User talk:TheOldJacobite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:RepublicanJacobite)
Jump to: navigation, search

If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, post here.

Contents

Happy New Year, TheOldJacobite!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Whiskey Rebellion

...is up for a GA review. I nominated it, but I am not an expert in Western Pennsylvania or national history topics. Of course you have no obligation to participate, but since are (were) a significant contributor, I thought I would let you know. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I haven't contributed in so long, I'm not sure what I would have to offer, but I will look in. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Casting section

I have warned the IP here and here. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  10:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

PS Re- "thick" I'm not sure that you have this meaning in American English, so added Wikilink. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  10:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking out! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Cheers! — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  15:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Full Name creation vandal

I don't know if you recall reverting 108.16.33.43 who liked to create full names for fictional characters. They were also doing it as 108.52.156.107 and now they have returned with a full account as Marie Garcia. Does this require a WP:LONG report so other editors know these edits are false? Justeditingtoday (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember that, no, but I will keep my eyes open. Thanks for the heads up. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion on counter-productive editor

Hi there,

I notice you recently left a warning at User talk:50.101.13.34 and thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion on this at the Village Pump.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Personal talk pages

Hello,

Please accept my apologies. I haven't been an active user for a few years and some of the specificities of wikipedia editing standards slipped my mind in the meantime. I think you may nevertheless come on a little bit strong with your warnings. Here's to effective collaboration moving forward.

Thanks Myrightsversusyours (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I will remove the warnings and look forward to better collaboration. Thanks for your message. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

X Files Genre

I would like to know why the genre "conspiracy fiction" cannot describe the show despite the shows mythology revolving around government conspiracies and secret experiments. Please explain why it can't be added according to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubrata khan (talkcontribs) 09:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Local Hero

Here: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be getting from this... Please clarify. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, just humor. If you don't like it, that's fine, just ignore; I thought it was cool.... Softlavender (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi TOJ. I saw this segment on Bee's show last night and the idea of Scotland giving T the finger made me laugh out loud. I know this kind of humor can be in the mind of the watcher but at least I didn't scare the neighbors dog. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Haha M; there's actually tons more info about the whole situation available, this just happened to be short and sweet and funny. There are even three films: You've Been Trumped, A Dangerous Game, and You've Been Trumped Too (the last of which came out right before the election). -- Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I glanced at it while in the middle of sorting through old AiV reports, so I was feeling aggravated. I'll take a closer look. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
No worries, TOJ; it's the sort of thing I usually post on the talk-page of Martinevans123, with equally as cryptic/clever header and lack of explanation, but he's a damn Welshman and you are the only Scot (to my knowledge) I'm still on relative speaking terms with on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
With the name Evans, I never would've guessed he was a Welshman. I'm actually mostly Irish, as it happens, but part Scots from my father's side – but not Scots-Irish. Let's keep that straight. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That was goddamn hilarious, by the way! Thanks for sharing it! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Haha, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I've watched it several times, already LOL. Scots wha hae! -- Softlavender (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you got a chuckle out of it as well TOJ. Always good to head into the weekend on a laugh :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
These days, I'll take the humor almost any damn place I can find it. The news is feckin' bleak! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I read that book!! Feckin Bleak House. I never wanted to imagine that things could be scarier than what old Charles D wrote about. Now we are on the razor's edge of them being worse than what George O wrote. Shudder. Have fun wherever and whenever :-) MarnetteD|Talk 03:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Haha, I'm currently in the middle of a re-read of Bleak House (first read was in the late 1970s or so; I also watched the wonderful 2005 miniseries when it aired). It's still great, but I'm getting bogged down from time to time (it's long!) and have to switch off to more modern fare. Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
That's one of the few of Chuck D's books I haven't read. But, I haven't picked up any of his books since I was a teenager. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The '05 series is wonderful. My fave is Bleak House (1985 TV serial). Starting with Diana Rigg, Denholm Elliot and Peter Vaughn the cast is replete with great character actors. MarnetteD|Talk 16:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Haven't seen that one M. Heard/read about it on the IMDB board for the 2005 miniseries, but (as with War & Peace) I'm sticking with what I already know and love rather than "shopping around". :) Those are great actors though. Then again, Gillian Anderson, Charles Dance, Timothy West, Alun Armstrong, Denis Lawson, Pauline Collins, Nathaniel Parker, Phil Davis, Ian Richardson, et al. are no slouches. And it made the careers of Carey Mulligan and Anna Maxwell Martin. Softlavender (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In terms of the book, TOJ, it's Dickens' masterpiece, a cut above anything else he did. The extremely evocative opening alone is award-worthy. I was enamoured of it in my 20s, but upon a re-read some of the characters seem redundant (by dint of the miniseries which cut/composited them) and the length is a tiny bit daunting. I'm beginning to see why War and Peace, published a dozen years later, is really the world's greatest book; in spite of Tolstoy's lengthy digressions into historiographical analysis, the story and characters are thoroughly believable and naturalistic. Softlavender (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for these recommendations! I have been meaning to watch the series with Gillian Anderson because I think she is simply wonderful, but haven't gotten to it yet. Soon, though... ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
She is wonderful. Brits were horrified that an American was cast, but they immediately hailed her astonishing performance once the series aired. She is the most striking thing about it, to me. I now "see" Lady Dedlock as her as I re-read the book, because I can see her expressions, face, demeanor. Gillian grew up in London and has also spent much of her adult life there. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I remember the controversy (cun-trov-ersy, as the BBC announcers say) when she was cast. But, she almost is a Brit – not quite, but almost. She is luminous in The Fall, cold and fearsome. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Haven't seen that, TOJ. It's on my watchlist, and not too expensive on Amazon Instant, so I hope to watch it soon, thanks! Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome! You won't be sorry. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The Fall is on my to see list as well TOJ. I got Netflix a couple months ago but I'm trying to do only a series or two at a time so I don't get overwhelmed. I did enjoy The Crown quite a bit. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The Crown was recommended to me by a friend, but I have not yet taken a look. Cheers to you both! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Cast members

Do you have a rule, where to cut off the cast list ? 5, 8, 12, 15 actors ? I tend not to remove actors from the list if they have an article. Inwind (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't have a number. I remove anyone who is not a main character, per WP:FILMCAST. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
What is your source for the cut off of main characters in The Monuments Men. Inwind (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The source is the film. Which character are onscreen the most, have the most dialogue, or are central to the story? This is not complicated, honestly. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I would still like to understand what your criteria are to include or exclude an actor. Do you exclude actors without dialogue or with less than 3 sentences ? You seem to be sure that Zahari Baharov qualifies to be listed in the article whereas Holger Handtke does not. Can you explain your decision ? Inwind (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
If you can not provide a cjear criteria to exclude "my" actors I shall put them back. Inwind (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I have been very clear about this and cited a Wikipedia guideline. If you restore those names, I would regard that as disruptive editing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You have been clear, but have not provided any tangible criteria apart from a rather vague definition "main character". Have you watched the film ? Inwind (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The definition of "main character" in WP:FILMCAST is very detailed; I encourage you to read that link carefully. For instance, when someone's character is merely billed as "Dentist", that is an indication of a minor character. If you want to include the characters you added, get consensus on the talk page of the article. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Softlavender. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You worn me down. Keep "your" cast-list! Inwind (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I will thank you to assume good faith in the future and not make accusations of ownership. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Links/See Also

When adding links to other Wikipedia articles that are subject-related with the topic you are editing, which are the criteria of choice? More specifically, I have been editing a film article and I respectively had decided to add a link to the novel of the same name, as well as, a link to a film in which stars the same actor and which is based on a novel from the exact same author. Should I include or dismiss these two links and why? Please reply ASAP. Thank you very much. Olgamantsiou (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would link to the novel of the same name (only if the film is based on the novel) in the text of the article; but I can see no justification for linking to a totally different film which happens to star the same actor and coincidentally is based on a book by the same author. Read WP:SEEALSO for further guidance. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Orangemike. To add to what he said, I would not link to an article about a topic that is already dealt with in the body of the article, as in the case of the book upon which the movie is based. That was already linked in the lede and is dealt with in more depth in the body of the article. Thanks for your question and for your improvements to Wikipedia. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Whiskey Rebellion

Updated DYK query.svg On 22 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Whiskey Rebellion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that only two men who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion were convicted of treason, but were later pardoned by President George Washington? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Whiskey Rebellion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Whiskey Rebellion), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

You have persistently made me out to be a vandal on the article of Lawrence of Arabia whilst it has been you who have violated the clear consensus that it should be only the United Kingdom. You repeatedly act to show your own opinions even when they are disputed by sources. Your behaviour is unprofessional. Unless you can provide sufficient evidence (not the two sources which I have repeatedly informed as being inaccurate and against wiki policy) within the next 24 hours, I will change the article again and report you. --Warner REBORN (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You have repeatedly deleted referenced information simply because you dislike and disagree with it. That is vandalism. Your opinion of me is utterly irrelevant, and editing Wikipedia is not my profession, so that comment was meaningless. You can report any goddamn thing you like – if you delete sourced information again, I will revert you and report you to AiV. Do not leave any further messages here, they will be deleted without comment. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Requiem For a Dream

Hi, you recently reverted my edits for the plot of Requiem, can you please tell me which of the things I wrote were incorrect? As an example, take the errors in these 2 sentences before I changed them: "Meanwhile, Sara's son Harry, his girlfriend Marion, and friend Tyrone are all heroin addicts, and Harry funds his habit through petty theft. Tyrone decides that to support themselves, they should enter the drug trade. With the promised money, each addict hopes to achieve their dreams. At first, the trio's drug dealing business thrives." But at the beginning of the film, Marion is not a heroin addict, and while Tyrone sometimes uses, he is not an addict. The only possible theft I can remember Harry engaging in is pawning off his mother's TV. And only Harry and Tyrone sell drugs, not Marion.Capuchinpilates (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking back on the edit history, my objection was to some of the rewording, which was very unclear. This is especially true in regard to the section relating to Marion and the pimp, which was incomprehensible, honestly. If you want to try some of the factual corrections again, go ahead, and I will take a look. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thankies

Cute grey kitten.jpg

<3

Paranoid-Penguin (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Waking Life

You reverted my edit on Waking Life, I see, calling it "pointless". I get what you mean. I was trying to tidy up the source code to make it easier for editors. You could call that pointless perhaps. The thing is that you threw the babies out with the bathwater. This wasn't all that the edit was about. In fact, it was more or less incidental. The main points of the edit were consistent date format, removing deprecated parameters and correcting punctuation (per the MOS). I should have made it clear in the edit summary. Anyway, I've reverted your revert (though I kept the delinking of rotoscoping) but I redid my edit in three parts. If you still think it pointless, revert the third part (tidying up of the code) but please leave the other two parts (punctuation and dates/parameters). Thanks. Jimp 01:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I don't think I paid enough attention to your edits – all I saw was the old way of writing refs in one long list, which has never made any sense to me. I will take another look at your edits. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


Once Upon a time in America

1. It is important that Deborah´s relationship with Noodles is described. 2. It is important to mention what happened to Max. 3.It is important to mention that this movie does not end with the credits. It ends, when the screen goes black. 17:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Arderich (talk)

You are mistaken. It is important that the plot summary be kept succinct and not burdened with extraneous details. Anyway, this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Terry Gilliam

Just an FYI that I started a thread on the Talk page asking about the notable films mentioned in the lead for this article. I agree that the list was overly-long, but not mentioning anything after 1998 seems a bit problematic to me as well. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look and weight in. Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Peacock (American Army Officer) listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thomas Peacock (American Army Officer). Since you had some involvement with the Thomas Peacock (American Army Officer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:TheOldJacobite. NeilN talk to me 21:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NeilN was faster then I was but I will leave this anyway just to say - Hello ToJ. I hope you are well. An IP opened a rant about you at AN/I. Hopefully it will be closed by the time you see this but they didn't notify you so I thought I would. You might also ken know who it is a sock of. I hope that you have a pleasant week in spite of this nonsense. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to add for the record that "if this site is here for another 15 years" it will be greatly improved by your work as an editor!! Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for notifying me. Thank you, as well, MarnetteD, for your kind comments. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Chequers and User talk:175.103.25.136

I would appreciate some advice. I am having a problem with the above editor on the Chequers page and I see you have experienced similar difficulties in relation to the user's edits on Independence Day (1996 film). He is determined to insert mention of the movie Ali G Indahouse into the article, firstly on the absurd grounds that it was filmed there. When this was pointed out to be incorrect, he re-inserted on the grounds that it purported to have been filmed there. I've tried reasoning and discussion, both on his Talkpage and on the article's but, as his Talkpage shows, he's not amenable to a reasoned discussion. Would you recommend that I list it as an edit war incident? Grateful for your advice. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Heavens, it's tiresome on here sometimes! KJP1 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
We'll see if that does the trick. Edit-warring is taken seriously, so he'll find himself blocked if he doesn't cease and desist. I'll check in later and see what the status is. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Star Trek Deep Space 9 episode in Casablanca

Please explain why the reference to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode Profit and Loss was removed from the film Casablanca. This episode's story line is based heavily on the film which is substantiated by the following links:

http://www.startrek.com/article/21-years-later-profit-and-loss

http://startrekfancompanion.blogspot.ca/2016/10/deep-space-nine-2x18-profit-and-loss.html

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Profit_and_Loss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talkcontribs) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt the veracity of what you are saying, but none of these sources are adequate to source the claim. Blogs and wikis are not allowed per WP:RS and the Star Trek site just makes a passing comment about the connection, without offering any evidence. What we need is a source in which one of the writers, producers, or someone else involved in the production talks about the influence. These sources are not going to work. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

How does this look

Hello TOJ. I saw your edit summary and went to work on this The Last Place on Earth#Cast. I culled some and added links. Many of the Norwegian actors do not have articles but, since the series was so balanced between the two expeditions, I didn't want to remove all of them. Thus, I left those where the historical people they played had articles. Feel free to make any improvements as you see fit. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for taking that on. I have only just started the series and am having trouble keeping people straight, so I knew I was not the one to take on fixing the cast section – at this point, I really have no idea who the main cast members are! Anyway, thanks again. Best, ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I hope you enjoy it TOJ - or at least find it interesting. I found it to get better with repeated viewings. I saw an interview a little after this aired on Masterpiece Theatre with Ousdal and he related how art had imitated life. The filming of the Norwegian part of the series had seen mild weather. A month or so later when the filming of the British cast got going things turned colder and stormier. That same year I saw the film Burke & Wills - the polar :-) opposite as far as temperature is concerned. At one point Wills is writing in his journal and, as he lifts his pencil the lead melts and plops onto the page. I don't think I've seen anything that made me feel such heat in an air conditioned movie theater. I did notice an interesting connection between the series and film. TLPoE starts with a scene of Amundsen learning from a tribe of Eskimos how to survive in the frozen north. B&W has a few scenes of aborigines living and thriving in the landscape that is sapping the strength of the members of the expedition. For me it showed the pitfalls of thinking that ones race is so superior that they don't need to learn anything from others. Cheers to you. MarnetteD|Talk 01:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I found the first episode very slow going, which has sapped my enthusiasm a bit. But, I will get back to it in the next day or two. It was highly recommended by a close friend whose opinion I value, so I am sure it will get better. Thanks for your thoughts, as always. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Barton Fink

Thanks for removing the "unrelated" stuff. I just thought it would be interesting. :) Espngeek (talk)

Clear and Present Danger (film)

Can you please explain why you reported a content dispute as vandalism? --NeilN talk to me 13:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This was not a content dispute. An anon. changed the article and was reverted; he changed it again and I reverted him. At that point, he should have dropped the matter or posted on the talk page to explain his edits, instead, he chose to edit-war. To my mind, reverting back to the stable version was consistent with policy. This was not about content, this was about one anon. editor trying to force his own way despite having been reverted by two editors. When he then logged in and continued, and was reverted by a third editor, it seemed clear he was not going to discuss or abide by policy. This could have been settled yesterday – the difference in content is very slight, but the article's factual statements should be accurate – if he had used the talk page as he is required to do. Instead, he chose to edit-war because he finds himself in the unique position of owning a DVD of the movie and is thus a self-appointed expert. Is this really the kind of behavior we should allow? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This is very much a content dispute. Please do not misuse WP:AIV that way again in the future. --NeilN talk to me 14:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Did you read my response? The content question was and is secondary to the anon.'s behavior – and the behavior of the editor who using the IP as a sock. If your opinion is that an editor can use an IP address to edit-war, then log-in and continue to edit-war, safe in the assumption that there will be no consequences at AiV, then Wikipedia is in a lot of trouble. As soon as the anon. failed to abide by BRD and chose to edit-war, then the decision to revert his edits as vandalism and post warnings on his talk page was the only option available. If you think otherwise, you might want to reconsider your adminship. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Both of you were edit warring. You had five reverts of the IP. I note that another IP suddenly showed up to revert Dibol's changes. And failure to observe BRD is not vandalism. Continue to think that way and you'll be blocked, sooner than later. WP:ANEW exists for a reason. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't threaten me. Once again, if you can't see that there was a qualitative difference between my edits and those of the anon., I think you should seriously reconsider your adminship. And, despite your insinuation, the second IP who reverted Dibol had nothing to do with me. Feel free to run a check if you don't believe me. But, frankly, I find this whole thing tedious as well as insulting. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Blade Runner

Please don't revert indiscriminately. Read MOS:POUND on the use of # sign. Hzh (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't know what you're talking about. I was reverting unhelpful anon. edits. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You should really read what you are reverting. Hzh (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Revert of minor El Topo edit

Why did you revert this? It is correct and appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Topo&diff=prev&oldid=778882165 Matttoothman (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Matttoothman: You are correct. Your edit got caught up in the revert of several unhelpful edits. Please feel free to restore it, or I can do so, if you prefer. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Patrol

My goodness - did I cut you off in traffic, or insult an edit you made in the past, to earn your patrol duties on my various edits? If so, I truly apologize! The edits on the Sully synopsis may have been a touch flowery (yes - I did repeat the point about what information the simulation pilots had), but that did not make the entire change some random "Unnecessary plot and cast expansion". The final product was still well within the guidelines for plot size while adding a few details, and the cast list was actually a reduction from 26 to 18, with a group statement about the television people. The edits on the Shutter Island synopsis are discussed at its talk page - which is still unresolved and has not attracted any other editor's concern other than some ip address editor who did add the word/key plot point "lobotomized". If you are, indeed, patrolling, then you know that I don't expand-movies-like-crazy. You will have already seen that I have many many articles where I've gone in to help tighten a bloated plot synopsis, while trying to maintain the integrity of the actual story being told in the synopsis. I have also acquiesced on some of my edits when I felt that the change back or forth was not important enough to worry about, while on others I have gladly dropped an edit and accepted the reasoning provided in discussions with fellow editors. Just not sure what's happening between us over the last week or so. Jmg38 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are talking about, nor am I interested in your ranting. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Rant? I'm trying to start a legitimate discussion with a fellow editor. I've laid out the reasons for starting the discussion, tabled some information, and closed by reiterating a concern that something seems to have gone off kilter. I'll assume from your initial response that you may have run into some "ranter" in the past - but trust that you won't let that colour your view of all interactions. Jmg38 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If you were truly trying to start a legitimate discussion, you would have directly addressed the issue at hand, rather than beginning with some strange accusatory tone involving someone being cut off in traffic. If you have a legitimate complaint or question, please state it directly, rather than burying it in the middle of a long paragraph. I still do not know what you are actually talking about. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

One False Move

Hello. Please tell me how my plot edits do not comply with Wikipedia policy. I've made other contributions in the past and never received a notice.Tasdau (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Plots should be brief and to the point, free of unnecessary details and links. What I left was not a notice, it was a welcome message with links to rules and guidelines for editing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yikes

Hi TOJ. I know I'm getting old and losing touch with today's pop culture but if these are erotic films then I've got to check for marbles around my bed each morning because I've lost too many :-) Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea what that edit was about. I have trouble imagining that Kubrick needed to see those travesties before making Eyes Wide Shut. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Heat (1995)

Hi, you reverted my edit on "Heat" removing that fact that it is a remake from the leading paragraph, I am just wondering why. Is there any other remake that doesn't state it in the leading paragraph? "King Kong", "The Mummy", even "Jingles the Clown" seems to include this sort of thing in the LP, is there a reason the "Heat" article is getting special treatment? Damiantgordon (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, "remake" is not accurate. Second, there is already a section that deals with this in the body of the article. I don't think it's necessary to mention it in the lede. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think remake is inaccurate? Have you seen "L.A. Takedown", Heat is an almost verbatim remake in many scenes. It was written and directed by the same person, so in what sense is it not accurate to describe it as a remake? Second, I am aware there is a section about this, my point is there there is no other remake that doesn't have the origin of a movie in the leading paragraph, that I can see of. If you can show me one (that you haven't edited), I'd be glad to drop this issue, otherwise we should keep the same standards for all articles and avoid exceptionalism. Damiantgordon (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This discussion needs to take place at the article's talk page, not here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. Damiantgordon (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Sirens

Hi! I noted your reversion of my edit to Sirens (IP edit, I neglected to sign in at the time), regarding Geoffrey Burgon's rejected score. I found this reference, but lack the experience to know if it's adequate (excuse the long link): https://books.google.com/books?id=at_MBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=rejected+music+1994+sirens&source=bl&ots=YSb189lKqd&sig=PepsijbzeIKFRPDQ7gmkrOy6gxo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid-MXuvLjUAhUCyyYKHQXnBKUQ6AEILDAD#v=onepage&q=rejected%20music%201994%20sirens&f=false

Additionally, the piece appears to exist on YouTube, however without a source. Would be grateful if you could assess the above, thank you. Bennycat (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No, as interesting as it is, that book would not be considered reliable because it is self-published (the listed publisher is lulu.com). You would have to find a third party source. It would have been nice if that fellow had quoted a source for his self-published claims, but he didn't, alas... ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Band of Brothers

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I undid your revert of William Guarnere at the Band of Brothers miniseries page since nicknames are included for many of the other members of Easy Company and it seemed to be more consistent to include it. I guess that at least it's good the editor who originally made the change didn't type Gonorrhea as the nickname... Yojimbo1941 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I think the nicknames are all unnecessary, but it's not important enough to pursue the matter. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Beguiled

Hi, I wanted to let you know why I reverted your edit. The production section as it was did not read in a very prose instead reading very stiff and like Proseline This is an issue with a lot of Wikipedia:Film articles as of recent however ideally this shouldn't really be the case, and if you look at featured film articles on this site you'll notice they are not written in this manner. I also added ample information about the process of how the film came to be and Coppola feelings about it. It's not perfect and I'm still trying to tinker with it, but I think it's better for the project as a whole. --Deathawk (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Organized crime

Tommy gun sketch.png
Hello, TheOldJacobite.

You are invited to join WikiProject Organized crime, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Organized crime.
Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 12:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Home Alone 2: Lost in New York#Plot length

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Home Alone 2: Lost in New York#Plot length. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
A barnstar for you! Tallahassle (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Full Name creation vandal

I don't know if you recall reverting 108.16.33.43 who liked to create full names for fictional characters. They were also doing it as 108.52.156.107 and now they have returned with a full account as Marie Garcia. Does this require a WP:LONG report so other editors know these edits are false? Justeditingtoday (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember that, no, but I will keep my eyes open. Thanks for the heads up. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Goodfellas

Hi there,

I notice you recently recently reverted my edit of adding Category:Films about race and ethnicity to Goodfellas, saying it is an inaccurate category. I believe it is in fact and accurate category as the film has some fairly prominent ethnic and religious themes; for example Henry and Jimmy can never made made men because or their Irish heritage, and Henry must pretend to be Jewish in order to marry Karen.

Thanks, Shaolin Punk (talk) 1:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, but the issue should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Popeye (film)

Not sure why you deleted an addition of a Metacritic score to this film? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to go back and look at the article history, as I cannot honestly remember this. Thanks for the message. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. The score was added by an IP (I think) and lacking a citation, but even I normally won't even tag something that can be so easily fixed by an editor with a couple of minutes to spare. :) DonIago (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no explanation for that edit. Maybe I was drunk? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Happens to the best of us! Being drunk, I mean. :p DonIago (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Uncle Buck

Please answer the note on the talk page of this article. Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of reverted "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres" to "The Sting"

There is relevance of revision 783892589 of "The Sting" (addition of See Also "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres"), which you reverted. It's in the reference in the Shady Deal at Sunny Acres page:

 "... the first half of it [The Sting] is 'Shady Deal at Sunny Acres'!"

So perhaps the reversion should be undone, perhaps with the addition of "(plot similarities)".

BMJ-pdx (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

+Pictures

The billing block says "Warner Bros. Pictures presents", that's all I was citing. I would prefer that it be used. Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 12:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"not an improvement"?

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment of my edit as a whole. Specifically, there are some spots in the previous version that I think read very poorly. "These last two band members, who now run a soul food restaurant, rejoin the band against the advice of one's wife." is a pretty poor sentence. "The band stumbles into a gig" may be concise, but not very accurate. "After her volley of M16 rifle bullets leaves them miraculously unharmed" is also fairly poor, grammatically speaking. Maybe some of my other choices were unnecessary, and I realize it's easier to revert wholesale rather than pick and choose, but I do think the plot needs some work. I'll leave it to someone else next time. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd have to agree with TheOldJacobite; your edit was not an improvement and actually made things less clear. There was nothing wrong with the text as it previously existed, and it was more informative. The article has Good Article status and there's no reason to re-write the Plot. Softlavender (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll accept the opinions of two experienced editors, but I'm going to have to ignore the plot section, then, because some of those wording choices just seem really awkward to me. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for piping in, Softlavender. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Home Alone

Look at the talk page of Home Alone, regarding Larry Hankin on that movie. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Suggest you stay "semi-retired" if you cannot leave messages politely. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 15:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Gareth. I really have nothing to add. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Schindler's List

Hi, can you check your edit to the above - the quote was made in German, not in English and the normal past participle of the verb broadcast is broadcast (OUP)? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The Exorcist

May I ask why you chose to remove my source for the "spider walk" special effect reference? There wasn't one provided, so I backed up the claims. Right now there are no sources provided. I was trying to rectify that.Partyclams (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Tom Waits

Can you please discuss our dispute with me on the article talk page? The three sources I provided call Waits a bluesman. I can easily find more, but isn't this evidence enough that the blues has been considered essential to his sound rather than just one aspect of it? Let me remind you that this sourcing is far better than what you have provided for rock and experimental music; nothing. You have not engaged in discussion since claiming that "he has explored experimentation with multiple genres, but always in a rock idiom. Rock and experimental define the majority of his music better than folk, blues, or jazz." What evidence do you offer to back this? Also please explain your reverts on Mule Variations on Bone Machine, I do not know what you are saying was "refuted on talk page".--MASHAUNIX 15:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS discussion about production section

I'm attempting to start up a discussion about changing the MOS wording in hopes of improving production sections. You can find the discussion here --Deathawk (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The Pogues - removal of "British" from opening sentence of article.

Hello TheOldJacobite. I have started a discussion on the Pogues talk page in response to your removal of the word "British" from the opening sentence of the article. With at least three British band members and having formed in London, it is hard to see how "Irish" is a more accurate description than "IRish-British". I would welcome your contribution to this discussion. Thank you. Peteinterpol (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the word because it was added by an anon. who gave no explanation. I find such edits troubling, to say the least. It has said simply "Irish" for a long time, and, if one is going to change it, they should give a reason. That said, I have no objection to a discussion and look forward to reaching a consensus. Thanks for your message. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks TheOldJacobite. I see we are on the same page in terms of seeking a discussion and consensus on this. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Themes in Blade Runner

I am confused by your revert of my edit to Themes in Blade Runner. The reason you gave was the article was about the original film, not the sequel. Most of my edits were not about the sequel. Isn't it a bit drastic to revert the whole edit? Also, the views of Denis Villeneuve on the matter are probably relevant since he undoubtedly discussed it with many of people involved in the original production.--TimSC (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything you added derives from the second film – ideas and revelations that are not in the first film and could not have been known at the time. Hence, they are not relevant. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • On daydreams being different to memories, my reference predates the sequel, so the ideas were already in circulation. If these ideas are in the sequel, that is a coincidence since I've not actually seen it. (Please no spoilers for a few more days!)
  • I've added evidence that corrects the misleading statement that Ford has changed his mind on the issue. That is certainly relevant. Just because it is recent evidence does not change that.
  • Probably the most contentious addition(?) was the Villeneuve quote. In context it is: "I know Hampton believes [Deckard’s] human, and Harrison believe he’s human ... I went to see the film with Ridley when it was playing in London on Imax and after it ended, he turned to me and said, ‘See, now you know that he’s a replicant,'... I said, ‘OK, Ridley, it’s your film, you can think whatever you want.' ... But as a fan of the original film I enjoyed the ambiguity and I did not want to ruin the mystery for fans." [2] His view is relevant because of his connection to the sequel but he is clearly discussing the first film. The statement "I did not want to ruin the mystery for fans" is primary about the sequel but does show his view on the issue under discussion. Perhaps a different part of the quote might be better to include. Why specifically do you think this is not relevant?
  • "because he has fallen asleep" That is obvious from watching the original film but I'm still not very happy with wording. --TimSC (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I just watched the sequel. Daydreams being distinct from implanted memories is not mentioned in the movie. I planned to continue editing the article (once I get time) since there are other themes that are not discussed. --TimSC (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Tears in rain monologue

Hello - I have made some comments at the link below on the Tears in rain monologue and the appropriateness of its inclusion in the Death in fiction category. Please feel free to comment. Also, I want to make sure not to give the impression that because I have a different view on this aspect of the article that I do not appreciate the work that I see you have done on this and other Blade Runner-related material in WP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tears_in_rain_monologue#Addition_to_Category:Death_in_fiction

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello! Why my edits were reverted? Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Because they were not helpful, as I stated in my edit summary. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
But many films have such descriptions in the first paragraph, for example Gladiator (2000 film), The Dark Knight (film), Titanic (1997 film), Mother! etc Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Beetlejuice

Hi, I saw that you reverted a bunch of edits to the Beetlejuice article, including some made by me. I put one back in place, and that is the word "counterproductive". Though I was pretty certain it is one word, not two, I googled it for good measure and the results confirmed by suspicions. That was the only edit I put back in, and I wanted to see if you concur with that. Shaneymike (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry I overlooked that. Thanks for fixing it. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Youngkitten.JPG


Vsmith9 (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC to change film MOS

I opened up an RFC on proposed changes to the Film:MOS. You can vote on it here --Deathawk (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

AIV report

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I declined your AIV report because this looks more like a content dispute, rather than outright vandalism. While the IP clearly is not following our generally accepted processes, it looks like the editor is making good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your message. However, you might change your mind if you look at the talk page post that I deleted. His attack on other editors makes me doubt his intentions. Cheers! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWN

In edit summaries, please refrain from referring to your preferred version of an article as the "last correct version". There is no such thing as a 'correct' version of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS. Dlabtot (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

When an editor (generally, an anon.) adds incorrect, uncited, or deliberately false information to an article, the previous version is the "last correct version." There is no need to seek consensus on that and it has nothing to do with article ownership. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Stop being so bloody imperious, Dlabtot. Your views are pompous and unwarranted. He has removed your earlier posting here. Take the hint! Go away! The OJ's reply above is in accordance with the majority of established editors. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard 09:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Gareth. I appreciate the support.
Dlabtot, when I remove your comment from my talk page, that is the end of the discussion. If you feel the need to go a more formal route, that is your business. I have nothing further to say to you. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, TheOldJacobite.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. You are encouraged to change

---<font face="Georgia">'''[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]'''</font><font face="Courier New"><sub>''[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]''</sub></font> : ---The Old JacobiteThe '45

to

---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]</sub></i> : ---The Old JacobiteThe '45

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed it. ------The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Raiders of the lost ark

Hi TheOldJacobite. You may not have noticed, but the rfc at Raiders of the lost ark was closed with this version being agreed upon. AIRcorn (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the time stamps the closer was linking to the version without "often". AIRcorn (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

Thanks for explaining why you removed Alan Moore from the infobox. Do you have a link showing why uncredited authors should not be included on Template:Infobox film? I looked at it, Template:based on, and their talk pages, but I only found reference to uncredited actors, which makes sense. I don't understand the rationale behind omitting uncredited creators of source material. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't point you toward the policy, specifically, it has simply always been the rule in the Filmproject. -----The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

The Great White North.jpg

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Snow flake (Unsplash).jpg Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 02:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, my friend! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
You are most welcome - Had to fix a cut paste error to make the card complete:-) MarnetteD|Talk 03:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da

  Claude Monet - The Magpie - Google Art Project.jpg Compliments of the season
Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment 
 Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, my friend! I wish the same to you! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

AFC-Logo.svg
Hello, TheOldJacobite.
AfC submissions
Random submission
Extremely backlogged
2506 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)