User talk:MarnetteD

Edit Counter

I am not very handy with computer stuff so when I found this simple edit counter on another users page I wanted to add it to mine to make it easier to find my count. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/editcount.php MarnetteD | Talk 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox

I am using this space to create my sandbox. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gina Mckee

I'm no whizz with wikipedia, so i'm probably wrong about this, but did you read the source supporting the 1964 date? it specifically tackles the ambiguity which mckee apparently 'puts right'. is that not overriding in any way? Amo (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not 'bother'ed at all :) Thanks for the swift reply. Amo (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Hi Marnette, I notice you reverted an edit I made to defaultsort Talk:Laurence Olivier, and I need a little help if you can. I added the defaultsort so that the name would appear in alphabetical order on the page Category:Top-priority biography (actors and filmmakers) articles and when I added the defaultsort it appeared correctly under "O". Now that the defaultsort is removed, it shows on the category page under "L" for Laurence. Do you know how to fix this? I thought the "listas" parameter would work, but it doesn't seem to, and I can't figure it out. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your reply. The truth is I had no idea what I was doing, so I just tried it and it worked. Who knows... there may be a better way of doing it that neither of us know about. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Block of User:62.77.161.89

You're absolutely right; I've extended the block to a full year. Waggers (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

re: removing your Alabama Edits

I am removing your edits, due to the fact that the Shula reference is repetitive. Also, the 2007 LSU game is the only rivalry score listed and not needed in the first place. Irbster2 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would do the same when messing with my edits, instead of just threatening to ban me, thanks Irbster2 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Any response of recognition is appreciated, as it seems you have singled my contribs out for being deleted. Irbster2 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to harass me, you will be blocked from editing. Irbster2 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You know full well that you are not being harrassed but please report me to any admin that you like. We will present all of the facts and I will abide by any decision that they make. MarnetteD | Talk 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You know as well that you have changed many of my pages, some understandably so, but you have done so on pages where there was no problems. This, after an altercation on the Waggers discussion board. Then, you ask me to stop changing pages without reasons, but will not grant me the same courtesy. If you want to be hypocritical, so be it, but please find someone else. Thank you. 147.217.65.6 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Regarding the change to the LSU piece, it was redundant. You have a page solely for the purpose of the 2007 season results, then, on ONLY ONE team on the rivalry page, you add the score. Why? What is the purpose of adding the score for one team, and the results from the past season, when there is a whole page dedicated to that information. The answer is, you did it because you were trolling me. Going to every page I edited and reverting it. Irbster2 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The messages that you have left here and the blanking your talk page shows that you are childish in the extreme. A look at the pages involved show that the info that you removed was not redundant. It simply showed 'bama in a light that you do not want it to be seen in. As I said before please feel free to report me to anyone that you wish. Their decision regarding your edits - including the vandalizing ones - and mine is something that I will abide by. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. However you want to paint the fact that you "followed" my edits around, while knowing nothing of the subject to which I was writing is pretty frightening considering what this site is intended to do. There is no "hiding" of facts, there were 2, yes 2, places that the score to last years game can be found. Neither score explains why they are even a rival. While the 2 BIGGEST rivals are left without scores and thoroughly explained to why it is a rivalry. If you want to get a chip on your shoulder about everyone that doesn't see eye to eye with you, then that's on you. Next thing you know someone may be messing with your edits for some bogus reason. Furthermore, the reason I "cleared" my page was to get all the "warnings" you sent me regarding the same article to go away. As you and I both know, that page is not really "gone" and may still be referenced at any time. May God bless your weekend. Irbster2 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The warnings were well deserved as you were not following wikipolicy and lets remember what your first two edits were [1] and [2] both of which are heavy duty vandalism. Your next edit was to tell Waggers to let you continue to vandalize pages. Your next set of edits included the blanking of info on several pages without any explanation of why the info was being removed. This is also considered vandalism. Serial vandals have to be followed, their edits reversed and warnings placed on their page to have them cease vandalizng. When you finally used an edit summary then your edit was left alone. I was not the only person to leave a message on your page and one of the ones I left included a link to a page where you could begin to learn how to edit properly on wikipedia. But, rather than take that option, it seems you need to continue to cry and moan here, thus, creating more wikidrama then you are worth. Please also note that wikipedia requires outside verifiable sources for new edits and, as yet, you have made no edit that includes these. Thus, other editors may also revert your edits until you learn how to do this. Hopefully you will contribute something to the project one day - but it seems that it will not be this day. Please take your moaning elsewhere in future. MarnetteD | Talk 23:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Full text

Re, this edit, I agree that your version is better than the one you reverted. Actually the full-text Branagh used (a conflation of Q2 and F) is (with minor variation) the one that you'd expect to see at a theatre if you went to see a (comparatively rare) full text production of Hamlet. (Just a comment, no need to reply.) AndyJones (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Yes, my collection of Shakespeare films is ever-expanding - but I'm keen to add that DVD to it ever since I discovered that my VHS version has a shorter running time than the theatrical one. I happened to be in London the week it premiered, and I remember giggling at the sight of a skull that was very obviously Ken Dodd's (I'd been a fan his of when I was a small kid: as you may know he has famously odd teeth). I was puzzled by the fact that the scene wasn't on the video: but now I think I know where it went! AndyJones (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Full Metal Jacket film

Good edit. Best Luigibob (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Hi. Thanks for the thanks about Template:Cryptozoology. Glad it's of use, it did take me quite a while to make and distribute! :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Regarding IMDb

Hi. Responding to your request for a citation regarding the disallowed use of IMDb as a reference source:

Wikipedia: Reliable sources - Are wikis reliable sources specifies that wikis are not allowed as reference sources. IMDb falls under that definition as it has solely user-generated content, and, as noted elsewhere at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, IMDb does not "have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence."

Thanks for opportunity to respond--24.215.162.198 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

IMDb was not a wiki orignally though they may have morphed into one. They have editorial oversight in certain areas and not in others. You may wish to remove all of wikipedia's articles on films and TV shows as the cast lists, production info, release dates and on and on come from IMDb. MarnetteD | Talk 07:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows IMDb under "External links," where it is a "for further reading" source only. It cannot be cited as a reference source. (As a personal aside, there are so many mistakes and uncited claims in IMDb that it is only useful as a place to search for leads.) --24.215.162.198 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Edit

When an admin changes an article and cites an OTRS Ticket (see my comment on the talk page) it is an exceedingly bad idea to revert them without discussing with them first. OTRS generally means that Wikipedia has recieved an external communication about something and the admin is responding to this. Until you have discussed this with the admin you will not have the full facts to properly judge the circumstances and reinserting complained about material could create a problem for the project. Please do not do this again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, how was anyone to tell that you were an admin as neither your edit summary nor your note BJ's talk page listed you as such. Even if there was some indication that you were an admin that would not seem to be that important as admins are not omniscient. The recent Archtransit saga is a cautionary tale of why the term admin does not translate into reliable wikipedia editor (please please please do not get me wrong I am not equating you with that editor.) As to Barry Jackson's page WP:AGF would seem to dictate that, if we aren't going to rely on what has already been posted in a given article, that it is important to have evidence other than disliking IMDb as to why a particular item should be changed. Neither you nor I know where the editor who posted this date originally got it from. What is perplexing about your note to me is that is does not acknowledge that I went and found sources other than IMDb, added them to the article and noted them in my edit summaries, just after the edit that you have chosen to admonish me for. It is important to note that I have found IMDB to be more reliable than most sources on the net when it comes to actor bios - there is no better example then IMDb's having Helen Mirren's actual birthplace (Chiswick) correct when several of us who watchlisted her page were defending one (Leigh-on-Sea) that was cited in numerous interviews during her run of awards last year. I have seen little evidence that IMDb's cast lists, crew lists or bio pages can be proven as unreliable. Nothing that I can find at either the filmprojects or the biography projects pages seem to indicate this - although I might have missed them and I apologize if I have please just point me to these new guidelines. Along these same lines, if there is a cabal here at wikipedia that has decided that IMDb is no longer reliable (and I have no evidence of this except that after after 3 yrs of editing here I have two messages in a day stating this) then we need to delete most of wikipedia's articles on films as all of the cast and production crew lists as well as the release dates and numerous other encyclopedic items noted come from IMDb. I am happy to apologize for the curtness of this message as I am sure that it is more confrontational than you wish but I would suggest that, if anything that I have done is so extraordinarily out of line, that you bring in other editors and admins from the biography and film projects to look at what has been done and if a consensus is reached that I am in error I am willing to accept their findings. MarnetteD | Talk 07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who in NA

Can you take a look at Doctor Who in North America and make any suggestions? Type 40 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Type 40 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) WickerGuy (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Barry Lyndon Edit

Hi, Marnette. The reason for my note on Barry Lyndon having six actors from Clockwork Orange (which I could have made more clear) is that Stanley Kubrick has a particular penchant for often working with the same actors over again in both supporting and lead roles (two films with Kirk Douglas, two with Peter Sellers, three with Philip Stone in supporting roles), so having six actors from Clockwork Orange in Barry Lyndon is part of a pattern, and the Orange/Lyndon overlap of six actors is a sort of record-holder in Kubrick's oeuvre. I'm not fully convinced my contribution here was absolutely necessary, but perhaps there is a way to reword it to make it more noteworthy. I was generally assuming all readers of the article knew Lyndon was Kubrick's film right after Clockwork and that he frequently re-uses actors. Perhaps that was unwarranted. WickerGuy (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry

MarnetteD, I was not offended in the least. What I was doing is soliciting advice if there were any way to "frame" (introduce) the info to make it Wiki-kosher. I am a Wiki-newbie (as of 8 months ago). I have made 20-odd contributions to Wikipedia in the last year, 3 of which have been zapped on the basis of no original research, so I'm sort of figuring out what to do (or not do as the case may be). A few other notes I have added about Kubrick films here and there remain intact, so I'm trying to decide what does or does not constitute original research.
I have actually read that because the cast for Lyndon was unusually large, Kubrick was especially keen on choosing actors that he knew he could work with. So if I can track down that citation, and frame it as such, I may re-introduce the info, but I'm not in a rush. WickerGuy (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Price

As you certainly realise, we have been having disagreements in regards to the content of the aricle Vincent Price, I really do think that no reference to Karloff is needed in the first paragraph. Why did yo revert my last version of the article? I prefer to discuss the issue rather than just have a revert war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray-Ginsay (talk • contribs) 21:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

British films of the 1930s

Hi MarnetteD. Thank you for all your help and support, it is much appreciated. I am new to this, so I am just finding my feet. Are all links directly related to the film? If that is the case I guess I need to alter the link for The Blue Danube Morgan Creek (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)