User talk:MarnetteD/archive12

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

Clockwork Orange

Yes, I could find a source for the Clockwork Orange info, but I agree it belongs on the CO page, not on the SK page (unless it could be made much briefer). Thanks.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Helen Mirren

Awards are supposed to be included in filmographies according to the project, so if you don't like it, discuss it at WT:ACTOR. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not the only place where they can be put. They are already mentioned in Helen's article in their own section and the new page for them has been created. MarnetteD | Talk 19:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember things like WT:ACTOR are guidelines not requirements. MarnetteD | Talk 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, but they should be mentioned in the table for consistency across the project. I would also appreciate some civility. Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous pages where they aren't mentioned in the filmography - See Michael Gambon again. Uniformity on wikipedia is a myth. The way that the way the make the table look on her page is ghastly. Also there are numerous non notable awards that are being jammed in there. MarnetteD | Talk 19:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. It probably could have used some good trimming, but an article was definitely necessary. Appreciate your sincere response! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input too. If you are good at lists I hope that you will to some editing on the list page that I have created so that it looks better and is more informative. Happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It has been added to my watchlist and I'll work on it when I find the time, which may not happen in a reasonable time :). If you are interested in working on the article, Meryl Streep's awards article is in pretty good shape. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, MarnetteD. You have new messages at Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI

Hi, MarnetteD.

The Shining was removed from the film article Films considered the greatest ever on 08:29, 29 September 2008 by Sam along with many other entries with the explanation "removed many films that were magazine picks, and not the result of a poll of critics or audience members". IMO, if the magazine is a well-known reputable one (such as TIME or Entertainment Weekly) that should be fine. In the article The Shining itself (as you have probably seen) I recently added that Martin Scorsese regards it as one of the best horror films, which I think should carry some clout. Happy New Year.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was myself a devotee of Kubrick from Odyssey on- the first Kubrick film I saw at the age of 13. I immediately wanted to catch up with other films of his, but I remember my father banning me from watching Lolita on TV when I was 14. I'm not familiar with either of the Kubrick items you mention, but the first about King is hardly surprising. I intermittently, but not at all systematically, followed King's reactions to The Shining now and then, and they certainly did oscillate up and down. He gagged himself as the prospect of a remake looked like it was going to materialize. I had not heard any of that business about the 2000 pronunciation before.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Gambon

Hello. I noticed that you draw back the prizes of filmmaking. It is an error because there is an even more detailed article on the awards from Sir Michael Gambon, but are placed in the main filmography as in most of the filmographies of actors. So I ask you to leave the awards. Thank you.--88.28.60.99 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No they belong on the page for the awards. They totally mess up the filmography table and the obscure nature of many of the awards do not merit their inclusion on his main page. Please make all future entries on the awards page. MarnetteD | Talk 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you also overlink names and you keep removing a citation needed tag without providing a reference. This last act can be considered vandalism for which you can be blocked. MarnetteD | Talk 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Who 5

Fair enough, the info on imdb did look pretty legit though, mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talkcontribs) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Hmmm, turns out it was fanmade speculation made to look accurate, anyone can write anything I suppose, and make it look clever, sorry to waste your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talkcontribs) 09:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talkcontribs) 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter

The January 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde erotic book

Hi,

You're right that I shouldn't have inserted a new theory without citation, and again that the existing claim needs to be substiantiated. I have read the forgery/piracy theory before, but can't find the source at the moment.

I've been digging around and can't find any reliable literary or bibliographical scholarship which investigates the Wilde writing/editing claim. The origin of the story seems to be the memoirs of a bookseller, himself the type of character who doesn't seem that reliable. Large parts of that section read strangely in any case, I'm hoping to give it some TLC soon. Any help or advice is appreciated. Ktlynch (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Cinema of..." navigation boxes

Would you bring your opinion here, just so we can get the matter cleared up? BOVINEBOY2008 :)

Olivier

What do you mean by "breaking the Royal Court link, which is vandalism"? I most certainly did not break any link intentionally. Indeed, my intentions were of the best in the first place since the author of the article has not tried to explain exactly what made Olivier a great actor. As to "my own experience", I had bit parts in a number of plays at The National Theatre Olivier's time and later freelanced on the theatre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.59.110 (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia works. There is no one author of Olivier's page. Next, you broke the link to the theatre with every edit that you made. Intentional or not that construes vandalism. Next, we don't care what your experience is. Your edit does not meet Wikipedia's standards and it will continue to be removed. As I suggested please post your opinion at any of the other places on the web that you wish. MarnetteD | Talk 15:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Frederic420

Hi MarnetteD,

I read the rules for non-english external links, and i admit that a lot of my contributions where not in there place … really sorry.

I read also: "Linking to non-English pages may still be useful for readers in the following cases: - when the webpage contains information found on no English-language site of comparable quality, and is used as a citation (or when translations on English-language sites are not authoritative)" So, i understand why you deleting my links in all the autor pages, the presence of french audiobooks was not the subject of the page … but when i link, for exemple : "[Salammbô]", we could, maybe, consider that this information is usefull for readers ? And that we can't find this free audiobook in "v-o" in a non english-language site ? Am-I Wrong ?

Yours sincerely, Frederic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic420 (talkcontribs) 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The problems go beyond the slight (very slight) chance whether the link you are adding might be useful for a reader. First, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links WP:NOTLINK. Next you are a single purpose account WP:SPA meaning that your only edits are to add links to the audiobook website in question. This is highly frowned upon. If you have any connection to the audiobooks website that also disqualifies you from adding them. In the specific case that you mention there is already more than one link to an English language version of Salammbô on that page meaning that there is a comparable quality website linked. Please note that this is just my interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. I suggest that you take your questions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels if they approve your links then I will go with there decision. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Ok Marlette, I thought (and I always think) that,since it's here all about famous French-speaking authors, the possibility of finding, through a simple click, audio versions in the original language was legitimate and enriching pieces of information for all those who wish to learn the language… or quite simply to go close to the original text. But i will see that with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thank's for the informations ! Cheers. Frederic420 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Shining/Boing Boing

MarnetteD You've probably seen The Shining a few times, but did you know the entrance to the maze Danny uses at the film's end appears only then, before this an entirely different entrance is shown (twice) and this is referenced as the only entrance when the maze's model is exhibited. The Shining is an unusual film, it descends from rarely coded literature like Poe's, a kind of visual mysterium littered with illogical facets and cryptic portals (agencies that are more usual in videogames) so complex it needs these words 100 odd stills to explain them. This is not 'fancruft' it is the work of post-structural observation. I've lectured about film and the brain and mesoamerican culture (American Anthropological Association, Colgate University, Cornell University, Columbia) so my credentials are apt. The articles are excerpts from unedited notes to a book that is being printed this fall. Please read these notes and then take a look at the film to see what Kubrick is up to before you judge and eject, clearly this falls within the realm of acceptable WP:EL. Best, KM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:EL you may not add a link to a source that you are the author of and fancruft - no matter how well educated - is still fancruft. You are conjecturing as to what K was up to. As has been stated by several filmmakers "We are just making a film. The interpretations are other peoples hangups." MarnetteD | Talk 15:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not the author or the owner of the link I placed there, and also, then your entire page is devoted to fancruft, all of the material there is essentially fancruft, where do you draw the line, how are you the arbiter? Can you please bring us to an arbitrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You deleted a link that had remained on that page for over seven months, garnered much notice, became the source of several courses' study material (University of Colorado, University of Chicago, Brown), and I would add that by poking around in a subject matter you may not comprehend fully (The Shining) and arbitrarily choosing several very dated observations over a more detailed, more recent one, may be shorting an audience's access and comprehension of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to learn more about WikiP. It does not matter how long something has been on an article page. If it does not meet wikipedia's criteria it can be removed. You obviously have some connection to the article if you know that it is going to be published this fall. If it is being used in so many places then you don't need wikipedia to promote it. I would say that you should take your link to the filmprojects talk page and see what they say. Do not put the link back in until you gain a consensus for it. MarnetteD | Talk 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me where to find the filmprojects talk page, it does not appear in wiki's search. Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember MarnetteD, it is not about promotion, it is about sharing knowledge that might help grow our species. I fear your conservatism and your vitriol (using words like atrocious) my preclude you from comprehending the real information lurking in the films you preside over. A little less character-study(Wilde) and a little more brain-structure (Poe) perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I fear that you are as pretentious as they come. Your article has little chance of causing any species to grow. If your item is going to be published this fall then it can do all of its growing then. You know why the entrance to the maze is different at the end of the film. It was a different set than the one used in earlier scenes. The crew dressed the set differently. It isn't some coded message it is simply the vagaries of filmmaking. There are links to the filmproject on every films talk page. As to adding to one's knowledge you might try learning how to sign your talk page comments per wikipolicy. MarnetteD | Talk 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proof you are not able to edit this article, you admit you don't understand even the maze entrance: It's the same set, you're just not paying attention. Watch the film again. Carefully this time, the set never changes, the orientation does. Awareness is unstoppable once properly used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Again with the unsigned messages. You must not be "aware" of the message posted on your talk page teaching you how to sign your comments. So am I expected to believe that KM is not the Kevin McLeod whose name is attached to the article in question. I am done with this discussion. Confine your self to asking the film project about your external link. Any further rants posted here will simply be removed. MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My exchange with "KM" re Shining

...may be read at User_talk:WickerGuy#The_Shining.2FBoing_Boing.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It got worse. KM is in fact a production assistant on multiple films. Continue reading if you wish.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Could you please explain why you added that user on the SPI page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I just think that they are really an admirer of Avatar. There is nothing concerning about them other than the fact that they are an enthusiastic editor. Personally, I would try to avoid adding users to the page if there is no obvious relation. They could be related, but the early edits of the user seem to indicate otherwise. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that was all sorted out rather quickly. Even the editor in question was a bit peeved when he did respond. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You Are Welcome!

You are very welcome, MarnetteD. I am a great fan of the piano; although the violin does compete with it at times :-). And Beetoven wrote beautifully for both instrments. I really hope you are able to find the Dalberto recording. And, you play!! Wonderful!!!. So, now, switch keyboards. Go back to the one that makes notes instead of letters when you strike it - and really enjoy the "Pastorale" :-) Marc - Michael David (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Hi. I apologize if my edit summary was misleading. I didn't intend that to be the case. I know the page is fairly well-trafficked. I checked the discussion page and I did not find any explanation of the difference between Knight Bachelor and K.B.E. I have been wondering for quite a while actually. If you do know could you kindly provide a brief explanation either here or on my talk page, whichever you prefer. Thanks very much. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Panda

Any way you can get over to the Auraria campus library some day and look something up for us? Innocenceisdeath says there is a copy of "A guide to the Mammals of China" at that library (http://207.67.203.71/D20019Staff/OPAC/TitleView/CompleteDisplay.aspx?FromOPAC=true&DbCode=0&PatronCode=0&Language=english&RwSearchCode=0&WordHits=&BibCodes=27590155). We need to verify the subspecies names for Red panda from that book (it reportedly lists them correctly as "fulgens" and "styani"), and get a page number for a citation. There is reportedly another book at the Museum of Nature and Science library too, which I hope to verify next weekend when I will probably be there anyway. Thanks. Donlammers (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

204.113.44.184

I'm being a snitch, but just to let you know, I found vandalism to Mothra (film) by the above user. Maildiver (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It looks like this editor kept at it after I went off line. For what it is worth I added more warnings. There has been no editing from this ip since the 17th so there is no need to report them to AIV. I'm sorry that you are retired but thanks again anyway. MarnetteD | Talk 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A Christmas Story

Thank you for fixing my edit and for pointing out something that I foolishly failed to consider.Mk5384 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oscar and us

You flatter me with your edit summaries! The Wilde biographies change works fine, my logic had been that it is not a biography of Wilde (though of biographical interest) but actually an autobiography/memoir of Vyvyan Holland. Though, placing it chronologically nicely dovetails with the section of books by those that new him personally.

Otherwise, as you might have noticed, I've been fishing around for input recently. I can see lots of small things that need improving: e.g. "Aestheticism and Philosophy", plenty of citations, plus some more information on Importance of .... and his most famous works. Otherwise, some big hints ( i.e. not copyediting, links etc), are needed: essentially all the pedantic (but neccessary) details aside, do you think the article has reached an "ideal form". Cher Maitre, I defer to your experience on Wilde's wikipedia biography, and wide learing on his life and work...--Ktlynch (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

And just is your idea of a sensible link? John Paul Parks (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to read the whole page for WP:MOSLINKS and WP:OVERLINK. You linked a random series of words none of which would add understanding of the film. You also linked a random series of names which either went to disambiguation pages (from which, again, there was nowhere to go that had anything to do with the film) or created a red link like Bomburst which does not and is never likely to have a wikiarticle. Finally linking "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" on the page for "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" does not create a link at all. MarnetteD | Talk 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are lot of articles which contain links, and the links do not always relate to the article. For example, the article on the Blaine Amendment lists those states which have not adopted Blaine amendments. The names of the states are linked, and if you click on those links, you will go to the article on that state, and not to any specific discussion of the state's failure to adopt a Blaine Amendment. Are those links to be eliminated as well? After all, the link in no way assists the reader in verifying that the state has, in fact, failed or refused to adopt a Blaine Amendment.

Further, creating a red link should not be prohibited. If it is, then Wikipedia needs to eliminate red links. If "Bomburst" is so obscure that it "is never likely to have a wikiarticle," then the "chitty" article needs to be rewritten so that it uses clearer terms.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Come back after you have actually read the two MoS sections that I provided links for. Just because older articles have links that don't relate to it doesn't mean that new ones have to have those. As to Bomburst. It is the name of a character in the book and film how could the article be any clearer than to state that. In the unlikely event that an article was created about the character it would face notability problems and would probably be deleted. As I recommended try reading the MoS and proceed from there. MarnetteD | Talk 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)