User talk:MarnetteD/archive33

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

Yippee! A clean page to muck up!

  • Best wishes to you in 2014 MarnetteD, and as always thank you for all of your tireless contributions :) Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I am so glad that you were the first to leave a post-archiving message!!! May your 2014 be full of fun and enjoyment. Many many thanks to your for all your efforts here - and for your clear and concise (and accurate I might add) edit summaries as well :-) MarnetteD | Talk 22:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply

No problemo. I can see where the confusion stememd from. It's a shame that the editors who combine templates don't always check the entries afterwards. You were right about there being a few other examples of multiple templates on Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Play winners. I've visually checked all the winning actor articles and fixed the ones I've found so at least that particular template should cause no further problems. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Kubrick

Not a bother at all, don't worry. :-)

Thanks for your recommendations. I've never been much of a film buff, is the thing; I've managed to overlook Kubrick somehow all this time. It's one of those things I really ought to rectify sometime. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review for Ian McKellen

Hello! I notice that you're the most major contributor to Ian McKellen, so I thought you might be interested to know that it is currently under GA review. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I will be happy to take a look and contribute if I can. MarnetteD | Talk 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

About those Penguins...

My feeling is that the type of work the film is based on (novel, non-fiction book, short story or play) is important to have in the infobox, and if that's going in, then the date might as well go in too. In most cases the source material is going to have been published within a couple of years of the film's release, but in others the film comes long after the source, especially when it's a remake.

It's not a life or death issue for me, and absolutely no offense was taken, but I do prefer that the type and date be in the infobox. Best, BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. For me (and I think I read this at some point but it would been 7 or so years ago so I could be wrong) the items in the infobox are to be about the film. The form of the source material and the publication date aren't about the film so that is why they aren't (usually) included. As you say it isn't life or death and I appreciate the time you took to explain things. Cheers and have a good week on wiki and off. Especially off!! MarnetteD | Talk 03:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter Jackson

My apologies for reverting your edit. I confused being brought up in a place with being born there. I'll check Ian Pryor's book when I'm next in a library and get a more definite answer.-gadfium 19:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you message and your understanding. Items like that (especially in the infobox) can be confusing. I also appreciate the time you will be putting in tracking down the correct info. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Pryor is quite clear that he was born at Wellington Hospital. I've updated the article.-gadfium 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@Gadfium: Thanks for the update. I had meant to leave you a message about my experience with just this kind of thing in the Helen Mirren article. Several newspaper and internet articles gave Chiswick as her birthplace. Then in her 60 Minutes interview she said that she was born at Southend-on-Sea. Then in researching her memoir she found out that she was born in a hospital in Hammersmith. That helped me learn that all too many writers and interviewers take it for granted that the town where a persons parents lived is where the child was born. Once again many thanks for all your efforts in this. MarnetteD | Talk 05:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I have (at least twice) seen a small edit war over a particular person's birthplace, with one side favouring Hammersmith and the other Charing Cross - both sides supported by reference(s). This is usually caused by a misunderstanding of the location of Charing Cross Hospital which is actually more than four miles away from Charing Cross - and in fact is in Hammersmith. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Good stuff. Reminds me of why my "London AtoZ" was an important book on my visit all those years ago. Of course it was a book but I am guessing there is an app for it today. Thanks for chiming in R. MarnetteD | Talk 18:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

None

I've seen it say "None (atheist)" or "None (agnostic)" in various other articles. So why do you have a problem with it with the article about Bob Hoskins? Captain Cornwall (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Captain Cornwall: That does not imply that they were correct. This is an eitheroror … situation.
It cannot be two (with one in parentheses)
Even the reference provided supports this criterium:
"I was brought up an atheist while my dad was a communist. I can’t really believe there is an old fellow up there guiding us all. I can’t really believe there is heaven and hell." - Bob Hoskins in an Oct 2002 article in the Scotsman titled 'Preacher Features'.
In his April 2012 interview with Saga magazine, Bob Hoskins states candidly he is an atheist. "I’m an atheist you know, so family is everything, I’ve got money, yeah, but it’s my family that I care about." - Bob Hoskins.
But your claim that Hoskins is "Agnostic" is not even supported in the article's references.
I think "None" is correct here. Regards, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Gareth is correct and in the case of none we leave it blank. BTW the field is normally only used if the religion is a part of the persons public life not their private one. MarnetteD | Talk 20:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Rugby!

The Six Nations begins with Wales v. Italy, Sat 1 Feb, 14:00 (UTC). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the info. Sadly BBC America isn't broadcasting the matches this year. Gareth clued me in about catching the radio broadcasts online. We have a little football game (the one where the foot rarely touches the ball - and it looks like rule changes are being proposed so that it will touch it even less in the future) this Sunday to keep me busy as well. Cheers and enjoy the resto fo your week. MarnetteD | Talk 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Good news Redrose and Gareth. 6 Nations matches are airing on the BEIN Sports Cable Network. Sadly, they aren't live but the Wales v Italy match is on later tonight so I will get to see what I listened to on Sat. They will also be showing the other two matches from this weekend which is an improvement over BBCA's coverage. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 03:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, ha! So you heard it on the radio. That's great! Very pleased that by now you will have SEEN the match too. It was a tough encounter that sets the team [1] up well for their trip across the Irish Sea. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll bet your heart skipped a beat in the second half when the Italian player intercepted the pass and ran for the try. Have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 16:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It did.
A little light relief: [2]! Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Great stuff. Thanks for the link. MarnetteD | Talk 15:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: Well this keeps getting better. Last weekends matches were shown midweek on the Spanish language BEIN channel. This weekend they are on BEINs English language channel and, though not live, they are going to be shown same day!! So Wales v Ireland is at 8pm tomorrow night. Just finished watching France's remarkable come from behind victory. Two weeks ago I thought I wasn't going to get to follow the tourney and now I am getting to see all the games. Now that is a nice turn of events. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am so very pleased for you. Off to bed now! Thanks for telling me! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 00:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Peace man

I come in peace!

We had a misunderstanding. You're a good guy, and very good contributor to British films, let's shrug it off and move on. Feel free to move the page back, I don't mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration on films featuring puppetry?

You look quite capable of finding sources that would indicate Jhonny 5 and the Crypt Keeper are puppets. Why not add to the article that source? CensoredScribe (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A) It isn't my job to add this info it is yours and B) you are quite clearly in violation of you restriction to not perform mass edits of categories to articles. MarnetteD | Talk 02:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Crunch-time Friday in Cardiff

M. A little background reading ... [3] Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. It isn't listed on BEins viewing schedule yet so it may be back to the radio for me. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I do hope you are able to see it: Welsh passion against French guile. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
M. Only one significant change to the starting fifteen [4] which meets my approval even though I have been a fan of Mike Phillips since before his first cap. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate the updates. This match finally showed up on BEins schedule but they aren't showing it until Saturday afternoon so I think I will skip the radio broadcast and avoid looking up the score. Best of luck to them!!! MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
So glad you will get to watch it. Always think that the enjoyment is much diminished if you know the result; you should be able to avoid that but if I had to defer from watching live and rely on my recording it for later, I would be so distraught and would have to have no radio/TV on, not answer the phone and keep away from all contact with human life. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
No Hiding Place --Redrose64 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Great stuff. That episode must be fun to watch. Just looked the series up on Amazon UK. Now I have another set of DVDs to budget for. Rugby gets so little coverage on our mainstream sports channels that I should be okay. But it is also an excuse to watch season two of Call the Midwife. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 02:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well that was more like it!! Wales dominated for most of the 80 minutes. The Ireland v England match airs tomorrow its outcome will set up the last two weeks of the tourney. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 23:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

My pride is fully restored. A truly great performance by the whole team. Hope your Sunday is good! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr Magoo?

I googled him and shakespeare but found nothing. Is there actually a version of the latter by the former? μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(tps) Try "Mr Magoo's A Midsummer Night's Dream" and possibly "Hamlet on Rye". BMK (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I found it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHf7YLK2_bQ. Now, who can find Adam West's Batman doing King Lear? (Olivier is my favorite, to tell the truth.) μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for giving M the links while I was away from my computer BMK and congrats for finding it at youtube M. I hope it gave you a chuckle or two. Magoo as Puck (along with many more of his parody's) will always be in my memory bank. TPSing can be so helpful. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 03:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"The old enemy" - a game for the ages

Good morning Michael,
In two days, "the big one"—"away at Twickers—I thought this might amuse you. Pictured there in greyscale, scrum-half Gareth Edwards, one of our greatest heroes, had something to say here about selection.
Now this added within past hour. All the best! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the links. I enjoyed reading all the fan memories of competitions past. The match is airing at 8pm our time and I am excited to see the followup to last years dramatic contest. Are we into a "must won by X number of points" situation yet? Or is that going to matter next weekend? Cheers!! MarnetteD | Talk 19:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
There have been three (out of five) rounds of matches so far, thus, each team can score up to four more table points. Mathematically, the championship could go any way except Italy; Scotland's chances are small, but any of the other four (with two wins each) could win. But don't worry about what happens if it's a draw or a low-margin win: England are level with Wales on table points, and are ahead on points difference alone, so if Wales win this weekend, they move above England whatever the margin; if England win, or it's a draw, they stay where they are, relative to each other. Ireland should beat Italy by a comfortable margin, and so will remain top; if France beat Scotland, they can climb above whichever of England & Wales loses; but for Scotland to manage that, they need to beat France by a massive margin.
As happens so often, the final day (15 March) will decide it, which is what makes it one of the great sporting competitions - it's rarely decided earlier. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to lay things out for me R. I was remembering last years "they might share the Cup" situation. It has been a real treat to get to see all the games this year. This weekend is the first time that I am bothered by them not showing the games live. I will miss getting to cheer and be groan at the same time as the two of you. On another note my DVD of The Web of Fear arrived today. After the pattern of (roughly) one Classic series DVD release a month for the last few years it is going to be an adjustment not having a new release to look forward to. Ah well. I hope that you both have an enjoyable weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've not got my WoF yet. The shop that I normally buy them from (HMV Oxford) closes in about three weeks time, and to wind-down the stocks they've been under-ordering the new releases since January. So when I went along to buy mine, they said that they had sold out the previous day and no more were on order. I shall try HMV Reading tomorrow, or maybe one of the HMV in London if I go to the meetup on Sunday.
There is at least one more to go: the "Coming Soon" trailer on The Moonbase was for The Underwater Menace. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I got my The Moonbase DVD a few weeks ago. I am not a big fan of the animated episodes. Eyes and mouths move but most everything else is static. I suspect the costs are prohibitive but in the CGI of 2014 I wish they could do better. Sometimes the current animation looks too much like Clutch Cargo. Now I did enjoy that show as a kid so I don't mean this as a complete slam of the current situation but, for me, I like listening to the CDs of the shows with missing episodes. My imagination has more fun that way :-) UM doesn't have a release date yet so I wonder what is holding it up. Sorry to hear about your store closing. It is not fun when a place you've shopped at for years leaves the scene. MarnetteD | Talk 23:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
My main problem with the animation for The Moonbase is in episode 1, where the audio clearly sounds like André Maranne - but the character whose lips are moving is not always Benoit. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I got TWoF yesterday - HMV Reading had 25 copies in stock; I have now watched episode 1.
Rugby: one thing that I haven't mentioned so far is the Triple Crown, which doesn't depend upon the results of any matches involving France or Italy, so I won't be spoiling yesterday's results for you. No matter how Wales perform against Scotland next week, the Triple Crown will go to England if they win today, but will not be awarded if Wales win (or it's a draw). Wales are out of the running because they already lost to Ireland; Ireland are out because they lost to England; and Scotland lost to both England and Ireland.
I have started working out just what needs to happen in the final round of matches... --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Glad you got a copy of the DVD. Am I correct in thinking the Triple Crown goes back to the time before Italy and France were added to the mix? It has been a couple years since I read the 6 Nations article so I might have this backward. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Michael, that is so. England won it on Sunday. Victory saw England lift the Triple Crown for the first time since 2003. Wales's performance has us all baffled. See what Shane has to say today [5] — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

One more to go ...

... but we will be without our star player for rest of this season summer. Sad news [6] — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Rats. Too many injuries at exactly the wrong time. They had a good 2+ year run though. In other news the third season of Call the Midwife will be on its way to me soon. If has been funny to hear Jeremy Clarkson moan, on recent episodes of Top Gear, about losing viewers to "midwifery." Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The question of "who can finish as Champions" that I mentioned above has been enumerated at 2014 Six Nations Championship#Table, under "Final round scenarios:" as has the question of who can finish bottom; but the positions from 2 down to 5 are very complicated, particularly fourth place which can go to any team except Italy. Italy cannot finish higher than fifth; Scotland cannot finish higher than fourth; Wales can finish anywhere between second and fifth; France, England and Ireland cannot finish lower than fourth. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
"[If] England win against Italy, and Ireland win against France, whichever of England and Ireland have the greater points difference win the Championship" ... for me, this combination is the most likely oucome.
A great opportunity for Dan Biggar to shine at 10 and as the placekicker. Partnered again (Ospreys) with Phillips, it will be a win for Wales.— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As so often happens, the last match will decide it: this is France v. Ireland 15 March 2014 at 18:00 French time (17:00 UTC). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
My cable channel aired the last match tonight. What a back and forth edge of your seat contest it turned out to be. Once again thanks to you both for all the links and explanations. I guess it is back to normal editing until next year. 6 Nations and the World Cup a few months later. 2015 should be a fun year for ya. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks M. I am so pleased you were able to view all the matches. Watching the skills shown by "my boys" in their win against Scotland on Saturday was a masterclass in open rugby. Dan Biggar proved me right (see above) and it was great to see James Hook demonstrating his expertise. Have a great week! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hack, slash...

And let's make a stub of the stupid accent article. Love it!

Contrary to popular belief, I haven't dropped off the face of the earth or joined the Foreign Legion. It's just been INSANE at work. I'm thinking of you! --Drmargi (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So very true!! No worries on communication. I know that life can intrude at the best/worst of time. It was a treat to see Foyle's son (Julian Ovendon) on POI last week. I wonder how many recent Foyle watchers even know that he has a son. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 04:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

re: Dom DeLuise revert

That user has been vandalizing a number of pages for months and IP jumping. He pretty much hits up Dom, Jon Lovitz, Amblin Entertainment, and a number of others. He is really not that hard to miss by the changes made, Wendy/Alice in Wonderland being the most common.--☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the info @Loriendrew:. It is always useful to have a heads up about new (or returning for that matter) problem editors. I will keep a look out for more of this stuff. Your vigilance is appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 01:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Steampunk

Good catch on 20K Leagues... I suppose I may have been hoping that the Steampunk fan had made at least one legitimate categorization... I'd looked at the source but either didn't realize or spaced on the fact that they were writing about the book rather than the film. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up that mess! DonIago (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops we crossed edits. You will probably be reading the post I left on your talk page at this moment. Thanks for you message and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Right back atcha! :) DonIago (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Capaldi as Doctor Who with Keeley Hawes

Dr. Who: Keeley to play Ms Delphox

Here's what the BBC is saying about Keeley Hawes' role on Dr Who

Line Of Duty's Keeley Hawes will join the cast of Doctor Who, following rave reviews for her outstanding performance as DI Lindsay Denton in the hit BBC drama. Starring opposite the Doctor, Hawes will guest star for one episode in Peter Capaldi's first ever series as the Time Lord.

Set to transmit in the autumn this year, Hawes will play Ms Delphox, a powerful out-of-this-world character with a dark secret. Travelling across space and time the Twelfth Doctor (Peter Capaldi) and his companion, Clara Oswald (Jenna Coleman), will come face to face with the mysterious Ms Delphox when they arrive on a strange and puzzling planet. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I have conflicted thoughts about having to wait until next Sept for new eps. On one hand, after all the joys of the 50th anniversary, I wanted new episodes ASAP. OTOH as I recently watched several of Matt's episodes again I got the sense that the delay will help Peter. Matt's portrayal was so unique (and beloved among young fans of the show) that having several months go by could help in letting their memories fade and getting them excited for the direction that PC will take the character. As to Keeley that is wonderful news. Line of Duty hasn't aired here yet but I already had fun watching her as the time travelling (of a sort) detective Alex Drake in Ashes to Ashes. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
We see episode six (final) of Line of Duty series 2 tonight. Can't begin to tell you how fantastic this has been. Much better than the superb five-part series 1. All the best! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

All time favourite

Just a treat [7] All the best! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Such a treat. Gosh The New Avengers was more than a couple years ago. JL has aged wonderfully and done so many diverse things over the years. Thanks for the link! MarnetteD | Talk 00:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't like Michael McIntyre much, but I was channel-hopping Monday 23 March, and happened to hit BBC1 just as Joanna Lumley was talking about not having been a catwalk model. She's done the getting-out-of-an-E-Type routine for Graham Norton, and also on another chat show - I forget which (probably Michael Parkinson). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you help?

That editor (Special:Contributions/AdamRC98) is adding his regional and high-school productions to dozens of musical infoboxes. Could you help me rollback them and/or alert him to stop on his Talk page? If so, thanks. I'm starting from the bottom of his list of edits, maybe you could start from the top. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I got them all, and I left a note on his Talk page, but it might be worth checking his newest contributions when you have a chance to make sure he's stopped. :) Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
oof. I hadn't seen this post before I replied to your second one below. Apologies if anything I have typed causes offense. That is what I get for editing before having my morning coffee. Thanks again for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that your note on the editors page was appropriate in both tone and AGF. Good job. MarnetteD | Talk 15:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tarzan (musical)

Both article and infobox list lots of regional productions. Not sure what to do -- am alerting you, Ssilvers, and maybe another. Please take any necessary action, if you would. Thanks. :) Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are the reasons that I felt the items merited removal A} WP:OTHERSTUFF B) The additions are unsourced C) There needs to some degree of notability for items to be added and a high schools production is unlikely to ever reach that point, and d) The editor in question looks to be a WP:SPA and looks to have a WP:COI in this situation. IMO my removal of the info "was" the necessary action. MarnetteD | Talk 15:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops I hadn't had a chance to see that you had helped in removing the items. Thanks for you help and your question. MarnetteD | Talk 15:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
At long last I have had a chance to look at this article and now I understand your post. All I can say is "ugh" that is a long list of productions that are of dubious notability. I would be inclined to remove the bulk of them but that is just me. Let me know what you hear from the other editors you contacted and we can proceed from there. Once again my very first reply was made when I did not have even the glimmer of a grasp of what you were asking so one more set of apologies for its brusqueness. MarnetteD | Talk 15:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries, I just now woke up myself. Looks like Ssilvers has taken care of the worst of the problem. (The cast album infobox however is now pushing down text; I don't know if that can be fixed.) I may look at the article again later. Meanwhile, thanks for your replies. I did realize Wikipedia wasn't going to notify you that I left two messages not one, so I'm not suprised you didn't notice the top one first. :) Such is life on the ol' Pedia. :-) Later, Softlavender (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actor

Hi, I take it you are not an inclusionist Wikipedian. I have no grievances. I don't know why you call it POV, it was all sourced. I don't agree with your reverting of good faith edits aiming to improve the article. I think it adds to the article to learn about the different types of actors. Your reversion was in my opinion not appropriate. Tagging the sections and working to improve them would be more appropriate. I am going to undo your reversion, which is a tool best used for vandalism, and try to remove the weaker parts and the long quotes.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you should not assume anything about a Wikipedian that you know nothing about. I have worked for the inclusion of large amounts of material over the years. First, the edits were deceptively labeled as "copy edting" when they were nothing of the sort. Next, only some of them were sourced. The yammering on about unions is not relevant to the article and the info does not apply equally to different countries. I see that rather than follow WP:BRD you have restored your version. IMO large sections of the article now read like a junior high school essay. There are fragmented sentences and other sections that are almost unreadable. While it wont be the worst article on WikiP it has definitely gone down a notch or two from what it was so I will be taking it off my watchlist. MarnetteD | Talk 20:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for assuming you are not an inclusionist. I didn't just restore material, I tried to improve it from the previous version. Sorry for using "ce" to add in content, it is just a shortcut, a lazy shortcut. I will try to find better sources. Are you against having sections on the different types of actors?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The following has been copy 'n' pasted from OnBeyondZebrax under "Pet peeves" ...

* Excessively detailed plot summaries: In some articles about action movies, some editors provide a detailed account of every scene, rather than giving an overview of the plot. Instead of getting the "big picture" (e.g., "Rambo overpowers the sentries and makes his way to the fortress"), we hear reams of detail about every weapon that is used, every shot that is fired, every clip of ammo that is loaded, every twist and turn, and about the gory demise of every anonymous ski-masked villain.

Is this not a contradiction of their recent activity on Actor? Remember to consider the after effects of bloat! Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good morning On Beyond Zebrax, Thank you for replying on my Talk. Glad you have a sense of humour as I would not wish to offend. Wondering what is the origin behind your username. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Retained draft rights

Hey, just to let you know, I've added some more reference that explicitly says that Nuggets are still holding the rights to those players. Feel free to remove them if you think the references aren't adequate or the information aren't relevant enough. However, since the section is on every NBA teams page, I think the Nuggets article needs one too. I agree that in the past the term "International rights" are blatantly misleading and incorrect, not to mention that they were unreferenced. That's why I've changed the section title, add more information to explain what it is, and add references to help support the information. However, sometimes the news about the draft rights about these players (including information about when or will they enter the NBA) are difficult to find unless they are popular players or first-round picks (such as Ricky Rubio and Nikola Mirotić). I agree that players from 2003 Draft are unlikely to play in the NBA, but I just include them for completeness as technically their draft rights are still gonna be retained by the Nuggets until their retirements. — MT (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and your thoroughness in what you are trying to do. I do not see the references stating that they have the rights to those player from 2003. I can't find anything in the bargaining agreement that these are retroactive. So I have removed them. However, I will be okay with your restoring them if you can find any evidence that they are still playing professionally anywhere on the globe. My apologies if this causes offense and please keep up the good work that you are doing on NBA articles. MarnetteD | Talk 05:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I did not take any offense at all. On the other hand, it's actually really nice to see someone regularly maintaining the Nuggets article, a lot of other teams don't have that and sometimes a lot of vandalism remain undetected for months. Anyway, can you elaborate more on "a collective bargaining agreement from 2011 does not apply retroactively"? From what I understand, there is no evidence that the draft rights prior to 2011 are retained past 2011 due to the new collective bargaining agreement ratified in 2011. Did I understand it correctly? If that so, then I need to revisit all the other articles or find out more about the bargaining agreement. — MT (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Jeepers I was looking at this late last night and I thought that this ref that you used was a recap of the collective bargaining agreement put out by the NBA. My point is that I did not think that anything agreed on in 2011 that was different (or new) from what had been the norm before would be apply to something done in 2003. Ugh, I can't tell if this makes things clearer or not :( I think that the thing you may need to do is, if you have players in these tables from 9 or more years ago, you will want to see if they are still playing somewhere. If not they probably should be removed from the various articles. Now this is just one editors suggestion. You could ask for more input at the Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association. Cheers and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 17:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Jourdan

Always enjoy seeing him in films much earlier as I originally only knew him from Octopussy. I didn't like Gigi but I liked him in it. I saw The V.I.P.s yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. That's a good quote I think and very true, I can't think of a more suave actor. He really was the stereotypical tall dark and handsome type wasn't he, a "slick son of a bitch" as I'd call him LOL. Slightly creepy, a bit like Uri Gellar actually! I don't think his type would have appealed much to Liz Taylor though, they really lacked chemistry in the film! Unlike her and Burton however!! Would be good at some point to substantially improve his article, but many others I intend working on first! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Dr B. I think that he is excellent in Count Dracula (1977 film). This version of the story stays closer to Stoker's book than most. Back in the mid-80s he was performing in a touring version of Gigi and I got to see it when it was here in Denver. It was a wonderful production. A few days later, on Sunday, I was walking into a movie theater that was in my neighborhood to see Carmen (1984 film) and I almost bumped into him as he was leaving. I've always thought that it was neat that he wanted to get out and see the film rather than just rest in his hotel on his day off. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Saw him in person once, at the American Food and Wine Festival in LA, back in the mid-80s. Elegance itself. Sigh... --Drmargi (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just Checking

You do realize, right, that the Ugly Duckling isn't just about metamorphosis? 67.171.222.203 (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I also know that, per WP:ALSO neither of the items that I removed from the see also section were related to that article. MarnetteD | Talk 22:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess that depends on your definition of "related". 67.171.222.203 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Silence is acceptance? 67.171.222.203 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Huh? I have said all that needs to be said. They do not belong in the section. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content

Regarding your removals of birthdates on Matt Stone and Trey Parker, I don't see any affiliation with IMDb in the refs provided. Those were from Biography.com. You may have made a mistake here, though I felt I should check in case it wasn't. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There were no refs (IMDb - Bio.com or anything else) provided with the edits at all. I was simply trying to forestall any IPs or named users who might reenter the info using IMDb as their ref. MarnetteD | Talk 22:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for saying so, even though your edits removed the Bio.com sourcings. Both pages became indefinitely semi-protected a while ago. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
@XXSNUGGUMSXX:I only noticed the items in the infobox and I did not scroll down far enough to see that I had removed the source. I know that we are applying WP:DENY to the likely sockpuppet. However, sourced info can be restored by another editor. As you caught my error please feel free to make the edits needed to fix things. My apologies for misunderstanding your post and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 22:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob Hoskins help

The user Afterwriting is still persisting that Bob Hoskins wasn't Jr. without providing reliable sources to support such a claim. He rudely dismissed my explanations. Can you please help me out on his talk page? Maybe admin Alison could help. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • As fun as it is (I did see it in the theater) I may be too old as I haven't made it part of my absurdly large DVD collection. Probably my loss. :-) MarnetteD | Talk 17:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is lively, and unusual that we find ourselves on opposite sides of an issue! --Drmargi (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes and I hope that I have not given offense and apologies if I have. I went to the website for Acorn Media in the hopes that they might be streaming Flickers. Sadly, they don't but they have reduced the price on the DVD set. I really (x100) wih you could see the performances by Bob and Frances. I'd be happy to get it for you if it doesn't fit you budget. Please feel free to email me about this if you wish. I did TV performances yesterday so it is Bob's films later today. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 18:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
To me? Heavens no. I know you far better than that, and we don't always have to agree. Have you checked to see if TCM is running any of his films? It usually takes them a few days to marshall a group and get them on air. --Drmargi (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have been checking TCM. They used to put together wonderful one or two minute tributes with clips from a persons films after they passed away. I don't know if they still do that but I have been tuning in just in case. MarnetteD | Talk 19:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't find anything yet. Maybe next weekend. --Drmargi (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. With so many of his films being British I wonder how many TCM has the rights to. MarnetteD | Talk 01:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare anew

Just got home from a quite extraordinary production of Shakespeare that I'm sure you'll appreciate. It's a little hard to explain, but basically, the play is about four people who meet up in a remote cabin. Their relationship to one another is not known at first, nor why they are there. Anyway, they have certain discussions, alliances form and are broken, there's a plot twist or two, one of them is killed and the other three all agree to keep it a secret forever. Okay. What does this have to do with Shakespeare? Get this. The entire play is composed using dialogue from Shakespeare's plays. Every single line in the play is a quote. I had thought, going in, that it was going to be a kind of montage thing, but no, it actually makes sense. They have real conversations, and after about 20 minutes or so, you find yourself forgetting the novelty of it, and actually watching for the story and the characters. And, like I say, there's even a couple of plot twists. It works about 90% of the time. A couple of lines of dialogue don't really gel together, but by and large it's perfect. Amazing stuff. And the last line, after they've agreed to keep the secret? Of course, "when shall we three meet again?" It's on in a tiny little theatre in Wicklow, only holds about 30 people, doesn't even have a website. And the writer of the play is also the director, the lighting supervisor and one of the actors! I was talking to him afterwards, telling him this should be on in The Abbey and The Globe, but he's not interested. Said he's been writing it on and off for fifteen years and was just glad to finally get it to the stage! Wonderful stuff. Bertaut (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this message. What a wonderful experience!! This is a great example of how the magic of the theatre can happen as easily on a small stage as it does on a large one. I experienced this many years ago when a little theatre in my neighborhood combined Eugene O’Neill's Hughie with Pirandello's The Man With the Flower in His Mouth. While the two one-acts are quite different the setting of both of them at the reception desk of a small hotel and using the same actors led to an extraordinary theatre experience. Thanks again for sharing your evenings excitement. MarnetteD | Talk 21:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)