Jump to content

User talk:Shirtwaist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shirtwaist (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 2 February 2012 (→Wiz supporting cast, etc.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


CLICK HERE TO LEAVE A NEW MESSAGE

Remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.


 


Welcome!

Here are some pages you might find helpful:


Wizard of Oz revert

Regarding this,[1] the reappearance of that "damn suit" thing I totally agree with reverting, as it's not one of the widespread rumors (as contrasted with the widely known continuity "bugs" in the film). I have to chalk it up to a combination of poor listening and general ignorance on the part of (some) viewers. The commentw about the "Over the Rainbow" reprise being too intense, however, are echoed in the 2-CD set that was released in 1995. The remaining scene, as it is, is bad enough... with the witch mocking Dorothy, and then turning toward the camera and laughing at the audience as well. (The witch's single best moment in that film, from where I stand.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's what the CD's booklet says, p.31: The Over the Rainbow reprise "came just prior to the appearance of Auntie Em and the Wicked Witch in the latter's crystal and may have been dropped because the juxtaposition of emotion and terror was too harrowing for children at the previews." Note the may have been. So the author's of that work were also guessing. The best anyone can do, if such a comment were to remain in the article, is to also say "may have been, as per (so and so)". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that is that we don't know who "so and so" is/are. If they were an authoritative source, Like Harmetz, OK. But I doubt a booklet blurb like that would hold up to WP:RS. There's got to be a better source for the dropped "OTR" scene though(with or without the "too harrowing" bit. I'll dig out my copy of Harmetz and see. Shirtwaist chat 05:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, it's not clear to me precisely who the author or authors of that booklet are. It could have been a team effort of the producers. The focus was on the various audio tracks that the team found, and on alternate takes and such stuff as that. And as I say, it was mere speculation on their part as to why the "Over the Rainbow Reprise" was cut. There were a lot of cuts made to the film, to try to keep it from turning into "Gone With the Wind", time-wise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for your nice comment on my essay. Funny, I had never noticed the symmetry of my start date until you pointed it out (and it may have been very close to 4 p.m. Pacific time that I made my first edit). While I'm here, thank you for your persistent reasonableness on the 9/11 attacks talk page. From time to time that page has been rather a difficult place to inhabit. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your very welcome. The wisdom contained there, and in others I've read, can do a lot of good for the WP experience. I appreciate it very much.
I would call the 911 page "challenging" in many ways, not the least of which is trying to keep from blowing one's top now and again. Maybe there should be an EL there to your essay...couldn't hurt, right? Shirtwaist chat 04:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stonewall riots.jpg

Hello. Coincidence that you have edited three articles I've had a hand in writing in the past 24 hours? Dunno. Freaky.

At any rate, you uploaded a larger image of the above image. It's probably too large. The image is non-free, used for historical importance. As such, a nonfree image needs to be low resolution to prevent the unscrupulous from reprinting them for profit. The image I uploaded was about 500x400 px. Your upload makes it 960×768, substantially larger. I, or someone else, is going to have to revert your change. --Moni3 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the article thing, I take them as I see them.
I tried a while ago to upload a much larger res version, but thought better of it. Recently, I significantly de-resed that version and uploaded it because the existing one just looks bad.
"960x768" is virtually irrelevant when talking about usability of an image for profit. It's file size and resolution that matters. It takes about 25 megapixels to simulate 35mm film's practical resolution. My and your images are far less res than the original negative, which probably has a "file size" in the 4-5MB range for a B&W 35mm negative (more if it's a larger format neg(2 1/4, 6x7 cm., etc.). A 133kb image is far far less, is not even close to being too large for an NFC image, and just about the same usability as yours of being reprinted for profit. At only 50k larger than the previous version, I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise. All this new version does is increase the quality of an historically significant photo for the reader, nothing more. If you can cite policy that would unequivocally require deletion of such a slightly higher res NFC image, I'd like to see it. Shirtwaist chat 21:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been up for deletion twice because the NFCC policy--like the actual law--is unclear as to how much commentary must be in the article to signify that the image was not only historically significant but the source of commentary that transformed the event it illustrates. So that confusion means editors who don't understand nonfree content--and I count myself among them--get to vote as to whether the image stays or goes. The last vote was closed a week or so ago.
So asking me to cite policy, pragmatically, is irrelevant. No one understands the policy about NFCC. Even the law is foggy on what is acceptable and what is not. The NFCC policy says it favors low resolution. For the most part, I try to keep images at 300 px. I'm not sure why I uploaded this image at 500 px. Perhaps because it was just difficult to see. I can't remember. I'm just doing whatever I can do to avoid another deletion !vote for an image that is clearly historically significant and relevant to the article. Increasing the resolution seems like inviting problems I don't want. I'm going to be the one having to defend this image in the next round of files for deletion, and I can't defend the image with higher resolution. Unfortunately, I can't depend on you or anyone else to defend it either. What would you do in my position? (That's an honest question there.) --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of this image's RfD history, and while that is a separate issue than the one you presented, the problem you describe seems to be a common one lately as far as NFC images go. Frankly, If I were you, and wanted to keep a particular image(and I have), I would do what I usually do - get as much ammunition as I could find, including policy, guidelines, RfC, community discussions/consensus, etc., to use against the arguments of those wishing to remove it. No offense, but you, as an admin, to say nothing of a superlative FA editor, should already be very familiar with NFCC policy and how it is implemented. I hardly think a slight resolution upgrade will make any difference in an NFC FfD. So what I would do is leave the better looking image there, and make sure there is sufficient supporting text in the article that satisfies not only WP:RS and WP:V, but especially NFCC#8, which is, as you must know, the criteria most used by deletionists in cases like this. Take away that particular gripe from the deletionists and you've got it made. If they then, in desperation, play the "too-hi-res-for-NFC" card(extremely unlikely in this case), all you have to do is switch back to the previous version. But keep in mind, if you can't find any policy or guideline that justifies my version's deletion, neither can anyone else. Also, admins (well, good admins) who decide the outcome of an FfD don't merely count votes, they weigh the quality of arguments on either side. So I would make sure my argument was as cogent and unassailable as possible, and not worry about resolution unless and until it comes up. But that's me. BTW, if it does come up in FfD, let me know. I forgot that uploaders get notified of FfDs on files they upload, so I'll know if it does.Shirtwaist chat 01:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC
After going through the recent FfD you mentioned, brought by everybody's favorite FfD pirate Damiens no less, and seeing all the effective arguments in favor of keep (and not one delete vote), you shouldn't worry about any further FfDs on that image, whatever the res. Shirtwaist chat 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you say makes absolute sense, but my experience here requires me to continue to worry. I had forgotten that the fair use rationale for the image was used in a featured content dispatch to illustrate how to write a fair use rationale by an editor who concentrates on images. Because it's been up for deletion twice means only that it's been up for deletion twice. Not that it won't be nominated again by the same or different editors when the whimsy strikes them. It's just a matter of time before it happens again. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's possible with any NFC, of course, but not probable with two previous failed (miserably) FfDs. I've never seen an FfD based only on, or even mentioning resolution, it's almost always NFCC#8 or #1, never #3. There is no precise definition of "low" or "high" resolution in connection with NFCC anyway. I did see somewhere that the common rule of thumb was that if the thumbnail image on the image's file page says "No higher resolution available."(which this one does), it's not high enough res to violate NFCC#3. Shirtwaist chat 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, the image was resized by a bot. --Moni3 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Vacation for 8 days Starting 2morrow- No Internet or Phone Access

Hi, there, SW. Just to let you know, I'm starting a camping trip 2morrow morning, and with the possible exception of 2morrow's 1 PM stopover, I will be without Net access (or phone for that matter) for one week, and unable to respond to Wiki-messages, or whatever. I won't be able to participate in any debates or lend any helping hands over here at WP. (My super-slow net-accessible cell phone works right on the edge of camp, but as the kids staying are not allowed electronic devices, I, as staff, won't break the rules.)

Don't let anyone add any wooden nickels to Space Odyssey or whatever, and thanks for your support on the recent image controversy. Now, I'm off to leave this same message on the page of User_talk:MarnetteD. Cheers--WickerGuy (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to keep up with the cruft. Have fun! Shirtwaist ☎ 23:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"media obsession" in Death of Caylee Anthony

In the Death of Caylee Anthony article, the sentence, "The case received national media attention in the United States, being called 'one of the biggest ratings draws in recent memory' and 'the social media trial of the century'" does not properly inform the readers about the level of the coverage of this trial. Under seems fair and rational enough to call it a "media obsession". If it isn't a media obsession, then no such thing exists! In any case, I previously changed it to say, "The case received intense media coverage...". I still think is the best. My point is that simply introducing it as "The case received national media attention in the United States" is an understatement to the point of being misleading. Not recognizing when to use good adjectives in certain situations is a major judgmental and editorial mistake. At Wikipedia, every word used does not have to be sourced and Wikipedia would be a terrible resource if it were. There is no need to demand sources when reasonable adjectives are used to describe something. Saying "intense" or even "media obsession" both seem to pass a common sense level of usage here. Lastly, what do you mean that "obsession" has to relate to a single reporter? I don't follow that at all. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this discussion on my talk page: Shirtwaist you can weigh in there: User talk:Flyer22#"Weasel words". Flyer22 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note here, however, that I disagree with Jason Quinn that "one of the biggest ratings draws in recent memory" and "the social media trial of the century" does not properly inform the readers about the level of the coverage of this trial. It actually does. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:David Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Phoenix Program

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Phoenix Program. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Expo 2010

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Expo 2010. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Windows Phone 7

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Windows Phone 7. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rudolph Valentino

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rudolph Valentino. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ben Lyons

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ben Lyons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Gregor Robertson (politician)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gregor Robertson (politician). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree...

... or I wouldn't have changed it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
Hi Shirtwaist, I just wanted to say thanks for all your help in getting September 11 attacks to WP:GA status. Now, if you would just let me create that Casey Anthony article, LOL.  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now let's get it to FA - we only have a month left! Shirtwaist ☎ 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001 revert

Beg pardon? The sun isn't directly overhead. I just double-checked. As they go into the pit on the Moon with the Monolith, the pit is in darkness, but we can see the terminator approaching in the distance. When the Monolith is exposed to sun, the signal occurs. What's to argue about? I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but your revert statement makes no sense. - Denimadept (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry, I thought that was the part of the sequence you were referring to when you added the words "when sunlight hits it" - you know - that quick shot looking up at the monolith with the sun directly overhead? If that is not the case, what sunlight were you referring to in the part of the sequence that depicts the shrill tone starting? Careful examination of the sequence reveals that no sunlight is shown to be touching the monolith at any time (except in that quick shot I mentioned above) In fact, the entire pit area is shown to be in shadow, even though other parts of the moonscape in the distance are in sunlight. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. The bottom of the pit, where they're standing, is still in darkness, but the sun is clearing the horizon, as shown immediately after the signal starts, and the implication is that it's striking the top of the monolith, which is the first time it was in sunlight since it was buried. It's not a shot looking up. - Denimadept (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, where is this topic discussed on that talk page? I don't see it, nor do I see the archives, yet I see that archives are supposed to be being made automatically. I'm missing something. Help? - Denimadept (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, found some of it. I also see you've fought this fight before. - Denimadept (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We sure have. The most recent discussions are here and here. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not wish to chime in on....

Three new images uploaded by User:Wikiwatcher1 to Stanley Kubrick all 3 of which Demians.rf has nominated for deletion. I support Demians on two out of three, and am being neutral on the third, but tentatively support it. Discussion is Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_8#File:Kubrick_with_sister.jpg Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_8#File:Kubrick_HS_grad.jpg
Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_8#File:Kubrick_smiling-Kasterine.jpg

See also Talk:Stanley_Kubrick#Downsizing_suggestions

Cheers--WickerGuy (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

That's very gracious of you. Zero out of two wasn't very good - I don't know how I managed to botch it so badly. Anyway, there are still three more dablinks that I didn't attempt - orb, Westinghouse and Johann Strauss. StAnselm (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing those out. I'll take care of those. Shirtwaist ☎ 03:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Caylee Anthony

SlimVirgin, Flyer and now CarolMooredc has proposed a re-structuring of the above article. Would you take a look, comment, and perhaps vote? We only have one vote set out on one proposal as of now. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you addressing another editor on my talkpage?

I am deleting but saving your remarks on my Talk Page. The editor has his own talk page. I think you were a bit confused, both about whose talk page you were on and what you thought the editor did.

Also I agreed then and now with you and SlimVirgin about eliminating the "Evidence Section" in the Death of Caylee Anthony article. It has created numerous problems and is mostly duplicative at this point. I do not see it in other articles of this type. Would like to see a vote or something on it. Mugginsx (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not confused at all. I addressed AzureCitizen on your talk page here because s/he responded to my post on your talk page warning you about posting other editor's names in section titles - which I had warned you about previously when you did the same thing a short while ago - and because AzureCitizen did you a favor by removing for you your offending section title, which improperly had another editor's name in it, on the "Death of Caylee Anthony" talk page. If AzureCitizen had responded to me on my talk page, I would have responded to them on my talk page. BTW - When you delete posts on your talk page, they are automatically saved in the page history for future reference.Shirtwaist ☎ 10:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for me editing the article any further, I'm fed up with all the bickering, WP:ABF, and general immaturity that seems to hold sway with the editors there. So, like SlimVirgin says, I can't do writing by numbers like this, sorry, it's just impossible. I'll leave you to it. Shirtwaist ☎ 10:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Immaturity is not admitting when you are wrong. I did but I am not admitting to something else I did NOT do. I only put a name of an editor in a section heading on the article's talkpage ONCE not twice. That was because there were THREE proposals to vote on and my intention was for each proposal to have their own section. She was not singled out. Now you are again mistating what happened. I also apologized for that ONE time which happened a few days ago not last evening. I think you are very mixed up on this issue. Also you accused, by implication, the editor of doing something only YOU could do because you have roll-back rights. Again to be clear, there was only ONE time I used someone's name in a section heading. Not TWO. An apology to both of us by you would not go amiss just as I apologized when I put the name of an editor in the section heading.
If you put the information on my talk page to imply that I am both persons You are yet wrong again. I use only one name on Wiki and always have.
As to you quitting editing this article I can sympathize with you there, but perhaps you will reconsider. This is a highly contested article and as soon as someone like SlimVirgin comes and and expends a great deal of effort and expertise trying to get the article making sense, she is mostly ignored. It also makes me upset that some editors refused to listen or work together. I conceded to a particular editor twice after she inserted the proper references and instead of moving on she opening up a new section making further allegations. Mugginsx (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this edit diff on your talk page, a post which you have now deleted. As you can clearly see, the section title: '''== Carol, can you please move this paragraph to somewhere else so we can all concentrate on the same paragraph on Kronk that AzureCitizen is looking at? Thank you. ==''' was posted by you on the "Death of Caylee Anthony" talk page at 15:29, August 25, 2011. Are you saying somebody besides you is editing with your user name? Shirtwaist ☎ 11:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember that being a section heading but I will check. It was another very heated discussion last night by MANY editors and if I did that I again apologize. I do intend to minimize my interaction with this editor since she has already brought me to two noticeboards and the last one was shut down by TransporterMan almost immediately because it was proven to be a false accusation by the diffs I provided him.
Upon further investigation - what you removed on my talk pages were two ADMINISTRATORS talking about User:CarolMooredc. I am restoring it because it is supposed to stay there and please leave it alone. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not remove anything from your talk page, you removed posts by me directed at you, and posts by AzureCitizen directed at you and me. And please use indenting properly when posting on my talk page. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now where I did make that second section heading with the editor's name. Should not have done that. At the time she was all over the place and AzureCitizen was attempting to help us negotiate a resolution to the Kronk section. As you know it was a very heated discussion by MANY editors and sections were being created all the time. I wanted to straighten out that section once and for all between us and other editors because it has been edited too many times to count. As you can see, she refused to negotiate and widened her theories about Kronk and it all got very confusing. That is all I have to say on the subject and I am sure you are just as tired of talking about it as well.Mugginsx (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On last comment. I looked at the diffs and I still do not see where AzureCitizen removed my section heading. There was some moving of material by other editors including myself and Carol but it looks to me like it was done in bulk. I only see two of his edits. Mugginsx (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

I left you my final message of explanation on the article talkboard. It was Carol who moved those comments around if you will check the article talkpage edit histories. Like you, I am sick and tired of that article and the constant bickering on every little thing. I am not used to it, nor am I used to people moving things around on a talk page and inserting their comments in between mine to make a point. Last night, not for the first time I tried to mediate with CarolMooredc on an issue. I am not be knowledgeable on edit histories and lesser known to me guidelines like putting someones name in a section heading. I apologized the first time some days ago, and explained my true intention was making a suggestion that with three proposals we separate them and have an ad hoc vote so we could finally stop the bickering. That went wrong when I used her name in a section heading. I apologized and meant it. Then last night, I lost my patience when she was moving things all over the place and making new sections while I thought we had an agreement to have AzureCitizen help mediate the problem on the Kronk issue which has had a million changes to it. In trying to get her attention, I thought to put the discussion at the bottom - that was the FIRST time I have ever moved a section around ANYWHERE on any article talk page. I forgot about the guideline and put her name again in a section heading to get her attention. Never have I lost my patience like I have on this article and been so utterly confused with all of the moving around on the talk page, the changing of viewpoints no matter which issue it is or whether it is relevant to the article, inserting of information in between two editors, etc. I have been attacked so much that I do not know who is trying to help me, as you were, and who is not. That is why I am apologizing. As to the edit histories, I do not know what happened, I do not understand all of that but I was trying to explain to Azure what happened and thought perhaps you thought he and I were the same person. Maybe it was a dumb thing to think, but I cannot seen to think straight on this article anymore. I am not used to constant fighting and editors checking other editors edit histories and people moving things around and inserting their comments in between a discussion and misunderstanding a discussion that has nothing to do with the editor inserting herself into the paragraph. I think if someone took you to two noticeboards in less than two weeks you might be a little grumpy and paranoid too, but I know that is no excuse. That is my explanation and my sincere apology. Mugginsx (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your problems with other editors is really none of my concern. I only hope that you, and everyone else, will understand and follow all talk page guidelines to avoid unnecessary conflicts in the future. Thanks. Shirtwaist ☎ 02:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

As requested by BusterD I am passing this along for you to read so that you know that your efforts are appreciated.--MONGO 17:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Mongo and BusterD. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I was interested in your comment here. Apart from being in the wrong place (detailed discussion about article improvement belongs at the article talk page, not the GA assessment page), it seems to misrepresent the discussion that has taken place.This talk page section contains 18 sources, including some from respected news organizations like the BBC and book sources from renowned writers. Are you really claiming that none of these sources are valid for use in the article? This would seem to be an extreme view, to put it mildly. --John (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - My comment was based on the fact that the OP who started this GAR framed the debate mainly around the question of inclusion/exclusion of 911 conspiracy theories in regard to GA criteria. Therefore, commenting on this aspect there is perfectly reasonable. The fact that your reply - "I share Malleus's concerns about NPOV by omission (of CTs)" - was the first in the thread tells me my comment, along with those of others including NW, Malleus, Geometry guy, and you, that deal with inclusion/exclusion of CTs, was in the right place.
As has been explained countless times before, the existence of RS talking about CTs, like those you presented, has never been in doubt. The question is - where are the RS dealing with the 911 attacks themselves ("September 11 attacks" is the title, remember?) that also link CTs to them in a serious and prominent manner? If you care to address that question in the GAR, be my guest. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assume then that you have not read any of the sources provided. I would ask you not to misquote me by adding parenthesized material to my comments which I did not write. If you actually read my comments at the GAR and in article talk, it should become clear that my (I cannot speak for Malleus) concerns regarding NPOV go far beyond the inclusion of "conspiracy theories" and relate to the exclusion from the article of all material which differs from the US government's narrative. This includes such seemingly uncontroversial matters as the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the criticism of NORAD and the FAA (which is sourced to the 911 Commission Report), and the use of extraordinary rendition and torture on suspects. Part of the problem may be the way that all of this material relating to controversy around the subject area has been lumped together as "conspiracy theories". I would argue that this is intellectually lazy or dishonest, and has not been in the best interests of improving the article. --John (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, your concerns about "NPOV by ommission" have nothing to do with Malleus' primary assertion that "All alternative accounts (aka conspiracy theories) are completely ignored"?
And yes, I did read your sources. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we continue to talk past each other, please give me your personal definition of "conspiracy theories", as it relates to the article we are discussing. --John (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My personal definition would be irrelevant in relation to the article we are discussing. A better practice would be for us to go by what WP policies and guidelines say about it, and hold discussions of same on the talk page. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather disappointing answer. You seem to suffer from the misapprehension that WP policies and guidelines are prescriptive and offer an alternative to thought or rational discussion. On the contrary, these documents constitute an ongoing consensus and are descriptive. If you are unable or unwilling even to define the terms you are arguing about, it seems there is little point in discussing with you. --John (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself. As my view on what a "conspiracy theory" is pretty much aligns with Conspiracy theory, I don't see any point in elaborating further. I've discussed this topic ad nauseum on many occasions and in several forums, and yet again in the current GAR. If you wish to know my views on this, they're all there to read. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that's self-contradictory; as others have pointed out, the official narrative of the attacks fits the definition as outlined in our article that you link to. It is clear that this is not what you mean by the term. It really would be helpful if we are to resolve this if you were able to clearly explain what you mean. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, you may expect others to attach less weight to your views. --John (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. You didn't really say that, did you? From Conspiracy theory - "...the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public" (my bolding). Al Qaeda's responsibility for 911 is quite thoroughly established by now, and therefore well-known to the general public. Do you seriously think anyone with two connected brain cells believes that the "official narrative", as you call it, falls under the the definition of conspiracy theory in Conspiracy theory?? If you do, you should be the one worrying about others attaching less weight to your views. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refrain from speculating on the connectedness or otherwise of anybody's brain cells, but I'll remind you that the official narrative holds that there was indeed a conspiracy unknown not only to the general public but also to the FBI and the CIA. Here, I'll help you; there are three streams here: (1) the "official narrative" as the article currently reflects and as news sources like Fox depict, (2) mainstream criticism such as the 911 commission's criticism of NIST and the FAA or the BBC story I was just reading, and (3) the fringe theories such as remote-controlled drones and nanothermite. I believe we should be clear between (2) and (3) as I believe that (2) deserves more serious coverage in our article than (3) does, though the existence of both should be mentioned. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First - what do you mean by "the official narrative"? If you mean "the narrative supported by not only government but numerous independent RS like the New York Times, CNN, and other reliable sources...yes even Fox News", then I'm with you. If not, please explain. Also, you seem to forget the Al Qaeda conspiracy used to be unknown, but no longer is. As for your #2 - you're welcome to present any such evidence for inclusion on the article's talk page, subject to scrutiny and consensus, of course. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we mean the same thing by "the official narrative". All conspiracy theories were, by definition, at some point unknown except to the conspirators, and, also by definition, at some later point became known or at least the subject of debate, else we wouldn't know about them to be able to discuss them. The sources for my (2) are already there in article talk; take my two book sources which are pretty unassailable on what is probably the least controversial point, which GG has also highlighted in the GAR, the non-response of air defense. That we are unable to present a section on this highly encyclopedic, notable and verifiable topic is a detriment to the article, I would argue. See, I'm glad we managed to get our definitions straight and we can maybe understand each other better now. I have a better feeling about the possibility of (eventually) getting this article to GA or even FA. --John (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space Odyssey Notes

Hi, I just looked over both the German and French Wikipedia articles on 2001: A Space Odyssey (the film of course). The German one is fairly good (and about 20% a duplicate of the English one), but the French one is filled with both uncited critical opinion and a number of uncited factoid stuff I am fairly sure is false. (I really don't think Kubrick ever thought of using Gustav Mahler's music on the soundtrack but I could be wrong.) (THe German Wikipedia says Kubrick asked Carl Orff to compose original music for the film. Although SK liked Orff, I'm pretty sure that's wrong too.)

You have to type in the URL in a Google search box in order to get an offer to have it translated, unless your browser is Google Chrome which automatically offers a translation of anything not in English.

I just picked up a generic history of SF in film (called Future Tense) published in 1979 which has a lot of stuff on the response of science-fiotion novelists to Space Odyssey which is kind of interesting, (Apparently Ray Bradbury didn't like Space Odyssey at all) and I plan to incorporate this material into our English article soon. (There are already three different books on the history of Sci-fi called "Future Perfect"- this book is one word away from being a fourth. A lot of the author's opinions are questionable, but the facts are useful.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Meredith Kercher

Hi! You could also read this. It says:

" ... the all-night interrogation in which Ms Knox accused Mr Lumumba and described blocking her ears was ruled inadmissible by Italy's Supreme Court because no lawyer was present. However a voluntary statement written by Ms Knox in English repeating this scenario has been accepted as court evidence despite defence protests..."

. This is the complete transcript of her written statement. The appeals court has made its ruling considering all the circumstances and the evidence. I would sincerely request you to reconsider the phrase you added making the wikipedia article to suggest that the court acted improperly (she was punished for a statement she said was made under duress). Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying the source I'm quoting is inaccurate or unreliable? If so, how?
And why did you remove your post before I could respond to it? Shirtwaist ☎ 21:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the source you quoted was one of the many which did not give the complete picture. There is no binding on a newspaper to have a NPOV. Wikipedia, instead, has. So we must be careful before writing something in an article, without considering whether it has a NPOV or not. Anyway, the whole exercise is futile, as I believe, you to have made a genuine error. Moreover, somebody had corrected the mistake on the article already. Hence, I decided to delete the post on your talk page, as the issue had already been resolved. Have a nice day! 131.114.83.168 (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC). This was me, sorry, forgot to sign in Tinpisa (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question. How is quoting a source that repeats what Knox said about her own statement inaccurate, unreliable, or not NPOV? You'll also have to explain what "did not give the complete picture" means in this context. Shirtwaist ☎ 08:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have the answer in your own question. Do you mean to say that Knox's POV is a NPOV? Knox gave two statements to the police indicting Patrick on the 6th of Nov 2007 - one of which was ruled inadmissible by Italy's Supreme Court because no lawyer was present. However a voluntary statement written by Ms Knox in English repeating the same accusation was accepted as court evidence. The first statement was made under duress, the second wasn't (and this was verified by the Supreme court of Italy when it accepted the second statment as evidence in the case). So a newspaper article, which refers to what Knox said about her first statement, isn't presenting the correct picture. I hope this clarifies everything, and shall be grateful if you let this issue rest here. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:The New Yorker

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The New Yorker. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USER:173.67.255.130

Hi - Concerning your warning to USER:173.67.255.130 about the recent blanking of a section of The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) , I should point out that this IP has done this several times before to various sections in the same article, all without any explanation - [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The IP has also blanked this section of another article without explanation, which went unwarned, in addition to this vandalism.

With all due respect, isn't something a little more preventative than a polite warning to this user called for? Repeated disruptive behavior such as this should at least result in a lengthy block, if not an outright topic ban to prevent such disruption in the future. The two previous warnings issued to this IP don't seem to have had any effect. Am I wrong? Shirtwaist ☎ 08:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things that come into play here:
  • Myself, and perhaps a majority of the vandalism patrols use Huggle to combat vandalism. Huggle automatically selects the appropriate warning level when reverting, which will be "Reset" every 3 days. This means that after 3 days Huggle will automatically start at level 1 again.
  • IP addresses are often not static. While some addresses are statically allocated the majority are dynamically allocated to different users. Hence, the user who did vandalism 1 might not be the same as the user who did vandalism 2. To make things even more interesting, sometimes there are many people behind 1 address, or we might be dealing with family members and so on.
One of the primary advantages of Huggle is its speed, since it just takes one button press to revert and warn, and it will equally allow near automatic blocks when someone vandalises past the maximum warning level. As huggle displays them i check the previous blocks, but due to the possible dynamic nature of IP addresses they are nearly always blocked for about 72 hours max, unless it is absolutely clear it is constantly the same user (And even then they might just change ISP's, which voids their IP ownership). In general it is simply much faster and most foolproof to give out short blocks unless it is clear that there is a prolific vandal or sockpuppeteer behind the IP. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I assumed you reverted manually after reading the article. I watch the article fairly closely myself. Being a regular user of Huggle, I understand your first point perfectly as I almost never check a vandal's history after I've reverted them - they get a "revert with warning" button the first time, and if they continue re-inserting the vandalism while I'm still watching, they get progressively sterner warnings, and then I dig into their history. As for your point about possible non-static IPs, I don't believe that's a valid reason not to block for repeated vandalism and disruptive editing, which is the case with this IP. When IPs are blocked, there is usually an accompanying note stating that if the blocked IP is shared, and anyone besides the offending person who used that IP wishes to continue editing, they should use another IP address.
That said, do you now, being an admin knowing the history of this IP, and realizing the likelihood that such disruption will occur again, think a block is called for? Or should we wait to see if the vandalism/disruptive editing continues - then block them? I would argue for the former on the basis of blocks being preventative rather than punitive in nature, but I'm curious to hear your opinion. Thanks. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that if an IP vandalizes, it will eventually get blocked. One of the prime examples are IP's that belong to schools, as lunch breaks seem the ideal time to vandalize Wikipedia. It is not uncommon for those IP's to be blocked for 6 months or a year at a time simply due to the likelihood that they will be blocked over and over anyway. In case of regular IP's that may or may not be dynamically allocated, i tend to base the length a block on a two factors. First is the vandalism to good edit ratio (If the IP seems to make both good and bad edits blocking it may affect good editors, thus it may be wiser to use a shorter block). Second is the amount of vandalism that comes from the IP. More vandalism means a higher chance for a long block. If an IP only produces vandalism and does so frequently (For example, each time within a few days after a block ended) the next block will be longer and longer.
As for our example IP, i would not have blocked it for a long time. The IP mainly produces vandalism, but it only does so, say, once a month. This means that, for the block to have any effect, it must be longer then this month (For example 3 months). In that case it is often more efficient to clean four edits once every 31 days - the block would barely deter the editor who can probably move to another connection in that 3 month timeframe, and if the IP were ever reassigned the new owner might be stuck for quite a while. Keep in mind that new editors know nothing of Wikipedia, and may therefor not create an account or understand what to do. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiz supporting cast, etc.

Most of those names are well-known from various sources. That doesn't mean they should remain unsourced, though. There's another angle to this: Most of our movie articles don't get into the coffee-and-donuts level of credits, but rather they list the primary credits and mention the more obscure supporting players only when necessary to explain a plot point. As we've probably said before, the problem with this film is that it's been watched a gazillion times by everyone, and everyone thinks they're experts. (The reality, as you know, is that it's you and me who are the real experts.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against including the names - I love trivia as much as the next guy - but I think deleting them is better than adding a whole bunch of CN tags, don't you? Also, when proper sources are found, the names should probably be included in prose rather than in list form. It's funny to think that most studios at that time didn't even consider including any minor actors in their film's credits. Pat Walshe must've considered himself lucky to get in!Shirtwaist ☎ 07:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirtwaist&oldid=474543076"