User talk:MarnetteD/archive47

AFI

Hi, MarnetteD. You know I am loathe to raise objections to edits by such good, responsible, longtime colleagues as yourself. I would not have done so in this case unless it seemed very serious. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, I removed what I believe was an obviously good-faith edit that either wasn't supported by talk-page discussion or — and this may equally be true — there was indeed a consensus but the link to the discussion was incorrect. Based on the link on the page, I went to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 61#American Film Institute recognition and did not see anything about including AFI top-ten films. Is it possible I was reading the wrong archived discussion, and that consensus to include them was reached? If so, I'll be first in line to restore it. If the link did go to the correct discussion, I'm not sure I see how any consensus was reached. Please advise. And I thank you for your understanding.

Also, the reason this came up at all was an incident going on at List of accolades received by Carol (film) and on that article's talk page. The incident and discussion may be on interest to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tenebrae I think we are coming to different conclusions about the same discussion. That discussion is only about films that are "nominted" to be on an AFI list. The main point of it was to cut down on the WP:INDISCRIMINATE inclusion of the films that were nominated to be on a given AFI list. The main reason being that they look at hundreds of films when compiling their "award lists." In the end even Dr.saze (whose edits brought about the thread) agreed so that so there was a WP:CONSENSUS on that and that is why I made the edit to MOSFILM. The discussion was not about "top ten" lists, at least in part because the AFI lists are usually more than ten films. Based on that discussion I have restored the section that was agreed upon. If you want to start a new discussion about your concerns please feel free to do so. I know there is some misunderstanding going on here and that means I may well have caused you some offense. My apologies as that is not my intention. MarnetteD|Talk 17:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Tenebrae. I have had a chance to take a longer look at what is going on with the article you linked to. First, I am sorry that you are having to deal with those unwarrented personal attacks. That sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff is always a pain. Next, the items are about top ten lists rather than just AFI recognition. I am pretty sure (with the possibility that the dusty memory banks may be faulty) that there was a different discussion about top ten lists at some point last year but I am not sure when. Just to restate the discussion you have linked to - and the edit I made to MOSFILM - deal strictly with the AFI items in any accolade section. Based on this I would recommend that you start a new thread at the film project - surely some of the members will remember the discussion about top ten lists and be able to link to it. Barring that a new discussion should nail down just what the consensus is regarding top ten lists and how many or few should be included in a given article. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add my best wishes for your 2017 on WikiP and even more so off so I am posting them now :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I'm still not reading it the same way, but I accept your word and, as you say, it's always something that could be revisited. I adjusted the link in the item — it now goes to the archived discussion, where it had just been going to the main FILM MOS talk page — and clarified that it's about prose mentions. I've already gone back and re-added that mention to the Carol accolades page. I'll see if there are any others where I've removed AFI top-ten mentions and I'll reinsert there as well. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and Happy New Year to you, too! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that we are on trains that are on different tracks - I am not even sure they are going to the same station Tenebrae :-) AFI lists aren't often restricted to "top ten" items - see AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies for example. Now there may be AFI "top ten" lists but I am not familiar with them or their use WikiP articles. Again the focus of that conversation is removing films "nominated" for an AFI list and they were to be removed whether in list or prose form. Here is one example of a proper removal. The reason is the AFI members would "nominate" a huge number of films for each list and then pare it down. That is as opposed to the Golden Globes, SAG or Academy Awards which nominate five films (except for AA Best Film which can now be up to ten.) Again I am sorry for the confusion. Hopefully we get to be on the same train again one day. I'm buying in the bar car :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes! MarnetteD|Talk 20:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Here's how I phrased it on a "List of accolades" article (List of accolades received by Moonlight (2016 film)) and here's how I phrased it in an article with an accolades list (Sully (film)#Accolades). If those seem OK, maybe I could ask you to help keep an eye on the ten films/accolades pages, to help insure the consistency we're all going for? Hey, I'm nothing if not a team player!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay Tenebrae. This looks good and helps me to understand what you are talking about. Woot Woot. IMO those specific yearly top ten lists were not part of the archived thread and might need a new thread just to nail things down. Otherwise I think what you are doing works - at least for me. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: "prose". Again, I'm not sure I read the FILM MOS the same way, since it's talking about top-ten lists in the context of prose. And the AFI list doesn't really fit in an awards list, since it's not a competitive award per see — it's not "Best Director" or "Best Actor" — and yet unknowledgeable editors will list it as "Top Ten" when the AFI doesn't even use that term. In the interest of collegiality and compromise, and because we legitimately have different readings of the discussion, may I ask you to restore the word "prose." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

See my first reply which was caught up in an edit conflict. I was adding a brief not to the accolades section that was dealing with a specific item that had come up more than once over the years. It should not be confused with the bulk of that section of MOSFILM. AFI "nominations" should not be mentioned in list or prose form - the only thing that merits mention is those films that make a given list. MarnetteD|Talk 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to get through some edit conflicts so some of my posts may overlap yours T. MarnetteD|Talk 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gotta go run some errands Tenebrae and my head is swimming a bit. Why don't you get more eyes on it and have all of us work on the wording. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay Tenebrae. I think I see where we are missing things. See my removal here of AFI nominations. I read that as a list within the body of the article rather than a stand alone list article. So that is where I have been coming from on this. Now I really do have to dash. I'll read your replies later this afternoon - my time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate it. I foresee all kinds of trouble if top ten lists of any kind creep back into the lists when, as my understanding goes, we wanted to keep such top-tens limited to consensus-approved mentions in context — and you need prose for context. I'm sure we'll find common ground. Speak with you later. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

While I was driving through the slush I may have had a breakthrough Tenebrae. The thread from the archive and my change to MOSFILM were dealing strictly with AFI's "megalists" (does that term make sense?) and not with any yearly top ten list that AFI may come up with. Working from that I agree with your last post about avoiding "top 10 creep" (I like that :-)) and it all makes sense to me now - hopefully. As I look at it the paragraph above the entry I made in the "MOSFILM Accolade" section seems to cover what you are referring to. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think that made it more confusing — at least I was more confused — so I restored your own previous status quo.

I guess maybe we should convene at the FILM MOS talk page, since we probably need other editors' input. My impression from the guideline language about top-ten lists is that we wanted them to be in prose with context where necessary and not in the lists. I'll go post something there now. We'll work it out as a collegial group, as, happily, we generally seem to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep talking about top ten lists when I have pointed out more than once that the section I added had nothing to do with top ten lists. MarnetteD|Talk 02:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Because I was talking about top-10 lists in my first post. (It's a recent issue because the AFI "Movies of the Year" came out, and that created list-bloat.) Since the MOS passage about the AFI immediately follows the passage about top-10 lists, you can see I made that connection.

In any case, the one-word addition I'm suggesting at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Adding one word to an MOS passage would apply to any AFI list. I'd like to get your and other editors' opinions. I know it's a ridiculously small addition, but I'm finding that with some less-veteran editors than you, me and others here at WP:FILM, one has to make things ridiculously clear. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey T. I've got friends over watching the game so I won't get a chance to look at the post you made but I did want to take a second to say I am glad that finally hammered out the differences in what we are posting here. MarnetteD|Talk 03:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

When you get a chance, I'm hoping you'll reconsider and re-add the word "prose" to the AFI section under WP:FILMMOS accolades, since while you and I realize that the added AFI paragraph doesn't negate everything that went before it, some other editors do not and, as I feared, it is causing back-and-forth editing and list bloat. See, for example, here. Thanks for taking a look. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae I am afraid that I can't agree to this at the moment. There are active threads about this at MOSFILM and at the Wikiproject film talk page. IMO to make any change would be inappropriate. At the very least it would be seen as WP:GAMING the system. I am sorry that you have not had replies at the MOSFILM threads - you may want to turn them into official RFC's to move things along. I know that you are finding this to be frustrating and I hope that you hang in there and have a pleasant weekend in spite of everything. MarnetteD|Talk 18:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time. I guess I'm communicating badly. I'm saying that the MOS says top-10 lists are in prose. The AFI addition says AFI lists are allowed. But the AFI addition doesn't negate what came before it, which is that such lists are in prose.

I guess you disagree, and I must admit I'm curious as to how you came to disagree, since the AFI addition doesn't negate everything in the previous paragraph. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

First Tenebrae please do not assume that I am agreeing or disagreeing with anything. The AFI lists that my post is about are those that are listed in this template {{AFI 100 Years... series}} and those should not be turned into prose mentions in articles. For whatever reason you continue to ignore what I have stated in my posts above. Time and again you keep trying to make my post to the accolades section about yearly top ten list in spite of the fact that it isn't. I will mention one last time you are free to file RFCs and DRs to deal with your situation. I am beyond frustrated with this so please do not post about this again on my talk page. In spite of that frustration I know that you are an editor who has WikiP's best interests at heart and I wish you well on WikiP and in RL. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Crown

Bit of an update: I just finished the fifth episode of The Crown (finally got around to it after five other series), and it made me think back to your last comment at User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 17 § Have you seen?, of course! Funnily enough, it also made me think back to how the entire royal family are werewolves. Alex|The|Whovian^?

(talk page stalker) I'm on my second 'round watching The Crown, and never thought of that!!! Perfect timing; I just re-watched Ep. 4. And on a related note... if you watched Battlestar Galactica, The Man in the High Castle season 2 is loaded with Cylons: #2 (Leoben), #4 (Rick Worthy's character) and Tigh, one of the Final Five. They were all in one scene in 205 and that was a hoot! --Drmargi (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am glad that you are enjoying it ATW. Good job on finding another DW connection - I like yours as well DM. Speaking of those Victoria (TV series) begins for us this Sunday so we get to see that queen before she was bitten :-) Since it is on PBS we wont have to put up with commercials breaks that ITV veiwers saw. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy Victoria! It was a most superb series. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful!! MarnetteD|Talk 15:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am SO looking forward to Victoria. I wasn't excited about it for a time, but now that Downton is done, I am. I might crack out the Earl Grey tea! (And not sleep all night!) --Drmargi (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Taboo

Hi M! Last Saturday we saw the first of this eight-parter. Very promising. The great Jonathan Pryce is wonderful. With you in mind, I checked the article—I forget, do you have access to FX? Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up G. It is on my list. FX has commercial breaks (we've discussed our dislike of those before - and in the thread just above - heehee) so I will be waiting a day or so after its airing to watch it OnDemand. Cheers to you as well! MarnetteD|Talk 15:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey G. I found the first episode intriguing and fascinating so thanks for this post. Along with Pryce and Hardy I was glad to see Oona Chaplin in the cast. This is at least the fourth thing I've seen her in this decade and she has been excellent in all of them. I look forward to seeing where the story goes in the weeks to come so thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 18:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am pleased you enjoyed it. Yes, like her mother, she's an excellent actress. We get to see the second episode tomorrow evening. Can't wait!
Wishing you a lovely weekend, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  19:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The twists and turns in this series are fascinating G. When Mark Gatiss showed up in episode two I was struck by the fact that I hadn't seen him in such grotesque makeup since the time he lived in Royston Vasey :-) MarnetteD|Talk 01:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is it me, or are we bogging down? I just finished the fifth episode, and still am left with a "what the heck?" sense of things. I find Lorna fascinating, but keep asking myself what the point of James's activity is. Gatiss and Michael Kelly are a treat, though. --Drmargi (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from DM. I am going with the flow of the overall weirdness. Tom Hollander has added another creepy character to his resume :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm definitely hanging in there, given the level of weirdness, but with a lot of unanswered questions. Right about Tom Hollander! --Drmargi (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: In spite of another enjoyable cameo from Mark Gatiss’s George IV (this week, gorging himself on an ostrich egg), Tom Hollander continued to waltz off with the best lines, being very rude about the French and wondering of Lorna, “could a chemist call on her, for tea or something?” Otherwise, he spent the episode more or less chained to the cauldron, stirring away at the saltpetre and guano to make gunpowder alongside Delaney’s poor estranged son.
Great, isn't it? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Illi lakes

Hey. I wanted to let you know that I declined to speedy this article under A3, because I think including the location of the lake in the article is sufficient to make it more than 'a rephrasing of the title'. With that said, although named natural features such as lakes are generally notable per WP:GEOLAND, this article (and indeed almost everything listed on List of lakes of Estonia) contain virtually nothing beyond statistics and/or location, so you may have success at AfD, at least for merging them into a single article if you want to go that way. All the best, Ale_Jrb^talk 08:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Moscow on the Hudson

Would you mind adding this film to your watchlist? I need an extra pair of eyes to watch this IP-hopping vandal. I've requested temporary page protection, which might not happen, and I think he'll just return when protection ends. Many thanks, as always! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Friendly (talk page stalker). It has happened [1] — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your posts. I have put it on the watchlist and will be on the lookout when the protection expires. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for looking out! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 04:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael Dorn

I undeleted to look at the credits at the end of the last arrow episode on my sky box, I thought he would be there as I recognised his distinct voice but they didn't add him to the credits, strange that. It's clearly his voice as it's very unique, o well. I saw on [2] he is down as uncredited. He is a fairly well known star to be uncredited. Govvy (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you put in on this Govvy. Please remember that a verifiable reliable source is needed before any info about this can be placed in Dorn's article. Also be aware that - per WP:RS/IMDB - that site cannot be used as a ref. Their fact checking is dubious at best. You probably already know all this but I did want to mention it just in case. Now, it is possible that he is doing the voice work for free and that is why he is uncredited. It is also possible that it is someone else who sounds like (or is even imitating) Dorn. See this thread Talk:James Earl Jones#Voice acting occupation where one person was sure that it is JEJ's voice in the Arby's commercials but it turns out that it is someone else. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Choo, choo

Good Monday morning Michael,
We have not discussed these programmes [3] although I am a great fan of this Michael.
Series 2 begins tonight on BBC Two and, his own words, "having stayed in my comfort zone — [The Eastern States] — for my first American adventure", this time he goes west.
All the best, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  10:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this G. I have seen some of his European trips on our PBS station. Hopefully this new series will air there in the future. When you get to episode 6 (Great American Railroad Journeys#Series 2 .282017.29) you will get to the part of the states to the south of me. I have done lots of traveling throughout the area of the following four episodes :-) Enjoy riding along with MP! MarnetteD|Talk 23:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I had anticipated that and look forward avidly to that part of his trip.
Last Friday the final episode of his series 8 was shown. We are treated to five half-hour programmes per week (weekdays). Have you seen any of eight GB journeys? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sadly no G. None of those have been shown on our PBS station. I notice that they are available on DVD so I may be adding them to my collection in the future. I did see (and now own) Michael Palin's Confessions of a Train Spotter. I wonder if he had any idea at the time that little documentary would lead to a whole new career for him? Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 12:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd that PBS have been showing some of the Europe programmes and none of ours. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  14:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Dracula in popular culture

Ok, I guess it should be asked under this topic. About the revision of the addition of 1978 Dracula movie - when you said "other item is unsourced" what item did you mean? Cause I gave the link to imdb the second time I added information about this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.20.33 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note that - per WP:IMDB/RS that site cannot be used as a source for any entries here at WikiP. Also the description of the plot of Hotel T is not needed as a reader can click on the link for that article if they want that info. MarnetteD|Talk 21:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thanks. I'll give another source for this movie then. Also ok on Hotel T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.20.33 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

RIP John

Thank you for so many extraordinary performances John Hurt. From Richard Rich to Caligula to Winston Smith to Kane to John Merrick and on and on you were always memorable. The War Doctor is just the icing on the cake. My deepest sympathies to your friends and family and all of us who admired you so much. MarnetteD|Talk 03:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I first noticed him in Midnight Express (which I saw before I watched the I, Claudius performance), and I loved his voice as Aragorn in the animated version of Lord of the Rings. I think that the battle between him and Walken for Best Supporting Actor (he for ME, Walken for Deer Hunter) was one of the most evenly matched in recent history. I always wondered why he never tried Broadway. My friend, Daphne Zuniga, loved working with him. He will be missed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning these Onel5969. He was wonderful as Aragorn in Bakshi's film. That reminds me that his voicing Hazel in Watership Down (film) was also excellent. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

And as the voice of The Great Dragon in Merlin. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  21:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So True G :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

What a shame ...

... only three years. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  08:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a bummer G. Although three seasons (not counting the Tennant year of one hour specials) has been the norm since Tom Baker left the show I would have liked to see what direction Chibnall would have taken Capaldi. Well I'm guessing the betting line has already opened on who is to replace him. As we discussed three years ago it is time for a Welsh Doctor :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The betting line has indeed opened. One article I found gave the following stats: Rory Kinnear at 7/1. Richard Ayoade at 6/1. Ben Whishaw at 5/1. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting AtW. I wonder if any of them would want to give up three+ years of acting on the stage. Also I'm not sure any of them would want to do all of the appearances at various events (worldwide now) that go with playing the Doctor. Your mention of Rory jogs my memory - his dad somehow missed ever appearing in the classic series. He did do Blake's 7 though :-) Thanks for posting this info. MarnetteD|Talk 16:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I shall have to give it my consideration. If you all remember, I correctly forcast that Capaldi was going to follow Tennant. A Welshman eh? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I do remember that G! You did have a specific Welsh performer that you mentioned back then, unfortunately I can't remember their name at the moment :-( MarnetteD|Talk 16:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I can – it was Rhys Ifans. Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  18:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's it! Thanks for jogging my memory G. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I am rather pleased with the [very] old grey matter. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  19:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I rather suspect that the fake news sites are going to be falling over each other to announce (with no foundation in fact) the name of the next one before the BBC have even started to receive letters from various actors' agencies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Very true R. I'll bet they'll find all of the missing episodes too :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Post script The Telegraph and who's next? Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the links G. They can speculate about these big names all they want but I am kind of hoping they go the route they did with Matt and pick someone who is not so well known this time. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A Newcastle for you!

"Also known as retconning." LOL! DonQuixote (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DQ :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Six Nations started today,

and Wales play Italy in Rome tomorrow.
Hi M!
Something new to be tried this year, similar to the World Cup: the Six Nations Council took the decision to implement a bonus point system to encourage and reward try scoring and attacking play.

Competition points will be awarded in all matches on the following basis:

(i) The Union that wins the Match shall be awarded four Match Points or (if it scores four tries or more in the process) five Match Points.

(ii) The Union that loses the Match shall be awarded no Match Points or (if it scores four tries or more in the process or loses by a margin of seven points or fewer) one Match Point or (if it scores four tries or more in the process and loses by a margin of seven points or fewer) two Match Points.

(iii) Unions that draw a Match shall each be awarded two Match Points and any of them that scores four tries or more in the process shall be awarded a further one Match Point.

(iv) A Union that wins all five of its Matches (a "Grand Slam") shall be awarded a further three Match Points. [4]

Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  18:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting info G. I checked my cable station and, like last year, the matches aren't being shown live but we do get the chance to see all of them. My DVR is all set to record them. I'm looking forward to it! Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

JuVee Productions

It isn't clear whether you intended to blank this page. But please don't. — Smjg (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine. It is clear if you read the edit summaries in the history. The redirect is of absolutely no use to a reader. Davis' connection to the company is mentioned once and that is not sourced. It was created by a blocked user who has shown a propensity for socking. At the very least it is a WP:EGG. Any reader will be left wondering why the link has lead them to that article. WikiP links should not be part of a guessing game. MarnetteD|Talk 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems the page has been deleted now. And I don't remember what the edit summary said now. Was it "for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure" or "a copyright violation"? From what I remember, it didn't look like either of those. — Smjg (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

First I want to say that you were correct to inform me that what I did was wrong and I do appreciate that you did not use a template. That was kind of you. I was frustrated with the way my speedy tag was reacted to and made a bad decision in blanking the page. I restored the tag and it was acted upon in due order. The one thing I would add is that - if something seems wacky - it can be worth digging into the edit history to see if an explanation is in there somewhere. Again thank you for how you handled this. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting edits

You reverted some of my edits that I made. I did so to contribute to the pages. They were a jumbled mess in my opinion, and I fixed them. Why revert them? FandomDaddy (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

They were not a jumbled mess. You were changing sortable tables to unsortable ones. The filmproject deprecated using "rowspans" quite some time ago. You have obviously edited here under another name or IP in the past. I would suggest that you take a moment to read WP:MOSFILM to catch up on policy changes that have occurred since then. MarnetteD|Talk 15:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sock created

None of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship Division I‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic Star Hotel (2nd nomination)‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Mengalum boat mishap were created by socks or banned users. Check their histories. Even if they were, if other editors have commented then the page should be deleted: see WP:G5. So I will remove your tags again, if someone does not get there before me.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the SPI page. They are confirmed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nsmutte#09_February_2017_2 here. So the tags will be restored. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Double dag nab it. Did I take the time to look at the edit histories. Obviously not. 1000 apologies - darn troll got me twisted around. JohnBlackburne thank you for fixing mt errors. MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

While there is no question that I was in error it should be noted that had you explained this with an edit summary the first time rather than just reverting without explanation you could have saved us both a lot of time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought it was glaringly obvious they were not sock created - apart from the history you could just look at the first comment on each page – so it needed no further explanation, especially to an experienced editor. And the notice says "If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion ... please remove this notice", so I was only following those guidelines. I agree I should have supplied edit summaries, but I wanted to remove the tags quickly before the pages were incorrectly deleted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup explanation JohnBlackburne. I am glad that we are on the same wavelength now AND that you prevented any unnecessary deletions. I should have had my morning coffee before seeing the red ping with a three in it :-) Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD|Talk 20:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Certified troll-annoyance-reducing beverage. Thought you might need some. bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the pause that refreshes. This is much appreciated Bonadea. MarnetteD|Talk 19:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Logan's Roadhouse logo

I saw your post about protecting the Logan's Roadhouse article on the requests for protection page, right above my request for something else. I noticed that the current image is a JPEG and marked as Non-free media. I think I found an SVG version (I'll pull it out from here using Inkscape within the next hour). Also, I believe, since it is only text, it is ok for Commons under Commons:Template:PD-textlogo. Elisfkc (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your Note Elisfkc. The pic that the various IPs were trying to insert was an obvious "joke" - to use a polite term. If it was April 1 I might have had a chuckle but it would still need removal :-) The one you linked to looks good. I wish you well. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I just figured I'd let you know before I made the change. Elisfkc (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Fry

Hi, I didn't add in the HHGTTG detail, but >>> http://www.audible.co.uk/series?asin=B00HFV31PI

The first two series were narrated by Peter Jones. That is why I included "radio" in my edit summary. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Silent Night

MarnetteD, I never intended on listing every single recording of the song (which would take quite a few "Books", far beyond this website's listing capacity). I'm only including a sampling of the most notable (or at least popular artists) versions of the song, as mostly all of the other Christmas songs featured on this website have at least "notable" (if not complete) versions of songs recorded by various artists. GoldenGuy23 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. First you need to understand that "notable" is in the eye of the beholder and that is WP:POV and WP:OR. Next, you are not the only person who will edit that list - the next person will want to add their "notable" favorites and, as it grows, that is where WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes into play. So you understand I am not completely against mentioning some recordings but be aware that you need WP:SECONDARY sources claiming that a version is somehow more "notable" than others - for example the mention of Bing Crosby's recording in the lede. As this is just one editors thoughts on the situation I can recommend that you start a thread on the talk page for the article. That way you can get input from other editors who have worked on the article. For wider input I would suggest asking members of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs on how to handle these. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reana Ashley

I deleted the article per G7. The editor that you reverted for repeatedly blanking the page (Hitsonerr91) - was the article's creator. If the article creator blanks the page, it can be simply tagged for G7 as an implication that the creator is okay with it being deleted (provided that the article was not significantly edited, modified, or expanded by other editors). Just figured I'd let you know. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah. I was under the impression that only the article creator could place that tag on their article. I hope you saw that I posted the instructions of how to use the template for that editor. When you have a moment you might want to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reana Ashley. Nice coincidence that you fulfilled my "learn something new" need for the day :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

HA! That's awesome! Glad you learned something new! That's the best thing that could happen around here :-D! Good call, thanks! There was no AFD template within the article, so I was unaware of the AFD's creation. It is now closed. Thanks again! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Great stuff Oshwah. Thanks for the followup. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

[[Thanks]

Hey thanks for keeping Wikipedia a safe/fun place to beKenzie2012 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Kenzie2012Kenzie2012 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Noinclude

At Wikipedia:Counter-vandalism Unit did you mean to use 'noinclude' rather than 'nowiki'? EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ding ding ding EdJohnston. I sure did - thanks so much for fixing my foul-up. It has been awhile since I made that mistake - on the plus side at last my edit summary had the correct term :-) Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Let´s survive the one in 2020 too

Holy heck, a second wikipedian with the "apocalyptic" userbox! I´m honored. [5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

When I saw it I knew I had to add it to my collection Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Many thanks :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And you have the Francis Urquhart one too... Best evil politician ever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I got that one from your user page as well Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Ian was a special actor. Cheers! MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If you do Shakespeare for half a century or so, you get good, apparently. There´s a nice scene in an episode of Star Trek TNG where Patrick Stewart has Data perform Henry V (night before Agincort scene), and Stewart plays Picard and a play-character at the same time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I remember it well G :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You have suffered an appalling attack instigated by those who are ignorant and completely lacking in compassion. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  08:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to see you've been blocked. If you haven't seen it already, there's an offer on the table on AN/I to unblock you under certain circumstances. If you don't feel you want to give the assurances that are being asked for, my advice would be to just sit out the block - 24 hours isn't so much, and it can be a nice break. In any case, my best to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• And, wow! Almost 5 years without a block!! I'm lucky to go a year before I lose my cool. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bad block; as you know I had you figured as potential future admin material, which this has just blown right out of the water as I've seen people get twitchy about blocks from two years previously. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That has cheered me up: visualising Michael's reaction to being offered such an invitation. Enough to make him give yet more "admins" amusing descriptions. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  15:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi MarnetteD, not entirely sure I agree with your removal of the thread - only 75% chance you're right, so 25% chance you're wrong - but chin up anyway. FWIW, over the years I've become more and more unimpressed with the person who reported you, and the person who blocked you, the more I see their actions and statements. Anyway, you should have done what I did, and wait until after you become an admin to get your edit warring block. Next time, get a second opinion from someone you trust before revert #3. And geez, don't call people losers in edit summaries. They hate that. Anyway, cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  It is unfortunate to see a block on your record. You're such a hard worker. @Floquenbeam: I think we should conspire and delete the block log. :p ;-)—CYBERPOWER (Message) 17:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Ritchie333:, @Floquenbeam: and @Cyberpower678:. Thank you all for your posts. They are appreciated. Thanks for the barnstar Gareth. Ritchie I've always known I wasn't admin material but I thank you for your sentiments. Cheers to everyone. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You're not just a hard worker but a positive force, empty block log or no. --bonadea contributions talk 17:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words @Bonadea:. They mean a lot. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about the circumstances here (though I intend to do some reading), but I have to say that while I've seen you make some edits here that were probably less than entirely tactful (but then, who hasn't?) I've never had reason to doubt your basic competence, and would certainly describe this block as a surprising turn of events. Glad you'll be back in the land of the living(?) soon, and sorry to see this going on. Chin up! DonIago (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Doniago. "living(?)" is just great. Thanks for making me smile. MarnetteD|Talk 18:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Though in retrospect I wish I'd done a {{cn}} instead. :p DonIago (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm laughing out loud :-D Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 18:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the land of the living, for good or for ill. (Kidding...) --Drmargi (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to see this debacle pop up on my watchlist. You're an absolute star MarnetteD; thank you for everything you do here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Drmargi: you created a one line poem :-) Many, many thanks @Ponyo: I do appreciate your compliment. MarnetteD|Talk 00:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Bad block, You should never have been blocked for it but anyway it's all water under the bridge - We all appreciate your hard work here and I hope you continue regardless of the rather pathetic block :), If you want to be blocked for a week just go to Commons & tell an admin to F Off ... Probably shouldn't brag about it either!, (and FWIW if you ever ran for RFA I'd still happily and whole-heartedly support!),Anyway great to have you back, Happy Editing. –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch @Davey2010:. Much appreciated and great to hear from ya. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record

I had gone to bed before the ANI thread was opened. I had also washed my hands of the situation so the block hasn't prevented anything. Two more items lead me to believe that the block is punitive - 1) it takes two to edit war but only one editor has been blocked 2) my edit summary - out of line though it was - was done and dusted. Yes I lost my cool, as thousands of other editors have. This is not something that happens regularly for me but I accept responsibility for my actions and can wait for the block to expire.

Now, as to the thread that I removed there is a large box at the top of that talk page that states This page is for discussion of the Reference Desks only. Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference Desks. Other material may be moved. I was following that policy the OP and the editor who kept restoring the thread were not. On top of that the OP had already asked a WP:POINTy question about physical violence Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Libertarians. It had been closed but the discussion had continued. They had also taken it here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Libertarians. There were several explanations given as to what was inappropriate about their question. So when they opened a new thread with a slight variation (in the wrong place) about the same thing I removed it. Its restoration caused me to blow my top but I can't act like that didn't happen and I do appreciate that was a human mistake on my part. I accept responsibility for what it has lead to. 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Any reason why you're not asking to be unblocked? Because that option is open to you. El_C 18:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

And probably a half-dozen admins will edit conflict when unblocking you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the posts @El C: and @NeilN:. Been a long time since I used that template. If I have messed it up please accept my apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 19:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @NeilN:. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy editing. El_C 19:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Whenever possible @El C: :-) Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 19:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like I missed some drama on my wiki-break. It doesn't look like any warning whatsoever (much less ANEW report) was given before the block, which makes it totally out of process and indeed a bad block. I hope however that you can move on and recover your equanimity and bonhomie. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Softlavender. It was a wilder 12+ hours than I've been a part of in years - here at WikiP that is :-) I appreciate your post very much. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that due to the death of a close friend, I have not been on Wikipedia as much as usual. I have never seen such a bad block as the one you have put up with. At least a better informed admin cancelled the block. You are an asset to the project and have my full support. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of support David J Johnson. My deepest sympathies to you, Susie and your friends and family for the loss. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So yeah, I didn't watch the Patrick Stewart Waiting for Godot ...

But I did watch this: [6]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw this Softlavender. It was hilarious! As was the interview with Pat about his upcoming role in the Emoji Movie :-) Thanks for posting the link so I (and any of my talk page watchers who want a good chuckle) can watch it again. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 16:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I no longer have a TV so I saw this on Twitter (Chelsea Clinton tweeted it :)); didn't see the other part. It was so good I'm thinking of seeking out the real WFG that Sir Patrick did. Where can I find it? Softlavender (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Softlavender. I don't know if there is a recording of the full performance available. I know that Pat and Ian performed it in London and New York so there might be one somewhere on the web. Perhaps Bertaut is aware of a site that you can stream it from. I do know that this DVD set contains some wonderful behind the scenes footage along with clips from a few performances. PS, IM, Simon Callow and Ronald Pickup have fascinating insights worth hearing as well. It also has some interesting moments with the maintenance staff who try to keep the Haymarket from falling to bits. Fingers crossed that you can find it somewhere. MarnetteD|Talk 19:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There definitely is a recording Softlavender; the National Art Library has reference info here. But it's not available to the public in a general sense (you'll note it says "a wide shot recording of this production can be made available at 3 weeks notice"). So, if that's an option for you, there you go. But it certainly isn't available online anywhere. Incidentally, I'd agree with Marnette though, the Theatreland DVD is superb, well worth checking out. Bertaut (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

How fascinating, thanks for the info, Bertaut. At some point I need to go to London to do some research on Ian Charleson; I see this on that site but I don't know what exactly it is or how to get it. Do you? Softlavender (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My guess would be it is simply a small bio from a theatrical program held at the Blythe House repository of the Victoria and Albert Museum. As to how to get it, I'm 99% sure you'd have to visit the repository. However, it lists the barcode and whatnot, so it might not hurt to contact them about it to find out exactly what it is. Bertaut (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for that, B. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Hello! Forgive me if I'm posting this note incorrectly; it's all a bit new to me. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had its own strict definition of "reboot." To be honest, that definition seems a little restrictive... I see its position, but surely some allowance should be made for modern reinvention of years-old media? In this case, as much continuity discarded as was kept. It's not a precise continuation or reboot, but it seems to fit the spirit of the word. In light of the "ignore all rules" guideline, this seems like a way the entry could be made clearer.

Can I assume you're also removing my edit to the paragaraph in the History of Doctor Who? I'm unsure why. It was factual information, not bias, opinion, or critique, and it was pertinent to both the topic and the paragraph.

EDIT: Ahh, I've discovered the history page. I've no idea how to edit it, though, so I'll reply here. I'm confused... The paragraph I edited was already about a division in fans' perceptions, that was why I chose it to add to. As for style changes, speaking as a Doctor Who historian for more years than I like to think of, certainly original Doctor Who underwent numerous stylistic changes, but there were certain constants. Despite the lack of an official show bible, those elements were consciously passed from producer to producer. To acknowledge the significant, oft-discussed, and well-established tonal shift between the two series isn't stating an opinion. It's factual, and a deliberate new direction on the part of the modern production teams. It's been acknowledged by a number of writers and producers from both eras.

ADDED: Ah, getting the hang of this now.

I put the edit back, but not to be difficult. I'm honestly not trying to start an argument... partly I wanted to explain why I feel it's pertinent now that I understand how the page's history works.

Anyway! So... what I'm trying to say is that which side of the division an individual fan may be on would be a matter of opinion, but the existence of the division and its subject aren't. It's objectively true that the new focus I described was introduced as part of the producers' vision of what a modern series should be. That's an important fact in the life of the program... No criticism or statement of position either way was intended on my part. Loomborn (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, people who use the term "reboot" for a TV series have no idea of its origin, nor of its proper meaning. If they did, they would't use it in the way that they do. For its original and true meaning, see this article.

So. Did somebody go up to Doctor Who, turn it off and turn it on again? Did this cause it to start running as designed? I really don't think that it did. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My thanks to IVORK and Redrose64 who have already done a fine job of explaining things. You should take the time to read the linked items in the welcome message on your talk page. Any entries to articles need to be accompanied by reliable secondary sources. I know there is a lot to learn but it will be helpful in any future editing. As to the fan item see WP:NOTOPINION. WikiP is an encyclopedia not a blog. MarnetteD|Talk 14:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64 - I'm a little taken aback by the patronising tone. I'm not sure what I did to deserve that. I can't speak to your experience, but I'm well aware of the word's origin. As for Doctor Who... I'd say that's a pretty apt metaphor, yes. Apart from the bit where it begins operating correctly again, of course, but bearing in mind that the vast majority of cinematic reboots end up being seen as less satisfying imitations of the originals, I'd then have to argue that the word "reboot" when applied to filmed media has never been as literal as you're taking it. Would you argue that most reboots have been effective in the way you describe?

But like I said, I'm not that committed to the word reboot. No one has really addressed the edit to which I dedicated most of my explanation, and that's the one I'm more concerned about. I explained at great length that what I posted is not opinion but objective fact, exactly like the preceding sentence in that paragraph. Can I assume, then, that we're all fine with that?

If you're saying you only removed it because of my failure to provide sources, then I have to ask where the citation is for the rest of that paragraph. I see a great deal of material on Wikipedia, and in that article in particular, that doesn't link to citations. I even see that a number of sentences have been marked "citation needed" but allowed to remain on the page.

Forgive me, but I'm starting to get the impression that my edit was removed not because of Wikipedia's rules but because you either don't believe it to be fact or simply don't like it. I aplogize if I'm mistaken. If a citation is all that's required I'll happily provide one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomborn (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Styles have changed in the series from the beginning so that is not particularly notable. While that is the premise of your edit the conclusion is that "some consider it a different entity" - a) it is not a different entity and b) those that consider it such fall under WP:FRINGE. As you have moved directly to playing the victim card I can tell that you haven't read any of the relevant policy links that have been provided. Thus there is little else that I can do for you. Please learn to use the "show preview" button and also sign your edits on talk pages by using four tildes at the end of your post. ~~~~ MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I will provide a couple more policy links - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:BURDEN both come into play. Also note their are plenty of places on the internet where you can post your theory. MarnetteD|Talk 19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've read all the provided links. If I'm simply playing the victim card and you posses no bias against the ideas I'm expressing, then let's put feelings entirely aside and address the information as I've presented it:

1.) The new series deliberately focuses on interpersonal relationships and sexuality where the original didn't. I have citations confirming that in the words of Davies, Moffat, Colin Baker, and several others.

2.) That fan perception is divided over whether to consider the current series the same entity as the original. You may think it's a fringe belief, but I disagree, and I'm not sure why your perception would outweigh mine. You state with certainty that "it's not a different entity," but you're not in any better position than I am to make that statement. I can provide a number of citations to the contrary, including the BBC's own position. If you're willing to keep that information out of the article, you'd need to provide concrete information of greater scope than mine, surely?

Your statement that the existence of previous style changes render this specific change less than notable is itself an opinion. Objectively, it's been considered notable enough to be the subject of countless articles and interviews since 2005.

Based on your expressed position, with those citations provided, my edit should be allowed, correct?

Loomborn (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Do not put words in my mouth. More than one editor have explained the problems and you are using WP:IDONTLIKEIT to continue this. My talk page is not a debating society so please do not post here again. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yonas page edits

I work for YONAS and study his music extensively. please stop removing my edits. I cant find a "source" for his height. any of this information is readily accessible if you followed his career, and looked up his music catalog. please stop altering the changes. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theincredibletruestory (talk • contribs) 03:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia does not operate on what you know. It operates on what can be cited in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. Until you can provide those your edits are WP:BLP violations. MarnetteD|Talk 03:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theincredibletruestory: Also, if you work for YONAS, you have a clear conflict of interest and should stay away from editing that article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer Berry

Thanks for the reversions. The editor involved clearly has a history of disruptive behaviour judging by his talk page. What is the process for reporting him if it continues? I tried WP:AIV yesterday and was denied, which I wasn't overly surprised about because it didn't really seem like the right place to report. But WP:ANI seems too strong? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello PageantUpdater. At a guess you could try Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. That gets other eyes in the situation and you should get good advice on how to proceed should that editor remain unresponsive. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)