User talk:808Starfire

Welcome!

Hello, 808Starfire, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

"A Christmas Carol"

Just wanted to express appreciation for your attempts to turn that mishmash into a respectable article. Your edit summaries are especially good guides for future editors, though in the three years or so that I have done occasional work on the article the greatest amount of vandalism and illegitimate edits actually comes around Christmas (no surprise). I also have tried to get the jacket-blurb prose out of the article and deflate the inflated claims made on the book's behalf. The irony is that in trying to promote the book into something that it is not (the "invention" or "salvation" of Christmas in the UK and US), the fawning edits actually undercut the value of this minor classic, which may well be the clearest, angriest, and most moving indictment of Industrial-age capitalism in the language. The other problematic aspect of edits to the article is that editors frequently interpolate comments based on one or another of the many film versions, and with the Carrey project upcoming (shudder), I expect that such problems will recur. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - I took the liberty of replacing Scrooge McDuck with George C. Scott in the highlight list of actors who have portrayed Scrooge. 05:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the fantastic job you are doing on this article. Sometimes it needs one editor to come along and sort everything out, as you have done here. Jack1956 (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tip

If you want to nominate a redirect for deletion, please place the {{db-redirtypo}} message (or other speedy deletion template) at the beginning of the page, before the #REDIRECT directive, so that it will be visible to administrators. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Temple

Its nice that you are improving the article, but why are you removing references? Specifically here and here.75.69.0.58 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll look at these again. It may be I know they can be replaced with reliable citations from books. I'll check this out. I may have been working quickly when they were deleted. Be patient! Thanks again! 808Starfire (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Graham Greene incident can be developed. That's why I deleted it. The incident is thoroughly examined in books about Temple and I'm even thinking about creating a separate section on the incident. 808Starfire (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel that if one reference is okay, then two is better. It can get out of hand though, I have seen statements that had seven references. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you going to convert your references like: (Edwards 123) and (Windeler 43-4) to inline references? 75.69.0.58 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about this. What I'm using is Harvard referencing (acceptable according to WP for topics on the humanities) and am wondering about converting them. I think they're absolutely fine at this point (easy to read, etc.) but if I get feedback on this, I'll convert. 808Starfire (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the style, I just haven't seen it much on WP. Most pages I have seen use ref tag and inline citations. That has a lot of flexibility and allows for a consistent style no matter the source media. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 04:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.