ARCHIVE PAGE 2: JANUARY - MARCH 2008
I've now submitted Duck Soup for peer review in order to find out some better ways to improve the article's (and other Marx Brothers articles) quality. If you're interested in leaving feedback, you can go to the article's talk page and follow the link. Input is appreciated. — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's got nothing to do with whether Miller was black. If he wasn't, he might have gotten the Medal, instead. And he damn sure wouldn't have had to wait 50yrs, like some guys from the 78th? did. Or like the guys of the 442. I'm just hoping putting it in isn't about race, either, 'cause that's no better. I don't want (or intend) to make that accusation (if that's the word). Trekphiler ( talk) 11:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I'd never even have noticed if I wasn't "watching" the page, so my compliments for removing it.)
A tag has been placed on Oxford university wine society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BlinkingBlimey ( talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"Your edits are not that good"...I understand you deleted that one, but I did see it and it hurt. I hope you understand that I am really trying to work with you here...but statements like that one make it difficult to believe you want anything but to beat me into submission. I did make the mistake of not checking what your edits where before I started, and I appologise for that. Now, according to the discussion page you intended for the section to stand which was why I started editing. What is it you intend to do? Coffeepusher ( talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, I apologize for hurting your feelings -- I thought better about it, which is why I went back and changed the comment. My intention is to insert into the article, or as footnotes, material which can be readily inserted without disruption to the flow of the writing, and to leave the rest of the material where it is. I do not find list of miscellaenous facts objectionable. I understand they have the potential to grow like Topsy, but that simply means they have to be kept under control, just like any other aspect of an article. I'm continuing to look at the material and see where it can fit in, but I believe I'm nearing a stopping point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
An electronic medium is a poor way of communication, and it has a tendency to amplify...well everything. I know you didn't intend that the way it sounded, especialy judgeing from your last post. once you are done, please post on the discussion page what direction you think the article can go. I look forward to your edits. Coffeepusher ( talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've copied this discussion to the talk page for Westchester County -- please post responses there and not here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that you undid my revert of the links to westchestertowns.com on
Westchester County, New York. I feel that these links are being used to promote this website. I have removed these links a number of time and a number of them always seem to reappear. Furthermore, the fact that multiple links to the same site are added at the same time indicate to me that they are added for promotion.
Wikipedia's external link policy states that links should normally be avoided if they "mainly intended to promote a website." I am open to your input on this subject and I think the links should be removed. Please feel free to discuss this here. --
24fan24 (
talk)
21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see what you have against the websites. I was unfamiliar with this editor's past history, or any conflict with him, but I found the sites to be informative and useful. I see no harm in allowing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I represent WestchesterTowns.com. Although we do have a few ads in order to cover our website expenses, WestchesterTowns.com is mostly a non-profit community based information resource for Westchester residents. More than 80% of our information is about community topics such as Town Libraries, Town websites, Colleges and Universities, School Districts, Health information, Post Offices and much more.
This information is presented in a clear and consise format that is not readily available anywhere else. It has taken several years to compile this information and we update regularly to reflect changes such as a school closing.
Many Westchester residents have sent emails thanking us for the "extensive content" of our website. I apologize if I've re-added this information - but because of the nature and importance of links such as: Libraries, Colleges & Universities, Our special Interactive Map of Westchester County, Hospitals, Emergency information and more - I believed my links were deleted in error. I did not read or see any requests to not add our information - until tonight. Many websites refrenced in wikipedia have loud flashing ads - We do not. Our ads are quiet, subtle and confined to a small area of the page. Any pages we have added to Wikipedia have contained relevant and important information. We promote many important topics such as Local and Organic Farming, Pesticide Prevention, Children's Educational "approved" websites, Local Historic Sites, History of each town and much more. Our new Demographics Section contains important data regarding the Environment such as Air Pollution, Waste Sites, Clean Water ... We are currently writing extensive information on Environmental Issues and how to go "Green" in Westchester. We strongly promote working together to clean our environment. I hope that you will reconsider your removal of our links.
The reason there are multiple links to www.WestchesterTowns.com is that our information is organized by community and town; each town having its own Home Page. We therefore provided links to the appropriate area. We have over 1000 pages of research and information. We added a very small percentage that we believe has added value to the Wikipedia sections as they relate to Westchester.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to a favorable reply. Gail JonChuckles ( talk) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it into a sub-sub-section on the Dr. Strangelove page; that's probably the right way to handle it. I wasn't really happy with the multi-paragraph list item I'd created, but I wanted to put that item in its proper place ( a page for a program named after the device wasn't it), and figured either I or somebody else would fix it up later. Guy Harris ( talk) 04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
On your user page, you have a line that links to John Adams, as well as to Brian Eno, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, and Terry Riley; was he the John Adams you had in mind, or did you have another John Adams in mind (or were you trying to separate the sheep from the goats :-))? Guy Harris ( talk) 04:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am planning on doing them all, I've done a few already - because I like it as well It wasn't my original idea though, Bzuk started it by doing a similar operation on the pages about Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger -- SteveCrook ( talk) 12:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed the {{ dictdef}} tag I had added to theatrical adaptation. Please leave this tag until the bot has taken care of it. This will not result in the deleting of the article, simple the transfer of the phrase to Wikitionary, as its current form would be useful there. After this is completed the bot will replace the template and it will be as if nothing happened.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk| @ 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It was unclear what would happen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Robert Brustein.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I've done some Web-surfing, and it wasn't Roger Ebert who said that. It was online film critic Danel Griffin, who works for the University of Alaska Southeast. Ebert does admit, however, in his own review of Duck Soup, that, while he enjoys many of the routines in A Night at the Opera, he must "fast-forward through the sappy interludes with Allan Jones and Kitty Carlisle. In Duck Soup, though, there are no scenes I can skip; the film is funny from beginning to end."
Danel Griffin also has an excellent, critical website, called "Film as Art", which you should consider giving a look. I think you'll agree with his analyses of Marx Brothers films. See other pages like Night at the Opera, Monkey Business, and The House That Shadows Built for more such links. — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work on the Blimp article. I may go in and make a few minor tweaks -- SteveCrook ( talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC) The Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society
Ed,
Don't have time to give a fair response right now. My quick reflex reaction is that the article as of this minute appears on the whole to be factually accurate but aesthetically (by which I mean, ease of reading and understanding) wanting. I'll try to address this later.
You know, the easiest way I can think of to do this would be to place the article in a Microsoft Word article and attach comments (assuming you have Office 2003 or later—I absolutely despise Office 97 and earlier versions). I don't normally exchange email with fellow Wikipedians, but this might facilitate an explanation of my feelings. If you are interested, provide me an address to mail my suggestions. Unschool ( talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this doesn't mean that I really understand the reason why. -- Jtir ( talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For instance, sometimes I'm searching for a reference to something, and I can't latch onto it, but I've got an idea about something it's related to, and I go to that article and I find there a reference which puts me on the right track. It makes no sense to denude Wikipedia of what makes it so valuable -- links -- on a page whose entire purpose is to act as a guide to where to go for the confused.
So do me a favor, leave it be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 05:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your cleanup of Bridge. I especially like the way you handled the "unplanned uses". I came across the article only recently after I got bored and decided to skim the recent changes. What is your opinion of the "visual index" in Bridge? -- Jtir ( talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
== Are you in, decisive? ==
I've notice your comment on my watchlist a couple of times, now, & keep forgetting to say this. FYI, I was using "decisive battle" not as descriptive, which got disputed (with reason), but as a technical term, in ref to IJN doctrine. If you're at all interested in how it's meant, have a glance at
Imperial Japanese Navy,
Alfred Mahan, &
War Plan Orange.
Trekphiler (
talk)
03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just ignore me, it's been a long day...
Trekphiler (
talk)
Ed, Bzuk is a Dumb Ass and makes use of every oppurtunity to prove it. I would prefer that you use the terrm "plane" as you see fit 68.244.171.75 ( talk) 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ed,
You are correct. I was impolite uncivil and anonymous. I will refrain from making posts, as you wish.
Disclaimer: The ‘Refrainment’ is limited to making such comments on your talk page or on other pages when in discussion directly with you. Comments may be made on the mentioned pages as long as all three requirements are not simultaneously achieved. That is: The comment may be impolite and uncivil as long as it is not anonymous, it may be uncivil and anonymous as long as it is polite, or it may be impolite and anonymous as long as it is civil. This agreement is limited to visible print, entered in English, and does not include hidden text, comments in the edit summaries, links to other pages or encrypted remarks within the text. This agreement is non-transferable and subject to cancellation at anytime by written notice.
I hope this is acceptable. BTW, I appreciated your non-refute of the facts of my statement (which I construe as an endorsement and agreement of the comment). I understand that by directly mentioning this, you may be forced to refute it to avoid a charge of PA, which would be an insult against your heretofore unchallenged good character.
Please continue on, as you have in furthering the project and admonishing those that do it great harm.
Again, I believe this encyclopedia is for the users, not the editors. Plane is most appropriate. 70.4.9.235 ( talk) 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ed, I've begin to tackle this landmark film. Please tell me if I am on the right flightpath, glidepath, bramble path... Bzuk ( talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
Hi. You reverted my edit to Dr Strangelove concerning Slim Pickens not knowing that he was acting in a comedy. I think the idea that anyone could act in a film without learning of the genre of the film (regardless of a lack of access to the script) is ridiculous. He must have been interacting with other actors and crew on a regular basis. It is worth noting that this sentence contained no citation. In any case I'm not interested in an edit war so I've just left a citation needed tag in the article. Cheers. Robert Brockway ( talk) 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, why are you reverting User:SmackBot edits without explanation? As the documentation for "undo" says, only vandal edits are to be undone without further explanation. Further, SmackBot puts a date on the {{ fact}} tags. If you really want to disable SmackBot, there is, I believe, a way to do that. -- Jtir ( talk) 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not impossible the SB might hange a date, but it certainly is not intended to. IIf you find an example, please leave me another note. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03 3 February 2008 (GMT).
Hi, I noticed your changes to Template:infobox nrhp. The changes are causing the images to display at full size. Altairisfar talk 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The term "anonymous user" is so misleading that I have stopped using it, preferring "unregistered user" or "IP user" instead. Clicking the "WHOIS" link at the bottom of an IP user's contribs page will return more info than can be known about a registered user who does not say. These two are pertinent to 23 skidoo: contribs1 and contribs2. -- Jtir ( talk) 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Really nice work with the Halsey article - it reads easier and is more balanced then before - but the additional material needs sourcing via footnotes. Your revisions removed/altered a lot of sourced material and while I'm sure you've got your facts right, you still should cite your sources.-- Lepeu1999 ( talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Like you, I do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.139.228 ( talk) 04:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
All right, so you're not content to leave this to one page, are you? What is it with Wikipedia editors ignoring calls for discussion? The more I edit, the more I realize most of you are arrogant and stubborn. But I, for one, am trying to be reasonable here. I don't care about your Wikipedia philosophies, which means you've got three options: abide by the guidelines, give a damned good reason why those guidelines shouldn't be followed and get them changed, or stop editing Wikipedia altogether.
I really don't want to have to invite other editors to take a look at this situation. If an administrator gets involved, you'll just get a huge chip on your shoulder and continue your vendetta more quietly. I know how editors like you operate. So, shall we discuss or would you rather impose your stylistic views on those who don't want such an imposition? 128.208.53.45 ( talk) 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You are wiki-stalking me. And yet you have no time to reply to my comments here or on Talk:23 skidoo. How odd. 128.208.53.45 ( talk) 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In some cases, the lead is so cluttered that I sometimes favor using the subject as a link to an audio clip, even if that does contravene WP:LEAD#Bold title. Minnesota and São Paulo (state) are examples. Admittedly, the {{ audio}} template contributes to the clutter. -- Jtir ( talk) 16:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against good external links. I think these links added little more than more photos of the same subject. This particular article has *more* than enough photos. How many more do you want? In any case, we should be encouraging adding photos to the commons, rather than adding external links, imho dm ( talk) 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a question: why are you moving article cleanup and related tags to the bottom of articles? I think they're normally put at the top to let people know right away that the article needs work. If they're at the bottom, especially of a long article, few people are going to see it.
I'm guessing this is probably another usability concern, but I think in this case it's more important that everyone see that a given article needs improvement or cleanup, especially since anyone can then fix the error. -- clpo13( talk) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The best thing would be an icon in the upper might corner, similar to the "locked" or "featurd article" icon, which indicates that the article has been tagged by someone, and alerts Wikipedia editors to the clean-up tags, which could be in a special section at the head of the talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow editor! Please refrain from moving Wikipedia:No_original_research tags to the bottom of articles, such as you did in your latest edit to Ladder Theory. These tags are not only in place to alert other Wiki editors to the current status of the page, but to serve as a friendly reminder to other users to use a reasonable level of skepticism when reading that article. Thank you for your understanding! :) -- ž¥łǿχ ( ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You should gain a consensus before doing this, particularly before applying this new 'policy' unilaterally to articles with which you have had no substantial involvement. For myself, I disagree with your characterisation. That an article is poorly referenced (for example) should be prominently brought to readers attention, as a red-flag that they should view the contents skeptically. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As has been suggested, it would be good if you could get a consensus on tag relocation before you continue in this way. Cheers Nouse4aname ( talk) 11:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well-stated. [10] I wonder if you would be willing to add your powerful comments to this discussion [11] in which an allegedly "new" user named WillOakland began on the 5th and immediately starting putting the axe to "trivia" lists. I say "allegedly" because he started out right away knowing what he was doing, and because he reminds me a bit of the banned User:Burntsauce, although I wouldn't necessarily argue that they're the same guy, they just have a similar "screw-y'all" attitude. I said something like what you said, only you said it much better. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice job in adding to the story; made some minor changes especially in regards to production notes. See above comments in other posting about trivia (and miscellany lists- there are wome people that want to remove all of these; incorporating the notes into a text section in the body of the article usually works. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
Sir, I was wondering why you undid my edit to Philip K. Dick's article about the Library of America. Am I wrong about H.P. Lovecraft's preceding publication in the Library of America? If you, then thank you for the correction. Looking forward to hearing from you, CSims
What you have as Succinct WikiPhilosophy is elaborated on in a bit of policy. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions which says,
By logical extension, if this is true for the simplest part of the article, how much more so does it apply for the rest of the article.-- mrg3105 ( comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I'm permanently linking your user page on mine as required reading-- mrg3105 ( comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, if you haven't read this before, you should. A very interesting read—it's an excerpt from Glenn Mitchell's The Marx Brothers Encyclopedia that deals with the Brothers' varying thoughts on religion. If you've ever really wondered about the Brothers' religiosity, here's your chance to find out. If you take a look at that page you can find many other links to book excerpts. Glenn Mitchell's Encyclopedia has also become an out-of-print collector's item, unfortunately. Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 02:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You have now twice reverted my edits without any discussion other than an offensive edit aummary. I am going to reinstate these edits. If you have a problem with this, discuss it with me. If you revert a third time without discussion, I will initiate action towards having your editing privileges blocked under WP:3RR. Colonies Chris ( talk) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I noticed a few changes you've made to a few disambig pages are not in accordance with the Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) guidelines. It's no big deal, easily corrected, I just thought I'd let you know for next time. Cheers.-- Cúchullain t/ c 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ed, take a look at this film article stub. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
Hi Ed, Well the Kibbee and Herbert images "exist" but they're not very good. For that reason I did not upload them originally. Kibbee looks like he's about to sneeze and Herbert has his eyes closed, but most of the trailer centres around Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler and the supporting players rate barely a mention. Here they are with my best wishes. Although the images aren't particularly good, they do look nice in the article page with the others, so I'm glad you asked for them.
cheers Rossrs ( talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We need Sources for the above article. Can you help? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you know of substantial sources that can be added to this article? - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I just realised the event that I discussed was a year old. Review the block log of the user I posted about. Apologies once again. Rudget | talk 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ed, I very sincerely appreciate your efforts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand. I know you said that mediation is not something you've done before, and you'd yell at us until we do it :), but you're doing a bang up job so far! Major kudos to you for doing so. I had considerable respect for two mediating voices in this debate, one of whom isn't very active in the debate. The other I just lost respect for, and was despairing there wouldn't be someone to fill the void to provide a mediating voice. You've filled that void and more. Nice work! :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit here. Our Manual of Style regarding images strongly suggests letting users set their own image size preferences. Please have a think about restoring the changes I made. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you recently voted in AFD concerning an unreleased album. I invite you take part in the conversation here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Unreleased_albums any input you have would be appreciated. Ridernyc ( talk) 09:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Ed! I've been thinking—should we push for the Duck Soup article as a good article nominee, or is it too early? I think the article is pretty good overall, don't you? Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.
1) Why does it matter much to give the exact number of years after Duck Soup's release when Arthur Marx made the cited comment?
2) Why did we have to separate the "Cast" section from "Production". I've seen a "Cast" system underneath a "production" section in plenty of articles, like I Am Legend (BTW, currently listed as a Good Article). That didn't really seem necessary. Also, why remove the wikitable showing who had what role? Plenty of articles have these kinds of tables, and they are often utilized for a cast section. I didn't get that much, either. Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Back to the bullets in "other scenes and jokes" - if you're still interested in pursing GA status, I'd say that we should simply remove the bullets and connect the paragraphs together with some perfunctory language: "Another scene which blah blah blah." I mean, it all seems a bit silly to me, because it's being judged not on its own merits, but against some preset criteria, and I really don't much like that kind of thing. But if we're playing that game... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I did post the image, which I think is the last for the moment. As BB says, let's see if the exclusionists take any of these away, and we can replace them if they do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you encountered user:72.204.219.46, aka Harvardlaw ( talk · contribs). He's a banned user who never tires of promoting himself and his heroes. As with all banned users, his edits may be reverted on sight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 07:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. 68.167.191.137 ( talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
You are entirely welcome. I was chided in the recent past by a fellow editor---apropos of my inquiring as to whether he felt I was prepared to be an administrator---for the tone of some of my edit summaries, so I have taken pains to show more restraint. Generally, though, this was only a problem with anonymous users and people whose edits amounted to vandalism. Still and all, it is better, for all involved, that we maintain decorum and treat one another respectfully. I appreciate your message. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You should add this to your user page categories [[Category:WikiCommonSense]]. Igor Berger ( talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please retract or delete you ANI comment. There is nowhere on my user page that I say that I went to New York State University. There is no such animal. There is SUNY! Igor Berger ( talk) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Great film. Glad to see you improving it. — Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have posted this dispute to WP:Third Opinion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I totally agree with a number of your comments on your user page - especially the part about Good Articles not necessarily being good articles. I have come upon a number of featured articles which had nasty factual errors or which pushed the point of view of the celebrated main editor. However, they had the correct dash, correct layout, and correct approach to the selection committee! I have also come upon several well researched, informative and helpful articles which do not qualify for FA because they don't have images, the wrong sort of dashes, and haven't been peer reviewed!
Anyway - I didn't come here for that. It's about the layout and presentation of the References section in Anatomy of a Murder. It doesn't really matter which way round it goes (Notes or References), and guidance is not clear, however, it is more pleasing to have some form of consistency over such trivial matters, and as most Film articles already use References in preference to Notes, that is the way round the trend is going. So whenever I edit a Film article I will change Notes to References. It's not something I get into an edit war over, and if an editor really prefers an article to say Notes rather than References, then so be it. However, Luigibob has got in touch with me regarding your stance on Anatomy of a Murder. And I'm wondering if you wanted to have a chat over the best way forward. Regards SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is threefold:
(1) Too much emphasis on checklists and rigid formatting requiremens (as you mentioned);
(2) Too little copyediting; and
(3) Not enough concern about how the article will present to the reader, the user of the encyclopedia whom we're supposed to be writing for.
This problem isn't limited to FA or GA reviews, the attitudes behind it are endemic to Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
On this topic: notes and references are completely different things. A section titled Notes would contain footnotes or brief explanations, whereas a section title References would contain, well, references. It's like a works cited page condensed into a section. -- clpo13( talk) 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Then again, if there are both notes and references in a section, than the title would be Notes and References. But why call it Notes if it's all references? -- clpo13( talk) 00:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
My preference is to call the list of footnotes - notes at the foot of the article, afterall - "Notes", and if the article has additional references, like a bilbiography or further reading list, to subsume both under an encompassing heading of "References", much as SilkTork has done on "Anatomy". I could be wrong, but I believe I was the one who put that particular structure in place on "Strangelove", after seeing Steve Cross and Bzuk use it -- it immediately made a great deal of sense to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 00:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
just a quick note to say "g'day" and to thank you for helping out at WP:TOV - it's nice to meet you!
best, Privatemusings ( talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice additions to the plot section on the article. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Stan
Ed - A note of thanks for many of your sane comments about the absolutely overriding importance of the Wikipedia user being able to gain knowledge and understanding in as many dimensions as possible. This led me to use a quote from you and expand some other thoughts on what seems to me to be the very odd attitude to links to visually orientated sites! You'll find the stuff under "Trani" on [13] - Adrian Fletcher (paradoxplace.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.37.66 ( talk) 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is of course an excellent reason why there should be a different attitude to external links to good visual sites (I don't mean ho-hum thumbnail albums of holiday experiences but sites which give you a meaningful idea of context and what it's like to look around you). Sadly the now entrenched wiki-cultural emphasis on words and computereze as means, rather than learning as an end, plus the fact that as you have noted anyone can get in and perform negative acts anonymously, makes change unlikely. In another life as a manager of change in large organizations I learned that change does not happen unless it is nourished and supported, and there are no wiki-mechanisms for this (in fact one gets the impression that the two words are not in the vocabulary of several of the participants). Nice to have been in touch with you anyway! Adrian Fletcher 16 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.35.146 ( talk) 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 04:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed: just dropping by to say hello. You've got some very fine, and very meaty observations on your user page. Very thoughtful; I agree with a lot of them. Keep writing! Just reading them, I can think of stuff to expand at essay length (how about: "against 'no-original-research fundamentalism'"?) Btw nice to meet someone else who's not a kid. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you really want to escalate this? Nobody supported your position. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not an anarchy either. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I barged into "Female", which I believe you worked on before I got there. I offer a compromise - go back to no italics on Female, but leave them on Godfrey - where (I think) I put in the cast section. In the future, I'll continue to use italics on cast sections that I create (if I think it appropriate - it's not always), but I won't convert existing cast sections unless they're really in a mess and need major redoing, but I'll only do it as apart of a major overhaul - I will not simply covert existing cast section to italics for its own sake. On the other hand, you don't take the italics out of those cast sections I've created or majorly reworked.
There's no particular reason that both formats can't coexist, there're not so radically different that it's something for either of us to get bent out of shape about.
How about it? Can we sign the Clarityfiend/Fitzgerald Peace Friendship and Prosperity Pact? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Clarityfiend having rejected my offer of compromise, my further comments are here and here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 04:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Done (I hope) sorry, busy & other seem to avoid the page :) Regards -- Herby talk thyme 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
YOu take this stuff seriously. Well to each his own. Good luck with whatever your doing, Im just trying to write a freakin' paper. Good luck. posted at 20:20 on 18 March 2008 by User:71.112.1.7
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
-- Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 02:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ed. I was looking at the history for Boston University and saw that you reverted a change from several versions back, but preserved the later changes. Did you use a special tool for that, or was that manually edited? -- Tcncv ( talk) 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ed Fitzgerald,
Thanks for your concern. I was able to find the relevant sources concerning Martin Van Creveld's attitude toward women. I feel it is important to let other readers know about such sensitive issues as abuse of freedom of academic speech, as it is in Van Creveld's case. With your permission, I restore that section --- with footnotes this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obstul ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sadly, I couldn't find the English version of that article, and I am afraid it is most likely that it has never appeared in English at all. I understand your decision to remove it from Wikipedia; but, in fact, all I've mentioned there is sad, but true. Martin's attitude towards women, the petition and the subsequent retirement --- all these were limited to Jerusalem Ivory Tower only and, hence, did not get enough publication outside of Israel. hence, I could not find any English publication/translation. With best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obstul ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote of confidence! Disagreement can definitely be healthy under the right conditions. You're welcome to share input about topics in the future, especially if you happen to think my arguments are too one-sided. ;) By the way, I have to admit I enjoy reading the user pages of editors like you; you make very valid points. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit here [14] because I want the page deleted. Thank you. Giano ( talk) 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion here [15] to explain why the external link at the Stanley Kubrick page should be kept. Thank you MarnetteD | Talk 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
ARCHIVE PAGE 2: JANUARY - MARCH 2008
I've now submitted Duck Soup for peer review in order to find out some better ways to improve the article's (and other Marx Brothers articles) quality. If you're interested in leaving feedback, you can go to the article's talk page and follow the link. Input is appreciated. — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it's got nothing to do with whether Miller was black. If he wasn't, he might have gotten the Medal, instead. And he damn sure wouldn't have had to wait 50yrs, like some guys from the 78th? did. Or like the guys of the 442. I'm just hoping putting it in isn't about race, either, 'cause that's no better. I don't want (or intend) to make that accusation (if that's the word). Trekphiler ( talk) 11:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I'd never even have noticed if I wasn't "watching" the page, so my compliments for removing it.)
A tag has been placed on Oxford university wine society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BlinkingBlimey ( talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"Your edits are not that good"...I understand you deleted that one, but I did see it and it hurt. I hope you understand that I am really trying to work with you here...but statements like that one make it difficult to believe you want anything but to beat me into submission. I did make the mistake of not checking what your edits where before I started, and I appologise for that. Now, according to the discussion page you intended for the section to stand which was why I started editing. What is it you intend to do? Coffeepusher ( talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, I apologize for hurting your feelings -- I thought better about it, which is why I went back and changed the comment. My intention is to insert into the article, or as footnotes, material which can be readily inserted without disruption to the flow of the writing, and to leave the rest of the material where it is. I do not find list of miscellaenous facts objectionable. I understand they have the potential to grow like Topsy, but that simply means they have to be kept under control, just like any other aspect of an article. I'm continuing to look at the material and see where it can fit in, but I believe I'm nearing a stopping point. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
An electronic medium is a poor way of communication, and it has a tendency to amplify...well everything. I know you didn't intend that the way it sounded, especialy judgeing from your last post. once you are done, please post on the discussion page what direction you think the article can go. I look forward to your edits. Coffeepusher ( talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've copied this discussion to the talk page for Westchester County -- please post responses there and not here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that you undid my revert of the links to westchestertowns.com on
Westchester County, New York. I feel that these links are being used to promote this website. I have removed these links a number of time and a number of them always seem to reappear. Furthermore, the fact that multiple links to the same site are added at the same time indicate to me that they are added for promotion.
Wikipedia's external link policy states that links should normally be avoided if they "mainly intended to promote a website." I am open to your input on this subject and I think the links should be removed. Please feel free to discuss this here. --
24fan24 (
talk)
21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see what you have against the websites. I was unfamiliar with this editor's past history, or any conflict with him, but I found the sites to be informative and useful. I see no harm in allowing them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I represent WestchesterTowns.com. Although we do have a few ads in order to cover our website expenses, WestchesterTowns.com is mostly a non-profit community based information resource for Westchester residents. More than 80% of our information is about community topics such as Town Libraries, Town websites, Colleges and Universities, School Districts, Health information, Post Offices and much more.
This information is presented in a clear and consise format that is not readily available anywhere else. It has taken several years to compile this information and we update regularly to reflect changes such as a school closing.
Many Westchester residents have sent emails thanking us for the "extensive content" of our website. I apologize if I've re-added this information - but because of the nature and importance of links such as: Libraries, Colleges & Universities, Our special Interactive Map of Westchester County, Hospitals, Emergency information and more - I believed my links were deleted in error. I did not read or see any requests to not add our information - until tonight. Many websites refrenced in wikipedia have loud flashing ads - We do not. Our ads are quiet, subtle and confined to a small area of the page. Any pages we have added to Wikipedia have contained relevant and important information. We promote many important topics such as Local and Organic Farming, Pesticide Prevention, Children's Educational "approved" websites, Local Historic Sites, History of each town and much more. Our new Demographics Section contains important data regarding the Environment such as Air Pollution, Waste Sites, Clean Water ... We are currently writing extensive information on Environmental Issues and how to go "Green" in Westchester. We strongly promote working together to clean our environment. I hope that you will reconsider your removal of our links.
The reason there are multiple links to www.WestchesterTowns.com is that our information is organized by community and town; each town having its own Home Page. We therefore provided links to the appropriate area. We have over 1000 pages of research and information. We added a very small percentage that we believe has added value to the Wikipedia sections as they relate to Westchester.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to a favorable reply. Gail JonChuckles ( talk) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it into a sub-sub-section on the Dr. Strangelove page; that's probably the right way to handle it. I wasn't really happy with the multi-paragraph list item I'd created, but I wanted to put that item in its proper place ( a page for a program named after the device wasn't it), and figured either I or somebody else would fix it up later. Guy Harris ( talk) 04:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
On your user page, you have a line that links to John Adams, as well as to Brian Eno, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, and Terry Riley; was he the John Adams you had in mind, or did you have another John Adams in mind (or were you trying to separate the sheep from the goats :-))? Guy Harris ( talk) 04:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am planning on doing them all, I've done a few already - because I like it as well It wasn't my original idea though, Bzuk started it by doing a similar operation on the pages about Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger -- SteveCrook ( talk) 12:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you removed the {{ dictdef}} tag I had added to theatrical adaptation. Please leave this tag until the bot has taken care of it. This will not result in the deleting of the article, simple the transfer of the phrase to Wikitionary, as its current form would be useful there. After this is completed the bot will replace the template and it will be as if nothing happened.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk| @ 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It was unclear what would happen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Robert Brustein.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I've done some Web-surfing, and it wasn't Roger Ebert who said that. It was online film critic Danel Griffin, who works for the University of Alaska Southeast. Ebert does admit, however, in his own review of Duck Soup, that, while he enjoys many of the routines in A Night at the Opera, he must "fast-forward through the sappy interludes with Allan Jones and Kitty Carlisle. In Duck Soup, though, there are no scenes I can skip; the film is funny from beginning to end."
Danel Griffin also has an excellent, critical website, called "Film as Art", which you should consider giving a look. I think you'll agree with his analyses of Marx Brothers films. See other pages like Night at the Opera, Monkey Business, and The House That Shadows Built for more such links. — Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work on the Blimp article. I may go in and make a few minor tweaks -- SteveCrook ( talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC) The Powell and Pressburger Appreciation Society
Ed,
Don't have time to give a fair response right now. My quick reflex reaction is that the article as of this minute appears on the whole to be factually accurate but aesthetically (by which I mean, ease of reading and understanding) wanting. I'll try to address this later.
You know, the easiest way I can think of to do this would be to place the article in a Microsoft Word article and attach comments (assuming you have Office 2003 or later—I absolutely despise Office 97 and earlier versions). I don't normally exchange email with fellow Wikipedians, but this might facilitate an explanation of my feelings. If you are interested, provide me an address to mail my suggestions. Unschool ( talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this doesn't mean that I really understand the reason why. -- Jtir ( talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For instance, sometimes I'm searching for a reference to something, and I can't latch onto it, but I've got an idea about something it's related to, and I go to that article and I find there a reference which puts me on the right track. It makes no sense to denude Wikipedia of what makes it so valuable -- links -- on a page whose entire purpose is to act as a guide to where to go for the confused.
So do me a favor, leave it be. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 05:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your cleanup of Bridge. I especially like the way you handled the "unplanned uses". I came across the article only recently after I got bored and decided to skim the recent changes. What is your opinion of the "visual index" in Bridge? -- Jtir ( talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
== Are you in, decisive? ==
I've notice your comment on my watchlist a couple of times, now, & keep forgetting to say this. FYI, I was using "decisive battle" not as descriptive, which got disputed (with reason), but as a technical term, in ref to IJN doctrine. If you're at all interested in how it's meant, have a glance at
Imperial Japanese Navy,
Alfred Mahan, &
War Plan Orange.
Trekphiler (
talk)
03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just ignore me, it's been a long day...
Trekphiler (
talk)
Ed, Bzuk is a Dumb Ass and makes use of every oppurtunity to prove it. I would prefer that you use the terrm "plane" as you see fit 68.244.171.75 ( talk) 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ed,
You are correct. I was impolite uncivil and anonymous. I will refrain from making posts, as you wish.
Disclaimer: The ‘Refrainment’ is limited to making such comments on your talk page or on other pages when in discussion directly with you. Comments may be made on the mentioned pages as long as all three requirements are not simultaneously achieved. That is: The comment may be impolite and uncivil as long as it is not anonymous, it may be uncivil and anonymous as long as it is polite, or it may be impolite and anonymous as long as it is civil. This agreement is limited to visible print, entered in English, and does not include hidden text, comments in the edit summaries, links to other pages or encrypted remarks within the text. This agreement is non-transferable and subject to cancellation at anytime by written notice.
I hope this is acceptable. BTW, I appreciated your non-refute of the facts of my statement (which I construe as an endorsement and agreement of the comment). I understand that by directly mentioning this, you may be forced to refute it to avoid a charge of PA, which would be an insult against your heretofore unchallenged good character.
Please continue on, as you have in furthering the project and admonishing those that do it great harm.
Again, I believe this encyclopedia is for the users, not the editors. Plane is most appropriate. 70.4.9.235 ( talk) 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ed, I've begin to tackle this landmark film. Please tell me if I am on the right flightpath, glidepath, bramble path... Bzuk ( talk) 17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
Hi. You reverted my edit to Dr Strangelove concerning Slim Pickens not knowing that he was acting in a comedy. I think the idea that anyone could act in a film without learning of the genre of the film (regardless of a lack of access to the script) is ridiculous. He must have been interacting with other actors and crew on a regular basis. It is worth noting that this sentence contained no citation. In any case I'm not interested in an edit war so I've just left a citation needed tag in the article. Cheers. Robert Brockway ( talk) 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, why are you reverting User:SmackBot edits without explanation? As the documentation for "undo" says, only vandal edits are to be undone without further explanation. Further, SmackBot puts a date on the {{ fact}} tags. If you really want to disable SmackBot, there is, I believe, a way to do that. -- Jtir ( talk) 18:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not impossible the SB might hange a date, but it certainly is not intended to. IIf you find an example, please leave me another note. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03 3 February 2008 (GMT).
Hi, I noticed your changes to Template:infobox nrhp. The changes are causing the images to display at full size. Altairisfar talk 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The term "anonymous user" is so misleading that I have stopped using it, preferring "unregistered user" or "IP user" instead. Clicking the "WHOIS" link at the bottom of an IP user's contribs page will return more info than can be known about a registered user who does not say. These two are pertinent to 23 skidoo: contribs1 and contribs2. -- Jtir ( talk) 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Really nice work with the Halsey article - it reads easier and is more balanced then before - but the additional material needs sourcing via footnotes. Your revisions removed/altered a lot of sourced material and while I'm sure you've got your facts right, you still should cite your sources.-- Lepeu1999 ( talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Like you, I do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.139.228 ( talk) 04:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
All right, so you're not content to leave this to one page, are you? What is it with Wikipedia editors ignoring calls for discussion? The more I edit, the more I realize most of you are arrogant and stubborn. But I, for one, am trying to be reasonable here. I don't care about your Wikipedia philosophies, which means you've got three options: abide by the guidelines, give a damned good reason why those guidelines shouldn't be followed and get them changed, or stop editing Wikipedia altogether.
I really don't want to have to invite other editors to take a look at this situation. If an administrator gets involved, you'll just get a huge chip on your shoulder and continue your vendetta more quietly. I know how editors like you operate. So, shall we discuss or would you rather impose your stylistic views on those who don't want such an imposition? 128.208.53.45 ( talk) 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You are wiki-stalking me. And yet you have no time to reply to my comments here or on Talk:23 skidoo. How odd. 128.208.53.45 ( talk) 10:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
In some cases, the lead is so cluttered that I sometimes favor using the subject as a link to an audio clip, even if that does contravene WP:LEAD#Bold title. Minnesota and São Paulo (state) are examples. Admittedly, the {{ audio}} template contributes to the clutter. -- Jtir ( talk) 16:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against good external links. I think these links added little more than more photos of the same subject. This particular article has *more* than enough photos. How many more do you want? In any case, we should be encouraging adding photos to the commons, rather than adding external links, imho dm ( talk) 05:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a question: why are you moving article cleanup and related tags to the bottom of articles? I think they're normally put at the top to let people know right away that the article needs work. If they're at the bottom, especially of a long article, few people are going to see it.
I'm guessing this is probably another usability concern, but I think in this case it's more important that everyone see that a given article needs improvement or cleanup, especially since anyone can then fix the error. -- clpo13( talk) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The best thing would be an icon in the upper might corner, similar to the "locked" or "featurd article" icon, which indicates that the article has been tagged by someone, and alerts Wikipedia editors to the clean-up tags, which could be in a special section at the head of the talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 23:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow editor! Please refrain from moving Wikipedia:No_original_research tags to the bottom of articles, such as you did in your latest edit to Ladder Theory. These tags are not only in place to alert other Wiki editors to the current status of the page, but to serve as a friendly reminder to other users to use a reasonable level of skepticism when reading that article. Thank you for your understanding! :) -- ž¥łǿχ ( ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 15:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You should gain a consensus before doing this, particularly before applying this new 'policy' unilaterally to articles with which you have had no substantial involvement. For myself, I disagree with your characterisation. That an article is poorly referenced (for example) should be prominently brought to readers attention, as a red-flag that they should view the contents skeptically. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As has been suggested, it would be good if you could get a consensus on tag relocation before you continue in this way. Cheers Nouse4aname ( talk) 11:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well-stated. [10] I wonder if you would be willing to add your powerful comments to this discussion [11] in which an allegedly "new" user named WillOakland began on the 5th and immediately starting putting the axe to "trivia" lists. I say "allegedly" because he started out right away knowing what he was doing, and because he reminds me a bit of the banned User:Burntsauce, although I wouldn't necessarily argue that they're the same guy, they just have a similar "screw-y'all" attitude. I said something like what you said, only you said it much better. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice job in adding to the story; made some minor changes especially in regards to production notes. See above comments in other posting about trivia (and miscellany lists- there are wome people that want to remove all of these; incorporating the notes into a text section in the body of the article usually works. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
Sir, I was wondering why you undid my edit to Philip K. Dick's article about the Library of America. Am I wrong about H.P. Lovecraft's preceding publication in the Library of America? If you, then thank you for the correction. Looking forward to hearing from you, CSims
What you have as Succinct WikiPhilosophy is elaborated on in a bit of policy. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions which says,
By logical extension, if this is true for the simplest part of the article, how much more so does it apply for the rest of the article.-- mrg3105 ( comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I'm permanently linking your user page on mine as required reading-- mrg3105 ( comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, if you haven't read this before, you should. A very interesting read—it's an excerpt from Glenn Mitchell's The Marx Brothers Encyclopedia that deals with the Brothers' varying thoughts on religion. If you've ever really wondered about the Brothers' religiosity, here's your chance to find out. If you take a look at that page you can find many other links to book excerpts. Glenn Mitchell's Encyclopedia has also become an out-of-print collector's item, unfortunately. Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 02:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You have now twice reverted my edits without any discussion other than an offensive edit aummary. I am going to reinstate these edits. If you have a problem with this, discuss it with me. If you revert a third time without discussion, I will initiate action towards having your editing privileges blocked under WP:3RR. Colonies Chris ( talk) 14:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ed, I noticed a few changes you've made to a few disambig pages are not in accordance with the Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) guidelines. It's no big deal, easily corrected, I just thought I'd let you know for next time. Cheers.-- Cúchullain t/ c 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ed, take a look at this film article stub. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
Hi Ed, Well the Kibbee and Herbert images "exist" but they're not very good. For that reason I did not upload them originally. Kibbee looks like he's about to sneeze and Herbert has his eyes closed, but most of the trailer centres around Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler and the supporting players rate barely a mention. Here they are with my best wishes. Although the images aren't particularly good, they do look nice in the article page with the others, so I'm glad you asked for them.
cheers Rossrs ( talk) 14:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We need Sources for the above article. Can you help? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you know of substantial sources that can be added to this article? - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I just realised the event that I discussed was a year old. Review the block log of the user I posted about. Apologies once again. Rudget | talk 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ed, I very sincerely appreciate your efforts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand. I know you said that mediation is not something you've done before, and you'd yell at us until we do it :), but you're doing a bang up job so far! Major kudos to you for doing so. I had considerable respect for two mediating voices in this debate, one of whom isn't very active in the debate. The other I just lost respect for, and was despairing there wouldn't be someone to fill the void to provide a mediating voice. You've filled that void and more. Nice work! :) -- Hammersoft ( talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit here. Our Manual of Style regarding images strongly suggests letting users set their own image size preferences. Please have a think about restoring the changes I made. Thanks. -- John ( talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you recently voted in AFD concerning an unreleased album. I invite you take part in the conversation here Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Unreleased_albums any input you have would be appreciated. Ridernyc ( talk) 09:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Ed! I've been thinking—should we push for the Duck Soup article as a good article nominee, or is it too early? I think the article is pretty good overall, don't you? Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.
1) Why does it matter much to give the exact number of years after Duck Soup's release when Arthur Marx made the cited comment?
2) Why did we have to separate the "Cast" section from "Production". I've seen a "Cast" system underneath a "production" section in plenty of articles, like I Am Legend (BTW, currently listed as a Good Article). That didn't really seem necessary. Also, why remove the wikitable showing who had what role? Plenty of articles have these kinds of tables, and they are often utilized for a cast section. I didn't get that much, either. Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Back to the bullets in "other scenes and jokes" - if you're still interested in pursing GA status, I'd say that we should simply remove the bullets and connect the paragraphs together with some perfunctory language: "Another scene which blah blah blah." I mean, it all seems a bit silly to me, because it's being judged not on its own merits, but against some preset criteria, and I really don't much like that kind of thing. But if we're playing that game... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I did post the image, which I think is the last for the moment. As BB says, let's see if the exclusionists take any of these away, and we can replace them if they do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you encountered user:72.204.219.46, aka Harvardlaw ( talk · contribs). He's a banned user who never tires of promoting himself and his heroes. As with all banned users, his edits may be reverted on sight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 07:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. 68.167.191.137 ( talk) 23:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC).
You are entirely welcome. I was chided in the recent past by a fellow editor---apropos of my inquiring as to whether he felt I was prepared to be an administrator---for the tone of some of my edit summaries, so I have taken pains to show more restraint. Generally, though, this was only a problem with anonymous users and people whose edits amounted to vandalism. Still and all, it is better, for all involved, that we maintain decorum and treat one another respectfully. I appreciate your message. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You should add this to your user page categories [[Category:WikiCommonSense]]. Igor Berger ( talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please retract or delete you ANI comment. There is nowhere on my user page that I say that I went to New York State University. There is no such animal. There is SUNY! Igor Berger ( talk) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Great film. Glad to see you improving it. — Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have posted this dispute to WP:Third Opinion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed. I totally agree with a number of your comments on your user page - especially the part about Good Articles not necessarily being good articles. I have come upon a number of featured articles which had nasty factual errors or which pushed the point of view of the celebrated main editor. However, they had the correct dash, correct layout, and correct approach to the selection committee! I have also come upon several well researched, informative and helpful articles which do not qualify for FA because they don't have images, the wrong sort of dashes, and haven't been peer reviewed!
Anyway - I didn't come here for that. It's about the layout and presentation of the References section in Anatomy of a Murder. It doesn't really matter which way round it goes (Notes or References), and guidance is not clear, however, it is more pleasing to have some form of consistency over such trivial matters, and as most Film articles already use References in preference to Notes, that is the way round the trend is going. So whenever I edit a Film article I will change Notes to References. It's not something I get into an edit war over, and if an editor really prefers an article to say Notes rather than References, then so be it. However, Luigibob has got in touch with me regarding your stance on Anatomy of a Murder. And I'm wondering if you wanted to have a chat over the best way forward. Regards SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 00:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is threefold:
(1) Too much emphasis on checklists and rigid formatting requiremens (as you mentioned);
(2) Too little copyediting; and
(3) Not enough concern about how the article will present to the reader, the user of the encyclopedia whom we're supposed to be writing for.
This problem isn't limited to FA or GA reviews, the attitudes behind it are endemic to Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
On this topic: notes and references are completely different things. A section titled Notes would contain footnotes or brief explanations, whereas a section title References would contain, well, references. It's like a works cited page condensed into a section. -- clpo13( talk) 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Then again, if there are both notes and references in a section, than the title would be Notes and References. But why call it Notes if it's all references? -- clpo13( talk) 00:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
My preference is to call the list of footnotes - notes at the foot of the article, afterall - "Notes", and if the article has additional references, like a bilbiography or further reading list, to subsume both under an encompassing heading of "References", much as SilkTork has done on "Anatomy". I could be wrong, but I believe I was the one who put that particular structure in place on "Strangelove", after seeing Steve Cross and Bzuk use it -- it immediately made a great deal of sense to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 00:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
just a quick note to say "g'day" and to thank you for helping out at WP:TOV - it's nice to meet you!
best, Privatemusings ( talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice additions to the plot section on the article. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Stan
Ed - A note of thanks for many of your sane comments about the absolutely overriding importance of the Wikipedia user being able to gain knowledge and understanding in as many dimensions as possible. This led me to use a quote from you and expand some other thoughts on what seems to me to be the very odd attitude to links to visually orientated sites! You'll find the stuff under "Trani" on [13] - Adrian Fletcher (paradoxplace.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.37.66 ( talk) 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is of course an excellent reason why there should be a different attitude to external links to good visual sites (I don't mean ho-hum thumbnail albums of holiday experiences but sites which give you a meaningful idea of context and what it's like to look around you). Sadly the now entrenched wiki-cultural emphasis on words and computereze as means, rather than learning as an end, plus the fact that as you have noted anyone can get in and perform negative acts anonymously, makes change unlikely. In another life as a manager of change in large organizations I learned that change does not happen unless it is nourished and supported, and there are no wiki-mechanisms for this (in fact one gets the impression that the two words are not in the vocabulary of several of the participants). Nice to have been in touch with you anyway! Adrian Fletcher 16 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.35.146 ( talk) 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 04:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ed: just dropping by to say hello. You've got some very fine, and very meaty observations on your user page. Very thoughtful; I agree with a lot of them. Keep writing! Just reading them, I can think of stuff to expand at essay length (how about: "against 'no-original-research fundamentalism'"?) Btw nice to meet someone else who's not a kid. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you really want to escalate this? Nobody supported your position. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not an anarchy either. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I barged into "Female", which I believe you worked on before I got there. I offer a compromise - go back to no italics on Female, but leave them on Godfrey - where (I think) I put in the cast section. In the future, I'll continue to use italics on cast sections that I create (if I think it appropriate - it's not always), but I won't convert existing cast sections unless they're really in a mess and need major redoing, but I'll only do it as apart of a major overhaul - I will not simply covert existing cast section to italics for its own sake. On the other hand, you don't take the italics out of those cast sections I've created or majorly reworked.
There's no particular reason that both formats can't coexist, there're not so radically different that it's something for either of us to get bent out of shape about.
How about it? Can we sign the Clarityfiend/Fitzgerald Peace Friendship and Prosperity Pact? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Clarityfiend having rejected my offer of compromise, my further comments are here and here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 04:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Done (I hope) sorry, busy & other seem to avoid the page :) Regards -- Herby talk thyme 09:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
YOu take this stuff seriously. Well to each his own. Good luck with whatever your doing, Im just trying to write a freakin' paper. Good luck. posted at 20:20 on 18 March 2008 by User:71.112.1.7
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
-- Cinemaniac ( talk • contribs • critique) 02:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ed. I was looking at the history for Boston University and saw that you reverted a change from several versions back, but preserved the later changes. Did you use a special tool for that, or was that manually edited? -- Tcncv ( talk) 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ed Fitzgerald,
Thanks for your concern. I was able to find the relevant sources concerning Martin Van Creveld's attitude toward women. I feel it is important to let other readers know about such sensitive issues as abuse of freedom of academic speech, as it is in Van Creveld's case. With your permission, I restore that section --- with footnotes this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obstul ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Sadly, I couldn't find the English version of that article, and I am afraid it is most likely that it has never appeared in English at all. I understand your decision to remove it from Wikipedia; but, in fact, all I've mentioned there is sad, but true. Martin's attitude towards women, the petition and the subsequent retirement --- all these were limited to Jerusalem Ivory Tower only and, hence, did not get enough publication outside of Israel. hence, I could not find any English publication/translation. With best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obstul ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote of confidence! Disagreement can definitely be healthy under the right conditions. You're welcome to share input about topics in the future, especially if you happen to think my arguments are too one-sided. ;) By the way, I have to admit I enjoy reading the user pages of editors like you; you make very valid points. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit here [14] because I want the page deleted. Thank you. Giano ( talk) 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please join the discussion here [15] to explain why the external link at the Stanley Kubrick page should be kept. Thank you MarnetteD | Talk 03:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)