User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 23

Trilogy info

Hi RJ. The Duck You Sucker DVDs arrived today and there is an interesting piece of info in the booklet that comes with them. Leone's original title for the film was Once Upon a Time ... the Revolution. He changed it at the request of the producers who thought it was too close to the title for Bertolucci's film Before the Revolution. I'll let you know if there is anything else in the extras or commentary though it may take me several days to get to them. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I agree with your sentiments about these not being a true trilogy. I seem to remember (books? DVD extras? film articles in various mags or papers?) that Leone had this wonderful sense of America as some kind of mythic legend and that his films explored those feelings. That might be the only thing connecting those films. On another note Ben Johnson gave another delightful performance in Bite the Bullet - with you having recently seen The Wild Bunch I can also mention that I think that his pairing with Warren Oates as brothers in that film is excellent casting. Then four years later they gave good performances as antagonists in Dillinger. All this reminiscing is driving me to stop editing here for a few hours and start digging into my DVD collection. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay I finally got to work my way through everything on the two disk set so here are some observations.

1. I kept saying to my self that I don't remember this part - then the "Restoration Italian Style" extra helped to explain why. Distributors should not be allowed to use scissors (more on this at the end.)
2. The booklet seems to have been in error as the Once Upon a Time ... the Revolution title is the one used in France and it did not come from SL. Mention is made that they were trying to sell it to moviegoers by linking it to ...in the West in the same way that US distributors were linked it to the Dollars films with their A Fistful of Dynamite title.
3. The "Locations then and Now" extra showed that the remains of the bridge and huge stagecoach are still where they left them when filming finished.
4. John Kirk has an interesting theory about the Sean/John naming conundrum. I won't take up your time with it unless you are interested but Frayling doesn't buy into it at all.
5. As to the trilogy aspect none of the extras mention it. However, in Frayling's commentary he mentions a connection early on in this way - ..West is Leone saying goodbye to westerns, in general, and to his rosy view of the whole mythology of the US frontier in particular - Duck.. with its emphasis on the oncoming 20th C. technology like cars and tanks etc then transitions to the city life of ..America. This mention is presented, more or less, as his own interpretation but toward the end of the film he specifically connects the "Twilight of the West" of Duck.. as connected to the "Darkness of the City" of ..America by pointing out that SL added dialogue about Juan and John's desire to get away from the revolution by escaping to America at the same time that he was beginning to work on early versions of the script for ..America

I don't think that there is anything out of this to add to Wikipedia's articles and I suspect that you already know most of it already but I do hope that you get to watch all of the DVD special features for yourself one day. I'll finish by mentioning (to close my thought from item one) that if I ever get the use of a TARDIS I will have to travel around to the first night showings of various films. Films like Duck You Sucker and Metropolis and The Rules of the Game seem to have only had one or two showings before the snip snip of the bean counters and/or censors took over and all the restoration work in the world (and some of it has been marvelous) won't give us the original film. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Category:Surrealist artists

Good work with the removals! Yeah, the whole term is a bit problematic since it has got more to do with the people of the movement than their specific ideas. And then there are many different surrealist groups in different countries who have misunderstood each others etc. So in the end I think we will have to go with pretty liberal inclusion criteria. But simply being influenced is certainly not enough, especially not, like the case seems to be here, if the influence is on an aesthetical level rather than in production methods. I've had a vain idea for quite some time to develop the surrealist cinema article, but I know I'm terrible at fulfilling tasks I set up for myself, so right now the hack job I did the other day will have to do, which is basically just a quick clarification that it's not the same thing as surreal. Surrealist music is a pretty decent article though, maybe those who revert you could be pointed to that one? Smetanahue (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit enforcing?

Too bad couldn't even come up with the lamest excuse for your rv my Hamilton-Fairley edit, or even bother responding to the polite message I left on your talk page. A conspiracy theorist might just assume you are one of User:One Night In Hackney's edit enforcers while he is off-wiki. [email protected] (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You can assume any damn thing you'd like, but do not do it here. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

Along with the fantasy discussion on the talk page I thought I would just relate one of my favorite things about the film and Gilliam's genius. For me the sci-fi aspect is so wonderfully retro. In a truly Orwellian world all of the technology looks like it was cobbled together from technology that existed in 1948 and not much from any period after that. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

With one notable exception: the military's technology is decidedly, and terrifyingly, up-to-date! As befits a totalitarian dystopia. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Good eye. I had completely missed that. D'oh. MarnetteD | Talk 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to reply to your comment on my talk page - I only reverted the initial edit because the IP had said in their edit summary (perhaps disingenuously) "where is the fantasy?", suggesting that they hadn't seen or had misremembered the film. I don't have any strong opinions on the genres that best describe it. --McGeddon (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Godfather

Hello, I see that you've edited The Godfather frequently. You may be interested in this discussion! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" average rank

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit in which I wrote that the "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy", becomes highest-grossing film series when averaged to grosses per film. Actually, if you divide the Box Office of the Trilogy "US$ 2,915,155,189", and divide it by 3, the average becomes US$ 971,718,396, which is actually the highest, even more then the "Harry Potter" film series. So, I made that change. And for this particular thing, I don't think we require any source as such. One request to you : "Please correct me if I am wrong." For once, I making that change again, however if you still believe it is not correct, you can revert it. But please talk about it before reverting. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namanbapna (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The War documentary by Ken Burns

I read your message about my edit on The War by Ken Burns. I am a native of Luverne, Minnesota and prior to our paper, The Rock County Star Herald going subscription on the internet, I read the months of coverage on The War. The series premier was held at the Palace Theater in Luverne, MN.

I am not extremely adept at searching for archived/cached data so do not know how to go about retrieving the information. Perhaps, now that you know, and are extremely knowlegeable about retrieval, you could post the corresponding documentation?

If I grew-up in a house listed on the National Register of Historic Places, how do I reference myself? (PJ Kniss House)

Thank you for the heads up. Justice Freeze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Freeze (talk • contribs) 05:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Have some patience with AlbertBowes. He is new to editing film articles, and I get the feeling that he can learn the ropes. Let's not bite! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to email the blocking admin if you're that curious. His intent is to keep it low-key, I think. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey Jacobite, if you care for a somewhat private note of moderate (not high) importance, turn your email on. No spam or chain letters, I promise. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You got mail. Feel free to restore your privacy fence. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Billy Fox - references

Hi, I'm going to put this on the Dispute resolution noticeboard --Flexdream (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused page move

This discussion indicates that the Dazed and Confused film article was the primary topic, and that further disambiguation was not necessary, in fact, it is pointless. I suggest you revert your page move. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That discussion is 2 years old. There is nothing wrong with more, not less, disambiguation. I have watchlisted this page, and will watch for your reply. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I brought this matter to the attention of administrator Emperor, here, in order to get his opinion. He has not yet responded. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have also begun a discussion here. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look here

Take a look at this. It's a vandal that called you a liar.--1966batfan (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote

Hi! Did I do it successfully? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A Beautiful Mind

It looks like 99.70.66.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is editing A Beautiful Mind in good faith. Please do not characterize edits as vandalism unless they constitute a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Placing a 4im warning on the IP's talk page seems excessive and newbie biting. Is there some history I'm unaware of on this? causa sui (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

On the Dorothea Tanning page

My recent edits were all rejected as vandalism. I'm confused, because some were grammatical corrections -- changing a comma between two sentences to a period, for example. Others were updates and removing links that didn't work. In one case I removed a quote that has no reference and may not be accurate. Can you please identify which changes were not conforming to the guidelines? I was also in the process of cleaning up and adding images to the gallery, to make a representative sample of the artist's work -- will that will be considered vandalism too?. Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliverclark (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

I declined to protect the article, so please stop edit warring over it. You are both well past 3RR now and if it continues I don't see what choice I'll have but to block both parties. causa sui (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, reverting the edits of a blocked user is not edit-warring. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverting edits from a banned user is not edit warring. Reverting edits from a blocked user, who was blocked for edit warring with you, is a three revert rule violation. The IP is editing in good faith. Labeling the IP's edits as vandalism doesn't automatically exempt you from the three revert rule. The edits actually have to be clear vandalism. Had you done this with an established editor, it is likely you would also have been blocked for edit warring. The IP editor's edits do not conform to our neutral point of view policy. That should be explained to the IP. He seems quite willing to learn our policies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A few points that need clearing up here. Since when is IP hopping to evade a block editing in good faith? Blocked means blocked and whoever the person from California is should wait out the block and then start a discussion on the talk pages for the articles in question. As I scan through the edit histories of the various film articles in question the 99 IPs are violating WP:PLOT as well as the NPOV that you've already cited. More importantly the IP is edit warring across several articles and with several editors (not just RJ) so they are also editing in a WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTive fashion. Again that is not editing in good faith. I have done searches of several of the article and IP talk pages in question and I can't find anywhere that the IP seems willing to learn how to edit in accordance with WikiP's policies - my apologies if I have missed where this did happen. Based on several statements made in this thread [1] the IP is making several unsubstantiated claims foremost among those being that they can't edit from a registered account because of being blocked. Aside from the fact that they are playing the victim by stating that RJ always gets their reg accts blocked (which he does not have the power to do unless they are a confirmed sockpuppeter) it also needs to be noted that a) If they are willing to learn then it should be explained to them that they should go back to their original account and appeal their block in the proper manner and b) If they ever had an original account then they are clearly violating WP:SOCK and it is proper to remove their edits as "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust" and allowing them to continue to edit only encourages further socking.

Now, to be fair, I can't agree with everything that RJ has done, but I can understand the frustrations that are being experienced. RJ's labeling their edits as vandalism is a mistake and RJ has used some intemperate language in dealing with this but, considering the personal attacks contained in edit summaries like this one [2] I can certainly understand why RJ as acted as he has. Finally AGF is not just for newbies. It should be extended every bit as much to long term editors trying to protect WikiP articles and to keep the editing of them within guidelines as it is to newbies and IP's. MarnetteD | Talk 17:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring issue appears to have been addressed here. The IP acknowledges that they now understand that edit warring is not tolerated. From that statement (and similar), I believe the IP is willing to learn policy. The IP hasn't been told about the neutral point of view policy. Because he doesn't know about it, we can't naturally assume that he does. Plot and NPOV violations are not vandalism, and should not be reverted as such. That is not to say that they should not be reverted, just not reverted as vandalism. There is no evidence of socking, just a often changing dynamic IP address. The IP's statement that he cannot create an account if his IP is blocked is accurate. Blocked IP addresses cannot normally create accounts, unless it is a soft block. Multiple users were reporting him to administrators as if he was a serial vandal. So I see where he is going with that. Now that the issue is passed, there is really no reason for the IP to continue dragging the issue up. If it continues, it may constitute as disruptive editing. I think it would be best to explain this to the IP, we just need to determine his current address. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Steampunk

Hi Republican Jacobite,

I'm not sure what you're suggesting that I do in response. You are able to give the IP address editor a warning against personal attacks as well as I am. While personal attacks are never acceptable, Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks states that blocking should only be used as a solution in extreme cases. If the IP address editor continues to make personal attacks after having been warned with the warning against personal attacks template, feel free to contact me again.

Neelix (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP in question has contacted me at my talkpage and Talk:Steampunk (in most reasonable tones) asking for me to look into "two editors edit warring, having ownership of articles and dictating like mad for at least a year." A quick scan down the page history has pointed me here, and I wondered if you could give me any answers. Feel free to read the discussion at my talkpage and Talk:Steampunk. Rcsprinter (chat) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Billy Fox

Compromise proposed Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Billy_Fox_.28politician.29_discussion --Flexdream (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Fugitive

US Marshals are not agents, they're deputy marshals. That's why I wrote what I wrote on the Fugitive cast. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Reverting a bot

In the case you mention it's fine. That board usually gets responses so you should have better luck the second time. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Short time out

When I requested the page protection for the Westies article, an admin decided to block the IP for a couple of days. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy Grail

The iphone deal about African vs. European wood almost certainly would refer to the running joke in Holy Grail. Whether it belongs in the article or not might be questionable, simply because there are probably endless examples of Python quotes springing up here and there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"...how many references can we allow before it gets out of hand?" Yes, that's the issue. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the answer eludes us. That's part of what makes things interesting. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cohen Brothers

You reverted saying we cannot list all the films in the lede. Ok why not replace Blood Simple with Raising Arizona. Raising Arizona has cult classic status whereas Blood Simple does not. Qaz (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette case

Good evening;

I have asked the opponent (Coeil) to make submissions in the Wikiquette case you launched. I have decided to assign myself to be the overseer/mediator/whatever you want to call the job. I would like you to keep an eye and make submissions as you wish. I'm going to explore any block logs associated with the accused (as well as you!) and a few other things which should give me a good character basis for both parties. Please, whatever you do, DON'T edit the activity log I have created. If you make any other submissions, please put them either above the activity og, or create a new heading and make your new submissions there. the Wikiquette case is here: Wikiquette case

--Thehistorian10 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The thread has been resolved. Gerardw (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dang

Thanks for the heads up. I guess that it is appropriate with what tomorrow is for the US. I mean I was thankful that he hadn't been around for awhile :-) Whats the over under on how long before he attacks Andrzejbanas. You can always add this tag {{ipsock|Pé de Chinelo}} to any Brazilian IPs that show up to help track this pest. You don't have to of course but I thought I'd leave you the tag in case. Have a great Turkey Day tomorrow "gobble gobble" MarnetteD | Talk 16:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I should give you {{sockpuppet|Pé de Chinelo}} this one too as it is used for editors who have chosen a username. Pé doesn't do that very often anymore but you never know. Cheers back at ya. MarnetteD | Talk 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Of course you can put any username that is socking in them but this *%#@## is so prolific that it is easier to cut and paste with the whole name in there. Especially since it has an accent mark in it. Hugo (film) is getting some interesting reviews - including praise for the use of 3D. Looks like I might have to shell out the extras bucks and go see it. MarnetteD | Talk 20:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Shankill Road bombing

A quick check of the history of this article would reveal that it initially said Limestone Road and it was me who changed it to Newington Avenue in the first place. That was an error on my part as it is Holy Family School that is on Newington Avenue so I changed it back. I would have thought that I've been here long enough to be given the benefit of the doubt on these matters per WP:RV and I would happily have explained that if you had contacted me rather than reverting my edit. I appreciate I didn't explain it in the edit summary but I would hope to have good faith on my part assumed. Keresaspa (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Irish Mexicans

I restored a couple of your deletions for being 'not notable'. I reckon that if they have a wp article then they are worthy of inclusion, and since they speak spanish there, I would recognise es:wp. Trust that that's ok for you. regards Lugnad (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Green Mile

Outline your specific objections to the changes made, please. --AdamM (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have stated my objection, and it is quite clear: the plot summary does not need expansion. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

But I'm not expanding anything. If I was expanding the plot summary it would not remain a summary, and my edits serve only to clarify important parts of the plot which are omitted. As it stands the summary is badly written. --AdamM (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You did expand it. Do you not know the meaning of the word "expand"? You added new material, which is an expansion. If you believe the summary is wrong or poorly-written, you should outline the changes you would like to see made on the talk page. Any further discussion of this should be done there. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If one expands a summary it can no longer be called a summary. Certainly I made the summary slightly larger in word count, but if I had expanded it it would have gone into too much detail. But anyway let us not argue semantics. You are the only person objecting to my edits and you seem perfectly happy to revert them without discussing them on the article's talk page so I see no problem in addressing you directly. And do not assume the purpose of my edits; the summary is not wrong, in fact it is accurate, but it does not flow and as I said omits large parts of the plot. But if you thought my edits had any merit whatsoever you would have noted a specific problem with them here or not reverted them in entirety, so reasoning with you appears pointless; shall we solicit a third opinion? I'm sure they will agree that the plot summary is not as perfect as you think it is. --AdamM (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

I just saw this page pop up on my watchlist. Is there a reason for your departure? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not something I want to discuss in this public forum. Thank you for your concern. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to see you go. Whatever the reason may be, I wish you the best in real life. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. But, to be honest, if Wikipedia cares about retaining experienced editors and contributors, it has to do more than offer lip service. Every day, it is an uphill battle against outright vandalism, utter nonsense, and POV-pushing. Experienced editors should get the benefit of the doubt in battles against anonymous users who do not know our policies and show no willingness to learn. In the last two months, I have fought battle after battle, too-often losing my temper due to frustration, against ill-tempered, rude, aggressive editors, and told again and again that I must "assume good faith." Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. I am not a perfect editor, and will not claim to be, but I have been here long enough to know how things work. It took time and experience to learn it, and I received a lot of help along the way. WP is a lot different than when I started, and editing here is now more a source of frustration than either joy or satisfaction. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, was saddened to read the above. It may surprise you to know that you have been of considerable help to me since I started six months ago, and I have learnt much from monitoring some of your editing and critical work.

With best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC).