User talk:Tbrittreid

Shattered Visage

Hi, ted. Ireact here again. You've been making some alterations to the Shattered Visage section of The Prisoner entry that don't seem particularly accurate. You say that the text piece doesn't state its author or identify itself as originating from British Intelligence -- well, it's stated at the beginning that it's a message from "Excavations Officer Drake", which the comic later establishes is Thomas Drake's department and job title. Who wrote the text piece is clearly not a mystery. You also say it's ambiguous whether or not it's Mrs. Butterworth in the comic -- well, Thomas Drake calls her his mentor in the text piece, later she's referred to as being the person who gave him the Lotus Seven -- which she had possession of in "Many Happy Returns". And the servant at the house says, "Mrs. Butterworth is expecting you" to her visitor. Also, for some reason, you suggest that Mrs. Butterworth's visitor is Fotheringay -- well, it isn't. It's Director Ross of MI-5 Operations, who's been appearing throughout the comic and has been explicitly named as such. Are you sure you've read this comic... ? :-P The note about the butler seems about right, though. Ireact (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just a notice about "removing the parenthetical" from Shattered Visage (The Prisoner) -- since you are a registered user and there is no article called Shattered Visage, you can simply move the article from its current title to the non-parenthesized version. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner - Number One

Hi, ireact here. You disagreed with my claiming that no one in the Village admits to the existence of Number One. So I've edited the Number One entry to offer both of our respective viewpoints. ireact

Thank you for experimenting with the page The Green Hornet on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you feel that the edit I reverted should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- 68.163.58.18 (talk) 1:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It took me quite a while to find this. I have audio recordings of actual episodes of the Green Hornet and Lone Ranger shows that prove that the name of the Ranger's nephew/Hornet's father was DAN, not Andy, Reid. Further, that link of Andy Reid goes to a real person, a football coach who was born after the LR TV series was defunct, let alone either radio program. So PLEASE drop this "Andy" bull! tbrittreid aka Ted Watson 19:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please try to avoid personal attacks, such as you made in this comment, "Think a bit before you post here again" [1]. You may want to consider your tone somewhat, too. Wikipedia has some policies, guidance and essays on behaviour, frustration and stress that may prove helpful:

I hope some of them prove of use to you. Happy editing. Steve block Talk 22:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deny that the quote constitutes an out-of-line personal attack, but was very good advice and that no other reasonable, relevant and valid line of response was open to me (I say the same thing concerning a posting to that same thread that I am in the process of proofreading at this time; I suggest there that J Greb's making certain mistakes of conjugation, etc., repeatedly and consistently indicates that English may well be no better than his second language and his command of it limited, a situation that, if the fact of the matter, does indeed disqualify him from taking part in a debate of what is and is not proper usage here based on what is and is not proper English usage, that otherwise [you see, I make no assumptions] he needs to learn to proofread, and that there is no third way--I repeat, the first would be truly relevant to the discussion and the alternative is advice Greb would be well advised to accept to eliminate the other which would in this event be a misinterpretation; go check out his/her postings on this thread before you pass judgement on THIS). To return to the posting you brought up: It certainly appears to me--especially given how quickly the less than entirely fair, logical and faithful-to-the-facts message, to which the one of mine you quoted was a reply, was posted after the one by me to which IT was a reply--that he or she did indeed fail to take the time to think it through before posting. If you are going to tell me that OTHERS have a right to be less than logical and fair just to give the false appearance of having successfully defended their previously stated positions against the refutations of them in my postings, and *I* do NOT have the right to point out that such behavior is not proper debate--which it definitely is NOT--even when I do so only by implication and do not come out and SAY that this is what they have done (which in fact is most certainly being civil on my part), you are wrong (or have you already posted a warning on J Greb's "My Talk" page as well?). Ted Watson 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re

When it's a matter of an indisputable fact, especially dealing with a living person, then I think it can considered simple vandalism. --Mardavich 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but biographies of living persons are more sensitive. --Mardavich 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner - Rover

Pleased someone's reading it at least! I wouldn't take the White and Ali book as absolute gospel though it's amazing the footage remained hidden for so long. The full home movie shows a full-sized props man seated in the Rover machine. It may have been abandoned because the exhaust from the engine discharged inside the shell and would have gassed the driver, who was lying almost on his back inside, unable to see out. In additin, it worked fine on a flat surface but not on the cobbled roads, steps and steep hills of Portmeirion (this information is from a video on the production of the series produced by Steve Ricks in the 90s and including interviews with surviving cast and crew - ditto for the information on the opening sequence shooting). Ghughesarch 01:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner: Exterior filming not in Portmeirion

Hi

http://avengerland.theavengers.tv/studios/mgmblot.htm shows other shows filmed on the exterior sets at MGM Borehamwood (the first pictures are their generic "continental street" set, as used in "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling") Note that the building with the dormer windows in the background of the third picture (from "Girl") is the same as the one in the eighth picture (from a production I don't recognise), with the trees and wall removed.

The bottom set of pictures show the opposite side of the "square" from the Recreation Hall in "Schizoid Man", which also appears as the exhibition hall in "Chimes of Big Ben", and in "A, B and C" as the entrance to the Paris street where Six encounters "C" (which is the location for the middle set of photos on the Avengerland page, and appears in "The Girl Who Was Death" band "Forsake", filmed from different angles).

The "Square" area (which was an entirely separate set about 100 yards from the "continental street" one) was re-dressed as the western town in "Living in Harmony". The building on top of two arches in those bottom photos is visible in "A, B & C" as Madame Engadine's car drives through it, and is the sherrif's office in "Harmony".

Part of "A, B and C" (the fight with "A") was also filmed on the remains of the French chateau set from "The Dirty Dozen", which stood about 250 yards away from this location. Steve Ricks produced a replica "Map of Your Village" in the 1980s with, on the reverse, an aerial photo from 1966 showing all these sets standing on the MGM backlot - despite film or TV appearances they were all false fronts held up by scaffolding. I'm not sure what production they were originally constructed for. I suspect Carraze and Oswald may have had "exterior" translated to "outside", which mean slightly different things.

I recommend Max Hora's three booklets, The Prisoner of Portmeirion; Portmeirion Prisoner Production; and Village World (all now out of print but often on ebay) as good sources of Prisoner trivia of this type. Also http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/ which has excellent Prisoner location spotting pages of its own ( such as http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/locationsguide.htm and http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/mgmbore.htm , and it's worth checking the link from the latter to the page about the precise location of the "Harmony" lynching tree - http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/harmonytree.htm - to see just how seriously some people take this sort of thing), and good links. But then, I have a feeling all this should be on the Wikipedia Prisoner page, not just here.

Ghughesarch 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot

Nice to know someone else is aware of this. But, sorry no, I was unaware of your post. I had The Prisoner originally in VHS and later, the A&E DVD collection. I did not purchase the original CoBB tape whaen I saw the alternate tape was available. The production note insert specified that it was the original series pilot; not ARRIVAL. --Jason Palpatine 04:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Visage

Hi, Ted, Ireact here again. You say it's not immediately clear that the text piece is written by someone in British intelligence -- but the heading on the text piece is that it's a message for Mrs. Butterworth of "MI5". That is the English Secret Service, isn't it? Unless MI5 can refer to something else? Anyway, I was wondering, if you do properly reread Shattered Visage, do you think you might go over to that entry and take a look at it? It'd be good if more than one Prisoner fan made a pass on that. --Ireact 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

Hi. I've removed your request for an opinion since it was in the wrong place and format. If you want to try again, please list it at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements and follow the instructions closely. Thanks, Sandstein 05:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow the instructions that I found, though they were somewhat on the vague side, at least as far as format was concerned. But I will use your link and see what happens. Ted Watson 17:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Fortune's real name

His latest entry in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Univere A - Z #3 (2006) lists his name as Duvid Jerome T. "David" Fortunov. Since he is owned by Marvel and the name David does appear in brackets there isn't any reason to suspect that Duvid is any sort of error.

No problem. :)

I can understand how there would be some concern on your part. I've changed his real name in infobox to the full name from the handbook entry. I'm hoping this will prevent this sort of concern from coming up again. Stephen Day 21:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drunken fugue

Sorry, but the statement in Doctor Who looked oddly suspicious, with the unusual use of fugue and frank use of drunken. If the statement can be sourced at a quote, it can surely be included. My apologies for the error. Freedomlinux 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's Finest

"After Infinite Crisis, World's Finest is an in-universe magazine about superhumans. References to 'nude quote-unquote art photos' show that it has a tabloid reputation. It's main rival is Powerhouse, a trade magazine for costumed crimefighters."

The problem with this sentence is that it invokes lingo particular to Wikipedia editors. Most readers won't understand what "in-universe" means. Therefore it will look to most readers like the article is saying that World's Finest in the real world became a tabloid with a real world rival magazine called Powerhouse. (By the way, "It's" should have been the possessive "Its" without the apostrophe.) Because no citation is provided for the specific real world publication in which this was mentioned, it just looks like a prank. Doczilla 19:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because I didn't personally know how to fix it. I don't know that it's true. If it's written correctly and includes a citation, it can stay. Doczilla 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Revision to Spectre--14 June

Actually... the change is really minor, but it avoids a redirect. The last wiki-link in the section, for the All-Star Squadron article, was going through the redirect All Star Squadron. Placing a hyphen ( "-" ) in bypassed the redirect and is a clean up of the link. Unfortunately, since it is only one, small character, it tends to get swamped in the text. - J Greb 20:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Origins of Once Upon a Time

Check out this newsgroup thread - UK TV researcher Simon Coward got his hands on a complete copy of the script, which includes both the deleted No. 86 scene (near the beginning of the episode) and the outro with the Supervisor (almost exactly as filmed). Both are transcribed in the thread.

Looks good, but I feel that what shows in the recently published two-volume collection of all known Prisoner scripts would be definitive. BTW, "Brian Watson" in that thread is no relation as far as I know, but I do have distant cousins in Belfast to this day, so it's possible. Speaking of him, his "my theory" about "What do you desire?," etc., being tacked on after the fact (because, although he doesn't say this there, "Degree Absolute" was--supposedly--originally intended as the finale of the first of two seasons of 13 episodes each) does in fact call the authenticity of this thread into question, as that was reported as flat fact in professionally published works on the programme decades ago, as I indicated in the posting you were responding to here. Therefore, his calling it his own, personal theory in the 21st century is literally unbelievable. And why are you not "signed" here in any way, shape or form, if only by IP number? Ted Watson 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

Re: your note on my talk page - thanks. My changes weren't based on the U.K.-U.S. differences, but on the style guide (and hence the changes were only to titles). In terms of titles, Wikipedia treats quotation marks as applying only to the title in question. All punctuation is kept outside of the quotation marks, and the same is true for italics as well. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Could you please point me to the dialogue you said I changed - I only noticed episode titles in the dif. I'd like to check it out to see if something was inadvertently changed. Also, in this case the titles are not "quoted material" - they are names that are presented with special formatting to distinguish them from ordinary text. As such, punctuation is not formatted because it does not form a part of the name. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see where I changed the dialogue punctuation. Are you sure you're not thinking of the Ros/Fonny changes a bit earlier? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stinger vs. Tag

Regarding what we've been calling the Stinger or Tag for the animation that precedes the closing credits of the Prisoner, technically neither is correct since they both imply a "scene" or clip that comes AFTER the credits (in this case, perhaps Rover whisking away on the waves would be the Stinger/Tag). I'm actually of the opinion that the clip we've both been referring to is merely a part of the Closing credits, and shouldn't be held as something separate. Perhaps folding it into the Closing credits header would be a better idea, and more appropriate than what either of us is proposing. Would you consider that as an acceptible solution? I bring this up here before taking it to the Prisoner user talk so that we can come to accord and be a unified front. :-) WikiTracker 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Network

The NBC article is wrong. The source noted in footnote 78 to the Blue Network article (which I largely wrote) cites to the 1943 Britannica Book of the Year, at page 579. That says: "Since then, however, the Blue Network, formerly operated jointly with the Red Network of NBC, became a separate corporate entity (January 9, 1942) and divorced its operations from those of NBC. The Red Network became known as NBC, with the Blue Network separately incorporated as Blue Network Co." This clearly establishes that in January, 1942, the name switched from NBC Blue (see the "Breakfast Club" ad from August, 1941 in the article), to simply "Blue Network." I have a number of photographs from the post-42 era which show microphones labeled "Blue" and "Blue Network" banners. The June, 1943 publication "The Blue Network Today," published before the purchase by Noble later that year, refers to it as both "BLUE" and "The Blue Network" (this document is also cited in the article -- I own a copy of the publication). Eric O. Costello 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) None taken. I looked at the NBC site, and the point was well-taken. I've done a slight re-write to correct it. Incidentally, I've only ever found one show that has "This is the Blue Network of the National Broadcasting Company," the episode of "Inner Sanctum" that ran on December 7, 1941. RCA did on-air network identifiers only for brief periods of time in '37 and '41. I have a 1943 "Blue Network Breakfast Club" show (alas, not specifically dated) which uses "Blue Network" to identify it. Eric O. Costello 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Network II

Generally speaking, *on-air*, RCA would use only "This is the National Broadcasting Company," and the G-E-C chimes, for both the Red and Blue Networks. For a brief period of time in the late 1930s, and again in 1941, RCA would use "This is the Red Network of the National Broadcasting Company" on-air. I have one "Chase and Sanborn Hour" show from September 5, 1937, and a batch of "Johnson's Wax Program" (i.e., Fibber McGee and Molly) broadcasts from the fall of 1941, that show this. The only time I've found an NBC Blue Network show that used "This is the Blue Network of the National Broadcasting Company" was, as I say above, the 12/7/41 episode of the "Inner Sanctum Mysteries." And NBC wasn't all that consistent, either. I have Jack Benny shows from the same week as the Fibber McGee shows that don't use it, and the 12/8/41 broadcast of "The NBC Breakfast Club" doesn't refer to the NBC Blue Network. Caveat: it doesn't seem like as many Blue Network shows have survived as Red Network shows, and very often, the former have been edited; this is the case with many "Information, Please!" shows from its run on NBC Blue, before it switched to NBC Red.

Of course, print advertisements would often use NBC Blue or Blue Network; for example, look at the ad for the Lux Radio Theatre from 1935 on Blue Network, or the even earlier (1929) Harry Lauder broadcast advertisement. I also have a 1941 promotional book (a very high-end product, hard-back with illustrations by a New Yorker artist) that focuses on the NBC Red Network (and doesn't even mention NBC Blue!). Tagline: "Any time is good time on NBC Red!" A promotional book for "Ted Malone's Mansions of Imagination," a 1940-1 show about famous buildings broadcast on Sunday afternoons, is identified as being broadcast on "the NBC Blue Network."

I can't opine on "The Green Hornet," not owning more than one or two broadcasts; most of the episodes I've listened to are on XM-164, and they usually blip the credits. Eric O. Costello 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: check this URL: http://members.aol.com/jeff560/am1.html. There's a bit on Blue Network history, including this para: "The terms "Red" and "Blue" were actually used on-air only rarely during the time in which NBC operated two chains -- for a brief period spanning the latter half of 1936 and the first half of 1937 [Slightly inaccurate but generally true - EOC], and again for several months in mid-1941 [slightly inaccurate, but generally true - EOC]. The two networks did use different sets of chimes during 1929-30 (and possibly earlier) with the Red being signified by a seven-note progression and the Blue by a five-note progression. The terms did turn up in the press, however -- even though it was more common in fan publications to refer to the Red as the NBC-WEAF network and the Blue as NBC-WJZ." [In my experience, the WEAF/WJZ references started to die out by the mid to late 30s - EOC] Eric O. Costello 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast vs Transmitted

Re The Five Doctors: you'll find either is allowable in British English, though I suspect "broadcast" is more common in a television context, these days. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Hornet

The source for the Bob Hall run was John Dunning's ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you want to track that, I see that Dunning's website has both an email address and a phone number: http://www.oldalgonquin.com/contact.php Pepso2 23:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I saw you were having trouble with the '<ref>' function. You have to add '<references />' at the bottom or nothing happens. Go figure... Cop 663 01:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Droopy.

In the lead of the article, that name is not necessary to be mentioned. "Sgt. McPoodle" is a "part" played by Droopy in Northwest Hounded Police. The character's official name at that time was "Happy Hound".

The "Sgt. McPoodle" name could be mentioned in a later body paragraph discussing Northwest Hounded Police, or in a Northwest Hounded Police article. But for the lead paragraph, you'd want to stick to mentioning official names: mentioning the name Droopy had in one cartoon as a Mountie is something of a digression. --FuriousFreddy 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on WT:VAN

Hey, I saw your note about the dispute you left on WT:VAN. Without looking at the actual case, I'd say that this is a content dispute, not an example of vandalism (according to WP:VAN, only outright attempts to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia are considered vandalism, so just being a jerk doesn't necessarily make them a vandal). Therefore, I'd suggest going through the steps of dispute resolution. First, try to talk to them about it: leave a friendly note on their talk page and point them to the talk page of the article so the two of you can discuss it (I think you're right, both IP's are probably the same person). Politely remind them that reliable sources are required for any potentially contested factual statement and ask them for some. If you can't come to an agreement, try WP:3O or other steps of dispute resolution. If they simply won't talk and keep revering you, and you have reliable sources for the material that they're taking out, then yeah, that's vandalism. So yes, you should leave {{uw-v1}} on their talk page first, then if they keep vandalizing, {{uw-v2}} and so on up to {{uw-v4}}, after which you should report them on WP:AIV to be blocked. But note that this is only for someone who's blatantly damaging the encyclopedia, not someone who disagrees with you about what content should be added. I'll have a look at the pages you mentioned and see if I can figure anything else out. Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 23:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing after a glimpse at the histories: are you familiar with WP:3RR? delldot talk 23:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right that forging betacommand's signature was pretty rotten, maybe they're just a common vandal and I'm giving them too much credit. It's just that, not knowing anything about the subject myself, it seemed possible that they're sincere in thinking this guy's name was what they say it was. I do a lot of vandal fighting and this isn't similar to most of what I see. Anyway, if they are sincere, they'll participate in the discussion, and the two of you should be able to figure out who's right and come to an agreement (remember the need for citations: if you have some that demonstrate your point, that will strengthen your case by a ton). If they're a common vandal, they'll ignore your requests for discussion, keep doing it, ignore vandalism warnings, and then be eligible for blocking. Either way you win. At any rate, I just thought if you hadn't tried discussing it with them it can't hurt to try, that way you have all your bases covered. If you don't like my advice, you can ignore it and I'll back out of the conflict entirely with no harm done. Peace, delldot talk 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, let me know how it works out. Peace, delldot talk 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it :) delldot talk 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castellan (Doctor Who)

Thanks for the info, I've redirected the article to that character's first appearance. In future, if you want a comment about a Doctor Who article to reach a wider audience, the talk page at WP:WHO is the way to go. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't so much miss your point as sidestep it. Neither the character nor the office justify notability guidelines for having a separate article — hence a redirect to the first time that particular character appeared (as opposed to the first time a Castellan appeared). --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does comment that Castellan is a title and does not state that the unamed Castellan of Arc of Infinity and "The Five Doctors" is the same as Castellan Spandrell or Castellan Kelner. I shall reorder it a bit to avoid ambiguity. Wolf of Fenric 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwan

I'll deal with this separately. This looks like a reasonably uncontroversial candidate for deletion: it's likely that everything that can be said about the character would fit comfortably in King Kong (1976 film); moreover, it's dubious that a redirect would be worthwhile, given the relative unlikelihood someone would be looking for information by typing "Dwan" into the search box (they'd look for the film instead).

The remaining question is how to go about it. Proposing deletion is an option, but there's the small chance someone will object, reasonably or not, which would stop that going ahead. An AFD, on the other hand, would give the community a chance to discuss the article's future. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: King Kong disambig. undo

I can see why that edit summary could have been misleading, I'm so familiar with disambiguation links I assumed that most editors know {{otheruses}} is the standard template here. No harm done, we both assumed something and it created a misunderstanding.

One misleading edit summary hardly justifies your "we'll all be better off" comment though. Magiclite 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You're welcome, but we just have to take each vandal as they come. If they come back and vandalize again, then the admins will have to block on an individual basis, unless you can bring together a discussion on WP:ANI about repeat vandalism from a range of IPs that have a similar theme. Corvus cornix 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Corvus cornix 21:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kong the giant monster

When I say King Kong was the first film to feature a giant monster running amok in a city, I stand by that. The Brontosaurus was a Dinosaur, an actual (though extinct) animal that lived on this planet. Kong was a gigantic prehistoric ape, (a creature that never existed and was entirely fictitious) and therefore was the first film about a giant movie monster.Giantdevilfish 01:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it could be said that the Brontosaurus isn't technically a "giant", because its natural size is already large, whereas gorillas aren't usually that size -- therefore, Kong is indeed a giant monster (although there is an argument to be made that since a gorilla isn't a monster, that Kong isn't a giant monster but a giant gorilla). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTracker (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Kong isn't just a giant gorilla. (I wish someone would have told Peter Jackson that, as he turned Kong into a realistic overgrown silverback, complete with the big herbivores gut). He's a gigantic gorilla monster. In the original film, he has a humanoid look and walks upright. "Neither Beast nor Man" as Carl Denham said in the original film. The marquee even said "Carl Denham's Giant Monster" for a reason.Giantdevilfish 02:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely stunned that a third party---and obviously, from the lack of sig., not an administrator monitoring things---posted here. That aside, since you responded here, Gdf, I will as well. I submit that the general movie--going audience and the population of a more--or--less modern, major city (in the case of The Lost World, 1920s London), would perceive a brontosaurus as a giant monster, and the distinctions that you draw are nothing more than technicalities which are non-encyclopedic and counter to being truly informative. I therefore stand by my revision. Ted Watson 18:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs are generally not considered giant movie monsters. Whether people "perceive" a Brontosaurus as a giant monster in 1920 is speculation. Kong is considered a giant movie monster. Saying that Kong is the first giant movie monster is accurate. Even in the making of King Kong documentary (Production 601) on the WB DVD release of the 1933 film, its said that "King Kong was the first film where audiences got to see a big monster". My current edit covers both bases pretty well.Giantdevilfish 00:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dinosaurs are generally not considered giant movie monsters." By who? You? That aside, I found that you removed your covering-both-bases edit without telling me. I think MY current edit covers both our positions pretty well, but understand, if necessary I will ask for a third opinion. Ted Watson 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because when people talk about giant movie monsters they generally mention King Kong or Godzilla, or giant ants (like THEM) or a giant moth (like Mothra). Since when do people consider a T-Rex or a Brontosaurus a giant movie monster? These are simply extinct animals not monsters that aren't fantastical or super-sized or mutated etc. Regardless, while I think my previous edit (going back to the way that section of the article was originally written) is more simple and to the point, your recent edit suffices.Giantdevilfish 19:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Blanc/Happy Rabbit Investigation: Re-opened

Greetings! User:Baseball Bugs and I have been following your proposal concerning "Happy Rabbit" with great interest, and I am currently undertaking an "investigation" of sorts in order to figure out the truth concerning the character. You are welcome to go to my talk page and participate in the discussion. — Cinemaniac 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner

Thanks for your heads up on Mr Moor-Larkin. Perhaps the "Booby Kennedy" made me reach for my vandal button a bit quickly, especially in its context, and there's no way to undo that now except by oversight, which is a bit of a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. But I did take some time going through his prior edits, in fact quite a long time. I've no doubt now that he's good-faith, but it's clear that he hasn't yet grasped some of the basics. I've reverted a lot of his edits to Danger Man, quite simply because they were either OR, POV or fancruft, which made the article read like a fanzine. I don't apologise for that, because this is meant to be an encyclopedia, & Mr Moor-Larkin seems to have been around for long enough such that he should have understood this by now. I also took a look at Sheffield Repertory Theatre, which he has largely created, but needs major work. If you can point him to the Five Pillars, that would be good, but he needs to understand the difference between "encyclopedic" and "editorial"! Best of luck. I will apologise to him for the "vandalism" tag if he raises it. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MST3K to Mystery Science Hour

First, let me say that I did indeed see your notice of real-world matters reducing your Wiki activity. I noticed on the Talk page for Mystery Science Theater 3000 that you are responsible for the section on the "Mystery Science Hour" version. I have to ask where your claimed run of these episodes from "November 1993 to July 1994" occurred. Your text (I haven't checked to see if someone has changed your original version, come to think of it) correctly admits that broadcast syndication was in the 1995-96 season, and I can assure you from first hand observation that then only 11 shows halved into 22 hour-long segments were seen. It makes no sense to me that Comedy Central would run these re-edits (I had no access to that channel until 2005, too late for MST3K, obviously) as they were home for the originals. So where? And if 60-from-30 were prepared, why were only 22-from-11 released to broadcast syndication? Ted Watson (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drats, this must have been before I started getting serious about proper sourcing. Apparently, I got this from TV.com's page on MST3K Hour. Here's a full citation for the episode guide, which includes first-aired dates for all 60 hour-long episodes, from 29 November 1993 to 18 July 1994:

""The Mystery Science Theater Hour: Episode Guide"". TV.com. Retrieved 2007-11-18.

A simple list of titles and dates can be found from their parallel episode list:

""The Mystery Science Theater Hour: Episode List"". TV.com. Retrieved 2007-11-18.

Some other useful sources for MST3K60m are:

""Syndication"". The Satellite News. Retrieved 2007-11-18.
Nelson, Michael J. (1996). "The Mystery Science Theater Hour". The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Amazing Colossal Episode Guide. Bantam Books. pp. pp. 111-113. 0-553-37783-3. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
""Alternate versions for Mystery Science Theater 3000 (1988)"". Internet Movie Database. Retrieved 2007-11-18.

I don't know why IMDb and TV.com disagree. ACEG talks only of the making, not the airing, of the shows. I myself only saw a few episodes of these, not even the 11/22 that others mention. But although IMDb says both "1995-1996" and 22 episodes, Satellite News's "Syndication" suggests the earlier dates are accurate. (It doesn't include airdates, but it does agree with ACEG that the shows were made in 1993 [Summer '93, according to ACEG] under pressure from Comedy Central, which hardly would have sat on them for 2 years if so, and it says the shows were cancelled by 1995. That year would make sense if they ran the first-airings through July 1994, with re-runs thereafter.)

We could use some better sources on this. Our personal recollections are irrelevant ("verifiability, not truth"), as are deductions like mine ("no original research"). TV.com is much more detailed and specific than the quick blurb in IMDb, but both have been known to err. Frankly, after fixing so much junk in IMDb, I'm inclined to trust an exhaustive, dated episode list from TV.com more than a simple paragraph from IMDb, especially since the errors I've seen thus far in the former are from the trivial stuff (like quotes and trivia), not the basic data.

I recommend you edit this discussion to copy the templated references if you'd like to paste any of them into ref tags for relevant articles. Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A confession--the IMDb paragraph is my work; it had said otherwise before me. But I absolutely guarantee that "11 cut from 22" aired in effective first run syndication during the 1995-96 season. I moved to Dallas, TX, in April of the year, and saw them on WFAA-TV, channel 8, the ABC affiliate there, beginning that fall and ending the next fall; I watched every single one of them, several twice. By definition, it could not have happened earlier. I can tell you exactly which movies were shown, if not quite in their order (the first was Pod People, and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians was around Thanksgiving--segments already run were seen throughout December). They were also shown on a station in the Waco/Temple, TX, market then--caught one while visiting relatives, and it proved to be the same one shown in Dallas that very weekend--two-parters, remember; I caught half of one out of Waco, its other half in Dallas. TV Guide magazine and newspaper back issues will confirm the dates, though probably not identify specific episodes. Neither the years nor the quantity of this release is open to debate, as far as I'm concerned. It is just a matter of determining if those 22 and 38 others previously aired on some venue that I had no access to and whose schedules did not routinely come my way. That's it. Ted Watson (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this is the reason why Wikipedia:Verifiability boldly states in its very first sentence that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis in the original). I can tell you for sure that I saw only a few episodes on A&E, so it's clear to me that Comedy Central was not the network that aired MST3K60m. Except that the truth is probably that it did indeed air originally on CC as TV.com describes, but was later syndicated to other cable channels (like A&E) and local stations (like WFAA-TV). After all, to quote "Syndication" above:

Both CC and BBI had good reasons for wanting to create The Hour. CC programmers claimed it was easier to find slots in its schedule for a one-hour show. And it gave BBI's syndicator an alternative product to sell to stations who did not want the two-hour series. (emphasis mine)

It seems rather likely that your local station did not pay to air the full run of episodes. Anyone watching syndicated runs of any TV series should know that it is rather unusual for a station to make the effort to air even immensely popular shows like M*A*S*H or Friends in their entire sequential runs. (I don't know this for sure, but I believe typical pricing schemes for syndicated episodes tend to favor limited sets of episodes with options to show them multiple times, making single, ordered runs rather more expensive than the usual "whatever we can get" effort.)

Anyway, the details of our experiences are not important here. Neither you nor I are considered a reliable source. In fact, if Mike Nelson or Kevin Murphy (not Joel Hodgson, as he was already gone by then) were to call Jimbo Wales and say "this is the way it was", it wouldn't make a bit of difference. We must provide published sources for our claims, however obvious they may seem to us, especially if they contradict other published sources. The fact that you edited IMDb (as have I in the past) merely calls into question the reliability of the source. It's IMDb's failures to catch problems in user submissions that make it somewhat suspect. As with TV.com, IMDb is typically more accurate with basic data like its formal airing schedules (i.e., the ones listed under "episode list" for TV shows), but even those have considerable problems for many shows. (Hardly a week goes by that I don't see some basic data like regular cast appearances or air dates missing from IMDb. Perhaps the most relevant example of this is its failure to list the correct episode numbers for MST3K — they call them seasons 1-11 instead of 0-10 or K-10. And it doesn't appear to be a problem with their software; they list the first episode of The Prisoner as "Episode 0".)

In short, we need solid, published sources for any information in Wikipedia that is not inherently obvious to any reader. Although this is a perpetual problem with many WP articles, it remains the goal for each, and any editor may challenge and ultimately remove claims that are not backed up by proper sources. (Of course, they should say why they're doing it in their edit summaries, because the ultimate goal is accuracy through cooperative editing.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes and TV

Recently, there's been an intriguing proposal by Agtaz to create an article about Looney Tunes television broadcast history (and not just the theatrical ones, but the more recent shows, too). Research and development are currently underway. Given your knowledge of animation and its history, I was certain you would be rather helpful in this regard. Any comments? Suggestions? Ideas? Your thoughts are welcome and can be posted here at my discussion page. Your contributions will be really appreciated. Regards, Cinemaniac (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Elmer Fudd and All this and Rabbit Stew

Contrary to what Joe Adamson may say, there was never a true "remake" of All this and Rabbit Stew. A gag from the said film was used, however, three years later for Bob Clampett's film The Big Snooze (the famous "log-over-the-side-of-the-cliff" gag), with Fudd animated over the Stepin Fetchit hunter, but that's it. Also, this gag was not used for Avery's The Heckling Hare, although there is a gag involving a cliff in that cartoon. — Cinemaniac (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at my talk page, and also posed a question about the ending of Heckling Hare and Tex Avery's subsequent supsension. Please respond there. — Cinemaniac (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for Duck Soup

Happy New Year, Ted! I've just submitted Duck Soup for peer review in order to find out some better ways to improve the article's (and other Marx Brothers articles) quality. If you're interested in leaving feedback, you can go to the article's talk page and follow the link. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, there's only been one response to my submission of Duck Soup for critiques. However, the editor supplied some good observations, and even stated that "this article has good potential for Featured Article Status". Well, there's my New Year's resolution: Improve Duck Soup to FA quality and get it nominated. It would be nice to have the Marx Brother's magnum opus as a featured article, eh? I'll need your help, though, in that regard, as well as assistance from others. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; even if your not exactly a Marx Brothers fan, you can still contribute by cleaning up the references, or balancing out the article so that it doesn't appear as "fangush". Someone not too close to the subject would probably help out the most! And again, Happy New Year to you, Watson. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Days' Wonder

I don't think it will be useful to discuss this situation with you any further, so I'm going to submit it for a third opinion and abide by the results, whatever they are. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no previous contact with A4T before providing a third opinion. The reason I say a third-party source is required is due to the core content rules (and basic concept) of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be the place for a first-reporting of observations and interpretations. Our purpose here is to summarize what reliable independent sources report on a topic. If a claim is non-controversial or uncontested, a citation is not usually required. However, if it is controversial or contested, then usually a reference is required (per WP:V). While uncited and contested information can be removed, if the claim is likely (or at least not unlikely) it is generally considered good form to fact-tag the statement to allow time for sources to be found. I hope this helps better explain where I am coming from. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to leave me a message. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied

Here. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier of Fortune--company in infobox?

Thank you for the enquiry about the Soldier of Fortune magazine infobox. Actually, User:Kguirnela placed the original infobox data on the page as shown here. However, a deprecated infobox was used so my role was merely to upgrade to the current infobox. The "Soldier of Fortune, Inc." entry was the publisher parameter, it became the company parameter on the new infobox. I also put a reply on the SOF mag talk page for further discussion. Dl2000 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For skilled, dilligent, and valuable contributions to various animation-related articles, I hereby award you The Original Barnstar. Your work does not go unappreciated! :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! You've made some excellent contributions to many articles, and you're particularly skillful at helping me settle some disputes. I'd say you deserved it! :-) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, have you ever considered becoming a member of the American Animation Wikiproject? I'm sure you'd be a big help to the project. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Animation WikiProject has been getting a much-needed boost the last several days, thanks to the recent joining of quite a few new members and a steady increase of the project's coverage. If you still wish to join, all you have to do is click here and sign your name under "Active", "Inactive", or "Supporter", and you're in! Regards, Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the Animation Wikiproject as a supporter! The project is really starting to grow! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about reference formatting

I have replied to you at my own "talk" page. Thanks.Meticuliz (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Dog abruptly merged with Porky Pig

MrJanitor1 just merged the Charlie Dog article with the Porky Pig article, without providing any reason whatsoever on the talk page or in his edit summaries. I notified him of this, and informed the user that it would probably be best to ask for consensus before making such a move. I then went ahead and reverted most of the edits pertaining to this redirect, but found myself hitting the wall when trying to restore the Charlie Dog page. D'you think you could help me out with this? Thanks! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the related IMDb external link to the Gold Diggers of '49 article. I'm not sure exactly what caused you to encounter such a problem, since when I typed the full title into the "go" box and pressed "Enter", I was taken straight to that page. I decided to make said EL a bare-boned link, instead of using the standard IMDb profile template. Hope that helps. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took the use of some major brain cells, but I think I've been able to restore the Charlie Dog article (by way of copying the original text from the Porky Pig article's history and then pasting it back on the Charlie Dog page). It looks like that worked. Thanks, anyway, and good luck with the rest of the IMDb links. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of dinosaur names in the Son of Kong article

In the Son of Kong article you constantly revert my edits arguing that the capitalization of the dinosaur names is inapproriate. That's not true! Have a look at some articles about particular dinosaurs (in our case Styracosaurus and Brontosaurus, the latter actually being Apatosaurus). There you'll see that the dinosaur genera are capitalized (generic terms like "tyrannosauridae" or "ceratopsian" are not). What do you mean by "SIMPLE names of the animals and not proper nouns"? Names are always capitalized! "Styracosaurus" is not the same as for example "dog" or "cat" (the generic term for Styracosaurus and Brontosaurus is "dinosaur" which obviously is not capitalized!). So why not the capitalization? Dutzi (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "dinosaur" is used in the same sense as "dog", "cat", "horse" and so on, not Styracosaurus, Tyrannosaurus rex etc.. I repeat, the genus of a dinosaur is always capitalized. Have you seen the article about Styracosaurus for example? There you can see that the "name" of this particular dinosaur is always captalized when it is mentioned, and this applies for all other dinosaurs and their articles.

And could you please post your answers directly after my comments, so that other users are able to follow the discussion if needed. Dutzi (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this! This is from the Wikipedia Talk page guidelines, "Good practice" section:

"Centralized discussion: Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea, creating discussions in separate places with no interchange of ideas. This is rarely desirable, and leads to redundant effort where an idea that has already been adequately addressed has to be considered all over again."

Maybe I'm wrong (after all I'm a newcomer, perhaps you could explain it to me) but in my opinion a fragmented discussion is useless. Other users should also participate. I think nobody really looks to the other user's talk page to see if his comment or question has been answered. Is that really too much to ask for?

But this is not the central point of our discussion. By now I'm tired of discussing the Son of Kong/dinosaur issue. I won't change your edits. But if you say that it is "irrelevant", why not use the common, "scientific" diction? Dutzi (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't understand at all what you are talking about or what your problem is! As I already said, I'm still a newcomer and I'm not familiar with all the Wiki rules yet. I've read somewhere in the Wiki guidelines that newcomers shouldn't be "bited" or "attacked" or whatever the word was. I have been fair and reasonable and I think your arguments concerning the dinosaurs are more than contradictory. My comments were not "irrational defenses"! And what exactly doesn't make sense? I just wanted to have a plain and "fair" discussion about an (in my opinion) important issue. But I guess you are not interested. I'm sorry for having bothered you! Regards. Dutzi (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audie Murphy's birthyear

Hello Ted, There are conflicting reports of Audie Murphy's birthyear. It looks like the proper year is 1925, as in your correction. His gravestone also has the incorrect year, but maybe we shouldn't change that. ;-) My uncle also adjusted his birthyear to get into the Army Air Corp in the late 30s. Thanks again, -Frank Gouveia2 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Scott

Thanks for alerting me to changes to the above-named article. Your changes are very much for the better, and very much appreciated. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Blanc

FYI... Your careful explanation about the 7 voices notwithstanding, a "new" user is on an anti-trivia crusade and has zapped the reference in that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and re-inserted a lot of that information; it wasn't "trivia" at all, and in fact, those "homages and tributes" carried some encyclopedic weight. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that there's a discussion going on about this guy's activities. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Fitzgerald, with whom I am currently in collaboration on The Maltese Falcon pages, had something to say about this kind of phenomena at his own user page:

It appears that there are people on Wikipedia who spend large parts of their time going through articles with an eye towards removing information that they feel is too unimportant to be included. Their ability to differentiate between what is important and what is not seems to be limited to what has been labelled as "trivia" and what has not.
Although some editors don't seem to understand it, there is a distinct semantic difference between "trivia" and "miscellaneous facts" -- one implies triviality, while the other denotes factual items that either do not fit readily into existing sections, or that are interesting or important enough to be noted, without being weighty enough to justify further exposition.
Another group of editors works entirely from a negative perspective. Their watchwords are "Wikipedia is not a [insert particular phobia here]," and they work overtime to delete (sometimes systematically, and often using their powers as administrators) anything that smacks of their personal bete noire. While they are often correct in an absolute sense, they are at the same time totally wrong. Wikipedia may not be a social networking site, for instance, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't have aspects about it which are similar to a social networking site.
It's amazing that these obstructionist editors can be so definite about what Wikipedia is, considering that Wikipedia is an entirely new kind of thing, and its nature is still in the process of being determined. By slamming the door shut on a specific evolutionary pathway, these editors are, in fact, forcing their personal point of view on the project. When they say "Wikipedia is not [whatever]," what they are really saying is "I don't want Wikipedia to be [whatever], and I'm willing to force my preference on everyone." Their actions are the result of prejudices and closed minds, and their actions do a disservice to the project.

Whew! Now isn't that a wake-up call! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 00:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. I like Ed better every day. I wish he would add his forceful statements to that comment page I mentioned above, because that's exactly what this allegedly "new" user WillOakland is doing. And I say "allegedly" because it's perfectly obvious he came in here on February 5th already knowing his way around. Like User:Burntsauce reincarnated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and asked him to do so, if he's willing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I recently encountered a couple of articles with their respective "Trivia" sections deleted whole hog (e.g., The Incredible Hulk (TV series), on 8 Feb. by an IP, & that was a big one). On the other hand, I don't think that simply retitling such sections "Miscellanea" and deleting the "Trivia" warning tag (as I have also seen--the tag wasn't dumped, but otherwise Hulk is again an example) deals with the regs' concerns either. In any event, the statements here that this sort of section isn't unilaterally prohibited and that the existences of several aren't flouting regs is good to hear. And thanks for the heads up. Ted Watson (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack/Rose

Rose just doesn't make sense in the context. I know they discussed Rose in "Utopia" but now things have moved on. At this point in "SoD" they are discussing the perception filter, and the Doctor says "It's like you fancy someone and they don't even know you exist". 1. Jack's expression is very similar to Martha's. 2. We know he fancies the Doctor. 3. They're not even thinking about Rose. 3. The "You too?" doesn't make sense if it's Rose. It's basically "you fancy him and he doesn't notice as well?" The Doctor knew Rose fancied him and he was pretty much in love with her, so there's no "you too" about it...Martha's situation (of unrequited love) is like Jack's not Rose's. Anyway, that's all my take, which is why I said "almost certainly not Rose". But that is POV, which I accept, hence I removed the whole comment, rather than reverting back to the "this refers to Jack" comment which was there before. Any conclusion is OR without a source. The DVD commentary doesn't seem to refer to it, so we need some interview or something with RTD to discover what he had in mind when he wrote it. Until then, any conclusion is speculation. (although interesting. Rose never even crossed my mind until I saw that edit...perhaps there's some reasoning I missed?) Interesting to discuss it with you... Gwinva (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, interesting...just shows how we all make different assumptions, and I take back my "almost certainly not" comment! All the more reason to keep those sorts of interpretive comments out of the articles without sources. I think some writers put lines in like that on purpose just to stir up fan speculation! But you've never thought Jack fancies the Doctor? Seen Torchwood? Gwinva (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; it's not everyone's cup of tea. Only mentioned it because the Doctor/Jack allusions were a bit more obvious (being post watershed). Still, even that's interpretation. He doesn't actually say "I fancy the Doctor". Gwinva (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs' Bonnets

Hey, Ted! I thought I'd go ahead and ask for your assistance. I know that you and I are both Bugs Bunny fans; with that said, would you mind stopping by and expanding the new Bugs' Bonnets article I just created. It needs a lot more work, work that I might not be able to provide, given that I don't yet have the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 5. Any expansion is appreciated. Thanks in advance! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Strange

Hi. Just want to ask you to give a quick read at WP:CITE#Shortened notes. "Sources" isn't a standard subhead. And the "Notes" section in this example uses the term "reflist" the name of the section is still "Notes" (alternately, "Footnotes"). Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would not use such an abrupt tone, particularly when you go against established guidelines and policies. Also, Wikipedia editors do not point to other articles to bolster our arguments since so many articles are misformatted. We can only go by policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kinder tone; it is appreciated. I guess we could centralize this at the Doctor Strange page; my thinking was that it might have been less public and more comfortable for you to do this your talk page.

Honestly, Wikipedia policy isn't arbitrary in that it's product of consensus that in some cases goes back years and has been thoroughly debated; this doesn't mean policy doesn't adapt and evolve, and when it does, that, too is the result of debate and consensus. Consistency of formatting is important, and with literally over one million articles, there going to be non-standard formatting. Whether any one style of non-standard formatting is "the majority," I'm not sure either of us can say — I can point to a hundred articles in a matter of minutes that follow policy. I think that's what we should be striving for. Otherwise, there's a hodgepodge. I'm not sure that's a better way to go.

Again, I appreciate your discussing this. I certainly don't go around as the Format Police, and really only concern myself with things in WikiProject Comics and a few pages outside it on my Watchlist, so maybe I could offer the compromise that you'll let WPC follow policy, and if you don't want to follow policy elsewhere, I will be completely hands-off! Fair? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for being a collegial peer! Happy Wiki'ing! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

My error - I meant to say 1974 for Invasion of the Dinosaurs (and of course by "different format" I mean the fact only black and white and/or different broadcast resolution versions exist from those originally broadcast). Thanks for checking with me, though. I'll go fix the error ... and the typo, too! 23skidoo (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Fudd vandalism

Hey there, Ted! I've noticed that, in the last couple of days, there's been some serious vandalism done to the Elmer Fudd article, in which some IP tried to be funny and changed all the r's and l's in the article to "w"'s. Unfortunately, due to conflicting edits, I couldn't undo the vandal's edits. I've been able to manually restore the lead to its previous form, but I don't have enough time right now to fix the article as a whole. I've already warned the IP who did this nonsense, so d'you mind fixing the entire article? Sorry, but thanks! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, and thanks! I caught a couple or two unnecessary "w"'s left in the article, but I took care of them. :-) I would've done the bulk of the work myself, but at the time when I relayed you the message above, I was running out of time for that day's session. Thanks, again! --Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spring in the Air!

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 03:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

Hello. I read your note [3] on WP:AN/I where you mentioned having issues with diffs. Try this:

go to the Zoe Heriot article
click history at the top of the article
click the left radio button beside the edit dated 11:47, 16 September 2007 by 83.104.34.185 (note how this makes a right radio button appear by the newer edits to the article)
click the right radio button beside the edit dated 11:53, 16 September 2007 by HungryHorace
click the "Compare selected versions" button at the top

You are now looking at the diff (or difference) for HungryHorace`s edit to the article. Hope this helps. Good luck! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What web browser are you using? On IE and Firefox, the radio buttons appear in between "(cur) (last)" and the time/date of the individual edits. I did not say this in my previous message, but the URL of the diff is normally used your text here, which in wiki code looks like

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoe_Heriot&diff=158306327&oldid=158305394 your text here]

Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you do not see the two columns of radio buttons between (last) and the date/time links on the history tab? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the issue must be a compatibility problem with your browser. I just check the Zoe Heriot article history with two versions of IE and one of Firefox, and I see heaps of radio buttons rather than just two black dots. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, but if you do not see what the rest of us do, then something must be wrong with your browser. Perhaps something in your IE has gotten corrupted or damaged? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But do you see the links labelled "cur" and "last" in the page history? You can get diffs from those, even if you don't have the radio buttons. (Although you would only be able to compare each version to the previous version or the current version, not able to compare just any two version with each other.) By the way, the radio buttons are little circles just to the right of the links labelled "last". --Coppertwig (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Doctor Who talk

Hi. I stopped by Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who) and read some of your contributions. While you have some genuine points to make, I'm afraid that the way you express yourself does not make it easy for other editors to engage with you, and hence makes it unlikely either that you will persuade them, or vice versa. May I suggest that you read these essays: Beware of the tigers, The Truth, and The Most Important Thing Possible? Some reflection on those might help you to dial your rhetoric back a notch or two and allow you to collaborate more effectively. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an un-involved editor (your post [4] to WP:AN/I a couple of hours ago was my first interaction with you), I feel that Bovlb is pretty spot-on here. Likewise, I suspect that most Wikipedia editors would view your rather snarky reply [5] to Bovlb as prima facie evidence of this. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could also suggest No angry mastodons. In particular, your responsibility to be civil and respectful is unilateral and it becomes more important, nor less, if other editors express disagreement or if you perceive yourself to be the recipient of incivility. Please stop and think about that the next time you find yourself using the "but he did it first" defence or offering speculations about what flaw may have led other editors to disagree with you. When you next respond, please indicate whether you have read the four essays I recommended. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

I replied to your message at Help talk:Diff. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've replied at User talk:Coppertwig#Diff problem. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this at Help talk:Diff [6]. Does that help? (The "radio buttons" that you can see change when you click next to a particular Diff.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied further on my talk page (User talk:Coppertwig#Diff problem). --Coppertwig (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

With regard to your comments on Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot & capitalization in tags

I have seen in several articles this bot (and perhaps other[s]) changing the capitalization of the key word in tags requesting citations, clarity, etc. The most recent one is in King Kong (comic). What possible difference can this make? The change certainly doesn't cause the tags to display any differently in the articles. Honestly, I am expecting a reply opening something like, "The difference is...." It's just that seeing these when I check the edit history of an article I am interested in/working on bugs me, and if I understood the point, they would slide right by me. Otherwise, I wonder if there isn't some better use for the energy/server space/whatever (that should give you some idea of how little I understand of how websites work from the technical perspective, and that I am wide open to a justification of this activity). Thanks. Ted Watson (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the parameter "date" is valid and will put the item in a hidden category, in this case Category:Articles with unsourced statements since February 2008, whereas "Date" is invalid. 97 times out of 100 Smackbot simply has to add a date parameter, three percent of the time it needs to fix up an incorrect date, misspelled parameter etc. Rich Farmbrough, 20:56 24 March 2008 (GMT).

Yes, SB does that too :- it canonicalises certain templates. But it should only do it when it is dating a template in an article. In a very rare case, someone will manually date the tag or remove it before SB gets there. (I've only seen this once, but it must have happened more often.) Rich Farmbrough, 21:38 24 March 2008 (GMT).

Happy Rabbit

Fixed, until he comes back again, if ever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I apologize for not being able to participate in this latest revision; I've been rather busy in this week, and will remain so until the coming weekend. I see that you two are doing more than a fine job without my assistance, though. :-) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alistaire Stuart

Carelessness, basically. I originally had it linking to "Alistair Stuart", but that was a dead link. So I found the misspelling and corrected the link, but due to distractions, I forgot to correct the visible text in the piped link.

Why was it a piped link in the first place? Because the original text before I made the link just said Alistair, and I thought it was smoother to leave it that way (his surname having already been established with Alysande). Again due to distractions, I forgot I was doing this, and added his surname to the visible text anyway. Fixed it now; thanks for pointing it out. Daibhid C (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner

Thanks for pointing this out; I was under the impression I was reverting "unlike Drake, No 6 never manages to escape", or something of that ilk. Apologies if I got it wrong. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Farr's bones

I'm going to have to look back through my collection. That oversized skeleton is hard to forget. Wryspy (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane & The Five Doctors

So, seeing your recent reversion of the IP edit to Doctor (Doctor Who), I was looking over the section in question to try and figure out a better way of wording it. So... a quick perusal of that ending scene from the serial (fortunately, one of the only two Who DVDs I own), and I'm not sure that Sarah Jane *didn't* understand who the Fifth Doctor was (being as she'd seen Three regenerate into Four)... just that she hadn't met Five yet (or, well, "yet" = "prior to this serial", not sure exactly when she first meets him in the serial itself) (naturally, since it was Four who left her behind). And, the Third Doctor is the one who claims that it's nice to have met her, which is what I take his "I'll explain later" comment to be about - IIRC, the idea is that the point in his timeline he's from is before he met Sarah Jane, hence it's nice for him to have met her. Anyway, what are your thoughts on this, do you agree? and if so, I would think that particular passage either does need to be excised, or massively rewritten. thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, looks like Ckatz did a clean-up and excision already, so I guess it's moot, but anyway, was throwing that out there to discuss if it comes up again. --Umrguy42 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Response from my talk) Huh. Welp, I'll have to rewatch the whole thing again at some point, but probably not soon - The Sontaran Experiment is next up from Netflix ;p Anyway. Yeah, definitely agree with Ckatz' work on that one. Best, Umrguy42 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Tennant's credit

Done! Angmering (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Always happy to help provide proper citations for my work on Wikipedia. Angmering (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your post at AN/I

I understand your frustration. The way Wikipedia works takes some getting used to! There are some problems that admins will help with, but there are many problems that people just have to work out by figuring out how to get along with others. For many types of problems, ordinary editors have just as much power to solve them as admins do.

Your post at AN/I is quite long, and reads like a story: this happened, then this happened, etc. I tend to write long posts too, but I've been making an effort to shorten things down drastically. It's really much easier to read if you express your main point in just a few words, very clearly, at the beginning, and keep the whole post relatively short.

I think your point is that people were lying. If they were, that's bad; but perhaps they were merely exaggerating, and in any case I don't think administrators usually do anything in particular in response to lying. You need to figure out how to navigate the situation yourself. Feel free to discuss with me further. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at User talk:Coppertwig#Re: re your post at ANI. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there again. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-Warring at Doctor Fate

I would ask that you either provide a source that specifically says what you want it to or cease in reverting my edits. As has been also explained in the article discussion per our policies and guidelines, we are not allowed to make a connection that is not explicit. Connecting two bits of information (in this case being a quote from Timm saying one thing and your personal opinion connecting it to something else) is synthesis. I have endeavored to point this out to you in article discussion (as well as your seeming lack of interest in being polite), and it would appear that my requests and suggestions are being ignored. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to seek out the counsel of someone who understands more completely our synthesis policy. If you revert in uncited information, I will report you for edit-warring and specifically violating our verifiability policy. I am sorry that you have brought about the necessity of this warning, but understand that I will file the complaint if it becomes necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned. An incident report was filed in regards to this matter at AN/I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tbrittreid, this edit you made to the Doctor Fate article does not appear to be supported by source you listed [7]. If you continue to edit war over this issue, you will be blocked. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any of this thread--and I do get automatically informed of new postings to my talk page whenever I'm in Wiki, of course--until just a couple of days ago, and did not read it in depth until now. Even though I have put up an altered version of my edit that apparently satisfies the two of you, it is not a concession that you are right and I am wrong. It is merely a concession that I will never get the two of you to understand that realizing 1+1=2 is not synthesis. Neither of you ever did anything but assert that my posting (which I did not initiate, by the way) constituted synthesis; you never explained how and why it supposedly did so. For a genuine example of synthesis, see here. So this warning, incident report and threat of blocking mean nothing to me. Ted Watson (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audie Murphy changes

Ted, I only just saw your addition to my user page discussion, regarding my sarcastic explanations for Audie Murphy edits. You certainly set a fine example of civility in your explanations for why you considered the original versions justified. I happen to be a newswriter and editor and so I have perhaps an overly elevated opinion of my style-editing skills.

Still, I think most of the changes were worth making because I dislike having things pointed out that a person of normal intelligence can deduce from the material, as well as statements of opinion such as "talented" that I don't think belong in an encyclopedia. But I certainly wasn't stating the case technically, which you did a very good job of.

Anyway, thanks for doing such a good job of helping me feel like being more civil. I'd like to leave you a "special barnstar," a barnstar for miscellanioius acts worth recognition that don't have a specific barnstar. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		message Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk

I restored all your edits, including your citations, without breaking the page. You broke the page by removing all the line breaks in the templates, lists, and citations. Don't do that, please. There's no real need to collapse all that, and as you saw, it broke a lot of stuff. However, Your edits did a few bad things. One, you added material under an existing citation which that citation couldn't really support, (like the back up features). Two, a lot of the things you wrote drew conclusions that either could not be supported, or were based on a set of citations that I really can't support the use of. The Comics database is another fan based collaborative project, and as such, can't really be used for drawing conclusion about the stylistic changes. However, lest you think all I'm doing is picking on you, I was able to use your info about how it was reformatted. I removed the 'completely reformatted' phrase, that they switched names and to color is enough to show a reformatting. and how much is needed for complete? that's a judgment call. Further, I reviewed the entire section and tightened it up, which I wouldn't have been pushed/inspired to do if I wasn't trying to incorporate your efforts. thanks a lot, hope to see you pushing us further on that and other pages, best regards. ThuranX (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can accept that some bizarre force of the internet blanked those line breaks. Do you use some sort of text editor, or jsut the default editing window? Do you copy out the old and paste in the new from a word processor? might be that some part of that is causing the troubles. As for the GCD, wp:othercrapexists talks about your defense that other pages use it. As for terseness, no big deal. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the 'claim' was cited to DeFalco, Tom (2003). The Hulk: The Incredible Guide. London: DK Publishing, 200. ISBN 0=7894-9260-1. In there, DeFalco specified that the release was tied to the show. ThuranX (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, no need to be hostile. Any add-on program could've done a small update, even an automatic one, thus setting things off. I won't offer suggestions on that anymore, good luck figuring out the cause. Further, the GCD, as a fan--written source, isn't as reliable as an editor at the company that published the material, who had access to lots of production data, company memos and so on. I agree, the dates seem to conflict with some of that, but we know a film takes time to produce, so Marvel may have chosen to get their side up and running sooner. I don't know why, and neither do you; what I do know is that I've found a reliable source, and I really don't feel the GCD is equally reliable. The authors hold no particular knowledge of the subject, and are volunteers there, no different than you and I. However, I note, in looking through some of their pages, no policies on citation, or prohibitions on original research, or the adding of opinions. In other words, we have non-credible folks adding whatever they think should be there. it's like a Wiki, and we discourage the use of a wiki to source for another wiki. Find secondary sources and so on. If you really think this is a problem, head over to WP:COMIC and ask for more input. ThuranX (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nice list of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. However, that's all it is. I provided citation for the information given. Find a good source and correct it. another wiki-style project isn't a good source though. I've given you options, stop yelling at me and get to it. ThuranX (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did NOT leave it neutral. I'm leaving it with your edit for a few days to give you time to support it with citation, in the spirit of WP:AGF. If you can't, I'll revert to the cited version. Remember, WP:V. ThuranX (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say you don't understand, so I'll make it clear. Your version is not neutral. Your version is based on removing cited information because you see a conflict with the supposition and information provided by a wiki-like project that has no qualifications as a reliable source, and your own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Despite that, I'm WP:AGFing, and giving you a few days to find the sort of sources that can support your version. If you do not, then I will revert it to a version with supported material. ThuranX (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who talk

Apologies if I ruffled any feathers with my attempt at pirate-speak yesterday, please consider it high spirits (and an attempt to relieve workday stress in a mostly-harmless manner). Best regards, umrguy 42 23:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to comment on Asgardian on a personal level, so memories are not needed. The issues are spelled out quite simply in the section in question, including what the FCB is. If you read my last couple of posts, it explains it. Even your statement about personal knowledge of a subject can be an addition to the conversation. Nightscream (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, if the events in question occurred as you described them, and those other people were exhibiting the same behavior Asgardian has been, then you were obviously in the right, and those on the Incident Board were wrong. Thus, I don't see where there is hypocrisy, unless you're arguing that any of the people who took one position with those people in that situation, are the same people who took a different one here with Asgardian. Since I was not involved in that other case, there is no inconsistency or double standard on my part. Are you arguing that this is the case with Daniel Case? I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you. Nightscream (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an institution, yes. As individuals, however, one admin cannot account for another admin's behavior. A given admin acting in good faith can only strive to ensure that their own actions are consistent. He/she can only state their position that something is right or wrong, and if wrong, that it is wrong whether they do it or some other admin does it. Since I agree with you that that behavior you describe on the part of the other admins is wrong, how am I a hypocrite? How is Daniel Case? Hypocrisy is not an accusation leveled at a decentralized group; it's something generally leveled at a particular person when they themselves exhibit double standards. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fallacy. Hypocrisy is generally observed when a single individual claims principles or standards that they do not actually uphold consistently. You can't argue hypocrisy by arguing that one person exhibits one behavior, and a completely different person exhibits a different one. How does me showing different standards from someone else make me a hypocrite? This isn't a fallacy. It's an irrational accusation made without the the benefit of coherent logic. But if you want to insist that I'm hypocrite for what someone else did to you, hey, cool beans. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this discussion has been terminated, so I have posted no refutation of this here or, as with my replies to the other notes above, on Nightscream's talk page. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna-Barbera

Regarding this, I've asked for something to be done about this guy, but "They" tell me there's nothing to do, just revert and move on. "They" can't even block him, cause it's not even really vandalism... Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Superman (disambiguation). 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. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiawatha

The one with the "last Mohican" joke was a different one, I forget its name. That was kind of a tall, pot-bellied and dopy-looking Indian. The one from Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt was short and looked a bit like Elmer Fudd. It was back-referenced in What's Cookin' Doc? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called A Feather in His Hare. The voice of the Indian in that one does not appear to be Mel Blanc. IMDB says it's Michael Maltese, one of the writers. That could well be. I'd have to compare it to other cartoons where Maltese was a voice. Co-writers of A Feather in His Hare were Maltese and Tedd Pierce, whose voices were both used in Wackiki Wabbit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunter

Did my edit make it clear what I was trying to say? Simonson says the following He shown me a long list of possible names for the character. Eventually we settled on Paul Kirk because that was the name of the Simon/Kirby Manhunter in the 40s. We didn't really do it at the time because we had planned to link the characters together. We did link them together later, but in the beginning we just thought that one name is as good as another, and why the heck not?

and "Somewhere around the third issue we thought it would be kinda fun to actually make it the same guy from the old Kirby Manhunter. We thought making him the other character would open up his backstory". BTW, would you consider archiving old discussion on this page, it's pretty big and slow to load. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a 24mps connection but I'm aware many of our users aren't :-) I've got the whole collection of modern masters so I've plenty of other quotes to put in and other references (those are great books) --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - no that's 24 MEG per second. Simonson talks a bit about the paper in his Modern Masters. :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi. I created a section over at the King Kong page explaining in detail the rights situation. (I finally dug out my book Living Dangerously from storage and went through it.) Anyway when you read the opening paragraph, I put "See Below" right next to with limited rights held by the estate of Merian C Cooper. I want to have it so that when you click on "See Below" it goes right to the "Character Rights" section. Since you seem to be a more of an expierenced editor then I, I was wondering if you knew how to do it?Giantdevilfish (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for the assist. Looks good. I hope that clears up any questions people might have about the rights. Mark Cotta Vaz's book is a great read and very thorough with pages and pages of citations near the back of the book, mostly from letters and court documents. His book is invaluable to anyone interested in Cooper's life. If his name sounds familar, its because he was also interviewed extensively for the I'm King Kong documentary about Cooper on WB's DVD release of King Kong (1933) back in 2005 as well as the Production 601 documentary on the film itself.

As for that Robert L Bendick fellow, according to the book (page 349) he was A combat cameraman with the First Motion Picture Unit from Cooper's old battleground of the China-Burma-India theater. He's also described as being the coproducer on the seminal Cinerama featureGiantdevilfish (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what Mark Cotta Vaz would have meant by "the seminal Cinerama feature." The only potentially relevant definition in the dictionary at hand here is "rudimentary" which might suggest the introductory film This Is Cinerama, essentially a travelogue designed to showcase the "new" process.

Yeah that's what he meant. In the earlier paragraph above when I wrote out that quote about Robert L Bendick from Pg.349, it's in Chapter 29 which is titled This Is Cinerama. That whole chapter is devoted to that topic. So that's what Cotta Vaz was referring to.Giantdevilfish (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee

Hi I am a student of the martial arts, and in particular Bruce Lee, So please I ask you to allow us talk together as the reasonable people we are, I am not without good faith in you, I trust the reverse is true with myself in an edit before anyone goe's willy nilly and reverts an edit or changes such, the cited material came from Bruce Lee's wife/widow in her book, "Bruce Lee, The man I only knew", I ask, what better source could one want?, however there are numerous films and documentary which also agree with this point regarding Warner Bros and their "old thinking" ways, actually prejudice, which I did not mention as this could be open to Non NPOV, and hurt peoples feels unprofessionally.

The George Takei narrated documentary made by Fred Weintraub, "Bruce Lee: The curse of the Dragon", and John Little's feature length biography "Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey" both document the fact that Warner Bros stole the Bruce Lee Kung-Fu series concept from him and put David Carridine in it out of fear of how a then very "white" American audience would take to a REAL Asian-American playing an Asian in a weekly series in the LEAD role.

Please wiki friend, In Mandarin I am called "Bei Kai Tuo", and as a female being a student of Lee's "Jeet Kune Do" is not always easy to be sure, but the rewards are beyond measure. Though Bruce Lee had a short life measured in years, his were many thousand in Wisdom, He was a true Master, his philosophy continues to help make many who are unfocused into better and more productive persons worldwide, are there really any other proofs you think Wiki needs to back up what I have said?, it is not research by myself, it is the words of the friends, and loved ones, and colleges of Bruce Lee himself who are saying these things not I.

sincerely cathytreks (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC) with all true respect, Cathie[reply]

这是误会。 cathytreks (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]