User talk:DocKino

User talk:DocKino/Archive 1

Punk rock

Hi, In good faith, after the Minor Threat and Cramps photos were removed a second time, I tried to find out if your assertion that the photos caused "media clutter" was grounded in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I looked in WP:Images and in the WP:MOS (Wikipedia Manual of Style, section on images), and in the Music Project image guidelines. I was not able to find policies or guidelines stating that you cannot or should not have an image in a section that already has sound files. Could you please direct me to the policy or guideline that backs up your claim? Or, if it is a personal opinion or aesthetic preference, I would request that you consider that this article can be edited by other members of the Wikipedia community. Thank youOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

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))

• What currently appears in the article you continue to trash is factually accurate and verified. This article should be featured by now. Your comments are unhelpful and disruptive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Rollback

Hi, I noticed you used rollback to undo this edit by User:Coolgrl1234. The edit seems to be a good-faith edit by a new user, so a personal note on the user's talk page, along with an explanatory edit summary during your reversion, would probably be less bitey than using rollback, which is intended for obvious vandalism. The fact that most of this editor's contributions seem to be constructive and all could be construed as good-faith makes this reversion using rollback even less appropriate. An explanatory edit summary and a personal note on the user's talk page would be much better. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Please do not attack other contributors, as you did with this edit to User talk:Jeff G.. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making personal attacks against Jeff G.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DocKino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Jeff G., with whom I have no history prior to nine days ago (unless he has previously or otherwise operated under a different username), began his campaign of harassment against me with this July 30 edit: [2]. As you can see, this "last warning" tag Mr. G placed on my Talk page was unexplained, unreferenced, and not preceded by lower-level tags. The campaign resumed this evening with this edit: [3]. Mr. G's notice here appears to be unexceptional, but the context shows that it is not. The article in question is Pulp Fiction (film). I have a long history of productive contributions to the article; Mr. G has none. I was reverting a minutes-old, small, objectively erroneous edit by an anon. Indeed I did not provide a detailed edit summary--perfectly standard practice for reverting a minor anon edit, hardly meriting a warning on my Talk page from an entirely uninvolved editor (unless, of course, that editor is watching my actions, looking for an excuse to harass me). I reverted the addition to my Talk page, referring in edit summary to the action I was reverting as "vandalism"--which, given the circumstances and recent history, is exactly what it appeared to be to me. Mr. G then began a spree of warnings on my Talk page accusing me of "personal attacks" ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), which I reverted--ultimately using intemperate language, indeed, but only in the summaries for edits to my own Talk page. Beginning only after Mr. G had tagged my Talk page for the third time this evening, I also left two warnings against defamation on Mr. G's Talk page, which again seemed entirely appropriate given the circumstances. They were simple template warnings, with no additional language, let alone anything inappropriate. I cannot fathom why Mr. G has chosen to target me, but I respectfully suggest that I should be unblocked and that Mr. G should be warned against initiating contact with me in the future.

Decline reason:

Your edit summaries refer to the other editor as a "serial troll" and "mentally disturbed." Sorry, but you are going to have to sit out the block. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please be reasonable as far as the U.S. article when you return from the block.

NZ is NOT Australia even though Americans think the two are similar. The NZ and American governments are at odds (though not to the point of hostility). South Korea is considered a much closer political ally even if the people may be culturally different from many Americans. Also, George Washington did not work or live in the White House so saying all Presidents did is wrong information that may lower a child's grade if they are writing a paper based on WP.

Let's work together to get articles better! User F203 (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi FAC

All of your issues with the article have been clarified. Please strike your opposition. (22:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

• All of your issues have been clarified. Please strike your opposition. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
  • I clarified the pulp fiction statement. Please strike your opposition. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

• In The Animated Movie Guide, Jerry Beck states that Wizards and American Pop were successful while discussing Hey Good Lookin'. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

The significant issues you have brought up have been resolved. No further work is needed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC))

The FAC has been closed as not promoted. Suggest that you (Ibranoff) work with Steve and DocKino to address the issues brought up at the FAC before re-submitting. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video) (crop).jpg

File:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video) (crop).jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video) (crop).jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:WB 77-Sex Pistols promo (video) (crop).jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

David Fuchs again

Hi there. Wanted to let you know that David Fuchs again snuck in his version of the summary for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, complete with innocuous description and no discussion in the Talk page. Suggestions on what to do regarding this case of WP:OWN? YLee (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't know Fuchs was deadly serious I'd almost think he is intentionally parodying a bad Wikipedia editor. I think you'll find my latest Talk comment quite amusing. Also, let me point out two of his previous appearances in WP:ANI, in early 2008 and early August 2009 (right after the initial contretemps regarding my ST:TMP edits, actually). Sound familiar? YLee (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ramones

Hi, Let me begin by pointing out that I fully recognize and admire your immense contributions to the content of Ramones and that my extremely minor role completely pales to insignificance by comparison. Someone had incompletely nominated the article for WP:GA and seeing what a "small g" good article it is I thought it would be a shame to go unassessed. I had and have do desire to overstep my place in the articles history or development. If you want to address the review please do, if you would prefer discussing any changes—I can do that, or if you believe the article is fine as is and don't care if it is assessed then I'll walk away. I hate to not finish something that I've started but I'm not going to work on a futile cause either. Whatever you decide is fine by me, just let me know. J04n(talk page) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, let me know what I can do to help, as long as we don't work against each other it should easily pass. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Per lead?

I'm curious. You removed the RS top ranking entry you had just added with an edit summary, "Sorry, per lead, give RS ranking just for those in top ten." WP:LEAD doesn't say anything about that, and how does WP:LEAD apply anyway? Your edit was not to a lead paragraph. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. Obviously, I understood your "per lead" to mean "per WP:Lead". I agree that we don't need to mention the RS position for all their albums in the main article. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

ECs on The Beatles

Per the FAC review, I'm trying to cleanup the citations. It's maddening to try and do that while you are also editing. (Given you are an FAC reviewer, aren't you not supposed to be editing anyway? I don't really know those rules.) Can you lay off for awhile, or should I? I'd like to get this done, but the article gets almost constant editing and systematic changes to citations are much harder under those conditions. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume by your lack of an answer that you will finish cleaning up the citations. — John Cardinal (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Update This edit of yours broke multiple sources that have short footnotes in the article but now have no entry in the References section. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Retraction requested

In two edits on Talk:The Beatles ([9], [10]) you described me as incoherent, ignorant, and lazy, among other things. I am formally requesting that you retract those comments and strike them on the talk page. I don't appreciate being insulted and it's not appropriate for those uncivil remarks to stand, especially on the talk page for an article that I have invested many hours to help improve. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you see my reply to your post on my talk page? I try to keep discussions in one place and so I replied there rather than here. The summary:

• I did not intend the edit conflict message the way you took it.
• I would still like you to retract/strike-out the comments on Talk:The Beatles.

If you are not going to retract your comment, please say so. Given it's been more than a day since I made my request, I suspect I have your answer. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for striking the comments on The Beatles talk page. I trust you have seen that PL290 provided his point of view on our dispute. He interpreted my initial edit conflict message similar to the way you did, and given that, it's clear I need to try harder to avoid making comments that can be interpreted as criticism. I sincerely hope that we can work productively together in the future without those interactions being tainted by this episode. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		For your phenomenal input to The Beatles at FAC, your exhaustive efforts to improve the article's coverage and accuracy before the review ended, backed up by countless hands-on fixes, your skilful diplomacy during the review, and your willingness to work collaboratively with other editors to resolve issues afterwards. Thank you! PL290 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments

The latest edits show that Unfiltered isn't the only source being used. Several citations were added backing up information which is also stated in Unfiltered. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

• I'm not lazy enough to decry the lack of reviews of a film that has zero coverage on Rotten Tomatoes. Lazy indeed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
• When do you intend to strike your opposition? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

• I am just reminding you that you have not commented on the article in three days. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

• What are you talking about? I did address all concerns. Are you intentionally trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong in sabotaging every FAC nomination this article has had thus far for your own petty, unprovoked bias against me? This article should be featured. It exactly meets the standards. It's perfect. Support it. Strike your opposition. Now. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Jazz Mellor

An editor has nominated the Jazz Mellor article for deletion. If you have any thoughts on this matter then please add your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz Mellor.

Thank-you Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Independent/independent

I was surprised to see "independent.co.uk" as the publisher name. I assumed that "independent.co.uk" was their Internet domain, but the actual publisher name would be different. I went to the site and saw that my assumption was wrong, but the page had the first "I" capitalized. I changed The Beatles to reflect what I found.

In general, I think the name should match the way the publisher shows it on their site when rendering it in text, i.e., if there is a stylized graphic with different fonts and colors, etc., I'll ignore that if there is also a simple(r) text version. The text version is often available in the page footer, on an "about us" page, or on a legal info page.

I didn't check "guardian.co.uk" before now, but it appears the domain is "guardian.co.uk", and they use that as a name on the site, but the publisher's name seems to be "Guardian News and Media Limited". Without doing a lot of research, the "work" (equivalent to the newspaper name) would be "guardian.co.uk" and the publisher would be "Guardian News and Media". Having said all that, I'm no expert on this stuff... — John Cardinal (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada-United States Relations link

Thank you for pointing out that the link already existed in the same paragraph. My apologies for missing that, and I commend your ability to see and correct the egregious oversight that I made. Thank you for your assistance, and happy editing! Whodoesntlovemonkeys (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Tender Mercies

Hi DocKino, it's Hunter Kahn. I don't know if you remember me, but you provided some feedback during my old FAC nomination for the Tender Mercies film entry. If you'll recall, the issues back then were a lack of a comprehensive "Themes" section and scholarly sources. I think your those issues are now resolved; I would have nominated it again long ago, but I got bogged down with some real-life matters, as well as the fact that it took me a particularly long time to track down one particular journal article I wanted. That being said, I think Tender Mercies is ready now and I've once again nominated it for FAC. I remember back in the previous nomination, you seemed to indicate you felt Tender Mercies was already very close to FA standards. Now that I've renominated it, I'm very much hoping you'll weigh in on the new FAC page. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 01:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Being true to the sources can be more important than consistency of presentation.

Hello DocKino, Consistency is good, but often it is more important to be true to the sources. That's why I undid your edit to the article on the United States.

When the CIA and the United Nations quote the area of the United States in square kilometres, the fact that they use the metric system is as notable as the fact that their figures do not agree. It is especially notable that the CIA, an American Government instrumentality, uses the metric system. In this case, converting these figures into square miles misrepresents the sources, just as it would misrepresent the sources to change the measures so that they agree with each other. Michael Glass (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Bakshi proposal

Could you please enter your thoughts here? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:WB 77-Sid Vicious promo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:WB 77-Sid Vicious promo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tender Mercies question

Hey, I saw your latest query at the Tender Mercies FAC. I am at work right now, but will address it when I get home. In the meantime, I had a question for you. As you probably saw, I added the audio clip of Duvall singing. Since actress Betty Buckley also did her own singing (and since her song "Over You" was nominated for an Oscar), do you think it would be worthwhile to include a brief audio clip of her singing "Over You" along with the Duvall clip? Or do you think having two would be a fair-use issue? Since it's two separate actors, and since the fact that both sand their own songs are addressed in the article, I thought it would be OK, but wanted your opinion before I added the clip... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm really happy with how the audio clips have come out in this article. I've never done this in a Wikipedia article before, so thanks for all your guidance with them. And yeah, I agree with you about "Over You". lol — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, thought I'd seek your opinion on something. When going through the DVD documentary thing to check a quote, I noticed that it included still (black and white) photos of Duvall and Foote accepting Oscars. I was wondering if you thought a screengrab of the Foote Oscar photo would be a good addition and would work as a fair use rationale. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For a thorough, rigorous copy edit on Tender Mercies, which was crucial in getting the article to FA and made an unquestionably positive impact on the entry. Your help with image and audio fair use rationales was also highly appreciated. My sincere thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Feedback request

I'd value your opinion about something. As you have a lot of experience as a FAC reviewer, and I've only managed to find time to review a handful of FACs so far, I think you are in a good position to judge the way I've handled my oppose at WP:Featured article candidates/Merry Xmas Everybody/archive1. This is not an attempt to solicit input to that FAC per se, just a request for feedback on how you think I've handled it, to help my personal development and effectiveness in future FACs. I don't like to oppose, and in fact this is the first time I've done so; I'm (perhaps needlessly) left questioning whether I've come down too hard on the nominator, and whether I need (heaven forbid) more practice at opposing, to develop greater diplomacy in interpreting and responding to nominators' comments. One of my objections (now stricken) concerned the suitability of a source and consequent assertions made in the article; after a counter-challenge, my objection was accepted and fixed, but my other objections continue to be challenged and the discussion seems to me to have deteriorated. As things stand, I doubt the value of making any further response, as side-issues appear to be dominating and risk clouding the principles of my stated objections. If it's possible for you to take a look and let me know, honestly, how you think I've handled it (and, if you want, any other FAC you're aware of that I've contributed to), I'd be very grateful. Note that in the FAC in question I've also joined in the discussion of at least one other reviewer's response (which I did after my oppose). If you'd prefer not to do this for any reason, no problem, just say no. Thanks! PL290 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say ...

... that I think you're doing a great job at The Kinks FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to that! Many thanks for your work, which has vastly improved the article. Same goes to Malleus Fatuorum! Thank you for helping me get the page to what it is now. Though it looks like the FAC will be unsuccessful, I'll try to work on it as best as I can over the next few weeks, then perhaps I'll renominate it. - I.M.S. (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Penguin dictionary/British English

So if it's not true that British English demands "-ise" for certain words like maximize (in American English), is that why the Cambridge dictionary says "UK usually ___ise" for the words in question that I changed on The Beatles article? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles and UK-English variant

The Oxford English Dictionary includes a lot of variant spellings, but generally British English utilises the "s" rather than the "z". Moreso, the MoS denotes that subjects peculiarly or generally related to one of the English speaking cultures should use the typical word and grammatical structures of that language. I would suggest that you self revert, since Brits can generally be trusted to know how things are commonly spelled in their native language. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I got a General Certificate of Education O Level in English language back in 1976, and have been speaking the lingo since the early 60's and writing in it for my living since 1978. Of course, I could read a book which says that I may spell words with a "z" and I can also read books which detail peoples real life stories on how they were abducted by aliens. Or. Just because it says you can do "x" (or "z" in this matter) does not mean you must. Another point - giving out advice; it is what admins and other experienced editors do. It is supposed to be how Wikipedia works. Of course, if you want me to comply with the stereotype of WP admins I could just block you for your rudeness at my talkpage. As ever, I like to give the other party the choice... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have something of an expertise; so how close am I getting through to you? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback notice

Hello, DocKino. You have new messages at Talk:The Kinks.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- I.M.S. (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Presley article

Many thanks to you (and PL290) for your continuing input. Much needed and overdue. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 08:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just got back home and had a look at the Presley article. You have no idea how pleased I was to view your recent contributions to this article. Hope the two of you will stick around for awhile.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

000 dead

If you really do not believe reports on the loss of civilian life, then you are either perfect example of stupidity or naivete associated with a stupid patriotism and fanaticism --Fredy.00 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What right have you give me an ultimatum? I have the right to write true infromace about this country. Why is it on wikipedia sponsored censorship and manipulation of the facts?

And then you still have the audacity to threaten someone who writes true, but unfortunately "politically embarrassing" information. --Fredy.00 (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You just plain fanatics, stupid stupid herd member, a victim of "brainwashing"

if you are U.S. resident, I give you a better proposal for a flag for your country - this flag would be better suited to her: thumb|Just do not forget scold, you a patriotic American brat --Fredy.00 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is this creature not blocked yet, DocKino?! I watch pages and rarely comment, but this is ridiculous! Block this moron, already!!! Doc9871 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

It seems as if we have a content dispute. I will leave it for now, but I do not agree with some of your recent edits. In my opinion, well-sourced contributions by other users should not be deleted. Onefortyone (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop!

Please do not leave nonsense on my page about reverts. I know your a huge Elvis fan but dont be hypocritcal when you edited just as much as me. Should I post the same thing on your page? I have right to edit just like you regardless of how long you have been editing. A Star Is Here (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You can continue to post as you like on page as well just remember I have left a comment on the talk page you havent. Just remember your step away from being blocked. So before you come with your nonsense to my page see my explantation on the Elvis talk page. A Star Is Here (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DocKino. You have new messages at Talk:Pulp Fiction (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Concerning the "Photo-Drama of Creation" on the "Sound Films" Page...

I am assuming that by your statement of the paragraph being "completely unsourced", you mean that I have no references. Very well; I will give the needed references. This message is from 96.250.154.201. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.154.201 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles/Elvis Presley

Hi, Doc... hope you've had a better weekend than I have here at WP! (Trouble-trouble for me!) Listen, if you haven't noticed already, at the bottom of both The Beatles and Elvis Presley pages, you will see that the categories box comes into conflict with the template and external links. This is the same for many other articles, too. I've notified WP's two developers, but have not received any word back. I presume this originated in early/mid-December when the article parameters for Wikipedia were changed. Also, might you check out my work on Elvis' singles template sometime. Talk to you sometime again. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be, you know I never gave that any thought. I use Microsoft Internet Explorer 7, at least I think that's what it's called. Hmmm... Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

Hi, you raised comments about the quality of the prose on Brad Pitt in its FAC in June last year. I've recently undertaken a copyedit, at the request of ThinkBlue, the nominator, and I wondered if you would be kind enough to take a look and provide a little feedback- I wouldn't be surprised if I'd missed something, so any examples of prose needing improvement or general constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time, HJMitchell You rang? 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)