User talk:DocKino

User talk:DocKino/Archive 1

Neutrality of Sound Films

Hello Kal! Please call me Mike. In response to your reverting my edits, I have specified at least three instances where a speculative, or opinionary comment was present in the article. It seems as if we have a conflict here, and I would prefer to discuss it, and possibly rather than start an edit war. The Dietrich comments on the image are entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, and the mention of Jolson's popularity could perhaps use some re-wording.

I hope you are willing to talk about this issue. (24.62.100.100 (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Image discussion concerning NFCC 8

Would you be able to weigh in here please? The image in question is a rather unimaginative morph of Raj Thackeray and Hitler. It is being used in the article ostensibly because it aids readers' understanding of the situation. I disagree and I cited NFCC 8 when I tagged it. I now note that there is a simmering dispute about NFCC 8 itself though the main import of both wordings remains the same. I noticed you in the recent edit history of NFCC and thought that you would like to weigh in here. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a link on the discussion page verifying the incident. Please have a look. Regards, --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sex Pistols

Nice work today on the page. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

conservative/liberal/moderate

The problem I have with the statement in the United States article is that it is misleading. Yes more people identify as conservative than liberal, but there are so many moderates that lean liberal that if you were to just ask "are you conservative or liberal" , I think most people would say liberal. So if that is the case, someone reading this article could be mislead into thinking that the country is conservative as a whole, and I think if you look at this past election , this is clearly not true.

Kate Winslet

Thanks for your efforts in cleaning up the awards section of the article. It's great. I've had all I could handle just preventing it from becoming even more than a mess. Kudos. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Punk barnstar

For your fantastic work on Sex Pistols. Cheers. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Riverside-San Bernardino

Well Its because they are both the Central City, Riverside may be larger, But San Bernardino is more important, so they sould both be named. Or why not just write in Inland Empire instead of Riverside that way thy will both take credit? (the Inland Empire (CA) is the name of the metro) House1090 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

oK thx for your coloberation! -House1090 (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey its me again, but there is a bit controbersy going on about the Inland Empire in the Greather Los Angeles discussion page, please take a look and write your comments on the issue by clicking here, Thank-You and itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Attitude

Comments like these help no one. Like everyone else on the project, I'm a volunteer trying to make a positive impact on the place, and like everyone else on this project (including you), I'm not perfect. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi

The article has been extensively researched. It's as complete and factually accurate as it could ever get. The "films" you mention are actually episodes of a television series, The Mighty Heroes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

• I made some changes here and there. I hope I cleared things up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
  • Made some more changes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

• I made the changes you requested. Could you please strike your opposition of the FAC? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

• I finished making the changes that you have requested. Please strike your opposition. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

The article has been copyedited by HJ and Malleus Fatuorum, and is awaiting further copyediting. Would you reconsider your view? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

The article has received more copyediting by The New Mikemoral, who says that the article did not need much copyediting. Please strike the oppose. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

It's not strictly true to say that I copyedited this article; I simply fixed a few obvious MoS problems and listed a few examples of other things that needed to be done on the FAC review page. I thought that I'd also made my opinion clear at the FAC that the article was in need of a thorough copyedit. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• You need to do better than to request specific changes and then refuse to cooperate to implement these changes. Every effort has been made to improve the article, and the text was well-above standard, but you never bothered to review the latest revision of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

• Two copyeditors saw no problems with the article. I probably would have more eager to help implement the changes you requested sooner if you weren't as rude and uncooperative as you were. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

• This is what I was talking about. By treating others this way, you make them want to talk to you even less. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

• The article has received another copyedit which I believe covers the problems you brought up in the last FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC))

• I clarified the remaining issues. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

• The statement about the film's reception is backed up by the cited source, which says that the reviews were largely positive. I added another source backing up the film's positive critical reception. Also, Barrier's overview of the making of Fritz the Cat is cited in the discussion of Bakshi replacing Shamus Culhane twice. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Holding Spot

Jungian reflections within the cinema: a psychological analysis of sci-fi and fantasy archetypes by James F. Iaccino

Space and beyond: the frontier theme in science fiction‎ by Gary Westfahl

Star trek and sacred ground: explorations of Star trek, religion, and American culture by Jennifer E. Porter, Darcee L. McLaren

Religions of Star Trek‎ - Page 4 by Ross Shepard Kraemer, William Cassidy, Susan L. Schwartz

Matters of gravity: special effects and supermen in the 20th century By Scott Bukatman

Adaptations: from text to screen, screen to text By Deborah Cartmell, Imelda Whelehan

House FAc

Hi, I don't know if you keep FAcs on your watchlist (in which case this message would be redundant), but I have replied to your comments on the House FAc. It would be great if you could take another look. Thanks.--Music26/11 13:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I don't mean to bother you, but it has been quite around the House FAc and I have adressed all of your comments. It would be great if you could reply. Thanks.--Music26/11 10:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was about to send you a message about how I was in a position where I couldn't do anything about the image because there were users opposing to the images as well as supporting the image. However, as I read the page I realized that there were only two users really against the image, Fasach Nua and Bignole. Further discussion regarding the image takes place on the FAc page.--Music26/11 12:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll problably renominate it today or tomorrow, there's no waiting period right? One question though, did you merge the spin-off section with the recurring characters section? If so, why? That's it, have nice day.--Music26/11 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I just noticed your talk page comments, I'll see what I can do about the critical reception.--Music26/11 13:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly should be done about the critical reception section?--Music26/11 15:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Added some info; I'm planning to add some more regarding reception of seperate seasons, but you can take a look at how it looks so far. Later.--Music26/11 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm finished, could you take a look and give me some feedback before it goes back to FAC? Thanks.--Music26/11 10:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is at FAC here. Thank you for your help.--Music26/11 13:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Hello, I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your thorough work in FAC. Are you new to the area? I don't recall seeing you around until a month or so ago. At any rate, welcome. We always need substantive and conscientious reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi; I'll echo the comments, and not just because of your kind words and invaluable input at Changeling's FAC (I forgot thank you, btw); we can never have too many good reviewers who are willing to spend time thoroughly and calmly engaging with nominators, especially those who feel slighted by a well-considered oppose. I hope you'll stick around. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Featured article candidates

Hello! I noticed that you've been reviewing nominations at Featured article candidates. Thank you for your help, and I hope you will continue to contribute! You may already be familiar with the FAC criteria by now, but in case you aren't, you can check out the Featured article criteria. Also, the following dispatches are useful for reviewing nominations:

• Reviewers achieving excellence
• Reviewing images (free images / non-free images)
• Reliable sources in content review processes

The best way to learn is by doing, but here is a quick reference of the things to check for each nomination you review:

Quick reference A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate. Useful links Featured articles • Featured article candidates • Featured article review • Featured article log

Thanks again for your help! I look forward to continuing to work with you at FAC, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me or anyone else at FAC. Now get to reviewing some noms! Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tender Mercies

Thanks for the message, and yes, I do intend to renominate it as soon as I finish the Themes section. I've ordered some books that I think/hope will contribute to it, and I want to take one more look at the library for any good print sources I could use for the article. I've also responded to both of your comments on the talk page. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson FAC

I'll take another look at the images tomorrow, but I'm more of a prose/MoS reviewer than an image expert. Therefore, I asked User:Jappalang if he could take a look at it. Will do the best I can, though. Please keep up your great work in these reviews. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Barrier

Sorry, the citation was linking to the wrong page. Whereas it should have piped to here, it ended up linking here by mistake. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

United States

Hey Cal! I am writing is to let you know that there will be no more United States edits from me!!
Thanks for reverting my inappropriate rubbish, comrade. No sarcasm intended here. I will now try to find something else to do. Have you any positive suggestions? B. Fairbairn  Talk  20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

House TV.com reference

I'm pretty sure TV.com (as well as IMDb) is strongly discouraged as a reliable source since it allows users to submit information to the website (much like Wikipedia does). I'm pretty sure during featured article reviews references from those two sites are weeded out. So it's probably best to find a different reference for the new information you added. It's probably accurate information but I think a different reference needs to be found for it. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

First of all, as you were giving me the 3RR warning, you reverted me for the 3rd time today, thus bringing yourself to the verge of violating it as well. I have already listed my explanation as for the grammatical correctness (or the lack thereof) of DCGeist's addition: the word combination what one scholar calls this is garbled and though not entirely incorrect, such phrases are better reworded for Wikipedia's aesthetic quality. Moreover, as I have been telling DCGeist from the beginning, this addition puts the unduly weight on the fact that one scholar and one scholar alone said these words, hence inadvertently promoting a non-wp:neutral, skeptical outlook on the subject matter of the quote by using wp:weasel words. Is there a good reason for you to insist on that version, other than siding with DCGeist? Did they email you asking for help? (By the way, this is one of the reasons I don't have an account.) After all, we are all here to improve articles with positive, good-faith contributions. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have explained in detail why my edit is grammatically better, while you have been simply reiterating your statement. I am not here to get into these edit war games, nor do I want to summon other editors to help me in these childish ordeals. We all have better things to do – still, I would like to receive an explanation as for why you keep insisting that DCGeist's version is more correct. 87.69.130.159 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

It's becoming more and more clear that I was absolutely wrong in our disagreement on the House (TV series) page. Please accept my apologies for both my misunderstanding of policy (regarding WP:RS), and regarding the actual facts of the matter. Unitanode 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Metrication in the United States

A disgusting comment has been placed on the Metrication in the United States talk page. Can you remove it?

There are two principal reasons why the United States of North America has been unable to change to a sensible measurement system that 200 / 203 countries use.

1. The financial cost of such a change would probably cripple a weakening economy.
2. The average American lacks the intellect necessary to be able to handle such a change.

ILuvAmerica (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI notification

See [1]. I'd be happy to drop this if you'd just stop edit warring. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reviewed this ANI entry and the article, and I have to say that I agree with Chiliad that the article reads like an essay.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, you've performed three reverts on this article today: a fourth one will result in an edit-warring block. Please bear in mind that it doesn't have to be the same reverted content to count towards the total. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Benjiboi. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Government leaders

Ah, I see your point. I forgot the Vice President counted as leader of the Senate, so I didn't quite see the parallel there before. Sorry about that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat

Two sources print this figure, not just Variety. If you had actually looked at the article or looked at the edits before commenting, something you have never done (as evidenced by the fact that you originally wrote that you doubted that the article had been improved, and then removed the comment after seeing how much text was in the article), you would have noticed that your implication that Steve copyedited the text, and I reverted his edits, was entirely untrue - I even applied those edits about the gross to other articles - but I changed it after further research proved that I was right in the first place. By the way, one of the sources that added in that copyedit you refer to, Planet Cat, was clearly sourced from Wikipedia, right around 2005, and God knows where that figure came from (IMDb?). You want I should add information that is clearly incorrect back into the article? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Tag removal

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Film noir. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Also, besides just edit warring you were doing so to remove a very valid tag. "It's been removed. Accept it." is both uncivil and misses the whole point of having tags in the first place. You do not WP:OWN the article, and so you should either improve the article when it is tagged or get a consensus to remove it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)