User talk:Before My Ken/archives 2 Jan-Mar 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Peer review requested for Duck Soup[edit]

I've now 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. Input is appreciated. — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my previous edits to the Duck Soup page, as well as clearing up my rather broad inferences. The article is looking better each time I visit it. :) — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 15:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And thank you for tightening that section up. The article might not yet meet the good article criteria, but it's certainly getting there! And I went ahead and reverted "footnotes" back to "notes".  :) — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 16:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The color of valor[edit]

You're right, it's got nothing to do with whether Miller was black. If he wasn't, he might have gotten the Medal, instead. And he damn sure wouldn't have had to wait 50yrs, like some guys from the 78th? did. Or like the guys of the 442. I'm just hoping putting it in isn't about race, either, 'cause that's no better. I don't want (or intend) to make that accusation (if that's the word). Trekphiler (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I'd never even have noticed if I wasn't "watching" the page, so my compliments for removing it.)

No, putting it in has very little to do with race for me. BTW, I regret posting my remark, even for the few minutes before I removed it. My apologies. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No apologies needed. I was trying not to ask (in all the heated posts I was doing) if it was an issue, & not have it come out like it was for me. Evidently it seeped in it was, & shouldn't have. We're square.
Let me put this to you. If Miller had been on duty at the comm office where Ward signalled & had said, "A Jap sub at the harbor mouth? Better call the Admiral!", or had taken a bullet that would have killed (geez, I dunno) Rochefort, that would be notable. Manning a gun when somebody's shooting at you, isn't. If there's ever a page for the awards, tho, give him the full treatment there, or on his page, 'cause there, it's notable. It's a matter of...scale, for me. This is too small. If I adopt your standard, every act of valor is worthy of a footnote, it seems, & I don't accept that.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree. Trekphiler (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Oxford university wine society[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Oxford university wine society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This page was not created by me. "Edfitz" is no longer my user name, I changed it to "Ed Fitzgerald" quite some time ago. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies. Someone has recreated the user name 'Edfitz' and I didn't pick up on the redirect. Sorry. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem -- I just left a longer message on your talk page on the same subject. I've removed the redirects. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


"Your edits are not that good"...I understand you deleted that one, but I did see it and it hurt. I hope you understand that I am really trying to work with you here...but statements like that one make it difficult to believe you want anything but to beat me into submission. I did make the mistake of not checking what your edits where before I started, and I appologise for that. Now, according to the discussion page you intended for the section to stand which was why I started editing. What is it you intend to do? Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I apologize for hurting your feelings -- I thought better about it, which is why I went back and changed the comment. My intention is to insert into the article, or as footnotes, material which can be readily inserted without disruption to the flow of the writing, and to leave the rest of the material where it is. I do not find list of miscellaenous facts objectionable. I understand they have the potential to grow like Topsy, but that simply means they have to be kept under control, just like any other aspect of an article. I'm continuing to look at the material and see where it can fit in, but I believe I'm nearing a stopping point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

An electronic medium is a poor way of communication, and it has a tendency to amplify...well everything. I know you didn't intend that the way it sounded, especialy judgeing from your last post. once you are done, please post on the discussion page what direction you think the article can go. I look forward to your edits. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, and your point about electronic communications is a good one, but the fault is mine -- I felt harried and rudeness came to the surface as a result. In any event, I think I'm done with the article for the time being -- I'll take a look at it later today or tonight, but I think I've done what needs to be done. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
it may have been rude, but it was somewhat justified. I took a look at your edits, and they do work alot better than mine did. I do like the direction you where heading in. (I must say that when I was editing I ran into the footnote about the song at the end of the movie and was wondering who put that there). in any case, I am glad we are able to discuss these things and look forward to working with you in the future. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Links on Westchester County, New York[edit]

I've copied this discussion to the talk page for Westchester County -- please post responses there and not here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I saw that you undid my revert of the links to on Westchester County, New York. I feel that these links are being used to promote this website. I have removed these links a number of time and a number of them always seem to reappear. Furthermore, the fact that multiple links to the same site are added at the same time indicate to me that they are added for promotion. Wikipedia's external link policy states that links should normally be avoided if they "mainly intended to promote a website." I am open to your input on this subject and I think the links should be removed. Please feel free to discuss this here. --24fan24 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically all of the edits of (talk · contribs) were to links to various pages. --24fan24 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Also all of these edits have been to add this site to Westchester County, New York: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] --24fan24 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
We've repeatedly asked this person to stop adding his links and he won't stop. It looks like the only way we can stop him may be to blacklist his domains. --A. B. (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see what you have against the websites. I was unfamiliar with this editor's past history, or any conflict with him, but I found the sites to be informative and useful. I see no harm in allowing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, I would prefer that this discussion take place on the discussion page for Westchester County rather than here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I represent Although we do have a few ads in order to cover our website expenses, is mostly a non-profit community based information resource for Westchester residents. More than 80% of our information is about community topics such as Town Libraries, Town websites, Colleges and Universities, School Districts, Health information, Post Offices and much more. This information is presented in a clear and consise format that is not readily available anywhere else. It has taken several years to compile this information and we update regularly to reflect changes such as a school closing.

Many Westchester residents have sent emails thanking us for the "extensive content" of our website. I apologize if I've re-added this information - but because of the nature and importance of links such as: Libraries, Colleges & Universities, Our special Interactive Map of Westchester County, Hospitals, Emergency information and more - I believed my links were deleted in error. I did not read or see any requests to not add our information - until tonight. Many websites refrenced in wikipedia have loud flashing ads - We do not. Our ads are quiet, subtle and confined to a small area of the page. Any pages we have added to Wikipedia have contained relevant and important information. We promote many important topics such as Local and Organic Farming, Pesticide Prevention, Children's Educational "approved" websites, Local Historic Sites, History of each town and much more. Our new Demographics Section contains important data regarding the Environment such as Air Pollution, Waste Sites, Clean Water ... We are currently writing extensive information on Environmental Issues and how to go "Green" in Westchester. We strongly promote working together to clean our environment. I hope that you will reconsider your removal of our links.

The reason there are multiple links to is that our information is organized by community and town; each town having its own Home Page. We therefore provided links to the appropriate area. We have over 1000 pages of research and information. We added a very small percentage that we believe has added value to the Wikipedia sections as they relate to Westchester.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to a favorable reply. Gail JonChuckles (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CRM 114[edit]

Thanks for putting it into a sub-sub-section on the Dr. Strangelove page; that's probably the right way to handle it. I wasn't really happy with the multi-paragraph list item I'd created, but I wanted to put that item in its proper place (a page for a program named after the device wasn't it), and figured either I or somebody else would fix it up later. Guy Harris (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You've probably noticed that I moved the non-Kubrick part of the CRM section into a footnote. There were several reasons for this -- not only was it looking a little too big for what is basically a sidebar subject (worthwhile to include, yes, but not to spend a lot of space on), but also having it there in what some people will insist as seeing as a "trivia" list would just attract the attention of people who'd be quite happy to delete it entirely. I felt that by pushing down the off-topic part into a note and leaving the part actually relevant to the article's topic, I was, in effect, helping to protect it and avoid a fight over its inclusion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

John Adams[edit]

On your user page, you have a line that links to John Adams, as well as to Brian Eno, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, and Terry Riley; was he the John Adams you had in mind, or did you have another John Adams in mind (or were you trying to separate the sheep from the goats :-))? Guy Harris (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No -- good catch. I put that section up recently, and obviously too quickly. Thanks! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Red Shoes" references re-org[edit]

I am planning on doing them all, I've done a few already - because I like it as well It wasn't my original idea though, Bzuk started it by doing a similar operation on the pages about Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, WP:LAYOUT is the guideline concerning end-sections. --Jtir (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical adaptation[edit]

Hi, I noticed you removed the {{dictdef}} tag I had added to theatrical adaptation. Please leave this tag until the bot has taken care of it. This will not result in the deleting of the article, simple the transfer of the phrase to Wikitionary, as its current form would be useful there. After this is completed the bot will replace the template and it will be as if nothing happened.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It was unclear what would happen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robert Brustein.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Robert Brustein.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Duck Soup[edit]

Sorry. I've done some Web-surfing, and it wasn't Roger Ebert who said that. It was online film critic Danel Griffin, who works for the University of Alaska Southeast. Ebert does admit, however, in his own review of Duck Soup, that, while he enjoys many of the routines in A Night at the Opera, he must "fast-forward through the sappy interludes with Allan Jones and Kitty Carlisle. In Duck Soup, though, there are no scenes I can skip; the film is funny from beginning to end."

Danel Griffin also has an excellent, critical website, called "Film as Art", which you should consider giving a look. I think you'll agree with his analyses of Marx Brothers films. See other pages like Night at the Opera, Monkey Business, and The House That Shadows Built for more such links. — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 02:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your good work on the Blimp article. I may go in and make a few minor tweaks -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC) The Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society

No problem -- I hadn't gone back to look at the totality of what I did and make whatever adjustments I thought necessary. Probably, you'll find some of them and fix them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, wonderful film, isn't it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Undoubtedly a classic. For me, it's just beaten by A Matter of Life and Death, but only just -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that -- Red Shoes, Matter, Blimp are, I think, my top three P&P films. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Continental United States[edit]


Don't have time to give a fair response right now. My quick reflex reaction is that the article as of this minute appears on the whole to be factually accurate but aesthetically (by which I mean, ease of reading and understanding) wanting. I'll try to address this later.

You know, the easiest way I can think of to do this would be to place the article in a Microsoft Word article and attach comments (assuming you have Office 2003 or later—I absolutely despise Office 97 and earlier versions). I don't normally exchange email with fellow Wikipedians, but this might facilitate an explanation of my feelings. If you are interested, provide me an address to mail my suggestions. Unschool (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Another way would be to create a subpage somewhere you both agree on. Editors who are making major changes to an article sometimes put the drafts in a sandbox under their user page -- e.g. User:Unschool/Sandbox/Continental United States. --Jtir (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

links on dab pages[edit]

Hi, this doesn't mean that I really understand the reason why. --Jtir (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you don't understand the reason why, please don't do it. We're not automatons blindly following pre-programmed instructions. As a heavy user of the encyclpedia, I can tell you quite definitely that it's better with the links then without, no matter what a manual says.

For instance, sometimes I'm searching for a reference to something, and I can't latch onto it, but I've got an idea about something it's related to, and I go to that article and I find there a reference which puts me on the right track. It makes no sense to denude Wikipedia of what makes it so valuable -- links -- on a page whose entire purpose is to act as a guide to where to go for the confused.

So do me a favor, leave it be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your cleanup of Bridge[edit]

Hi, thanks for your cleanup of Bridge. I especially like the way you handled the "unplanned uses". I came across the article only recently after I got bored and decided to skim the recent changes. What is your opinion of the "visual index" in Bridge? --Jtir (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Decisive (re:Pearl Harbor)[edit]

== Are you in, decisive? ==

I've notice your comment on my watchlist a couple of times, now, & keep forgetting to say this. FYI, I was using "decisive battle" not as descriptive, which got disputed (with reason), but as a technical term, in ref to IJN doctrine. If you're at all interested in how it's meant, have a glance at Imperial Japanese Navy, Alfred Mahan, & War Plan Orange. Trekphiler (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Just ignore me, it's been a long day... Trekphiler (talk)


Ed, Bzuk is a Dumb Ass and makes use of every oppurtunity to prove it. I would prefer that you use the terrm "plane" as you see fit68.244.171.75 (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I hardly require this kind of impolite, uncivil and anonymous support to do what I intended to do anyway. Kindly refrain from posting this kind of message in the future. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ed, this is the work of a notorious vandal, wikzilla and the accounts that were used have been suspended. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC).
Yes, I've read some of the record in various places here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


You are correct. I was impolite uncivil and anonymous. I will refrain from making posts, as you wish.

Disclaimer: The ‘Refrainment’ is limited to making such comments on your talk page or on other pages when in discussion directly with you. Comments may be made on the mentioned pages as long as all three requirements are not simultaneously achieved. That is: The comment may be impolite and uncivil as long as it is not anonymous, it may be uncivil and anonymous as long as it is polite, or it may be impolite and anonymous as long as it is civil. This agreement is limited to visible print, entered in English, and does not include hidden text, comments in the edit summaries, links to other pages or encrypted remarks within the text. This agreement is non-transferable and subject to cancellation at anytime by written notice.

I hope this is acceptable. BTW, I appreciated your non-refute of the facts of my statement (which I construe as an endorsement and agreement of the comment). I understand that by directly mentioning this, you may be forced to refute it to avoid a charge of PA, which would be an insult against your heretofore unchallenged good character.

Please continue on, as you have in furthering the project and admonishing those that do it great harm.

Again, I believe this encyclopedia is for the users, not the editors. Plane is most appropriate. (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One of Our Aircraft Is Missing[edit]

Ed, I've begin to tackle this landmark film. Please tell me if I am on the right flightpath, glidepath, bramble path... Bzuk (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

Gee, I haven't watched it in years. I'll take a look. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It is an interesting one. Not as "high drama" as some of the other P&P films. It's more "British understatement" throughout. The women do play a significant part and get some good speeches about being in occupied territory. Some of it is decidedly weird, like Hugh Williams deciding to disguise himself as a Dutchwoman - despite his great height -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr Strangelove[edit]

Hi. You reverted my edit to Dr Strangelove concerning Slim Pickens not knowing that he was acting in a comedy. I think the idea that anyone could act in a film without learning of the genre of the film (regardless of a lack of access to the script) is ridiculous. He must have been interacting with other actors and crew on a regular basis. It is worth noting that this sentence contained no citation. In any case I'm not interested in an edit war so I've just left a [citation needed] tag in the article. Cheers. Robert Brockway (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've worked around actors for 36 years -- it's quite believable. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

your reversion of User:SmackBot[edit]

Hi, why are you reverting User:SmackBot edits without explanation? As the documentation for "undo" says, only vandal edits are to be undone without further explanation. Further, SmackBot puts a date on the {{fact}} tags. If you really want to disable SmackBot, there is, I believe, a way to do that. --Jtir (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Geez Louise, I'l bet you never, ever jay walk! Thanks for the info about SmackBot, which I didn't know - I'll look into it. In the meantime (1) the Bot undoes spacing which I find desirable in making a page more readable, and (2) the dates on tag should never be updated, since they provide a record of how long a tag has been in place, a valuable piece of information. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The first space has no apparent effect, and the second two have some, but not significant. (I have been known to add one just above the footer navboxes, myself, though.) As you may now realize, formatting for your particular display may or may not affect what anyone else sees.
BTW, SmackBot was adding the date, or have you been riffling through my contribs again? --Jtir (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
User:SmackBot has a link to {{nobots}}, which is what I was referring to. --Jtir (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not impossible the SB might hange a date, but it certainly is not intended to. IIf you find an example, please leave me another note. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03 3 February 2008 (GMT).

P.S. reverting SmackBot is generally a waste of time, as it will mindlessly re-apply the changes. If there's a problem stop the bot, and tell me. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03 3 February 2008 (GMT).
P.P.S. the Big Red Button will stop the bot. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03 3 February 2008 (GMT).
I'm not sure I want to stop all bots. I wish there was a specific switch. And, are you saying that it doesn't update tag dates, just add them if they are not there? If so, that's good, and thanks Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe there is a way to get SmackBot to leave certain spaces alone by putting in special markup. I don't believe there was a problem with the date, it was a new {{fact}} tag that I added. --Jtir (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

NRHP infobox[edit]

Hi, I noticed your changes to Template:infobox nrhp. The changes are causing the images to display at full size. Altairisfartalk 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I reverted back to the original format. I know you meant well, but the template can be tricky, so please to be careful about making adjustments. Nice work on the Flatiron Building article, btw. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry about screwing up the template. I just made another change, can you see if I screwed up again? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks OK now. And believe me, I've screwed up way worse in my time. In any case, keep up the good work on the articles, doncha know. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know why it's larger than the others, that part of things is way over my head. The new changes seem to be fine though. Cheers! Altairisfartalk 03:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

anonymous users aren't[edit]

The term "anonymous user" is so misleading that I have stopped using it, preferring "unregistered user" or "IP user" instead. Clicking the "WHOIS" link at the bottom of an IP user's contribs page will return more info than can be known about a registered user who does not say. These two are pertinent to 23 skidoo: contribs1 and contribs2. --Jtir (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Guardian Angel. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Really nice work with the Halsey article - it reads easier and is more balanced then before - but the additional material needs sourcing via footnotes. Your revisions removed/altered a lot of sourced material and while I'm sure you've got your facts right, you still should cite your sources.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? I didn't realize I had deleted sourced stuff -- I'll go over it again and check it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Information important[edit]

Like you, I do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing[edit]

All right, so you're not content to leave this to one page, are you? What is it with Wikipedia editors ignoring calls for discussion? The more I edit, the more I realize most of you are arrogant and stubborn. But I, for one, am trying to be reasonable here. I don't care about your Wikipedia philosophies, which means you've got three options: abide by the guidelines, give a damned good reason why those guidelines shouldn't be followed and get them changed, or stop editing Wikipedia altogether.

I really don't want to have to invite other editors to take a look at this situation. If an administrator gets involved, you'll just get a huge chip on your shoulder and continue your vendetta more quietly. I know how editors like you operate. So, shall we discuss or would you rather impose your stylistic views on those who don't want such an imposition? (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wiki-stalking me. And yet you have no time to reply to my comments here or on Talk:23 skidoo. How odd. (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to think that there's some reason why you wouldn't immediately take this to an administrator; why you, a bold and fearless editor, would take the relatively weak course of posting on my talk page, and on the talk pages of two other editors that you are aware I've had interaction with. I wonder why an anonymous editor who comes out of nowhere, with no edit history earlier than a few months ago, but who projects fairly deep knowledge about the ways of Wikipedia, would be hesitant to involve official help? Boy, that is a puzzle, isn't it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey! You wanna hear a coincidence? It's so far-fetched and unlikely, it'll floor you! Well, it turns out that the anonymous editor who posted 6 messages saying "I don't like you" to various Wikipedia users, including myself, has an address from the University of Washington. And the odd thing is that you, another anonymous editor, have an address from the University of Washington! Isn't that just plain weird? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 11:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ed Fitzgerald, there are some good reasons not to have bold links in the disambig pages, f.i. that the wikipedia readers are used to the fact that all links are blue, not bold, and that you will not manage to modify all disambig pages against the consensus of the other authors. Please stop this little crusade. (Because I check the "recent changes" regularly, I stumbled on the edit war in Kamrieng). --Cyfal (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't understand that argument. Was it something to do with users not understanding that bold blue type was a link, like regular blue type? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 11:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to express that your argument doesn't hold, that links would not be clearly visible on the disambig pages without bold type, and also that it would be confusing to the readers if not all links have the same style in all articles. --Cyfal (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, I don't quite see how this (the anonymous user coincidence) concerns me. Sockpuppets aren't unheard of, especially with anonymous editors. One is probably a static IP assigned to an Ethernet connection while the other is a dynamic IP assigned through a wireless connection. Or they could be unrelated. There are probably a lot of college students who edit Wikipedia without getting accounts. I don't know. --clpo13(talk) 11:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought you'd be interested, considering that that same user left an uncivil message for you as well as for me. Never mind. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 11:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh that. I didn't look much into the talk page vandal, especially considering how quickly those messages were removed. No problem. --clpo13(talk) 11:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bold and the Blue[edit]

In some cases, the lead is so cluttered that I sometimes favor using the subject as a link to an audio clip, even if that does contravene WP:LEAD#Bold title. Minnesota and São Paulo (state) are examples. Admittedly, the {{audio}} template contributes to the clutter. --Jtir (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Flatiron pics[edit]

I have nothing against good external links. I think these links added little more than more photos of the same subject. This particular article has *more* than enough photos. How many more do you want? In any case, we should be encouraging adding photos to the commons, rather than adding external links, imho dm (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want any more pics in the article, it has plenty, but there's no reason to deny people access to other photos, especially good ones. Because of copyright and other issues, not every graphic image is able to be uploaded to the Commons, but I have no objection if any you find that can be uploaded there are. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's take this to Talk:Flatiron Building. I dont see removing external link as denying anyone access. You might also want to read Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and WP:NOT#LINK dm (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"Want to read it"? I may look at it, but there's no way I want to read it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tag relocation[edit]

Just a question: why are you moving article cleanup and related tags to the bottom of articles? I think they're normally put at the top to let people know right away that the article needs work. If they're at the bottom, especially of a long article, few people are going to see it.

I'm guessing this is probably another usability concern, but I think in this case it's more important that everyone see that a given article needs improvement or cleanup, especially since anyone can then fix the error. --clpo13(talk) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as you surmise it is indeed a usability issue. Those tags are essentially messages from one Wikipedia editor to another, and for the most part (with some exceptions) not particularly relevant to the Wikipedia user. I've drawn the analogy to a page of a printed encyclopedia with post-it notes from the editors slapped all over it: "Find some citation to this" , or "Rewrite this section". Basically, the tags are internal memorandum and as such they do not need prominent display. We already have a place where discussion between editors can take place, which is why my druthers would be that all clean-up tags go there, but that seems too radical a change for most people, whereas many editors accept putting them at the bottom, where they don't disfigure the page and get in the way of the user.

The best thing would be an icon in the upper might corner, similar to the "locked" or "featurd article" icon, which indicates that the article has been tagged by someone, and alerts Wikipedia editors to the clean-up tags, which could be in a special section at the head of the talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow editor! Please refrain from moving Wikipedia:No_original_research tags to the bottom of articles, such as you did in your latest edit to Ladder Theory. These tags are not only in place to alert other Wiki editors to the current status of the page, but to serve as a friendly reminder to other users to use a reasonable level of skepticism when reading that article. Thank you for your understanding! :) --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Clealy, you didn't read what I wrote before you posted what you wrote. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I did, but thanks for your concern. :) --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You should gain a consensus before doing this, particularly before applying this new 'policy' unilaterally to articles with which you have had no substantial involvement. For myself, I disagree with your characterisation. That an article is poorly referenced (for example) should be prominently brought to readers attention, as a red-flag that they should view the contents skeptically. HrafnTalkStalk 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we talk about it on the article talk page, and not here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It is important that such maintenance tags are placed at the top of the artcile, not at the bottom. There are a number of reasons, some of which have been touched upon above.
  • They inform the reader of potential problems with the article, ie, no refences means maybe you shouldn't trust this without checking facts elsewhere
  • They inform other editors of areas that need attention, without having to scroll to the bottom, where for the most part they are unlikely to be seen
  • Perhaps most importantly, they inform the user as you put it, of areas that need improvement. As wikipedia can be edited by anyone, these maintenance tags may provide someone with an opportunity, or an invitation, to edit and improve an article.

As has been suggested, it would be good if you could get a consensus on tag relocation before you continue in this way. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You write as if a cleanup tag is a fact, when that is decidely not the case. A cleanup tag represents an editor's opinion - and since there is no process in place to vet tags before they are posted, they may even represent simply one editor's opinion, based, perhaps, on a merely superficial scan of the article, if that. As such, as 'opinions and not facts, there is not particular reason why they should be treated as sacrosanct objects. I see no reason to discontinue my present actions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 11:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
For exatcly the reasons you suggest. It is only your opinion that these tags are not fact and without a consensus to support you, you are not justified in your actions to move them. These tags can easily be removed by editors that disagree with the tag, or the problems highlighted could simply be addressed. Perhaps you should stop moving these tags and actually do something about the problems they are highlighting.Nouse4aname (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Instructions on placement of cleanup tags from [[9]] states that: "Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article — before other templates, disambiguation links, images, or infoboxes". So, if you wish to place such tags elsewhere on an article, you need to discuss this first. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia, etc.[edit]

Very well-stated. [10] I wonder if you would be willing to add your powerful comments to this discussion [11] in which an allegedly "new" user named WillOakland began on the 5th and immediately starting putting the axe to "trivia" lists. I say "allegedly" because he started out right away knowing what he was doing, and because he reminds me a bit of the banned User:Burntsauce, although I wouldn't necessarily argue that they're the same guy, they just have a similar "screw-y'all" attitude. I said something like what you said, only you said it much better. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look and contribute if I can. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Island in the Sky[edit]

Nice job in adding to the story; made some minor changes especially in regards to production notes. See above comments in other posting about trivia (and miscellany lists- there are wome people that want to remove all of these; incorporating the notes into a text section in the body of the article usually works. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

Sure, I was thinking about that when I added the stuff about the transmitter, but I couldn't figure where to put it. "Production notes" is good. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

P.K.Dick in the Library of America[edit]

Sir, I was wondering why you undid my edit to Philip K. Dick's article about the Library of America. Am I wrong about H.P. Lovecraft's preceding publication in the Library of America? If you, then thank you for the correction. Looking forward to hearing from you, CSims

Lovecraft was not a writer of science fiction, he wrote horror and fantasy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Words of policy[edit]

What you have as Succinct WikiPhilosophy is elaborated on in a bit of policy. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions which says,

  • The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

By logical extension, if this is true for the simplest part of the article, how much more so does it apply for the rest of the article.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I'm permanently linking your user page on mine as required reading--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the tip -- and for the link. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Marx Brothers on religion[edit]

BTW, if you haven't read this before, you should. A very interesting read—it's an excerpt from Glenn Mitchell's The Marx Brothers Encyclopedia that deals with the Brothers' varying thoughts on religion. If you've ever really wondered about the Brothers' religiosity, here's your chance to find out. If you take a look at that page you can find many other links to book excerpts. Glenn Mitchell's Encyclopedia has also become an out-of-print collector's item, unfortunately. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 02:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was interesting. I especially liked the story about Harpo dressed as a Scotsman -- the question being, what idiot (in many senses) would book the Marx Brothers and then ask if they were Gentiles? Had they never seen the act? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently not, since the Brothers had already hit big with their Broadway shows I'll Say She Is and The Cocoanuts. It's interesting to think how much recognition of the Brother's Jewishness there was in the stage shows, as not too much of such is present in their films, save for some occasional inferences and jokes. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I see it in the attitude that underlies pretty much everything they do, although it was less obvious as their career progressed and the movies got to be more whitebread. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I can recall an old story—for some reason or another, I can't remember exactly where—about Groucho; towards the end of his life, he and some friends went to see a production of Jesus Christ Superstar. As the show was about to start, he asked something along the lines of "Is there a happy ending?" Later, during the Crucifixion scene, Groucho cracked, "This is certain to offend us Jews." Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 04:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
An immediate update: What a maroon! I just saw the story here at Groucho's Wikipedia page, although it is currently in need of a citation. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Godfather Part II[edit]

You have now twice reverted my edits without any discussion other than an offensive edit aummary. I am going to reinstate these edits. If you have a problem with this, discuss it with me. If you revert a third time without discussion, I will initiate action towards having your editing privileges blocked under WP:3RR. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you've got it completely backwards, it is you that needs to discuss this change to get consensus for it before proceeding. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for withdrawing your complaint. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambig pages[edit]

Hey Ed, I noticed a few changes you've made to a few disambig pages are not in accordance with the Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) guidelines. It's no big deal, easily corrected, I just thought I'd let you know for next time. Cheers.--Cúchullain t/c 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The War Lover[edit]

Ed, take a look at this film article stub. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Looks like a lot of work to be done there. I've never seen the film - passed up a couple of chances recently because something put me off about the ads, maybe it looked too "Hollywood". I'll stop by and put in my 2 cents later on. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I had actually had seen the film in the 1960s at the theater and I bought the film on DVD today and it is a bit like 12 O'Clock High, no kiddin' although based on the interactions of one B-17 crew rather than the epic scale of the earlier classic war movie. Bzuk (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
You make it sound worth checking out. I'm struggling with the article - it seems to have been written by someone who has English as a second language, and I can't quite make out what they mean. Not having seen the film makes it that much harder. If I screw up, *please* jump in and correct me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You should go ahead and rewrite the plot from scratch. I thought I could do it from what was there and the plot description on TCM, but it's no use. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right, you should have seen it before; the article had already had large chunks of the text reverted for POV by other editors. The film needs some very detailed and authoritative references which I have now found. If I do the first edit, you can ride "shotgun." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
Will do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi Ed, Well the Kibbee and Herbert images "exist" but they're not very good. For that reason I did not upload them originally. Kibbee looks like he's about to sneeze and Herbert has his eyes closed, but most of the trailer centres around Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler and the supporting players rate barely a mention. Here they are with my best wishes. Although the images aren't particularly good, they do look nice in the article page with the others, so I'm glad you asked for them.

Hugh Herbert pic

Guy Kibbee pic

cheers Rossrs (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome Rossrs (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Westside (Los Angeles County)[edit]

We need Sources for the above article. Can you help? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Melodies from Mars[edit]

Do you know of substantial sources that can be added to this article? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Sorry about that. I just realised the event that I discussed was a year old. Review the block log of the user I posted about. Apologies once again. Rudget | talk 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts[edit]

Ed, I very sincerely appreciate your efforts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand. I know you said that mediation is not something you've done before, and you'd yell at us until we do it :), but you're doing a bang up job so far! Major kudos to you for doing so. I had considerable respect for two mediating voices in this debate, one of whom isn't very active in the debate. The other I just lost respect for, and was despairing there wouldn't be someone to fill the void to provide a mediating voice. You've filled that void and more. Nice work! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hammersoft: I really appreciate your very kind words. I only hope that I've been helpful in some way (and also that I haven't misrepresented your views in my summary). Many thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr Strangelove (2)[edit]

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit here. Our Manual of Style regarding images strongly suggests letting users set their own image size preferences. Please have a think about restoring the changes I made. Thanks. --John (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

John: Thanks. If you haven't done so already, please read my explanation on the talk page. You may disagree with my rationale, but I think you'll see that I've thought about it quite a bit. In any case, the Manual of Style is not dogma, to be followed slavishly, but a set of guidelines. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I commented in article talk. --John (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased Albums[edit]

I noticed you recently voted in AFD concerning an unreleased album. I invite you take part in the conversation here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Unreleased_albums any input you have would be appreciated. Ridernyc (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Duck Soup as a Good Article Nominee?[edit]

Hello, Ed! I've been thinking—should we push for the Duck Soup article as a good article nominee, or is it too early? I think the article is pretty good overall, don't you? Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs recommends I seek out the advice of a friendly admin. What do you think? Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 05:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had zero experience with having an article reviewed for "Good Article" status, and I'm inherently a little suspicious of the whole process - as I've written, I'm more interested in a good article than I am in a Good Article. But - why not give it a try? If you have a good relationship with an admin, that seems like a good start. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I don't think I really know any of the admins here—save for BrianSmithson, but he retired a few months ago. Regarding your thoughts concerning "Good Articles": I can understand where your coming from. For instance, even if Duck Soup doesn't meet the good article criterion, I'd still say it's a "good article", since it's a fairly well-organized, well-sourced, and informative read. Isn't that what it's all supposed to be about, anyway? Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help overhearing the discussion at Baseball Bugs's talk page. . . :-) For future reference, the name of the short is Rabbit Transit, a late-1940s Friz Freleng cartoon that featured Cecil Turtle. The cartoon is currently available, uncut and restored, on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 2. Sharp eyes there, Ed; I wear glasses, and I'd never noticed that! Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Ed. Knowing we've made you smile while providing information assures me that there's still some hope for the encyclopedia. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 06:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated the Duck Soup article here. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll be interested to see what happens. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
As of today, Duck Soup candicacy for good article has been put on hold. You can see what notes the editor has left on the article's talk page by clicking here. In retrospect to how many notes there were last time, during the peer review process, there really aren't that many now. We've only got a week to address those suggestions, though. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the notes earlier today, and they were pretty much what I expected, confirming my distrust of the GA review system. I'll take a closer look later, but some of them seemed doable and some of the others were frankly ridiculous, IMHO. I'll try to keep on my best behavior, but feel free to nudge me if I become too intransigent during this fix-up period. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What I don't get is the whole "change the 'Other scenes and jokes' section to prose and not bullets" thing. I mean, it's already in prose, right? Isn't prose anything but poetry? ... I don't know this for sure, but my educated guess is that Ultra! thought that the section might be "trivial"—which it clearly isn't. As I said at Talk:Duck Soup, citing the trivia guideline:

A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.

Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 01:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at some of the notes left about other Good Article nominees, and you'll see that there are things they just do without giving them much thought. It's as if you can determine when an article is good by checking things off a checklist, which sure as hell ain't the case. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things I still don't understand:

1) Why does it matter much to give the exact number of years after Duck Soup's release when Arthur Marx made the cited comment?

2) Why did we have to separate the "Cast" section from "Production". I've seen a "Cast" system underneath a "production" section in plenty of articles, like I Am Legend (BTW, currently listed as a Good Article). That didn't really seem necessary. Also, why remove the wikitable showing who had what role? Plenty of articles have these kinds of tables, and they are often utilized for a cast section. I didn't get that much, either. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I generally prefer to have the cast section separate from production, but I don't see it as a problem if it isn't - and certainly no barrier to it being a "good article" (but, of course, we're not talking about that, we're talking about it being a "Good Article", which is different). As for table vs. listing - again, either is equally functional, which is my bottom line criteria.

Back to the bullets in "other scenes and jokes" - if you're still interested in pursing GA status, I'd say that we should simply remove the bullets and connect the paragraphs together with some perfunctory language: "Another scene which blah blah blah." I mean, it all seems a bit silly to me, because it's being judged not on its own merits, but against some preset criteria, and I really don't much like that kind of thing. But if we're playing that game... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All righty, then. I'll see what I can do. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I still just don't get it! The "other scenes and jokes" section reads just fine the way it is. *sigh* :-( Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Good job! I guess it wasn't as difficult as I thought it was going to be. :) Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 03:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fooling around with the cast list now. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, nice work [12]! I must admit, it's going along smoothly. :-) Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said at the article's talk page earlier today, I don't understand what Ultra! meant by "too divided". Is it that the music section has one or two more subsections, or is it the lists' content that the editor is referring to? I see you've left a comment there; d'you know what he meant? Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 23:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Ed, I think we're getting closer. You can check out the edits I made to rectify a lot of the problems by clicking here. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for uploading those images! I think the article looks a lot better with them included. Keep up the good work! :) Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to put in one more image in the second half of the article, but I can't find anything relevant to the text there, nor have a come across another good scene. I'll keep looking. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If you need another image, here's one or two from the final battle scenes. Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I like #1 - can you give me the URL where you found it? I'll need it for the rationale. DUH - sorry, brain's not in gear. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that MoMA is so attached to the director as auteur that that image is labelled as "McCarey_DuckSoup". I'm sure McCarey brought a lot to the film, he was no slouch, but he can hardly be considered the "author" of Duck Soup, in that way that Kubrick is the author of his films.

Anyway, I did post the image, which I think is the last for the moment. As BB says, let's see if the exclusionists take any of these away, and we can replace them if they do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! But keep yer fingers crossed . . . Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

William Halsey, Jr.[edit]

I see you encountered user:, aka Harvardlaw (talk · contribs). He's a banned user who never tires of promoting himself and his heroes. As with all banned users, his edits may be reverted on sight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Torn apart? Please explain at Talk:Powell and Pressburger[edit]

Thanks. (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

Your'e adding stuff without regard to what it physically does to the article layout. Give me a moment, and I'll show you what I mean. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. All my follow-ups at Talk:Powell and Pressburger Thanks. (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

Regarding Tolkein and your message.[edit]

You are entirely welcome. I was chided in the recent past by a fellow editor---apropos of my inquiring as to whether he felt I was prepared to be an administrator---for the tone of some of my edit summaries, so I have taken pains to show more restraint. Generally, though, this was only a problem with anonymous users and people whose edits amounted to vandalism. Still and all, it is better, for all involved, that we maintain decorum and treat one another respectfully. I appreciate your message. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


You should add this to your user page categories [[Category:WikiCommonSense]]. Igor Berger (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have made the category live, so you welcome to join. Maybe if enough of us show WikiCommonSense we will all stop edit warring and debating POV and go back to building Wikipedia with knowledge for everyone to enjoy. Igor Berger (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank, I will add it - but I'm not optimistic about its chances of surviving in the current atmosphere! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I know it is very hard, but we should not give up! Igor Berger (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to NYU as my user box says.[edit]

Can you please retract or delete you ANI comment. There is nowhere on my user page that I say that I went to New York State University. There is no such animal. There is SUNY! Igor Berger (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I will update it immediately. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting yourself. Igor Berger (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not being more diligent originally. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My Man Godfrey[edit]

Great film. Glad to see you improving it. —Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm finished for the moment, but there's more to come. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ed, you're doing good work, but you should check with WP:MOSFILMS (and leave a message on the talk page) to see if they use italics in cast sections. If they don't, then we probably don't need it. —Viriditas | Talk 23:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


I have posted this dispute to WP:Third Opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anatomy of a Murder[edit]

Hi Ed. I totally agree with a number of your comments on your user page - especially the part about Good Articles not necessarily being good articles. I have come upon a number of featured articles which had nasty factual errors or which pushed the point of view of the celebrated main editor. However, they had the correct dash, correct layout, and correct approach to the selection committee! I have also come upon several well researched, informative and helpful articles which do not qualify for FA because they don't have images, the wrong sort of dashes, and haven't been peer reviewed!

Anyway - I didn't come here for that. It's about the layout and presentation of the References section in Anatomy of a Murder. It doesn't really matter which way round it goes (Notes or References), and guidance is not clear, however, it is more pleasing to have some form of consistency over such trivial matters, and as most Film articles already use References in preference to Notes, that is the way round the trend is going. So whenever I edit a Film article I will change Notes to References. It's not something I get into an edit war over, and if an editor really prefers an article to say Notes rather than References, then so be it. However, Luigibob has got in touch with me regarding your stance on Anatomy of a Murder. And I'm wondering if you wanted to have a chat over the best way forward. Regards SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the way it is done in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb may be an appropriate way forward. I'll try that on Anatomy of a Murder - see what you think. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's actually my preferred format - I may even have been the one who put it in place on "Straneglove", so no objection from me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, your experience with Featured Articles is mine as well. I can't tell you how many times I've groaned at seeing bad writing, poor grammar and other obvious problems in the opening paragraphs of an FA presented on the main page. Mostly I let them go by, since I assume everyone and his grandmother jumps on the FA to edit it at that point, but sometimes I just can't stop myself and wade in to fix the more egregious problems.

The trouble is threefold:

(1) Too much emphasis on checklists and rigid formatting requiremens (as you mentioned);

(2) Too little copyediting; and

(3) Not enough concern about how the article will present to the reader, the user of the encyclopedia whom we're supposed to be writing for.

This problem isn't limited to FA or GA reviews, the attitudes behind it are endemic to Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On this topic: notes and references are completely different things. A section titled Notes would contain footnotes or brief explanations, whereas a section title References would contain, well, references. It's like a works cited page condensed into a section. --clpo13(talk) 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Then again, if there are both notes and references in a section, than the title would be Notes and References. But why call it Notes if it's all references? --clpo13(talk) 00:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "notes" and "references" aren't really as clearcut as all that. I prefer "Notes" because that's the form these references take: footnotes. In most notated books, if the notes aren't literally at the foot of the page, they're in the back, in a section almost invariably called "Notes", and that seems to me to be the right terminology. They are certainly references, but they are presented in the form of notes. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's correct, but how would one differentiate between the reference notes and non-reference notes? Seems easier to call them by their more general names (References and Notes), no matter how exactly they're presented. --clpo13(talk) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, I don't think this is a big thing. If people are happier with "Notes and References" or "References and Notes" that's fine, it's just that the numbered list corresponding to the superscripted numbers are "notes" - no one in the real world calls them anything else. The information they contain may be references (and mostly are) or additional explanatory material, but they are still notes, whichever kind of information they contain. It's pretty standard stuff.

My preference is to call the list of footnotes - notes at the foot of the article, afterall - "Notes", and if the article has additional references, like a bilbiography or further reading list, to subsume both under an encompassing heading of "References", much as SilkTork has done on "Anatomy". I could be wrong, but I believe I was the one who put that particular structure in place on "Strangelove", after seeing Steve Cross and Bzuk use it -- it immediately made a great deal of sense to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I was the one who put that hierarchy in place on "Strangelove" diff Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


just a quick note to say "g'day" and to thank you for helping out at WP:TOV - it's nice to meet you!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anatomy of a Murder[edit]

Nice additions to the plot section on the article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Stan

Thanks! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

External links to photo-rich experiences[edit]

Ed - A note of thanks for many of your sane comments about the absolutely overriding importance of the Wikipedia user being able to gain knowledge and understanding in as many dimensions as possible. This led me to use a quote from you and expand some other thoughts on what seems to me to be the very odd attitude to links to visually orientated sites! You'll find the stuff under "Trani" on [13] - Adrian Fletcher ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that visual material has been relatively shortchanged on Wikipedia - a situation which is almost certainly linked to copyright issues and the controversy over fair use. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is of course an excellent reason why there should be a different attitude to external links to good visual sites (I don't mean ho-hum thumbnail albums of holiday experiences but sites which give you a meaningful idea of context and what it's like to look around you). Sadly the now entrenched wiki-cultural emphasis on words and computereze as means, rather than learning as an end, plus the fact that as you have noted anyone can get in and perform negative acts anonymously, makes change unlikely. In another life as a manager of change in large organizations I learned that change does not happen unless it is nourished and supported, and there are no wiki-mechanisms for this (in fact one gets the impression that the two words are not in the vocabulary of several of the participants). Nice to have been in touch with you anyway! Adrian Fletcher 16 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections[edit]

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here but I strongly endorse Ed's candidacy for this role as your contributions have been extemely benefical to the WikiProject Films group. FWIW, remember, consider the source (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
Oh, geez, that's all I need! If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve! (IMHO, I'm much more valuable working on the outside.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Ed: just dropping by to say hello. You've got some very fine, and very meaty observations on your user page. Very thoughtful; I agree with a lot of them. Keep writing! Just reading them, I can think of stuff to expand at essay length (how about: "against 'no-original-research fundamentalism'"?) Btw nice to meet someone else who's not a kid. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, I appreciate it. I think you're right that some things there could be expanded into essays, which I may do some day. In the meantime, if you want to make use of any of the ideas there, please be my guest! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Italics (2)[edit]

Do you really want to escalate this? Nobody supported your position. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not an anarchy either. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going into every page and changing the format, I'm simply doing it on pages that I work on, where I think it's visually appropriate, and it is not forbidden by MoS film, no matter what people seem to believe.

Perhaps I barged into "Female", which I believe you worked on before I got there. I offer a compromise - go back to no italics on Female, but leave them on Godfrey - where (I think) I put in the cast section. In the future, I'll continue to use italics on cast sections that I create (if I think it appropriate - it's not always), but I won't convert existing cast sections unless they're really in a mess and need major redoing, but I'll only do it as apart of a major overhaul - I will not simply covert existing cast section to italics for its own sake. On the other hand, you don't take the italics out of those cast sections I've created or majorly reworked.

There's no particular reason that both formats can't coexist, there're not so radically different that it's something for either of us to get bent out of shape about.

How about it? Can we sign the Clarityfiend/Fitzgerald Peace Friendship and Prosperity Pact? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith, I've restored your version of "Female" and I'm removing it from my watchlist. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarityfiend having rejected my offer of compromise, my further comments are here and here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Done (I hope) sorry, busy & other seem to avoid the page :) Regards --Herby talk thyme 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 09:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Bloody 'ell that was quick :), no problem just sorry for the delay! --Herby talk thyme 09:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


YOu take this stuff seriously. Well to each his own. Good luck with whatever your doing, Im just trying to write a freakin' paper. Good luck. posted at 20:20 on 18 March 2008 byUser:

Merry Springmas!!![edit]

--Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 02:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If you've read Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, you might remember that he suggests that in the temperate zone there are actually 6 seasons, and not 4: summer, autumn, locking, winter, unlocking and spring. Yesterday was definitely an unlocking day here in NYC - rainy, breezy, a little chilly but not cold. Today there was actually a touch of spring in the air - at least when the sun came out and the wind died down! I hope there was at least a little spring-like weather wherever you are. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! It was actually a rather—uh—"springish" day here in Oklahoma. Spring here lasts about 2 weeks and then it quickly acts like the earth is hurtling into the sun! We Oklahomans must enjoy these two weeks to the fullest! :) Cinemaniac (talkcontribscritique) 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert tools?[edit]

Hello Ed. I was looking at the history for Boston University and saw that you reverted a change from several versions back, but preserved the later changes. Did you use a special tool for that, or was that manually edited? -- Tcncv (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I just used "Undo" to revert the vandalism edits. If the intervening edits (if any) don't affect the previous edits, then "undo" will revert with no problem. Otherwise it will report that there are conflicting edits that make it impossible to undo. "Undo" can be found at the end of every edit in the history. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't realize it was that simple. Tcncv (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin van Creveld[edit]

Dear Ed Fitzgerald,

Thanks for your concern. I was able to find the relevant sources concerning Martin Van Creveld's attitude toward women. I feel it is important to let other readers know about such sensitive issues as abuse of freedom of academic speech, as it is in Van Creveld's case. With your permission, I restore that section --- with footnotes this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obstul (talkcontribs) 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sadly, I couldn't find the English version of that article, and I am afraid it is most likely that it has never appeared in English at all. I understand your decision to remove it from Wikipedia; but, in fact, all I've mentioned there is sad, but true. Martin's attitude towards women, the petition and the subsequent retirement --- all these were limited to Jerusalem Ivory Tower only and, hence, did not get enough publication outside of Israel. hence, I could not find any English publication/translation. With best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obstul (talkcontribs) 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I did some searching on my own, and came up entirely empty. Even the Hebrew University website didn't have anything as much as a press release about this incident. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 03:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks![edit]

Thank you for your vote of confidence! Disagreement can definitely be healthy under the right conditions. You're welcome to share input about topics in the future, especially if you happen to think my arguments are too one-sided. ;) By the way, I have to admit I enjoy reading the user pages of editors like you; you make very valid points. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Page for fast deletion[edit]

I have reverted your edit here [14] because I want the page deleted. Thank you. Giano (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

External link[edit]

Please join the discussion here [15] to explain why the external link at the Stanley Kubrick page should be kept. Thank you MarnetteD | Talk 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've commented there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)