User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 28

Donnie Darko "unnecessary details".

I'm not following you here. Why do you consider Frank's last name unnecessary, but not Gretchen's or Donnie's or the fifteen others in the cast section? And what's unnecessary about stating that he's Elizabeth's boyfriend? That's a highly significant connection between the two main characters. It's a big difference between killing and being saved by a stranger and by a brother-in-law (of sorts). The relationship of Living Frank and Donnie's sister provides much context to the relationship between Dead Frank and Donnie. Pending a satisfactory explanation for them, I'm reverting your deletions. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation ("This is not a fansite, in which every connection (real or imagined) between characters can be spelled out in great detail") is unsatisfactory. You are objecting to the addition of three words, no great detail. I have explained the significance off keeping two ("Elizabeth's boyfriend") and the third ("Anderson") is not largely significant, but is a character name. Virtually all film articles on Wikipedia (including this one) list character names in the Cast section. You have offered no reason for singling out this one character. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello TOJ. You have reverted some of the edits of our Burton-on-Trent problem editor a few times so I wanted you to know that I have created this page User:MarnetteD/Burton-on-Trent Vandal so that we can keep track of the numerous IPs that have been and will be used by this person. Feel free to add to it if you encounter them again. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dudeism External Links

Why were the links to the CNN article and the ABC Nightline article removed from Dudeism? They are more current than the Guardian link. Delbertpeach (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If they are already used as refs, there is no reason to have them as ext. links. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the ABC Nightline article isn't used as a ref. Only the CNN article. Delbertpeach (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I must not have been paying attention. My apologies. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll reinstate it. Thanks. Delbertpeach (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that there is a "general notability guideline" listed on the page. I don't see how that applies. There are plenty of secondary sources. Forgive me for assuming that you flagged the page for this reason, but it does seem as if you've been taking a special interest in my posts recently. If it wasn't you who flagged it, I apologize for being presumptuous. Delbertpeach (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was me. The article is sourced, but most of the sources are primary, which is to say they come from people associated with this so-called philosophy. In order to pass the notability test, it needs a lot more secondary sources. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I counted the references. Out of 12, exactly half are from people associated with Dudeism. And of those, they are specific references to the philosophy as outlined in the organization's official material (websites, books), and to quote secondary sources that quote those sources seems unnecessary. Am I wrong about this? Moreover, the fact that you say "most" seems to suggest that your opinion might not be thoroughly considered? Delbertpeach (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you haven't replied to this, shall I assume it's safe to remove the general notability guideline? Delbertpeach (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, as I said above, this should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I have already posted a message. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where you "said above" that this should be discussed on the talk page. Nevertheless it won't be hard to find updated sources.Delbertpeach (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the page with new references and removed defunct ones. Please see the Dudeism talk page for details. And if it is to your satisfaction, please remove the notability alert at the top of the page.Delbertpeach (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Goonies

I'm a bit concerned by your repeated reversions of the IP's edits without providing an edit summary nor otherwise discussing the matter, as near as I could tell. You appear to have violated 3RR in the process. I'm not expressing an opinion on which version of the article is more correct, but at a glance it looks like both of you are edit warring. If you feel compelled to continue reverting the IP I'd strongly encourage you to provide edit summaries or a Talk page thread explaining the reasons behind your decision, and keep in mind that there are guidelines about repeatedly reverting a single editor. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an IP sock of a repeatedly-blocked serial vandal. His edits are per se vandalism. I reported him at AiV, and he has been blocked. See here for further information. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Doniago (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. The problem with this guy is that some of his edits are actually decent, but they get lost amongst all the nonsense he adds. At this point, we simply revert everything. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So, 24 hours pass, the same stupid cocksucker returns to continue his bullshit, and you template me? All of his edits should be reverted on sight. The fact that he simply reverts back is meaningless. He lost his right to edit when he repeatedly changed IPs to continue his activities. Reverting him is not edit-warring. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've now reported him at 3RR. I've also mentioned that you're also violating 3RR, though have not specifically reported you. I'll leave it to higher powers to decide whether or not your repeated reversions without explanation consitute an issue, but I really think you should have known better, especially after our earlier discussion. How do you think it looks to someone who is watching the situation? Why didn't you report them if they were such a problem? Regards. Doniago (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I did report him, as soon as I saw he was back. I have no control over the speed of AiV. How I think it looks to someone watching is, at best, a secondary concern. The first concern must be reversing the damage he does. At some point, we have to move beyond putting out fires and start talking about a more long-term solution, like a range block. He is not going to stop of his own volition. And, to be frank, after having discussed the issue with you yesterday, and seeing that you discussed the matter with the blocking admin, I have to wonder why you would question my actions. You saw the link to the ongoing discussion of his vandalism, and you know I am not alone in this. 3RR is beside the point when it comes to reverting a long-term, single-minded vandal. I really think you should have known better. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Doniago please see the FYI section above this one. This is the return of an editor that has been an ongoing problem for a year now. They edit against the MoS. They never respond to posts on their talk pages. IP blocks and range blocks have been applied but it has not slowed this person in the least. AGF was exhausted months ago. Their are several of us who revert their edits on site as it is the only way to slow down the mess they make on numerous articles and we are following wikipolicy when we do this. If you encounter this person in the future please feel free to revert them as well and add the next IP to the list I have created. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All well and good. I think my point remains that to any editor not familiar with the situation, though, it will raise multiple alarms when they see an editor reverting in what might appear to be a flagrant violation of 3RR while not providing an edit summary. Even "reverting known problem editor, see (link)" would be orders of magnitude better than no summary at all, yes? Doniago (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually once this guy gets going we don't have time to provide those. I have spent 15 or 20 minutes straight just reverting. Then you take even just a couple minutes to file at AIV and he has performed another 20 or 30 edits. We are always happy to answer questions for editors who come across this but we are well within our writ to prevent the socks edits first so that we can prevent something like this Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* which included vandalism that stayed on some pages for over a year. All to often AGF is extended to IPs and not to long term editors. that is a mistake. MarnetteD | Talk 23:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty tough keeping up with this guy; adding an edit summary is an obligation in the case of just a couple of edits, but unfortunately it's a time-consuming luxury when the guy is going through dozens of articles like road runner. It's important to revert as quickly as possible because if they are edited further by someone else then it becomes a laborious process to extra integrated vandalism. I thought this guy had been range blocked, has that expired? Maybe we should look into having it reinstated. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI I spoke with the admin who applied the range block last month at this thread User talk:Berean Hunter#Burton-on-Trent and you can see the reply. Please feel free to let Berean know when this problem pops back up. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 14:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Saving Private Ryan

Hi, I was wondering if you would care to discuss those edits I made to the Saving Private Ryan plot summary that you undid. You are aware there is a scene in that movie where "Steamboat Willie" killed Mellish in a skirmish and Upham cowered downstairs while it happened, right? Upham may not have witnessed it but he still overheard what was going on and saw "Steamboat Willie" come downstairs when it was over, which means that Upham had to have known he killed Mellish. That along with the fact that "Steamboat Willie" fatally shot Miller in the final battle and that he (Upham) was the one who begged Miller not to let the other guys execute him earlier in the movie must have driven him to finally do it. Comments? Shaneymike (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss this with you, but it should take place at the article's talk page. If you post there, I will respond. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

RFPP

Hi. RFPP is for requesting protection for specific pages. If you discover clear cases of vandalism or reasons for page protection, please do not hesitate to make additional requests or reports at appropriate noticeboards. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

New BRD project.

I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. If you are not interested then no worries, I'm just testing the waters at this stage to see how much interest there would be in such a co-ordinated action. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Susan Sarandon

Why did you revert my edit? Your edit summary says there was no explanation or sources for the changes. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not look very closely before making the revert. The only sentence I added that required a source was that "The Miraculous Year" was not picked up by HBO. Other sentences, such as She played Janet in The Rocky Horror Picture Show or She won an Oscar for Dead Man Walking do not need a source. Sources are only needed for debatable/ambiguous/controversial statements, which none of those are. The other "changes" are not really changes, but taking poorly constructed sentences and putting them in more understandable, organized wording. Hope this helps. Sancap (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom Waits

This summary brings an overview of an artist' original albums, without any details about sales or charts. The general consensus is that live albums or compilations don't belong here. Some may find that redundant, but others find it easier to look at this summary without having to access the full, detailed discography. Why does that bother you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by JPGR69 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, this should be discussed on the article talk page. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Violation of 3-rv rule

On Trading Places, you violated the 3-revert rule.

In any case, the proper thing to do when you don't like someone's large edit is not to revert unless it's plainly wrong. Instead, you should constructively make changes and/or discuss it yourself. A bold editor is under no obligation to discuss before being bold. Jkatzen (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You are utterly daft. Please read WP:3RR before you go making such accusations again, which can be construed as a personal attack. The facts are that I edited the article on 18 September then again on 22 September, I never edited more than once in a single 24-hour period, let alone making more than 3 reverts in said period. I strongly suggest you learn WP's policies before you do any further damage. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

About marking changes as vandalism

Hi. I made the changes about inaccuracies in the Rome TV series in good faith and I feel insulted that the changes were marked as vandalism. The changes I made referred to text here on wikipedia that supported the content of the change. I dispute the claim that the changes I made had no sources to support them. Please unmark as vandalism and revert the changes back. Thanks. --Alexander256 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you are talking about. In future, it would help if you include a diff showing the edits to which you are referring. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast of the The Pacific

Hello there sir... I'm a novice in editing wikipedia... At the moment, I decided to make very little but credible edits on articles that interests me just to be familiar with editing... You actually alerted me about Edit summary and I thank you for it.. What I did on my first edit with the cast, I admit, was "absurd"... I look at it again and some characters who are prominent in the series are listed way below, so what I did is just transfer their names a little way up... I also found actors in the series with corresponding articles on wikipedia who are not listed in the cast section so I added them... And lastly, one actor their (Joshua Biton) had his name spelled incorrectly... His last name is actually spelled Bitton... Thanks =) Alcohkid (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Looking back, I see that some of your edits made sense, while others did not. It would be best if we discussed this on the article talk page, though, so that other editors can involved. I posted a message several months ago, but no one responded. The cast section has several problems that need to be addressed. I would be glad to work with you on that. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for telling me that there is a talk page on certain articles... See you on that page =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcohkid (talk • contribs) 01:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Empire of the Sun

I find your reversion of most of my edits inexplicable. The witnessing of the nuclear flash is one of the most important elements of this film. Jim EXPLICITLY states that he thought that it was the woman's soul ascending to heaven. If you missed this, watch the movie again. He first is riding his bike inside the building, but starts colliding with objects, so he starts watching it outdoors instead, out in the open. Even though there is at least a platoon, possibly company, of US soldiers standing there watching him from close range, he completely fails to see them until he almost collides with them. When his parents come to find him, he is staring fixedly straight ahead; his eyes don't even move when his parents are close. The area around his eyes exhibit radiation burns. HE CLEARLY DOES NOT SEE HIS PARENTS. It is not until he hears his mother's voice that he recognizes her, then touches her to ascertain that it is her. You are missing many critical plot points. In Wikipedia's own entry on flash blindness, it states that "The bright initial flash of a nuclear weapon is the first indication of a nuclear explosion, traveling faster than the blast wave or sound wave. "A 1-megaton explosion can cause flash blindness at distances as great as 13 miles on a clear day, or 53 miles on a clear night. If the intensity is great enough, a permanent retinal burn will result." PLEASE re-watch the movie. jaknouse (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, these are unnecessary details. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so on the article's talk page, where other editors can take part in the discussion. Thank you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

76.218.108.195

IP address user 76.218.108.195 is vandalizing the Egon Spengler page. None of that info is true, I would have reverted that edit but someone else did and looking at there talk page I can see that IP address 76.218.108.195 does stuff like this quite a bit.Control9000 (talk)

I have given him a final warning for his edits. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Interzone

I think the reversion of this page was a mistake. I'm happy to cite a number of sources, including Locus, the magazine of the science fiction / fantasy field, which state that circulation of Interzone is nowhere near what you stated, that there has always been severe doubt about its circulation. To date Interzone has always refused to state its circulation, even after losing newsstand distribution in both the States and over the Pond, and its publisher has indicated in its own message boards that it may have to resort to print-on-demand to publish issues. (You don't use print-on-demand unless your circulation has dropped to a point where it's justified.) The current industry "guesses" for their circulation is a bit under 1000, at best. You can either ask Locus or SFWA for clarification. (One of the SFWA's main criteria is "has a circulation/print run/or other distribution of 1000 or more" which Interzone failed.) If you can provide proof that their circulation is anywhere over 1000 I'd be happy to see it. sciencefantasy(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I really haven't any idea what you are talking about. If you changed the Interzone article without citing a source, there is a good chance I reverted you. If you have sources that support and justify your changes, please cite them. The issue is of no particular interest to me one way or another. But, all changes to articles must be explained and supported by reliable sources. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

BRD enforcer

I've drafted out the proposal at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer#"Request for stable state" project proposal. Hopefully I've addressed any concerns people had, and this is the version that will go before the Wikiproject proposal committee. It's been streamlined a bit to focus on operation and the name has been changed, but other than that it's doing the same job. Anyway, this is a message I'm dorpping on everyone's page so they can check it out and make sure they are ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The formal proposal is up and running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state. If you are still interested in supporting it you will need to add your name at the official proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dogtooth

Someone tried to make Dogtooth a black comedy and you weren't there to stop them. Don't worry, I took care of it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. If they have sources, that's one thing, but people rely too much on their own damn judgement. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not even a comedy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never even heard of it. But, as I said, and is too often the case across the board, people add their own interpretation as though it is fact. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I thought you might get a kick out of the recent exchange here Talk:The_Good,_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly#Cemetary and the edit that I refer to here [1]. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good grief! There are times when the ridiculousness of this place is almost too much. Has that guy ever been to Georgia? It doesn't look anything like that location in the film. When are we finally going to put an end to so-called "anonymous" editing? That would not take care of all of our problems here, but it would be a start. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought that thinking the film was set in Georgia was hilarious too :-) Of course, he might have meant the other one. I had some other thoughts this morning them and added them to the thread. I really can see some typist transcribing the original script (or even more likely typing while listening to the film) saying to themselves "Sad Hill sounds weird and there is lots of sand in the film so that must be what they meant." That is all just my WP:OR on my part. Enjoy the rest of your week! MarnetteD | Talk 16:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole argument is trivial and pathetic, but also sadly humorous. This is what we have chosen to do with our time? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's this of play cribbage for hours and the Yahoo dealer cheats. :-) MarnetteD | Talk 20:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds mind-numbing. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Genre changes

Stop making frequent genre removals, as you appear to be doing in Tom Waits album articles. This IP's unexplained genre change is no different than this one of yours. All genres must be sourced, so if you believe that The Heart of Saturday Night is a rock album, then please provide a source. Otherwise, disruptive IP edits should be reverted to the original revision. Dan56 (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No, if you are so goddamn cocksure that it is a fucking jazz album, you provide a fucking source that says so. There has never been a source in the album that said so, and the genres have been changed multiple times, by multiple fucking shitheads people who think their fucking opinion means something. There has already been a centralized discussion about this, the link for which can be found on the talk page. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

RELAX!!!. Whatever discussion on a uniform genre rule for one artist's albums is bogus, as each article has its own information; WP promotes internal consistency, not external among articles. I did provide a source, along with here to Closing Time (album), whose prose already mentioned jazz and folk, nothing about rock, which seems to be thrown around as an umbrella term for any white musician from the '70s. Waits output overall notwithstanding, each article's content, including genres, must be verifiable. Otherwise, it's contentious, challengable, and open to being changed randomly by IPs as it recently was. Dan56 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Hi TheOldJacobite, I just wanted to call your attention to a conversation on my talk page (here and here). An anonymous editor has contacted me, as an uninvolved administrator, relating to concerns about you and civility. As a non-registered editor, he is unable to contact you here because you talk page is semi-protected. His primary concern relates to incivility towards him and other users. Seeing responses such as the one to Dan56 just above, I have similar concerns - that's simply not an acceptable way of talking to a fellow editor. Please make an effort to remain civil in your interactions with other users, as it will make the Wikipedia experience better for both new and experienced editors, including yourself. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, as for the protection of this page, do you think it is still necessary? I don't know the circumstances behind the original protection, but it seems to have been protected for over four years now, and seeing the amount of interaction you have with IPs, it may be doing more harm than good by this point. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi Edgar181. I don't now if you noticed it but any IPs that wish to leave TOJ a message can do so here User talk:TheOldJacobite/Alternate and there is a link to it at the top of the page that is easy to read. Thus, the page protection is not doing any harm. TOJ I wish that you had used different language in the thread just above but I understand your frustration. The current situation here at WikiP is that civility is required of some editors and not others. If it were me I would shout fuck at my computer screen and then type something else. On the other hand I have grave concerns about whoever this person from Nottingham is who is using rotating IPs to make their requests to you Edgar. As they are hinting at filing an RFC/U it would behoove them to disclose exactly which articles they have encountered TOJ and what, if any, the conflicts were about. Until this is done we cannot tell whether this is a GF situation or garden variety trolling. My hope is that everyone can cool down return to editing articles. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD | Talk 15:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea who either of those anon. users are, assuming that it is two distinct people. In the absence of any specific information regarding our past interactions, I am not sure how I am supposed to respond here. If he wants to start an RFC/U, he is more than welcome to do so, but he will have to present some real evidence there, not simply make groundless accusations.

As MarnetteD helpfully pointed out above, I have an alternate talk page for anonymous users, and I have received plenty of messages there. But, as the warning at the top of that page makes clear, I reserve the right to delete messages that are hysterical or nonsensical, and I see no need to apologize for that. If someone has a problem with an edit I have made, I am willing to hear them out. But, I am not going to be attacked and I have no patience for editors who can't get their facts straight. Nor will I be accused of vandalism or other violations of WP policy in the absence of evidence.

I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention and hope to hear back from you as to how we can or should move forward on this. I also appreciate MarnetteD's comments above, both in regards to the IP editor and my own need to keep my head screwed on straight. I forget that from time to time. Cheers. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology that you left for Dan56. Thank you. At this point, I'm not sure that there is more to be done. I don't know anything about the anon editor that contacted me beyond what you can see on my talk page (though to me it seems to be a single individual, not two as you have assumed). -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looking at his messages again, I see that it is the same person. Thanks for your reply. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(since you deleted the 'civility 2' section): it isn't a matter of being as you say a sensitive little child, it is that of course putting the word

bullshit into an edit summary is uncivil. and you've kind of got a history of civility warnings already. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)