User talk:WickerGuy

Hello, WickerGuy! Welcome to Wikipedia! We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome!

Hello, WickerGuy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.

Potential conflicts of interest

Hi. Please be sure to read WP:COI, Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. I would hate for somebody to challenge your contributions to Wikipedia because of a perceived conflict of interest. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Malik. I did indeed read the Conflicts of Interest page, and elected to just do a very short summary of "Left Hand" instead of the one and a half page detailed analysis I had originally planned. This is my 'compromise' with the COI policy. Basically, I just wanted to get some Wiki entry into existence. A more detailed summary I think most definitely WOULD be a conflict of interest as my current job for Michael Lerner is to help develop the forthcoming Study Guide for the book "Left Hand of God". WickerGuy 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you're ever in doubt about whether something might be perceived as a conflict, put it on the article's Talk page and let other editors review it. Please feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Good luck with the Study Guide. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hello WickerGuy. The main problem with your edit was that you made it at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this encyclopedia requires verifiable outside sources - see WP:CITE - for an entry like yours. If you can find a book or website by a known Kubrick scholar (I mention this because blogs that might mention this usually don't count) then you can cite it and the entry can be made. If you can't the entry falls under the wikipedia policy of "No Original Research" - see WP:OR - which basically means that you are using your knowledge and opinion (more about this later) to make your entry.

Please don't let this put you off using this knowledge of SK's reuse of actors somewhere. They're are other wikis (some of which allow original research) or blogs or message boards (like IMDb) where you can put this out there for others to learn about.

The one other thing that I want to mention is that SK reusing actors may bump into a couple of things where other SK scholars and fans may disagree with you. In the first place it isn't unique to Stanley as many directors reuse actors that they like. John Ford and Akira Kurosawa used the same actors many more times than Kubrick. I think that the biggest thing that you would bump up against is the fact that on several of the commentaries and documentaries that have been included on the recent DVD releases of Stanley's films it is mentioned several times (most notably by Malcolm McDowell) about how exhausting it was to work for Kubrick and how most actors only had one SK film in them. While there were several who did two only Philip Stone did three and his screen time is mininal in two of them.

Now please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to start an argument over this point. I am just trying to give you a few things that are pitfalls about editing here and yes it does take some of the fun out working here.

As one more note - I appreciate your knowledge of, and looking for reoccuring actors in film. I love seeing some of my favorite British actors in both films and TV. As an example I recently got to see the very first episode of The Avengers. It originally aired in 1961. Sadly, only the first 15 minutes of it exist but I was amazed to see Godfrey Quigley, Murray Melvin and the aforementioned Philip Stone in this episode. I hope that you will appreciate the fact that I recognized right away that they all appeared in Barry Lyndon over a decade later.

I freely offer my apologies if any of this has offended you as that was not my intention. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lolita

Hi, thanks for adding those sources! I am not really sure what the accessdate parameter means to other people; I generally put it in because it makes it more obvious that on such-and-such a day, somebody actually looked at the source. It also makes the reference look better if the link itself goes down or something. Which I don't think is a problem with the NYT, but other web sources more likely. EAE (Holla!) 01:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello...I'm Luigibob. Nice edits on Lollita re "Differences between the film and the book". Super film, no? Best -- Luigibob (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh

FYI. Ty 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, as you suggested. Ty 13:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Names of spaceships in 2001

Hi there: Sailorlula here responding to your note. For years now, the general rule of thumb we've been following for plot/synopsis portions of the 2001/film article is simple and strict: if it ain't in the film, it doesn't belong in the article. WRT the scripts, you could find all manner of references in the various script fragments, both real and fabricated, that are floating around the web. Since even the genuine fragments of the script vary wildly from the final film, and since Kubrick was cutting and jettisoning frames of the film up to and after the premiere, that really doesn't amount to much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailorlula (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi. Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You may want to consider discussing the issue of spelling on the article's Talk page before you start Americanizing it. Just a suggestion. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Remakes

These three films are not considered remakes of Kubrick's films. There was no attempt to emulate his filmic or storytelling style. They are completely different takes on the source material, none of which Kubrick wrote. The Dumas novel The Three Musketeers has been adapted into films on numerous occasions and none of them are considered remakes of the first silent version or of each other. Peter Jackson's King Kong is considered a remake because a) the source material for his film is the original Cooper film and b) numerous scenes copy, enhance or pay tribute to the 1933 film. Please also be aware that that some of your entries are still Original Research. I have let some of them go though others have not. Also be aware that IMDb is not considered a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes. I am not trying to stop you from editing. The alternative versions could be mentioned on the pages for the three books involved. There are also numerous places on the web that you can share your enjoyment and knowledge of Kubrick's films including other wiki's that do not have Wikipedia's more stringent guidelines. MarnetteD | Talk 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

2001

I appreciate your polite note regarding my edits to the article but I believe if you read the archives and look at my most recent edit summary you'll understand my reasoning. I believe you should attempt to expand the "Music" section with properly sourced references instead of simply inserting into the narrative details about what music is used in specific sequences. Also, some of your additions seem like critical interpretation/opinion rather than plot details. I do agree with you that one of my edits was a tad hasty and inadvertently removed an important mention of the waterhole. However, I also agree with you that your version was sloppily written. Any good faith attempts to improve the article are much appreciated -- you should have seen how truly horrible the "Plot" section was a year or so ago! If you'd like to further discuss this, please add more comments on my talk page.-Hal Raglan (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lists

Hi. I'm not too familiar with the style guidelines concerning lists, but the changes you've been making look like they're big improvements. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDb trivia

One of the criteria for verifiable and reliable sources is that they cannot be another wiki since anyone can edit them. IMDb is considered a wiki by wikipedia (though I know that there can be some argument about that). The main flaw with IMDb's trivia sections is that, in spite of the fact that you have to submit your item for approval, they do not have very rigorous standards for the people that are doing the vetting of the items. The best discussion about this that I can find is here [1] from several months ago at the filmproject talk page. It is a bit of a lengthy thread - somewhere in it Ed Fitzgerald points out that IMDb might be a good place to start but it should always be backed up by other sources. In my opinion (POV I know) you are so good at finding other reliable sources that I think that you should always go with citing them and skip trying to use IMDb. MarnetteD | Talk 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of James Bond films with synopses

I have nominated List of James Bond films with synopses, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond films with synopses. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Lithoderm (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Lithoderm (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad that this seems to have turned out well for you. Lithoderm (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

James Bond

Thanks for your kind message, much appreciated. I noted in Talk: James Bond (film series) that there is a discussion re. the length of the plot summaries. I agree that the complex plots of certain of the films do present problems. With regard to The Living Daylights, how about this for the first sentence: "Bond teams up with a female cellist when it transpires she is not the (fictitious) Russian spy he was assigned to kill." As it reads at the moment there is some ambiguity, as she's not impersonating a cellist as well — she is one (or she certainly is by the end of the film)! IMO, ideally, each summary should be just one sentence. Any screenwriting guide will tell you that 99% of films can be summed up in this way: protagonist must overcome obstacles to achieve goal. Example: "Bond is pitted against a crazed industrialist to stop him from destroying Silicon Valley." However, for that to happen some of these would have to be pared to the bone and admittedly some of them don't lend themselves to it. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think what we have now is a good compromise. Unless there are any obvious fixes, I'll leave it as it is and keep an eye on any expansion. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I sometimes see further trims after I've hit the 'save page' button! :-)

"Death-defying" is a very overused journalistic phrase. Stunts are by definition "death-defying" as the job of any stunt coordinator is to ensure that no harm comes to any of the stunt performers. There is always a risk but since they are ultimately providing an entertainment, that risk is minimised so far as is possible. Sorry if you disagree with my edit but I just felt that the description was a little too clichéd. How about 'spectacular' as an alternative, since they certainly provide spectacle? :-) Chris 42 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked my watchlist first! Yes, the current wording is fine. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Arturo Bandini

Hello WG. My apologies for the lateness of my reply. It wasn't until I received my film project newsletter today that I realized that I had not responded to your message. It looks like AB is leaving Kubrick alone. I haven't taken the time to find out if he/she has moved on to other areas of wikipedia adding OR yet. I will try to do so if I get a chance but at least they aren't causing headaches in our area at the moment. Cheers and enjoy the new Bond film when it comes out. MarnetteD | Talk 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:FullMetalJacketUrbanWar.jpg

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

'The Shining' and Kate Bush

Hi, W. I've just stumbled upon your latest edit to The Shining (film version). As a Kate Bush fan I always thought that her song Get Out of My House was inspired by the novel, not necessarily the movie, though there's always the chance that you've found evidence to the contrary. Thoughts? -- DropShadow (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the song came out about two years after the movie. However, in an interview at "www.paradiseplace.org.uk/Kate/Katep15.htm" she does cite mainly the book, as she does in http://gaffa.org/garden/kate14.html. So you might have a point there.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC) PS. Two other wikipedia articles attribute her song to the film. But they don't cite direct evidence either. Think I may need to change this.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just one of those very minor points. I'd like to think she's seen the film, and been affected by it so much as to influence her music - but alas! I don't know if you've heard the song, but it's obvious that the novel is only an "influence" ........ there's actually nothing of the book (or film) in there at all. -- DropShadow (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Film Barnstar

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I noticed you've done a lot of work on film-related articles; so, I thought I'd award you The Film Barnstar. Good job! -- Luke4545 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote Liesl from the Sound of Music (in a less romantic context)
"Wheeeeeeeee!"
--WickerGuy (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:QMontage.JPG)

You've uploaded File:QMontage.JPG, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

Having 15 fair use photos on this page is inappropriate. It might be appropriate to use some of the images on the respective articles on the movies themselves. On this page about Kubrick, it's massive overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A two-part reply

1. General defense of more photoes for Kubrick article.

Kubrick is one of the most visually distinctive directors of our time (he having begun life as a still photographer) as opposed to some other directors who are better known for creating great acting performances or gripping social commentary. As such, a very liberal use of photoes appears in a lot of other published work on Kubrick, moreso than books on other major directors. There are three entire books: "Stanley Kubrick, Director: A Visual Analysis" by Alexander Walker and "Stanley Kubrick: Visual Poet 1928-1999 (Basic Film)" by Paul Duncan and "Stanley Kubrick, Director: A Visual Analysis" by Alexander Walker which contain frame-by-frame analyses of scenes from his work. And another more literary study "Kubrick: The Definitive Edition by Michel Ciment" is jammed with 400 photoes discussing Kubrick's style. And four photoes from his films appear merely on the cover of Vincent LoBrutto's general bio of Kubrick. To my knowledge only Hitchcock has been subjected to such intense visual scrutiny in printed books (and perhaps the specific film "Citizen Kane").

2. If Photoes must go

I'm not sure if there is any specific upper limit, but if photoes must go, three of my top four candidates would be the photoes accompanying Spartacus, Lolita, and Eyes Wide Shut. The first (at best) communicates info about Kubrick's relationship, not his directing. And the other two have more to do with plot elements of the film that provoked controversy or speculation rather than Kubrick's distinctive visual style (although you let stand the "Lolita" photo on your week-ago purge of photoes in the article). Finally, the third or three photoes down way below in the "Trademarks" session showing instances of CRM-114 might be a candidate for removal. I feel all of the other photoes communicate info about Kubrick's film construction technique sufficiently to warrant inclusion.

On the other side of the spectrum, top candidates for inclusion would be the Stedicam shot in The Shining, the photoes accompanying Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket- both showing Kubrick's cinematographic approach to war, and the photoes for 2001 and A Clockwork Orange showing the contrasting approach to using music in those films, and the Barry Lyndon shot re the candlelight.

P.S. Your user page is disarmingly funny. --WickerGuy (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Change of mind

On second thought, I think the clearer candidate for deletion would be the photo accompanying Clockwork Orange as it the caption is about the use of music in the film (in contrast to how music is used in 2001). The Lolita image nicely illustrates what is a source of controversy in the film, and I think now should be retained. Perhaps we need only one image showing how Kubrick photographed war instead of two, so that would nix the Full Metal Jacket image. I remain ambivalent about the Spartacus image since it does (very indirectly) illustrate a point about Kubrick's relationship with Douglas.

So now my top candidates for deletion (if any) would be the photoes accompanying Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, and Spartacus. --WickerGuy (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Also, as excellent a picture choice as it is, the film The Killing is a relatively minor work of Kubrick, so that would be choice #4.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply re Narnia

Thanks for the note, and thanks for supplying article content. Interesting sections tend to show lots of tread marks; I figured the time had come to reset the prose. It took a while to come up with a relatively concise heading, though: my early attempts tended to run onto two lines. Elphion (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: added refs to Trek section you recently tagged.

Thanks for letting me know of the changes - you have no idea how much that sort of little note is appreciated, WickerGuy. :)
To begin with, while I looked at the Star Trek sources you provided, I am concerned that the ones from startrek,com don't have authors. We don't know the provenance of the stories, and I am not sure that the general reliability of the site is good enough to take citations from. It would be awesome if there were references from outside the biased Trek community.
I am also concerned with the use of episodes to make points; its on the wrong side of the line between citing sources and making our own connections. This is also called synthesis. I think the article would be much stronger if we were able to find sources external of the episodes themselves and websites dedicated to the minutiae of Trek. In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am in fact an old-school Trekkie, and agree with most of your points. However, the article isn't written for us but for the casual reader. We want to find sources that they can find compelling and objectively neutral. To that end, there have been literally dozens of books dedicated to analyzing each and every episode of Star Trek in all of its incarnations - there must be ones that we can cite that make these connections, as we are not allowed to. Books are eminently more compelling a resource for citations, as their content does not disappear, as can happen with websites. News stories (be they on the web or in print) are preferable to a biased forum presented by Paramount; put in another way, who trusts Bush to give the full record on his own presidency, or a bank to give an account of every banking error it has made? Independent sources are much better, I think. I hope you think so, too.
On a last note, I think you might want to check out from your library the book "What Star Trek Means". It addresses a lot of your concerns. I'd do so myself, but I just finished moving into a new condo, and my books are stacked 5 deep along the walls; it will be a while before my bookshelves are occupied. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand where you are coming from, which is why I didn't revert the edit - I know you are thinking long-term, and not acting out oif immediacy. However, those citations should probably get replaced. If you need some help, I was planning on stopping by the library this weekend. I can look for some citations via the periodical database.

On a side note, are you aware of any sort of citable reference as to how the phaser evolved from a handgun-type to a wand-type? I recall reading somewhere that they were looking for something notably less-raygun looking, but I cannot seem to find it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Narnia talk

Your response [2] is right on target. Watch the civility in the edit summary though. Good faith, and all that. Cheers, Elphion (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to justify -- I agree completely with the reversion and with the analysis in your talk note, which is fair, accurate, and just (as your edits usually are). But the force of your argument will be diluted by the, um, frankness in the edit summary. All I'm saying is, things work better if we keep the discussion civil. Elphion (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Films? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Inter-series home video anthologies

Sorry about your section getting cut out. I put it on the talk page, however so others can debate the merits of keeping or removing it. Oldag07 (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling it needed more surrounding context to survive. But you made a good case that the surrounding context didn't belong there. Yet without the context it seems somewhat trivial. A Catch-22. It's a sort of orphaned concept given the current WP:Trek structure. DVDs need to be discussed with articles on individual series, but those DVDs bridge series, etc. Thanks. We'll see if another solution emerges.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

Hey, EXCELLENT images you posted on the Stanley Kubrick article. I've visited the Stanley Kubrick page on Wikipedia from time to time and was amazed at how it's been so wonderfully refined over the months. You've really bestowed the article a massive improvement as an in-depth and relevant analysis of Kubrick's filming techniques and style. Your efforts were obviously a labor of love and I would just like to commend you for the undertaking! WACGuy (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That James Bond page looks really good with the images. Good work! WACGuy (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

English usage

Thank you for your note. As to the first-person plural in this case, here's what Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:MOS) says: Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person's opinions or experiences; thus, the pronoun "I" is never used, except when it appears in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the pronoun "we"; a sentence such as "We should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal" sounds more personal than encyclopedic. As with any rule there are exceptions, but I do not believe that the examples in the Clark Kent article meet the criteria for exceptions. Additionally, the encyclopedia you cite, at least from the examples you provided, seems to be more of a teaching tool than general encyclopedia, and thus there is a common and natural collegial aspect to the writing, a teacher-to-his-students quality that does not apply to Wikipedia. I believe that, in any event, the WP Manual of Style does not confirm your position in the current instance.

As to the possessive form of Reeves's name, WP:MOS accepts the fact that there are two generally recognized means of forming the possessive of a proper name ending in "s". However, it emphasizes that making a possessive of a name ending in "s" by adding only an apostrophe is "more common for biblical and classical names (Socrates' wife; Moses' ascent of Sinai; Jesus' last words)." Also, there is a considerable evidence to suggest that American and British English differ on this matter in what is most commonly taught. Also, as per the Manual of Style, the articles must be consistent, and this article was not at all consistent in this matter. Finally, the most prominent style manuals available in the U.S., Strunk & White's Elements of Style and the Chicago Manual of Style support the use of 's at the end of all proper names, whether ending in "s" or not.

I believe my edits are more consistent with Wikipedia policy and with standard American English usage, which of course should prevail in an article on an American topic (also as per WP:MOS). Thanks for your message in explanation of your reversions. I will wait to hear from you before making any reversions of my own. Cheers. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

James Bond film series GAR notification

James Bond film series has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (novel)

Hi, I think you are reading that section wrong. The mission was originally planned to go to Jupiter but was changed to Saturn after the discovery of the monolith and it's message to Saturn. Garion96 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Blake

Hello. Thanks for your message. I do not doubt that Blake may have influenced the authors that were added to the infobox, but this influence has to be discussed somewhere in the article. Some biographical articles have references in the infobox for every name that is listed as influenced/influenced by (see, for example, William Gibson), but others do not. At some point, there has to be a limit to how many names can be listed, and we should stick only with those who are of great importance. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reversion of Kubrick Edits

To WickerGuy, First of all, thank you for informing me about the reversion of the edits and your reasons for doing so. My reasons for most of my edits and removals is that the article feels in several places too reverential, such as in the Tarantino reference and captions for images such as Paths of Glory as being anti-war before it was "popular", and ruins the objectivity we should be going for. There is also too much reference to the plots of the movies or trivia surrounding their production, which clutters the summarization and is better suited to the film pages.

Shall perhaps attempt further edits in future, especially in the incomplete projects section that has plenty of information but runs far too long. Thanks again Ode2joy (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

		The Literary Barnstar
		This Barnstar has been awarded to WickerGuy for the knowledge, time, and effort you've spent, and hopefully will continue to spend, on William Blake's article. Awarded by Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (film series)

Thanks for your work so far on the article. After finding and adding all the information to the respective film articles, I've been loathe to go back and summarize it all again :) Most of the content you need to fill out the sections should be available in the respective FA film articles; I'm working on finishing off Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and after jumping around a bit (II→VI→I→VIII) I'm sitting down and starting to plow through them chronologically. Ultimate goal is that :) Any and all help at cleaning up that mess of a page is appreciated :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SellersMontage.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SellersMontage.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2001Montage.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2001Montage.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:M Briefing.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:M Briefing.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BondPersona.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BondPersona.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi WickerGuy. Thanks for your note. It is good to see that you are still editing away here. I have been gone for awhile and I am not sure how long I'll be back for. It is good to know that the articles about SK and his films are in your capable hands. Keep up the good work and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 05:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bond girls

I notice you uploaded Image:BondGirls.JPG and its caption in James Bond (film series). Could you note who the other Bonds and Bond girls are in relation to the collage please? It could be on the image description page as the caption is currently encyclopedic and long. MeekSaffron (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, I noticed 3 images noted in the GA review Talk:James Bond (film series)/GA1, which resulted in a delisting though not from the images, were deleted from non-use only a few days ago. Only one, File:BondGames.JPG, was removed from the article then, and I haven't done an extensive history search of this and other articles they could've been recently removed from. Do you know why they were removed? I see SkierDude's notifications above deal with the other two images, but he seems to just deal with notification, not the person who removed them from articles.

I'm asking you because you said "Well, I'm the miscreant who uploaded most of the images that are in montage form." and I agree with the reasoning in your paragraph beginning "A lot of attention in this article is given to recurring motifs, most of which are fairly obvious to viewers of the films, and are hard to provide citations for." I'm not sure if they are hard to provide citations for, as I haven't looked but would think there's a ton of analysis and commentary for such a famous film series. But I do think the images add helpful visual commentary that would certainly complement the text. MeekSaffron (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kent family religion?

There's no mention of religion directly, but they did bury Jonathan in the cemetery of a Christian church (visible in the background). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I was just pointing out this technicality. In the film the family is implied to be Christian. But the religious implications of Kal-El himself are far more evident. "I've sent you, my only son..." and all that kind of thing. As far as I know, religion was never particularly a topic in the Superman saga. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also important to keep in mind that Siegel and Schuster had, as far as I know, no input on the Reeves films; just a screen credit as the character's creator and (maybe) some money to go with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Stanley K

Hi WickerGuy and Happy New Year to you too. Thanks for your note. Also thanks for finding a way to keep the note about overall regard for The Shining in the lead. The other sentence that I took out was so odd. Few things are thought of as iconic at their beginnings. Although I have to say that, as a devotee from "Strangelove" on (I was a bit too young to see the others in their original release), one of the great things about being in the audience of a Kubrick film was knowing that you were experiencing images and sounds that were unique (even iconic) and special.

A couple of other Kubrick things that I would like to run by you.

1. In regards to The Shining - In the late 80's I remember reading a TV Guide that was discussing things to view at Halloween. King was quoted as saying that although he had disliked the film at first he had come to feel that it could not have been made better by anyone else. Of course, this was years before the miniseries. The shift in his views over the years is interesting to note although I don't really think that there is anyplace for this in the article. I thought that I would mention it in case you had not encountered it in your Kubrick studies.
2. As we reached the end of this year I was reminded of another piece of Kubrickiana that sticks in my mind. Somewhere in the mid to late 90's (I think - although it might have been earlier) I remember reading some kind of discussion with Kubrick and/or Clarke and/or members of the MGM team that oversaw 2001.... They were discussing the fact that, as the film was nearing completion, the were trying to decide whether they going to pronounce it two thousand and one; or twenty hundred and one; or twenty "o" one. In opting for the first choice they felt that they were setting a precedent since they could not find any data that this wording had been used to describe the 1900's (except, perhaps, for the aughts). Since this way of pronunciation has stuck with us I am thinking that - if you remember any of this and - if you can source it - that it might be an interesting enough fact to find a place somewhere in Wikipedia. Maybe on Kubrick's page or the page for the film/book or even the page for the year 2000.

Of course, I am not asking you to spend any of your time on looking in to either of these items if you don't want to. I just thought that I pass them along for your perusal. Cheers and continued Happy Editing!! MarnetteD | Talk 01:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've responded to your message about "Eyes Wide Shut" on my talk page. Regards. Ironman1104 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:2001Montage3rd.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:2001Montage3rd.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Shining/Boing Boing

I feel this link is being assassinated unfairly by you and MaretteD. The notes are primarily liminal, they exhibit images, symbols, text and spoken words used directly in the film. It describes cogently cutting manners, disorientations, and dialogue paradoxes and specifically the Native American and Meso American patterns used extensively in the film and their proper symbolic placements within the film (all are academically referenced), surpassing the very weak Blakemore exegesis you seem interested in keeping. It even ends with a direct linkage to the Chief Cornstalk Curse, which your main article ignores, is dated EXACTLY on July 4, 1921, something that disintegrates Blakemore's assertion of irony, it is actually corollary. Please leave this link as it has provided numerous users with a vast resource for the film's understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all your link is to a page with a link to the article you are interested in promoting, while it also has links to mash-up trailers which potentially get WP mired in copyright problems. Why did you supply a link to a link? To make it appear more acceptable? To avoid having users see the F-word in the page-title when clicking on the initial link?? The specific article you want a link to contains a lot of "unverifiable research" which is overtly banned by Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. The Blakemore exegesis may be problematic, but it is mentioned in the main text of the article as a one possible (and mainstream i.e. widely promulgated) point of view, plus its contents are echoed by the exegesis of Geoffrey Cocks who is also cited in the article as having a similar interpretation. Other observers (notably Julian Rice) find Cocks' exegesis a bit strained and improbable, and actually the article probably should (and fails to) mention Rice's skepticism of Cocks on this.

In your exchange with MarnetteD you state that "The articles are excerpts from unedited notes to a book that is being printed this fall." That suggests you have some personal interest in promoting the material which is also against the WP:Conflict of Interest policy even if you are not the direct author. I admit I find MarnetteD's appeal to "fancruft" slightly problematic (Actually there is a WP policy Wikipedia:Don't_call_things_cruft), but his basic point about this having all the signs and appearance of self-promotional "linkspam" is quite valid. Even if we allow the term, nothing published in a mainstream publication like the San Francisco chronicle remotely qualifies as "fancruft", so in no way does your claim "the whole article is fancruft" carry any weight.

Especially damning is that you signed your first message to MarnetteD with the initials KM while the author of the article is "Kevin MacLeod" and although you claim later in your exchange with MarnetteD to be not the direct author of the article, both you and the article's author have remarkably similar mangled English syntax. Both you and the article speak a lot about "mysteriums" and "portals", and interrupt sentences with parentheses in the same slightly tortured fashion. These are strong indications you are the author of the piece.

Minor conflicts of interest can slide when verifiable information in minimal quantities is being promulgated. This is not one of those case.

I personally take a somewhat dim view of post-structuralism, and am a fan of the book "Fashionable Nonsense" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, but I strive here to not let my personal biases against that sort of work influence my judgement here.

As MarnetteD pointed out, follow the message on your talk page about signing your messages and try also to be a bit more grammatical. --WickerGuy (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: am not the author of the link, I am the author of the notes. I was never attempting to signify otherwise. If this is the rationale for violating the rules, then there is nothing more to say, but I have received substantial interest in the notes (both from individuals, media outlets) that allow me to perceive the notes are making believers out of many. Outside of Blakemore, you have plenty of unsubstantiated and divergent material (Ager) that could be labeled cruft through her lens (and its very undeveloped). I am not a post-structralist in the philosophic sense you're indicating (what Sokal is satirizing), I am a brain scientist, and rely on structuralism developed by thinkers like Pribram, Laughlin, Braitenburg and Gazzaniga to make my points, and Kubrick no doubt utilized a psychological method based in right-left brain structures to dictate the messy centers that comprise The Shining. Portalling is just an advancement of the biogen structuralists that are affecting neuroscience these days. MarnetteD was quite insulting, she ignores even the most basic distortions Kubrick was achieving here. Also, is not Boing Boing a mainstrem outlet now? It gets many more hits than the Chron ever will again? --24.193.10.71 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Also, I fear the semantics of this are failing, all of the data I've mentioned in the article is verifiable, carpets, rugs, wall hangings, hidden views, clear spatial distortions, by bridging the material together, I've made it causal. Also by verifying things like the missing power cables, changing backgrounds (missing wall hangings within sequences), there is a pattern that emerges that is quite obvious.--24.193.10.71 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, again, posting a link to a link of something you have written is a slightly cheesy and evasive way of getting around the WP rule against self-promotion. What is cruft is a bit subjective (as the Wikipedia Manual of Style makes quite clear- hence the rule not to use the term in edit-disputes), and I will concede that a lot of Ager's material borders on cruft and hence ought to be used selectively if at all. I deliberately avoided using much of Ager unless his views were shared by others. A bit of his work is suitable for WP if placed in context of a larger discussion (among many interpreters) of a particular aspect of The Shining, but much of Ager is indeed not suitable for WP.

Boing Boing is a group blog and is a directory to other things, and since you used it as link to your article rather than linking to your article directly (again a really cheesy move), its mainstream status is irrelevant.

You need to review Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and Wikipedia:RS#Reliable_sources. These policies are an integral part of the WP policy on research being verifiable. (Note WP makes a distinction between verifiability and truth.) WP is meant to reflect consensus and/or range of opinion within third-party sources that have being previously (in a loose sense) peer-reviewed. Making converts is not the same thing as peer-review. Note the policy reads "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

You say "I am a brain scientist, and rely on structuralism developed by thinkers like Pribram, Laughlin, Braitenburg and Gazzaniga". In psychology, structuralism was largely developed by Edward B. Titchener who was a psychologist (NOT a brain scientist) who died in 1927, a theory that is now largely gone and departed from brain research. As a neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga would not be considered a structuralist in the sense that psychologists use that word. Folks who study the architecture of neural nets in the brain (such as Simon Laughlin) are generally not referred to a structuralists. If you are confusing this with structuralism in literary theory and anthropology, all the worse.

What especially concerns me is that according to the mstrmnd website, you, Kevin McLeod, have "produced film, documentary, music videos, commercials, was a developer of the groundbreaking A.I. Webgame The Beast (Warner Bros.), coproducer of the documentary The Cruise (Artisan) and is the founding director of mstrmnd." You were also (according to Internet Movie Database) a co-production assistant on "Silence of the Lambs" and composer for the film "Jim". Other sources say you were a production assistant on "Cousin Bobby" and other films. However, here you have claimed to be a "brain scientist". It doesn't take either a rocket scientist or a brain scientist to realize that no practicing professional brain scientist is working as a production assistant on multiple films. (Not to mention that the term "brain science" is more frequently [though not always] used in the real world mainly to denote investigating physiological elements of the brain- the area you are exploring is more often called "cognitive science" and "neuroscience"- marking you as an amateur as does your confused usage of the term "structuralism") Both this and your original evasive practice of posting a link to a link of your own work then protesting "you are not the author of the link" peg you as unreliable and untrustworthy.

--WickerGuy (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations indicate poor manners, I guess that's what happens when you only have the web to use as a source. I have a BA and an MS in neuroscience, I worked on the first GUI computer ever developed (by Bausch and Lomb in 1981) in HIGH SCHOOL, and the structuralism I am referring to is not dead by far, it was deployed in the 80's as a facet of neurophenomenology. The structuralism you refer to is the Structuralism/Functionalism divide has little or nothing to do with brain architecture if I remember properly, and I was referring to Charles Laughlin, one of the founders of Biogenstructuralism not Simon, and yes, Gazzaniga, Braitenburg and Pribram are not themselves structuralists in both your used definition and the one I was actually referring to, but their research completes into structuralism, the structuralists Laughlin D'Aquili Hobson Varela all rely on the the work of Gazzaniga, Pribram, Kandel, Le Doux, Tooby as critical reference. I would go as far as to say that a thinker like Braitenburg is a clear structuralist, but that is merely an opinion. And yes, I did split time between an MA and production work in the early nineties. Right now I am splitting my time between epigraphic studies and an animated series, I do a lot of things and brain science was my first love. And the composer of the music for the film Jim is another Kevin McLeod. You should discover how poor your behavior is and how poorly the above paragraph reflects on your limited knowledge. You my dear are not inquisitive but derogatory without proper data. --24.193.10.71 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In March, my afterword is being published in a peer-reviewed book, published by a major academic press, regarding a critically important, now widely unknown thinker that revolutionized his field and only now are his concepts being fully deployed. I was asked to write the afterword not because I knew anything about him (I knew of him only because of a lecture I saw at the AAA), but because I blended my fields and discovered new things in the process. I will take no greater satisfaction sending you a link to it. You know my name, I do not know yours, please publish it here.--66.65.191.126 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that Charles Laughlin, although normally thought of as a anthropologist, is a founder of "Biogenetic Structuralism" which deals with the neurobiological foundations of socialization and society, and he is indeed on the cutting edge of the interdisciplinary mix of anthropology and neuroscience although he is usually classed as an anthropologist. His 'structuralism' is fairly close to the way that term is used in anthropology, rather than the defunct way it is used in psychology. However, in your correspondence with User:MarnetteD you speak specifically of post-structuralism, which only refers to structuralism in the sense used in both anthropology and philosophy. Post-structuralism is actually anti-structuralist, and is what Alan Sokal was criticizing in his book. If you really have a background in neuroscience (which I now acknowledge is quite plausible), your use of the word "post-structuralist" in your correspondence with MarnetteD is at least a careless slip, and it was legit of me to appeal to Sokal.

I think that after your book is published, it might be appropriate to include a short discussion of its contents in WP, but not while is exists in self-published form per WP rules of sources.

The Internet Movie Database lists the other Kevin Mcleod (whom they have dubbed "Kevin McLeod (II)") as the composer for the films "Date Night" and "Void", but you (whom they have dubbed "Kevin McLeod (I)") as the composer for the film "Jim". Clearly, a mistake on their part. (All 3 films are within the past 2 years.) I may indeed be "derogatory without proper data" but I assure you I am very inquisitive, and I already had grounds for being a bit suspicious given your disingenuous posting of a link to a link. If I over-reached, my apologies. We deal with a lot of oddfellows (and I use the term broadly) here at Wikipedia. WP's "Manual of Style" still constitutes the ground rules around here, and I think your stuff still falls into the self-promotion category as long as it is only self-published.

I remain bothered by the tortured syntax and structure of your sentences. Take for example "Portalling is just an advancement of the biogen structuralists that are affecting neuroscience these days." Wouldn't that be "who are influencing"? Wouldn't "It describes cogently cutting manners, disorientations, and dialogue paradoxes" be better written as "cogently describes [reverse those two words] cutting styles...". Did Kubrick "dictate" the "messy centers of the Shining"? Don't you mean "structure" or "shape" rather than "dictate"? When "dictate" is used with an object, the direct object is usually the contents of the dictation. What is controlled is the indirect object. This kind of unclear syntax is one of several reasons Alan Sokal was very critical of post-structuralist thinking. You may be working in a modified version of anthropologist's structuralism rather than its philosophical critique post-structuralism, but your writing abounds in the kind of unclear syntax and structure that Sokal took post-structuralists to task for and you did refer to "post-structuralism" in writing to MarnetteD.

If you go to my WP user-page you will on the left see a link that says "E-mail this user". Send me an e-mail and I will tell you my name.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Robinson

You accidentally re-added the reviews & chart position fields that I removed. Those are deprecated fields. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As always thanks

Thanks for your note WikcerGuy. I would like to email you about last months drama but I also respect your privacy and won't do so unless you okay it. MarnetteD | Talk 18:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know an email is on its way to you. Have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 03:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Lerner

Hi. The semi-protection was set to last for seven days, and then it expires. The indicator in the top right corner is the result of a template. There's a bot that removes expired protection templates, but it hadn't fixed the Lerner article yet.

Instead of protecting the article again, I blocked the newest sockpuppet. If vandalism becomes a recurring problem, we may need longer-term protection, but generally articles aren't protected unless they experience frequent vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like another admin semi-protected the article for two more weeks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hannibal Rising (film) and Xnacional

Hey, I could use some helpful eyes on Hannibal Rising (film) - Xnacional is bound and determined to force his preferred text on the page, disregarding the compromise version. Thanks! MikeWazowski (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring at William Blake

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Modernist (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion to you is for you to add information about Blake to the text of the article. Clearly you are an expert on Wm Blake. Repeatedly re-adding an ambiguous category against consensus of several experienced editors is pointless...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

carnival masks

Regarding this edit, you note that the women were wearing carnival masks, but you haven't citation for it. We have solid cites for the Venetian masks. Do you have citations that the women were wearing carnival masks? If not, we can simply describe the masks, like "feathered masks" instead of seeking to identify them without benefit of citation. Let me know your thoughts on this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i wasn't being clear: we can note the Venetian masks of the partygoers, as we have citation for that. the women wore feathered masks of a different kind, and we cannot classify them as "carnival/carnivale" masks without equivalent citation. It is the primary difference between you saying they are such and someone notably citable saying so. You might be an expert on the subject, but unless you are cited in published material, we cannot use that expertise to substantiate something - indeed, anything - within the article.

Unless you can explicitly cite the women as wearing carnivale masks, we cannot call them such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WickerGuy, I have said this before: your expert observationof the masks is immaterial here, and cannot be utilized in any way in the article. You need to cite where someone has explicitly specified the masks as being carnivale masks. Without it, the descriptive cannot remain. In the alternative, we could call them feathered masks; beyond that, we need citation. As for the parallel with the Lion King, it is cited that the story takes place in Africa (indeed, Dische's uncredited story treatment was called "King of the Kalahari"). No such citation exists that the masks that the women were wearing were specifically carnivale masks. Providing a link showing the same sorts of masks means you are comparing the two, advancing the opinion that they are of the same type: that is advancing a new position (ie., that they are the same); that's original research. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the burden of proof lies with the person seeking to add new information; in this case, that means you, WickerGuy. We are not in the business of advancing a viewpoint; we are pointing out connections and viewpoints that others have already made. You cannot make these connections. If you think I'm being too nitpicky, ask some admins about it (as many of them have thousands of edits under their belt, and might offer different opinions than myself).

The Nelson citation indeed identifies the masks as "Venetian masks"; it does not identify the subtype of mask, and it is inappropriate to do so without explicit citation.

Citation #2 confirms that Venetian masks were used in EWS. Nothing else. You are looking at the article and tying the history of the mask to the film, and the article - to be blunt - does not do that.

Citation 3 does not "specifically identify" the mask as being worn in EWS. Look at that citation more carefully. It identifies a model of mask with a model name. It is a marketing gimmick, not a explicit identifier. For further proof of this, look a little further down that seller's website. See the gold half-mask identified as the "Phantom of the Opera"? I think we both agree that this is not the mask used in either the stage production or numerous films of that musical. they are product models, not citations. You should probably avoid seller's websites, as their sole job is to make leech a connection off something popular to make money; their motives are suspect. This makes them unreliable.

You need to aim for citations that are bulletproof - ones that cannot get shot down by someone seeking exact, explicit statements of fact or quotes. You absolutely need to remove yourself from that equation, WickerGuy; we cannot use your personal expertise or familiarity on the subject.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

:Btw, you need to cite your contributions to the article on Ventian masks. I was going to remove it completely, but I am hoping that these conversations we are having are helping you to understand how to strengthen your statements. I am hoping that you will go back and properly cite your statements. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WickerGuy, we avoid using shopsellers, as their information is driven by their market and they are therefore unreliable and often becomes a dead link when stock runs out. As well, it is not my job to ensure that you cite the material correctly; if you do not wish me to assume facts that are missing in the citation, take special care to include the relevant information in the citation, such as page number, etc. Pardon All the Harsh™, but it is not my job to make sure "I read Nelson well enough"; you are the one adding him, so you need to insure that your text and the citation connection is utterly clear. If you have even the slightest whimsy of doubt that you are going to be misunderstood, head to the article discussion page, open a new discussion section and seek some assistance from others. Most of us are happy to help someone avoid creating a misleading statement in connection to a citation - it makes for a lost less work later on. This willingness to help others is one of the strengths of Wikipedia; none of the articles are written individually. Why else would I be helping you to understand some of the more subtle weight of our policies and guidelines?

Your comment about the cold glittery Phantom of the Opera mask doesn't seem accurate. A simple Google image search for Phantom of the Opera (after searching the disambiguation page of the subject for insight) brought to light precisely zero gold Phantom of the Opera masks. Indeed, in practically every incarnation save the original 1909 novel, the mask is white or off-white. Not gold. This is likely an attempt by the seller to appeal to those folk interested in expanding their Mr. T Starter Jewelry Kit (hat last bit there was a joke, btw). In any case, it proves my point rather well; just because the seller is marketing something by a certain name doesn't reliably make it that thing. This is why we avoid shops as citations, as they are notoriously unreliable (and fleeting).

What you saw as faulty reasoning was me insisting you don't wander too far away from the citations you went out and found. There isn't the slightest bit of explicit citation to note that the women were wearing feathered Venetian masks. In the absence of that, it is far more durable to simply stat that the women are wearing feathered masks - this is what I have been pointing out repeatedly and continuously since this discussion started.

I am sorry that you are beginning to have trouble taking this matter seriously. I do take the matter of citations very seriously; when Wikipedia gets slammed in the news or by its online opponents, it is almost always due to bad citation work or worse leaps of faith. I am not suggesting that the presented situations constitutes such, but I am here in Wikipedia to create exemplar articles. That means ensuring that the citations used within my range of articles are solid enough to whether any storm of criticism. To that end, we don't use unreliable sources. We do not go further than the citation gives us. We do not bring our own familiarity or expertise of a given subject into the article.

You have found enough to carry the subsection on Venetian masks, though I personally feel that you had enough to instead focus on what the use of the Venetian masks was meant to symbolize, using the numerous sources you found to develop out what Kubrick was seeking to do in the film. To paraphrase Olivier, don't focus on the prop, focus on why and how the prop was used. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WickerGuy, I think we need to avoid any links to seller. I am almost positive that were you to ask any set of administrators about this, they would agree - websites selling things aren't reliable and their information is unsupported (we don't know how their information was arrived at). We don't use them for anything.

I know what Venetian masks look like; I just don't think we can prove that the women are wearing carnival masks, and should avoid doing so without citation. We can look at all of the images we like and personally note the similarity of the images in the film, and those feathered images from websites. However, our observations cannot be used in the article or discussions, as we are not notable.

Find a citation that explicitly notes that the women were wearing masks, but Venetian carnival masks, and I won't have a problem. Until then, we need to simply note that they are wearing feathered masks. The simple descriptive of feathers is okay; explaining the background of the masks is not without supporting allowable documentation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned that your changes are going to get altered or changed, come to the article discussion page and we can iron out potential problems before they occur. As well, i would appreciate if you would start using the proper citation templates now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BlofeldEvil.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BlofeldEvil.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BondGirls.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BondGirls.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:QMontage2.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:QMontage2.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)