been quite a day. For the second time in around twenty-four hours I didn’t expect to see this guy again.’ He turned back to Bond. ‘Okay to go ahead?’ he asked.

        ‘Yes,’ said Bond. ‘Solitaire’s on our side now.’

        ‘That’s a break,’ said Leiter. ‘Well, you won’t have seen the papers or heard the radio, so I’ll give you the headlines first. The Phantom [the train, *the Silver Phantom] was stopped soon after Jacksonville. Between Waldo and Ocala. Your compartment was tommy gunned and bombed. Blown to bits. Killed the Pullman porter who was in the corridor at the time. No other casualties. Bloody uproar going on. Who did it? Who’s Mr. Bryce and who’s Mrs. Bryce? Where are they? Of course we were sure you’d been snatched. The police at Orlando are in charge. Traced the bookings back to New York. Found the FBI had made them. Everyone comes down on me like a load of bricks. Then you walk in with a pretty girl on your arm looking as happy as a clam.’

        Leiter burst out laughing. ‘Boy! You should have heard Washington a while back. Anybody would have thought it was me that bombed the goddam train.’

        He reached for one of Bond’s cigarettes and lit it.

        ‘Well,’ he said. ‘That’s the synopsis. I’ll hand over the shooting script when I’ve heard your end. Give.’

        Bond described in detail what had happened since he had spoken to Leiter from the St. Regis. When he came to the night on the train he took the piece of paper out of his pocket-book and pushed it across the table.

        Leiter whistled. ‘Voodoo,’ he said. ‘This was meant to be found on the corpse, I guess. Ritual murder by friends of the men you bumped in Harlem. That’s how it was supposed to look. Take the heat right away from The Big Man. They certainly think out all the angles. We’ll get after that thug they had on the train. Probably one of the help in the diner. He must have been the man who put the finger on your compartment. You finish. Then I’ll tell you how he did it.’

        ‘Let me see,’ said Solitaire. She reached across for the paper.

        ‘Yes,’ she said quietly. ‘It’s an ouanga, a Voodoo fetish. It’s the invocation to the Drum Witch. It’s used by the Ashanti tribe in Africa when they want to kill someone. They use something like it in Haiti.’ She handed it back to Bond. ‘It was lucky you didn’t tell me about it,’ she said seriously. ‘I would still be having hysterics.’

        ‘I didn’t care for it myself,’ said Bond. ‘I felt it was bad news. Lucky we got off at Jacksonville. Poor Baldwin. We owe him a lot.’

        He finished the story of the rest of their trip.

        ‘Anyone spot you when you left the train?’ asked Leiter.

        ‘Shouldn’t think so,’ said Bond. ‘But we’d better keep Solitaire under cover until we can get her out. Thought we ought to fly her over to Jamaica tomorrow. I can get her looked after there till we come on.’

        ‘Sure,’ agreed Leiter.


--Laurencebeck (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)



— Leiter describes to Bond the assault on the Silver Phantom

Chapter XIII

        ‘Let’s have the details,’ said Bond, sitting back. ‘Must have been the hell of a fine job.’

        ‘Sure was,’ agreed Leiter, ‘except for the shortage of corpses.’

        He put his feet on the table and lit a cigarette.

        ‘Phantom left Jacksonville around five,’ he began. ‘Got to Waldo around six. Just after leaving Waldo - and here I’m guessing - Mr. Big’s man comes along to your car, gets into the next compartment to yours and hangs a towel between the drawn blind and the window, meaning – and he must have done a good deal of telephoning at stations on the way down - meaning “the window to the right of this towel is it”.

        ‘There’s a long stretch of straight track between Waldo and Ocala,’ continued Leiter, ‘running through forest and swamp land. State highway right alongside the track. About twenty minutes outside Waldo, Wham ! goes a dynamite emergency signal under the leading Diesel. Driver comes down to forty. Wham ! And another Wham ! Three in line ! Emergency ! Halt at once ! He halts the train wondering what the hell. Straight track. Last signal green over green. Nothing in sight. It’s around quarter after six and just getting light. There’s a sedan, clouted heap I expect [Bond raised an eyebrow. ‘Stolen car,’ explained Leiter], grey, thought to have been a Buick, no lights, engine running, waiting on the highway opposite the centre of the train. Three men get out. Coloured. Probably negro. They walk slowly in line abreast along the grass verge between the road and the track. Two on the outside carry rippers - tommy-guns. Man in the centre has something in his hand. Twenty yards and they stop outside Car 245. Men with the rippers give a double squirt at your window. Open it up for the pineapple. Centre man tosses in the pineapple and all three run back to the car. Two seconds fuse. As they reach the car, BOOM ! Fricassee of Compartment H. Fricassee, presumably, of Mr. and Mrs. Bryce. In fact fricassee of your Baldwin who runs out and crouches in corridor directly he sees men approaching his car. No other casualties except multiple shock and hysterics throughout train. Car drives away very fast towards limbo where it still is and will probably remain. Silence, mingled with screams, falls. People run to and fro. Train limps gingerly into Ocala. Drops Car 245. Is allowed to proceed three hours later. Scene I I. Leiter sits alone in cottage, hoping he has never said an unkind word to his friend James, and wondering how Mr. Hoover will have Mr. Leiter served for his dinner tonight. That’s all, folks.’

        Bond laughed. ‘What an organization!’ he said. ‘I’m sure it’s all beautifully covered up and alibied. What a man! He certainly seems to have the run of this country. Just shows how one can push a democracy around, what with habeas corpus and human rights and all the rest. Glad we haven’t got him on our hands in England. Wooden truncheons wouldn’t make much of a dent in him. Well,’ he concluded, ’that’s three times I’ve managed to get away with it. The pace is beginning to get a bit hot.’

--Laurencebeck (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


Live and Let Die[edit]

Could you please stop editing the article while it is at FAC. Your additions have, with one or two minor exceptions, been rather poor, even if they have been in good faith. As such there is a chance that they will negatively affect the course of the FAC, which is something to be avoided. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


There are Chapters 10, 11, and 12 plus four pages of Chapter 13 which I have put in précis of 60 words and which contains everything that occurred. The fact of the three close encounters with Bond's mortality is dependent that the previous two are mentioned. [*Bond experiences the first threat upon his life on this mission – a small time-bomb delivered to his suite during breakfast but with apparent deliberation was not intended to kill – found in the debris was a note with a bogeyman message, "The beats of your heart are numbered." ] , [ *Mr Big decides to release Bond and Leiter, and has one of Bond's fingers broken. Bond escapes, his second escape from death for the day, . . . ]
—— on the following day . . . . . . Chapters 10, 11, and 12 plus four pages of Chapter 13
... ;the couple travel by train to St. Petersburg, Florida, where they meet Leiter. Leiter informs them of a tommy-gun and grenade attack on their compartment on the train they had boarded but Bond and Solitaire had changed trains at an intermediate station. Bond counts this three times from Mr Big that he's managed to get away with his life . . . 60 words
I don't see how any appreciation of Chapters 10, 11, and 12 plus four pages of Chapter 13 can be experienced as adequate when all is said is,
... ; the couple travel to St. Petersburg, Florida (where they meet Leiter).
[The mode of travel, "train", was not included in your original summary as I first read it when within the submission for FACWikipedia:Featured article candidates ]
Heaven should protect clear transmission of the least requirements of a narrative of what happened anywhere. . . ! --Laurencebeck (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If I may add an impartial voice here, I recommend that Laurencebeck should take the matter to the article talk page if he/she wishes it to be considered and gain a consensus, or not, there. Tim riley talk 14:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. It's disruptive to edit in this way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


It is he.
The article is seeking to truncate the story to its minimal degree. It does get away with it.
But a reading of the book leaves several strong impressions. One is the odd harmless explosion of a time-bomb with its bogeyman message at Bond's first breakfast in his suite at the St Regis. Another is that it is Bond's little finger, left hand that is bent back till the knuckle cracks. Another is the manner of bombing of the compartment on the Silver Phantom (actually a fictitious name – the trains are the Silver Star, inaugurated in December 12, 1947 and the Silver Meteor, introduced in February 2, 1939.). And many other indelible impressions within the book inevitably follow.
Fleming may have been drawing an allusion to the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost, production 1906–, then its next model in line, the Rolls-Royce Phantom I, introduced in 1925. Indeed which qualitive name, Silver, may have traversed the Atlantic by the winds to find itself on the name of trains on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. So now we might know, says Fleming . . .--Laurencebeck (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a strange broadsheet and its players have their own means of communicating.
Wikipedia is a public noticeboard of information much like something taking up 100 yards of the grill outside Buckingham Palace. Things can be pinned up and taken down and replaced throughout the year in sun, hail, wind, snow and sleet or calm.
It is at its very, very best with chemistry. Chemistry is completely, totally exact. | thanks for your addition, & regards--Laurencebeck (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you stopped editing the LALD article. I appreciate that your additions are in good faith, but they are poor, not up to GA standards, let alone FA. Your additions are too poor for inclusion, which means they have to be deleted: this jeopardises the progress of the article to FA standard because you are making the article unstable with your , frankly, awful additions. Please stop and move on to a different article. – SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Sound Barrier[edit]

I appreciate your enthusiastic efforts on behalf of the film, but you have to be careful to find authoritative, corroborating references. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Donald Bogle. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that other editors have already warned you that your behavior is POINTy, so I won't bother. Keep it up and you will be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz places a message with a force of authority that holds Wikipedia together rather than it run into a blather of information which any Tom, Dick or Harry might have this informational site run to.
There can be found no information on Malik Shabazz that any edits are other than those of another reader of Wikipedia who has revised an article.
Here-above the authority is established. It is not I, a Wikipedia reader and one of the countless millions who are such, who could summon such a directive of force.
Now that it is plain that Malik Shabazz is an authoritative force in the maintenance of Wikipedia data it would be unwise and indecorous to engage in simple response editing.
The information on the Donald Bogle page within one paragraph — the progress from the Bogle biography to the final production of the Halle Berry movie biography moves from one biographer, Bogle, to another, Earl Mills, in a manner that is prismatic in its deflection from Bogle (the subject of the page) to another reality issuing from another source.
The chosen word by me, "prismatic", I use as a form of æsthetic much held to be valuable by many people.
The subject, which has not advanced to discussion, is the representation of the cultural advance of the African-American in the developing economic life of America. It is for those who are immediately involved in the evolution of that reality to decide on behalf of their own people how they will be represented. And certainly in this yet a Wikipedia article.
I grateful to know that Malik Shabazz has been issued with the authority from the executive of Wikipedia to decide upon the manner of content on the page where sociological sensitivities within and without a designated society lie in the balance.--Laurencebeck (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)