User talk:Rusted AutoParts

Sorry

Oops, sorry about that.

Intelati has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Talktome^(Intelati) 23:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

ClapBoy380

JamesBWatson has eaten your cookie. The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. JamesBWatson also hopes that you weren't being too optimistic in using the word "finally". However, cookies can help to cheer us up even when socks are around.

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Impressions

Given that Patton is one of your favorites, can you do George C. Scott? Although it might tear up your voice in the process. But I can hear you now (or him, actually) giving his famous pep talk at the beginning of the film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried once, it was pretty good, but really hurt my throat. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:10 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the gravel-voiced actors got that way by smoking, so if you want to do Scott you could become a three-pack-a-day man for awhile. That might have a downside, though. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Spent all night trying a GC.S voice, mastered it. Adding it to list. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:54 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. The only voice I can do is Marcel Marceau. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you recorded any of these for posterity and/or for youtube? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, i don't really like the idea of being viewed by the world, so i don't record anything. I just do the impressions for family get togethers or birthdays. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:54 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so Rich Little's career is safe for the moment. :) I imagine you might use a tape recorder during your practice sessions, but that wouldn't be for public consumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:41 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I'll give him more time. He's probably having a Wikibreak. He's not always quick to respond. And as for Mount Rushmore, good idea, I would have to include three more in the box though because I try to even it up. You have any thoughts for those three are I will be glad to hear it. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. And also don't forget to check out the editing portion of the user page as well. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Images on userpages.

If you want images on your userpage be very careful to watch the license. Fair use rationale images such as the films images are not allowed in userpages. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing them. Unfortunately the Barbara Billingsley one I just found is a fair use image as well. I am quite shocked that there isn't a free licensed image of her actually. Eventually through time the copyright will expire of that image but for now you might want to remove that one as well. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it kinda sucks cause i'm trying to establish a cool best of 2010 area, including a memorial to those we lost, and all people can think about is copyright. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:03 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you link the images like this. File:Barbara Billinglsey June Cleaver.jpg − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice

You're written a number of article stubs that require sourcing and inline citations to show notability. The film articles Cousin Bette and World War II: When Lions Roared look do-able. But a somewhat greater concern is the BLPs for Lauri Johnson, Tanya Fischer, Brian Patrick Wade, Nyambi Nyambi, David Valdes, Janet MacLachlan, Kenny Marino, and Keir Pearson. I would hate that they ended up at deletion discussion because they have not been improved. Care for some assistance? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Coronation Street characters

Hi, I see you've removed Vera Duckworth from recently departed twice now, so rather than explain on the edit summary I'll explain here. The section is just meant to be a short guide to the major characters who last appeared recently, whatever the circumstance of their appearance. It's not just for 'official' departures, if it were it'd be inaccurate and serve even less purpose than it already does. I hope that clears it up for you, if you still disagree with it feel free to take it up on the talk page. Thank you! Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cosuin Bette.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cosuin Bette.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2012) edits

Please visit the talk page for this article.-5- (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This should really be discussed on the talk page for the article, but whatever.

She was not announced back in May. The original report from Deadline dates back to November. In that report, she is stated as only being in talks. There has been no update since, and we cannot assume she has accepted or not accepted. Also, IMDb cannot be used as a reliable source since its information is user-contributed.-5- (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

IMDb has been allowing users to contribute for as along as I can remember. She hasn't denied and she hasn't accepted. It's not for you to make a decision either way as far as what she's done.-5- (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to ask that you take this to the talk page for the article, where others can see it. I'm going to repost are discussions there.-5- (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at the talk page for the article, not my talk page. And I called your comment bullshit, which it is, I didn't say anything about you. There was no need to call me a "Mother fucking idiot," so I removed that part.-5- (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but we can afford to wait. Wikipedia has no deadline.-5- (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Denis Leary was said to be in negotiations, not early talks, but either way he has since confirmed it.-5- (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fugitive (1993 film)

Not sure what the deal is at The Fugitive (1993 film), but on the surface, it looks like you're edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

From my talk page:

I apologize for my actions. I previously reported the IP for persistent removal of info from the page and warned him several times, but continues to ignore me and continue removing not only the info, but each of my warnings. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:11 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, since it's not clear-cut vandalism, leave his fourth revert in place (or don't commit a fourth revert yourself) and report it to WP:AN3. Also, I'd like to hear a content-based reason on why the text should remain in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor seems to be edit warring for one consistent reason which is not vandalism. So blocking doesn't seem appropriate. In fact consider yourself lucky that you are edit warring with just a IP editor. You wouldn't find yourself so lucky if it was a administrator or somebody high ranking who has the ability to block. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Be lucky also that you're dealing with an administrator willing to give a little benefit of the doubt for a couple of edits [1] [2] and not block you for personal attacks on top of the edit warring. However, consider this a formal reminder about that policy: please focus on the merits of the text and the article in these discussions and avoid comments that could be construed as personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for permissions/Rollback

I'm somewhat concerned there, as I see your edit summaries for some reversions w/ the rationale for undoing the edits, but only one actual warning on a user/ip talk page (in the last couple of hundred edits or so). Please warn the vandals you revert. Warnings aids misguided editors and allow for more prolific vandals to be tracked and blocked by administrators. You might want to use Twinkle, it help you with these as well as providing a quicker way to revert the edits. After some experience with that, consider making the request again at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Skier Dude (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Avengers

I don't mean to pile on, given the various warnings above, but two editors have both reverted your edit at The Avengers (film project). The reason is that the cited source, the WP:RS trade magazine The Hollywood Reporter, in this case is only reporting a rumor about those two actresses. The article claims, "Also said to be vying for the part," without giving any attribution: Who is saying this? Agents? Studio executives? Producers? Casting people? If the reporter were not simply repeating rumors — bad journalism, by the way — he would have said, "Also vying for the part are..."

This has been discussed on the article's talk page, but you've been reverting two editors without discussion. You're also close to a WP:3RR violation. I'm giving a collegial head's up that another revert will result in admin intervention. After the first revert of a subject discussed on the talk page, you need to bring your concerns up in that discussion rather than engaging in an edit war. Thanks for listening, -- Tenebrae (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to come up with a compromise at Talk:The Avengers (film project)#Maria Hill, let me know your thoughts. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To Rusted AutoParts: Again, trying to be collegial and discuss things with you, though you seem disinclined to do so. You made an additional revert after my post above; one more will put you in direct violation of WP:3RR, which will result in your being temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming round to discuss this issue, though here at Wikipedia we try to use a more civil tone than "you're not in charge of this page." Just to clarify, it is not just I, but also a second editor that reverted your edits.

The reason we did so, as I explained in my first post, is that The Hollywood Reporter was simply reporting a rumor about those two actresses. The article claims, "Also said to be vying for the part," without giving any attribution: Who is saying this? Agents? Studio executives? Producers? Casting people? If the reporter were not simply repeating rumors — bad journalism, by the way — he would have said, "Also vying for the part are..." (my emphasis).

The thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not a news source. Any encyclopedia, whether this or a print encyclopedia, by virtue of calling itself an encyclopedia, can only include established, concrete facts. The most we could say is that "The Hollywood Reporter claimed, without attribution, that Jane Smith and Jane Doe were also planned to be screen-tested for the part." And aside from the "not news" guideline, saying somebody reported a rumor seems a very low-level, non-notable fact.

The other thing about Wikipedia is that we operate on consensus, and two editors agree that, for the reasons given above, this is an inappropriate edit. Reineserting it against this consensus is not productive or helpful. If you feel strongly enough, there are avenues you can take, from informal third-party mediation to a formal Request for Comment. Such avenues and discussion are what we do rather than edit-war. I would have to say that, given the rumor nature of the report, that I believe most editors would not agree to include it in the article as a proven fact.

I hope this helps in providing understanding of how Wikipedia works. I know it can seem strict, but take a step back and see that we're putting together what everyone hopes will be a highly credible, factually indisputable free resource for people all over the world, and that we have a responsibility to maintain the highest standards of scholarship of factual conclusiveness that we can. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As the other editor explained in his edit summary, "article cites Collider which cites THR so we're back where we started." I went to your cited source, which attributed its claim to Collider and gave a link. Collider attributed its claim to The Hollywood Reporter (specifically, the "Heat Vision" section), which takes you to the exact same article we're already citing.

Given that you're asking other editors to take a great deal of time and make tracking-down efforts that you could have made yourself, I have to ask that you please read our responses and edit summaries, and the sources that you choose, more carefully. We all have a responsibility to do these simple things correctly. Reading other editors' comments and reading your own sources is the minimal thing anybody could ask of someone who wants to edit an encyclopedia. I hope all this suffices to put this issue to rest.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Your edit to The Santa Clause has been reverted because it appears to be unconstructive. If you would like to experiment with edits please use the sandbox. Mallen22 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)