User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 18

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

Eyes Shut

I think you were correct to remove the compromise edit that "Eyes Wide Shut" is somewhat surreal. I myself put it in as sort of compromise with an editor who wanted to characterize it as a surrealist film. At the time it seemed justified to me since there are in fact some critics who see elements of surrealism in Kubrick's films without really characterizing him as a full-blown surrealist. However, as it stands its really very unclear without further elaboration, and the lead section would not at all be a good place to elaborate it. So on reflection I think it is best it be gone.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Dear RepublicanJacobite,

From time to time I check in on the Fluxus page of Wikipedia to do a little cleaning up or to add resources. I should probably be more active in Wikipedia, but I've got to admit this is the only entry that captures my interest. On my latest visit I noticed a huge number of changes that you brought to the page since September 1. I'm writing to propose a revert.

Since September 1, you have removed extensive material from the entry on Fluxus. This includes removing several of the key artists -- all of whom you will find represented in the key collections at the Museum of Modern Art, the Tate, the Getty Institute, and the Hood Museum of Art. This includes removing Yoko Ono, who is probably the most famous among the living Fluxus artists, but several others have disappeared. You have also removed several of the best known and most widely published scholars, including Owen Smith, author of the definitive history on Fluxus published by San Diego State University Press, and Ina Blom, one of the key European scholars, both of whom did their doctoral theses on Fluxus at respected universities.

The Wikipedia editorial standards prescribe using the published peer-reviewed scholarly literature as the primary source of changes, with such other key sources as scholarly monographs from peer-reviewed university presses and academic publishing firms. While some of the artists in the lists you have cleaned up did not appear in such sources, the Fluxus artists and scholars you removed will be found in this literature, while some artists and scholars you left intact were not.

As editor of the first academic collection on Fluxus (Fluxus Reader, 1998) and as an editor of and contributor to the peer-reviewed scholarly literature (several special issues of the journal Visible Language, and special Fluxus issues of such journals as Performance Research, White Walls, and others, as well as to books from MIT Press, University Press of America, and others), I have a good knowledge of the field. While I do have my own views, any edits I have made to improve the page and its contents are based on articles and books that have gone through peer review.

I'd like to suggest returning to the version of September 1 and reviewing the literature carefully before making as may cuts as you have made. If you are curious to converse with me on these issues or any specific views, feel free to contact me through my web page at

or my email

Best regards,

Ken Friedman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfriedman0 (talkcontribs) 13:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All of my edits were within the bounds of WP policy, i.e., removing repetition, overlinking, and removing names which linked to the wrong articles. All of this is considered good editing. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Frankly - I see nothing wrong with RepublicanJacobite's edits. Yoko Ono and the other important Fluxus figures are still in the article; no longer in the list because repetition of their names is not necessary there. linking every time a name or word or a place turns up is unnecessary; and RJ simply removed those repetitive links; Ina Blom - needs her own article - write one perhaps and Owen Smith is the wrong fellow...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Modernist on this one, its a pet peeve of mine, half of my edits are delinking. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


First. Let me apologize for not signing the comment in proper Wiki style. I'm a bit of an amateur at this. My comment was signed within my notes, though, with my real name -- not simply a Wiki name -- and I give my web site and email address.

There are two issues I raise here. A list is not the same as an article -- even in an article that mentions artists already mentioned in the running text, a list serves another purpose, enabling readers to see everyone in a community at a glance. It is easy to overlook names in a running text or to miss them. Having served as an editor and consultant on several reference books (the old-fashioned print kind), we make these kinds of distinctions, and occasionally repeat information when it ought properly to occur in different sections. In many cases, information even occurs a third time or a fourth when such books use different kinds of content or indexing devices. So I'd still like to propose a revert to leave the lists as they were.

I'm not sure why it makes sense to remove a name -- Owen Smith -- by saying, "It's the wrong Owen Smith." Owen Smith has written or contributed to several books, major catalogue essays, special journal articles on this topic. It's not a matter of saying that he or Ina Blom deserve articles of their own: the issue here is ensuring that people who seek qualified scholarly advice on this topic have the name accessible. There is another Owen Smith who seems to write about Harry Potter, but the Owen Smith whose name appeared here is an expert on Fluxus. Sorting the different people with the name Owen Smith is a reason for disambiguation, not a reason to remove a leading scholar from the list of scholars.

If RepublicanJacobite and Modernist feel a strong sense of ownership concerning the style and formatting of this article, I'll probably just bow out. I'm happy to contribute time and thought to the Wikipedia project in an area where I am a subject expert in the domain, as demonstrated by 40 years of publishing on the topic in peer-reviewed journals, book chapters from university presses, and exhibition catalogs. I'm also happy to explain the reason for my views. But I don't want to get into an edit war. Much of the content and many of the notes I added carefully to this article have vanished in the changes made since September 1. You folks are experienced Wikipedia editors. I am not. In contrast, I am a subject expert and an editor and writer for paper-based reference books. I know my way around the topic and I have an understand of what constitutes an encyclopedia entry, at least the normal kind. If the worlds are going to collide, I simply have to respect the fact that the Wikipedia way of doing things is different and let it go at that.

If you are willing to permit me to revert this and restore the content, great. If not, that's life.

Kenfriedman0 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ken Friedman

Frankly Ken, your acting childish here. Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


Regarding this edit and summary - was that a mistake? I certainly does not look like vandalism to me. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, mistakes happen. Another editor has already fixed it. i was just wondering if there was something there I and the other editor were missing. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Rivethead. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RJ, I'm missing the vandalism you're claiming; please be more specific and let's stop using templates for the time being. I've protected the article for now to prevent further edit warring. Please use the article's talk page to work out your dispute with the IP. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:American action drama films

Just a heads from a deletion notice abouta new category by a genre warrior with this category: Category:American action drama films. Your opinion would be appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay! nevermind you beat me to it. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

War adventure

Hello Repub! I've noted several sources discussing war adventure films in your categories for deletion nom. Perhaps you'd like to take a look? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Weill I'm here..

..If you like Kurt Weill's music then you should check out the music of Hanns Eisler. His style is similar, he brings in fusions of popular music at the time, jazz influences. And he also wrote many songs with words by Brecht, and those are good fun. Mostly funny, ironic and satirical as is Brecht's way! Take it easy, ValenShephard (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hannibal Lecter - sociopath vs psychopath

Hello, I had cleaned up a movie reference on the page for Hannibal Lecter, and when I went back to double check it, I noticed that someone unnamed had revised the sentence "However, Lecter's keeper Frederick Chilton claims that Lecter is a pure psychopath." to read "... pure sociopath." and you had reverted it. However, it sounded right to me, so I checked, and in my paperback copy of TSotL (p,11) , Chilton does indeed say to Starling "A pure sociopath, that's obviously what he is." So I am just writing to ask if there is a conflicting quote, or some other source of information. Otherwise, it should be changed back, I think. Cheers! Edgehawk (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well-meaning suggestion

Could I suggest that you step back a little from some of the debates you're engaging in? Edit summaries such as "Clearly, you do not know what you are talking about", "What utter rubbish", "This is not a forum for your ranting", all from the last 24 hours, suggest that you ought to slow down a little. Just a thought. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Your repeated deletions of a comment at this page were improper, not falling under any of the criteria at WP:TPO. If you disagree with the points raised, and have comments to make that would improve the article, then make them. If not, then leave it alone. Zarboublian (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome message at User talk:Major dick

I have removed the welcome message you left at User talk:Major dick - just prior to your leaving it I indef blocked the user as a vandalism only account. Might be worth checking user's edits before adding welcome messages - Major Dick's contribs were certainly not ones we wanted to be thanking him/her for!! Best, Nancy talk

WP:RFUP request of this page

Hello, please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#User_talk:RepublicanJacobite_.28edit.7Cuser_page.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 when you have a minute. Thanks, Airplaneman 01:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This page doesn't have the mitigation for semiprotected users per WP:Protection policy. Is there a reason for that? --Bsherr (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We can talk about it here to keep the conversation in one place. The talk page owner, not the protecting administration, is responsible for the mitigation. Is there a reason you haven't set it up, or do you need more information? --Bsherr (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I haven't any idea what you are talking about. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
That's ok. The protection policy says, "Users whose talk page is semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." Do you think it might be time to unprotect your talk page? Or do you want to have the mitigation? --Bsherr (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not want the talk page unprotected, no. If mitigation is required, I suppose I ought to do it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Let me know if you need help setting it up. --Bsherr (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I can tell you right now that I do, as I haven't a clue what is involved. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There's no template for it yet that I'm aware of, but to see an example, take a look at the tope of the page at User talk:HJ Mitchell. You can copy the line of code from there, or make your own. If you like, I can copy it over for you. --Bsherr (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Clash articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Hi! As a member of the WikiProject:The Clash, I thought I would draw your attention to a discussion about the articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for the offline release of the encyclopedia. If you get a moment, could you please pop in and give your opinion? Thanks!!! –pjoef (talkcontribs) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Surrealist films

I think you're being rather hasty to remove this category from films such as Mulholland Drive (film) and Videodrome. It wasn't at all difficult to locate references: Google Books for "Mulholland Drive" surrealist did the trick. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Republican Jacobite, you're not even taking the time to read the articles you're removing these cites from. Kenilworth Terrace went and found a cite for Mulholland Dr., but it was unnecessary. The surreal elements of the film are cited multiple times in the article. So you're using your own perception of what makes a film surreal to remove these categories and characterizations? --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Recommend you discuss your mass-removal of this here. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You're entitled to ask for "a reliable source that says the film is Surrealist", but should have taken the time to consider whether you could find one: a few moments with Google Books showed that Mulholland Drive (film) is discussed in Hopkins, David (2004). Dada and Surrealism: a very short introduction. Very short introductions 105. Oxford University Press. p. 95. ISBN 0192802542. , a book about Surrealism, as an example. You could and should have checked. Responding with "What utter rubbish" was not helpful. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but no, I am not basing my decisions on my own perception. Please, if you would, provide me with an encyclopedic definition of "surreal." Surrealism has a definition, so if we have a category called Surrealist films, the Surrealism article should be our guide for what is and is not a Surrealist film. And did you actually say that a source is not necessary?! Of course a source is necessary, since this is an encyclopedia we are building. And I do not believe that one off hand remark about a film being "surreal," whatever the hell that means, is enough of a reason to add said film to Surrealist film category. Surely, our standards for inclusion should be better than that. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't have a film encyclopedia with me, so here's " sur·re·al·ism /səˈriəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[suh-ree-uh-liz-uhm] Show IPA –noun ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a style of art and literature developed principally in the 20th century, stressing the subconscious or nonrational significance of imagery arrived at by automatism or the exploitation of chance effects, unexpected juxtapositions, etc." If you have a film encyclopedia definition, provide it.
  • Now, I wrote most of the Mulholland Dr. article. You spent an entire minute (previous removal of Cat for Surrelaist films at 13.09, Mulholland Dr. at 13.10 and 13.11 and efficently on to the next film at 13.12scanning what I can only assume was the first sentence of the article. You did not seem to take in the entire sections of Interpretations and Style where nonrational narrative, uncanny cinematic effects, and dreams, dreaming, and a whole lot more dreams are discussed and cited by film scholars and notable critics. Clearly you seem to be either in a rush or lazy, so just Ctrl+F for "surreal" and note how many times mention of the word is cited. You don't get to decide when a film meets your characteristics. The sources do.
  • It's clear to me that you've never read the article. Have you even seen the film??
  • Leads don't require cites when the issues are clearly stated and cited in the body of the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


I don't disagree with your main list myself, but it could be open to challenge on films by non-affiliates such as The Seashell and the Clergyman and The Blood of a Poet? Do they cross the border of what's intended to be a closely-defined category? And then perhaps Rose Hobart (film) - does it belong or not? Personally I'd include all 3 but it's maybe worth testing the criteria against them. AllyD (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Matter closed? What does that mean? What sources have you consulted for creating the list? What is it being used for, an actual list or something else? Why make me sound like a pain in the ass when I provided the sources that support a view that you do not? This pretty much all sounds like your original research. I don't understand your approach to this entire situation. To me, it looks like you took it upon yourself to remove categories from dozens of films, and in the Mulholland Dr. case, actual prose that was clearly and very well cited. When that didn't work, you wanted to change categories, splitting one into two categories that are not supported by authoritative sources. I can't see what you're doing other than trying to enforce a pet view that you have. Can you explain what you're trying to accomplish? I'm trying to find the benefit of the doubt here. --Moni3 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I never made any such representation of you, or your motivations, nor any representation of you at all, in fact. I certainly have shown more good faith in regards to you, your actions, and your motivations, than you have shown in the preceding paragraph. I notice that you never mention any of the large number of films I removed from that category that clearly did not belong. When I was wrong, as in regards to Lynch, et al., I admitted so and demurred. I admit now that I was wrong in those removals. My intention in the category discussion was to find a way to split the category in a manner that made sense. I do not have a "pet view," whatever you might mean by that. What seems clear to me is that a Surrealist film should be defined as a film made by those within the Surrealist movement and those in their immediate sphere of influence, which would include Cornell and Deren. The other category should be for those who are one or more steps removed from the movement, i.e., Lynch, Jodorowsky, Tarkovsky, et al., who were not direct participants in the movement or collaborators with people who were. I think I have been clear about this, and I believe that the majority of those who participated in the category discussion agreed with me. I made no representation about anyone, or anyone's opinion, beyond that. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • More on the main list, again trying to push at what would be its boundaries... You've listed The Phantom of Liberty but not The Exterminating Angel (film); if anything I'd include the latter over the former. What then should be the basis for inclusion of Buñuel's later films? AllyD (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Then there's Jan Švankmajer, a member of the longstanding Czechoslovakian Surrealist Group, a significant element of the international surrealist movt from the early 30s onwards. So that possibly gives him the lineage to appear in the main list? AllyD (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I had forgotten about Švankmajer's participation in the Czech Surrealist Group, which would indicate, as far as I am concerned, that he belongs in the main list. As for Buñuel, I was going by what the individual articles said, which I know is problematic. What I need is a good source on Surrealist film, which could be used as a source for the List of Surrealist films article, which, at this point is atrociously referenced. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My comments above were about the main list of directly Surrealist films. The more problematic is the proposed "influenced by" category. Looking at the existing category, it's crammed with films that I don't regard as surrealist - or even "surrealistic". I can see Moni3's point that it would need to be supported by proper sources, but fear that there's any number of "Introduction to Film Studies" texts out there with loose terminology applied to this or that film. I began to think that a list could be better but a look at List of surrealist films cured me of that - Béla Tarr? (I notice you've attempted previous engagement on the Talk page there.) So I'm having my doubts about whether the "influenced by" category can be sustained as anything other than a swollen misshape? Or maybe it's just a mood! AllyD (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I notice that the CfD discussion closed on no consensus (which I think is correct on the basis of the discussion). If you feel it is worth continuing discussion on the current category usage, maybe it would be worth using Category talk:Surrealist films as the place to thrash out inclusion criteria, with a notice to those who contributed to the CfD discussion? AllyD (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think, for now, that I will continue researching the issue, and working on the two lists on my subpage. When I feel satisfied with the results, I will request comment on them. I feel this is the best approach. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough; I'm happy to discuss at any point. Out of the recent discussion, I'm heading towards the view that the sole category should be strictly for films associated with the Surrealist movement and that "films influenced by Surrealism" is non-category but they can be discussed/referenced in the List of surrealist films article (suitably cleaned-up and enhanced). AllyD (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You may be right. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lovejoy trivia

Hi RJ. We had an IP insist on reentering the trivia on the Lovejoy page. I think that you had removed at least some of it so I wanted to let you know that about its reentry. I removed it based on its lack of sources, its violation of WP:TRIVIA and the fact that most of it is not notable. I will also be starting a thread on the talk page about this after I am done with this message. Please feel free to add your thoughts there if you are so inclined. Otherwise I hope that you are well and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks - our messages must have crossed so I haven't had time to get to the talk page yet. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 03:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus on the talk page about this with one exception. Sadly the info is still in the article. Don't know if you noticed but this even made the ANI notice board here [1]. The editor re-factored my talk page comments twice. So I am trying to stay away from the page for the rest of the weekend to cool off. Thanks for removing the spam links entered by Lonenut2000 too. MarnetteD | Talk 01:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
As ever thanks for the note. The editor is blocked for three hours but I don't know how well that will work since the trivia is still in the article. Oh well we can hope that they get it one day. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 01:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


This user ia an admin, and has been editing here longer than either you or I. That does not make him necessarily right, but I have to say that in looking at his recent contributions I do not recognise the problem which you appear to see. Apart from a page move, whicg appears to me to be appropriate, his recent edits appear to be minor housekeepingt ones. Are you sure that you are pointing to the right editor? If you are sure, then the place to take the problem to is WP:ANI. Or Arbcom if all else fails, but this is an absolute last resort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Bradbury (talkcontribs) (12:16, 2 October 2010)

OK. Clearly the error had been rectified before I got there. Apologies for previous missing sig. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The White Negro

I don't exactly understand why you prefer the shorter title for this article. I don't think that either would be wrong. If you would like to discuss on the article's talk page I have already expressed my views there. Not that it is really such a major issue. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I still don't understand your objection. By "the people" I meant the "white negroes" themselves who are not the subject of the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Intrigued by your username - saw you on Cresix (talk)

Hello. I'm CreativeSoul7981. I don't mean to be a bother, but I saw your username and became intrigued. I looked at your user page and noticed you love Ireland (almost) as much as I do. I have been all over Ireland, twice, and have some close friends who are from Cork, Dublin, Donegal, and a few acquaintances from Derry and Belfast. I must have a hundred Irish CDs, movies about Ireland, and regularly attend the North Texas Irish Festival. I am from Dallas, but I love New Orleans. It's too bad I haven't been in the Crescent City since I was ten though. Ever see the movie or tv series The Big Easy? And I can't believe you live in Bloomington! I attend IU there for about a year back in 1999-2000. I loved walking around campus, especially during the fall.

I am also a writer, but not published yet. I plan on writing different types of romance or romantic fantasy. I haven't tried my hand at science fiction. Too cool. Someone who gets why Ireland is so special. Have a good weekend. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hi again RJ. This is a week late but I wanted to let the dust settle. Thanks for your support over Tiiischiii's continual re-factoring of my comments on the Lovejoy talk page. Anyone who can use the word "scurrilous" properly is aces in my book. Of course s/he did not apologize but that is par for the course. As the situation went on it started to feel like a "Harvey Carter" runaround - if you never bumped into him he was an edit warring pest who was eventually banned from Wikipedia. I say "like" because HC favorite thing to do was add lurid details about actors sex lives and/or deaths. But this talk page drama reminded me of him.

I can't remember if I've given you a link to this page before but just in case I haven't you might enjoy some of the items here User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. I like reading through these when editing gets frustrating. Based on our experience with Tiiischiii I would add that an editor who claims that they are being bullied is often trying to bully their edit into an article :-) Hope you have a great week and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Real world examples of steampunk

I hadn't notice the new section. I read through what had been posted thus far and put my first impression up, I'll probably weigh in again later as the conversation progresses. Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring.

I don't care who's right or wrong, but I strongly urge you to to cease your edit war at John Coltrane. I was recently blocked for 5 days for that reason, and I wouldn't want to see a fellow Wikipedian blocked for edit warring. - Zhou Yu (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Scouts Royale Brotherhood

Thank you for the assist. If you can, try to keep a special eye on the article for a while. It's one of *those* days.Naraht (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

I think you deleted the entire history section, including the referenced part, but unfortunately, trying to defend a fairy sculpture in a chainsaw fight isn't easy...Naraht (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course that assumes what was there before was a fairy sculpture, rather than a steaming pile of ...Naraht (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Hi again. You are 100% right about the Brazilian connection. I only had time to tag the IP before I had to go do some stuff. I'm sure that you already saw the tag I placed on the IPs page but just in case User:Pé de Chinelo seems to be where the socking begins. Tonight's edit summary makes it case closed for me. I'll keep my eyes and watchlist open for this one. Cheers til next time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Burroughs and Beat

I agree. While he was part of the absolute foundation of what became the Beat Generation, perhaps the ultimate cause of it entirely in influencing Kerouac and Ginsberg, he did also exceed it as a label beyond his establishing prior work also (possibly through sadly living longer). While it's obviously important to note Burroughs as a Beat writer, he was much more overall a postmodern one, if anything. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ginoo at binibining candelaria

Tag it with a db-spam, too. That way when an admin deletes it they can't revert it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfShadow (talkcontribs) (22:28, 15 October 2010)

Apparently, if it's a promotional username, yeah. Stops someone else from reverting it. At least that was what I was told to do. HalfShadow 02:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Extra note: - Regarding db-spam, that's why G11 is in the G (General) criteria, not A (Article) criteria. It can apply to any page that meets the criteria. mechamind90 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that makes perfect sense! Thank you for that bit of information. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Godfather related articles

Whilst I understand your frustration at the edit-warring on Godfather related articles, WP:AIV is not the place for it, which as I said is for blatant (i.e. obvious) vandalism only - see WP:NOTVAND, especially the section on disruptive editing. As there is obviously a problem here, I suggest raising the matter at WP:ANI is your best option. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi RJ. I am getting your messages while I am trying to follow this Brazilian edit warrior. I don't want you getting in trouble so here are my suggestions (whether any of them will work is a question in itself). The problem doesn't meet the criteria for vandalism but it can be got at from a couple of other angles. First is page protection. Ah I see that you have already filed a report - good job. Make sure to point out to them that the page is being bombarded by a previously blocked editor who is IP hopping. Also make sure that there are discussions (ongoing or past) on the talk page about these genre changes for any articles that are being bombarded by this jerk. Next make sure to add this tag {{sockpuppet|1=Pé de Chinelo}} to the user page (not the talk page) for all of the IPs that you come across. This will help when it comes time to reopen the sockpuppet investigation. We are in the middle of dealing with this so some or all of my post here may be too late but it will help in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 17:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Favonian has protected the page. That will help us for the moment. Maybe we will be allowed to return to normal editing for a few minutes :-) MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I still haven't had time to get deeper into this but one thought is that we might have to ask that this editor be banned (if s/he isn't already). The original sockmaster is blocked but if we can get them on the banned list then any edits they make can be reverted without fear of 3rr. I only have limited time to be editing today so I may not be here if anything else comes up, but rest assured I will help when I can upon my returen. MarnetteD | Talk 17:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your update. I only have a sec but I wanted to make you aware of a warning template that will be better than the vandal one for this editor. Try using this {{subst:uw-genre1}} instead. It goes up to level three then you can use a {{subst:uw-generic4}} for the final warning. Use of these might even get an AIV report to work although that will depend on the admin. I agree about informing the film project. No matter where you make a post about this ongoing problem it would also be a good idea to add info about the personal attacks on Andrzejbanas. Even though the recent ones have been erased we can direct them to the admin that deleted the edit summaries for confirmation about how vile they were. And now back to a relaxing Sunday weekend - I hope. MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup after a week or so rest it returned today. As to ANI it can be a tricky place to go when the disruption is as sporadic as this. Please don't think that I am discouraging you from going there and I would most certainly back you up if and when you want to start a thread. My thought is that it might be a good idea to disuss this user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film first. It could also be good to consult with User:Andrzejbanas and User:Erik (head of the filmproject) as well as the admin who protected the page for TGtBatU User:Edgar181 the last time that it was attacked. I guess that all I am hoping to accomplish is to have enough backing from other editors before going to ANI. As I say these are just my thought and you should certainly proceed in any manner that you wish. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI a discussion about our pest has begun here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking_Range_block_of_IPs. It looks to be mostly procedural at the moment but I did add a sentence suggesting a ban. Feel free to add your thoughts depending on where the conversation is when you get to the discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 19:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As ever thanks for your note. Yeah, I was worried that it would get a shrug of the shoulders. It bites that there was no response to my ban mention. However, they did mention bringing it up again when our pest returns. User:Edgar181 is aware of our concerns. So I would say that the next time I say that we put a message on AIV immediately with links to this past discussion (I will try and track it because the link title will change when it gets archived - I'll also pass it on to you when it does) and, I think, that we will be able to leave a message on Edgar's talk page so that we can get page protection quicker. I know it is a drag that we will have to deal with this again and again - on the plus side it gets our edit count up :-}. Enjoy your Halloween. MarnetteD | Talk 15:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Parchman Farm (song)

About this edit

The article ought to get longer, and it ought to have those two images. If an article that is not yet going to be a "Good article" has images it needs but not enough space, I use the "gallery" tag. Once the article is ready to become a "Good article," typically the images are redistributed out of the gallery. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I didn't know about the issue until now - I get around a bit on Wikipedia, so sometimes it takes me awhile to discover some things going on :)
  • The song's origin originates from people working in the fields, so there needs to be an image of Parchman men working the fields. Then the song originated from the institution itself, so an image of the main gate needs to be there. Because the article is about the song, not the prison itself, we only need one image of the prison gates.
  • From my viewpoint the current article has just enough images that it can support.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

stale templates

Discussion is dead, you have not added any discussion, in fact you yourself have never (using this account) even posted on the talkpage ever, please do not replace a valueless template. Or present your issues with the article on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:White Brothers Of America

Hi. I agree this user probably has no intention of making positive contributions. I'm reluctant to take action myself, because I've deleted all of this user's contributions. I don't want it to seem like something personal. Give the UAA report a little while. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Connaught Rangers - Irish regiment?

Please consider joining the discussion at talk:Connaught Rangers. --Red King (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dachau Massacre page

Sir, I am puzzled that you deleted my post of the correct caption for SC 208765 on the Dachau Massacre page. Unlike Moody3, I have a scan of the original photo and its caption. Dave Watson01 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I added the complete and verbatim text of the caption of this photograph. Dave Watson01 (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dachau massacre... If you possess a scan of the original photo as well as its National Archives caption and cannot source this assertion with a published verifiable source, then your version of the caption constitutes original research. You must provide a verifiable source that confirms your version of the National Archives caption before the caption is changed. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

Hmmm. I thought truth would be paramount. Obviously, the Wikipedia police have different standards than I do regarding historical accuracy. Dave Watson01 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on the article talk page, not here. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

506th links

I think we might just want to rename the 506th's page bakc to including (United States) rather than changing every link.... --Habap (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive disambiguation - see my talk page for linkage to Manual of Style. --Habap (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is the discussion by the WikiProject Military history. --Habap (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, please have a look at the workload in removing the pre-emptive disambiguations from US Army divisions and US Army regiments. That's a lot of work to be done if all unnecessary disambiguations are to be removed - and that's just the US Army ones, not all the units of the world. One example of units formed in 1940 might show that the 506th Infantry Regiment was but the tip of an iceberg.... --Habap (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Any further thoughts? --Habap (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange references

The information I added is factual and although no citations are added next to them, if you watched or played the media you would recognise the parody to A Clockwork Orange. On top, a large amount of vandalism from IP users has been done in the past month or so, so logically a temporary semi-protect would be neccessary hopefully halting the vandals for a while. --Victory93 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi, as you added the template, would you please explain what your problems are with the individual sections so as to give users interested in removing the template a chance, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


I notice you throw that term around a lot [2] [3] [4] [5] for what may be test edits or even good faith edits without an edit summary. Just saying, but "vandalism" in the edit summary can be seen as inflammatory for a good faith editor, especially a n00b. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What an interesting message. Of the examples you provided, only the first is borderline. The others, including unexplained removal of material and the addition of opinion by a user who had spent the evening removing material from the article and being warned for, yes, vandalism. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'm not harassing you; I'm just leaving advice that it's best to assume good faith and easier to make friends with sugar than with vinegar (or however that saying goes), hence WP:BITE. #2 looks pretty borderline too (I'm not sure how removing a space in an abbreviation is clear-cut vandalism). #3 was a removal of a block of text without an edit summary; without any other edits, that may have just been a n00b who removed the text without knowing an edit summary was so crucial. #4 just looks like someone who needed a {{subst:sofixit}} message, per User talk:JFShea#Inaccuracies.

Regardless, I think it's important to remember how stupid some people are with computers; they actually don't do it on purpose. For example, my own dad has actually purchased products he got inbox spam for (yes, really), and my mother can't figure out how to check her email unless there's a desktop icon (I worked help desk for a while, and this is common, sadly). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)