- 1 Have fun
- 2 Lawrence/Pyle
- 3 Painesville Ref?
- 4 Chronicles
- 5 Wikipedian of Excellence Award
- 6 Thank you for all your good (and hard) work
- 7 Just curious
- 8 Thanks
- 9 September 2011
- 10 The Shining
- 11 Jane Eyre
- 12 Talkback
- 13 Richard III
- 14 Full Metal Jacket
- 15 A barnstar for you!
- 16 Eyes Wide Shut
- 17 User:Gajonka
- 18 Bond image
- 19 Unreliable sources
- 20 Your Slim Pickens/The Shining notes
- 21 European Shining release
- 22 2001 satellite
- 23 Orphaned non-free image File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG
- 24 Orphaned non-free image File:BondTitleMontage.JPG
- 25 Orphaned non-free image File:BondChase.JPG
Hi WG. Thanks for your note. I hope that you have a safe, fun, lightening free and the minimal amount of mosquitos allowable camping trip. The Criterion Collection is issuing Killer's Kiss and The Killing together on a DVD next month . I will be interested to see the interview with Sterling Haydon. Again have a wonderful trip and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey there WG - I wasn't aware that D'Onofrio was listed as Private Pyle in the credits! I think your suggestion (Private "Pyle") would be the best solution - as both the previous and current versions are less comprehensive. I'll go ahead and make the edit myself. Thanks! Dutchmonkey9000 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, WickerGuy. Re this, can you recommend a reliable online source for this sort of thing? Or, failing that, a particularly good book? I'll take you at your word that there was no conscious influence, but it would be nice to refute it authoritatively if it recurs. (I was dubious about any Middle Earth influence—although there are quite a few parallels—but remembered reading long ago that Lewis and Tolkien may have read some of one another's drafts, so I tagged instead of removing.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedian of Excellence Award
|Wikipedian of Excellence|
|This Wikipedian of Excellence Award has been awarded to WickerGuy for the knowledge, time, and effort you've spent, and hopefully will continue to spend, on Stanley Kubrick's article. AndrewOne (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)|
Thank you for all your good (and hard) work
....and constructive commentary/editing on The Shining. Someday this article might be worthy of this film that we love and attempt to describe as well as we can. Blake Burba (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
About this and what you said in your edit summary. I'm completely unfamiliar with the guy so I wondered why you said we shouldn't use him. Like I said, idle curioisty. Millahnna (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Rob Ager is an entirely self-published film analyst, whose stuff on The Shining has gained a lot more circulation than much of his other work. However, while some of his material is insightful, a lot of his stuff is wildly far-fetched going into DaVinci Code style reading of Kubrick and other film-makers (especially his claim about there being a coded theory about the Kennedy assassination in Full Metal Jacket. There is even a YouTube video that parodies his videos.) Even if his work were consistently better, Wikipedia doesn't allow wholly self-published source and blogs.
- Ager has gotten well-known enough that he has been interviewed by people with similar blogs. (See ). Ager may be one of the most successful self-published film analysts in world history, but he's still self-published, and has never once been cited in any serious film journal or book. (The title of his website "Collative Learning" is a bit misleading- though I'm sure not on purpose- sounds like he is part of a larger institution.)
- So, for all of his success and occasional insight (mixed with wild Kubrick Code theories) he still won't fit WP's definition of WP:RELIABLE.
- I hope this answers your question satisfactorily. Thank you for asking.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I or someone working on an article I frequently work on got saddled with it twice this year by the same user.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Star Trek. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Burton can't really have "misidentified" them since they are presented as twins in the film the general public gets to see. The script states that they are sisters, but that's not mutually exclusive with the twins possibility. I don't think that statement is correct in its current form. Reanimated X (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Not saying you don't have a point, but ease up on the filibustering. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Full Metal Jacket
Hi, WickerGuy! There is runoff voting at WikiProject Film about choosing a second article for an anniversary collaboration in 2012, and the voting is between The Godfather and Full Metal Jacket. I contacted primary contributors for both about the voting. MarnetteD, a primary contributor of Full Metal Jacket, recommended contacting you as someone who has done Kubrick work. (And of course, I know you from discussions at The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut, and 2001: A Space Odyssey!) The voting and the discussion can be seen here. Hope you can weigh in! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Citation Barnstar|
|Great work cleaning up Psycho IV! Doniago (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)|
Eyes Wide Shut
I think this new guy is going to be a problem. That is a lot of really terrible edits in a very short amount of time. I've got your back, although you seem to be keeping up rather well. I loved that comment he made about Kubrick being over your head. He has clearly not been watching your edits, as you do more Kubrick than any other editor I know of. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 04:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe Gajonka has confused the two of us, and I think this message was intended for you.
Well, my only FL features a similar image, and no one ever complained about the Fair Use on it. And two lists I used as examples passed the FLC without image complaints. Shouldn't enough detail on the rationale, plus the correct licensing templates (which could be quite complicated, but thank God is only one for DVDs!) be enough to justify? (in any case, I'll follow your example and ask someone to take a picture of DVD spines instead of covers). igordebraga ≠ 23:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe you have misread WP:SPS. Unreliable sources may be used for information only about themselves, in articles about the source itself. They can never be used as source for content, theories, etc. with respect to other subjects. That being the case, there is no way these sources can be used in the Stanley Kubrick article, which is not about the sources themselves.
- Same with Wikis I'm afraid. I do understand what you are trying to do. Don't agree with it, but you are on my "good guy" list so am happy to help you get it in there if you can find a reliable source. Yworo (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Your Slim Pickens/The Shining notes
Hello WG. Regarding the situation you found I thought I would share a theory I have come to over the last year or so. First, WikiP now has almost 4 million articles. Second, I have seen a couple of discussions about the fact that, in the last three or four years, the number of active (full-time non-vandal) editors has shrunk considerably. My theory is that there are now a large (and it could be very large) number of articles that are on no watchlists of active users. Then I came upon this nonsense  that I cleaned up. So indulging my OCD nature and dug into the edit history and found this  gem showing that the vandalism sat in this article for almost two full years. The 6 years of disinformation on Slim's page is just stunning. I don't know that there is anything that can be done about the situation but it is good to know that you fixed this problem. Cheers - oh and speaking of OCD I saw the following on a t-shirt in one of the dozens of catalogs that I receive at this time of year - "CDO its just like OCD and the letters are in the right order the way they are supposed to be!" Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 17:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. The only way that I know of (and you may already know about it) to find the number of watchers for a given article is to click on the view history tab. Near the top is a line that reads "External tools" the second to last one is "Number of watchers" clicking on that takes one to a table that will show that number. It has some drawbacks - first it only shows a number if there are more than 30 editors who have the article on their watchlist, second, it gives no indication of how many of those watchers are still active editors. It is possible that there are other tools for finding that info but I am not aware of them. One of my experiences of how the inaccuracies in a wiki article wind up spread across the internet happened early in my editing and can be seen here Talk:Trey Parker#Trey.27s High School. Thanks again for fixing Slim's article and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
European Shining release
I like you was put off by the FBot size reduction taggings (I'd resized something to 533x400 to make it fit policy and then the bot came and tagged it anyhow); when I went to complain about it I noticed your post about the 2001 satellite and the Bond montages. I could see that the 2001 image would give awful visual artifacts if resized directly, but I still think 800x600 is bigger than Wikipedia can allow for movie stills (that would allow for exact DVD captures etc). So I had a go at giving it a little pre-resizing TLC with the GIMP. I think the version I uploaded looks at least as good as the previous version. If you want me to send you the 800x600 post-descreening etc but pre-resizing version I can do so. Prodicus (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:BondTitleMontage.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:BondTitleMontage.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:BondChase.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:BondChase.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).