50.121.36.249 (talk) |
→3RR Warning: apology |
||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
:::Also, if you're gonna claim that you've reported us it may do you better to edit the administrators noticeboard first, then come here. According to your edit history, all you've done is wast words here. Not that I'm complaining, just offering some advise. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 08:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
:::Also, if you're gonna claim that you've reported us it may do you better to edit the administrators noticeboard first, then come here. According to your edit history, all you've done is wast words here. Not that I'm complaining, just offering some advise. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 08:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|TomStar81}} And it didn't work...LOL!...Aww what's wrong, you going to keep block me for [[WP:Disruptive editing]] because I am speaking the truth about you both and how you abused your administrative powers by blocking me when you shouldn't have and because MarnetteD was really vandalising. Awww! Poor baby! Maybe you two should grow up! Awww! Lol! And I didn't have to go to the [[WP:AN]] I did it by email so there! [[Special:Contributions/50.121.36.249|50.121.36.249]] ([[User talk:50.121.36.249|talk]]) 08:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|TomStar81}} And it didn't work...LOL!...Aww what's wrong, you going to keep block me for [[WP:Disruptive editing]] because I am speaking the truth about you both and how you abused your administrative powers by blocking me when you shouldn't have and because MarnetteD was really vandalising. Awww! Poor baby! Maybe you two should grow up! Awww! Lol! And I didn't have to go to the [[WP:AN]] I did it by email so there! [[Special:Contributions/50.121.36.249|50.121.36.249]] ([[User talk:50.121.36.249|talk]]) 08:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::Then please accept my apology, as I had assumed that you would prefer to make public sport out of my admin abuse over at [[WP:AN]]. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 08:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:47, 10 November 2014
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 |
Sandbox
I am using this space to create my sandbox. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Reminders
Long term problems reminders |
---|
1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life. 2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:
Thanks! ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The MO of that anon vandal seems similar to Bambifan, but that IP resolves to Michigan. Bambi does the majority of his nonsense from Alabama. However, if you even so much as think you smell this guy, please let me know. His destruction and damage is nearly incaluculable. Thanks for letting me know and believe me, asking about something like this is not a bother. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
|
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Maori Culture .
Hello again, Can you look in on this topic please. You seem to be a very experienced and fair minded editor who may be able to help. My work is often being reverted by an editor for no real reason. Seems to be a strong emotional over reaction without much, or any, intellectual thought. I would like him to use talk to explain his reasons for reverting but he refuses to discuss. Has made a very glib and wrong inference in his edit comment which is quite unacceptable to me. Thank you for any input. Claudia
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies
Obviously, I missed that line. Thanks for cleaning up after me. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for fixing the redirect on that page. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Russian silent cinema
The average Russian silent film is a lot better made than American ones in general at the time I have to say. The actors and filming seem a lot more natural. You don't get any of that flailing around and exaggerated impression stuff in early Russian movies which grate on you after a while in quite a few of the Hollywood ones of that period. Yet they seem to tell a tale better. Have you seen Mother (1926 film)? Quite brilliant. Over the next few weeks I'm going to beef up on Russia silents I think, they're impressive to watch. I may even revisit Battleship Potemkin! I gather Mondo cane isn't to your interest? BTW if you're wondering how I'm covering so much I have a 28 inch screen monitor which allows me to do other things while watching films on a split screen! If a film is particularly good I'll watch it again at some point with close scrutiny. I'd guess when you watch a film you have to scrutinize and give it 100% first time?
BTW I can't help but notice your name regularly lighting up on Audrey Hepburn on my watchlist. I had intended getting her to GA if not FA sometime. First I have book on Kubrick and Meryl Streep I need to work on though. Problem with articles like that though is high maintenance because of the traffic they get.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info @Dr. Blofeld:. Apologies for not responding on your lists talk page. For some reason I didn't get pinged on your post about MC yesterday and I've only just read it. I saw it a couple times back in the 1970s, though not since then. Definitely unique. I wonder if it would be considered as shocking if it were released today.
- In answer to your question (well sort of) I do try to give my undivided attention the first time. But I also know I will miss things and will need repeat viewing to absorb all that is there. Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson are great examples of that. In the years before VHS and DVD I made numerous pilgrimages to various theaters for repeat (including midnight) screenings of my favorites. Then there are the changes in understanding that getting older brings. As a teenager I can remember watching Jules and Jim and Ikiru and thinking "Okay that was good". But it wasn't until I had lived through life's travails that I came to know how great they were.
- As to your Russian silents viewing I have to say that for some reason I have more memories of watching Alexander Nevsky than any other Russian silent film. Odd in that I know I saw BP and Ivan the Terrible: Part One more often. Maybe it is because Bakshi's Wizards, which incorporates scenes from AN, is one of my guilty pleasures. You are 100% (or maybe 1000%) right about the high maintenance that some article require :-) Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I saw Jules and Jim quite recently, excellent! Have to get around to watching A. Nevsky. My goal right now is just to see as much as I can and to mark those which really seem great films and come back to viewing them again sometime and in a way in which I fully absorb and study them all the way through. I think I'll probably start doing the list update at the end of every week. I have a number of books through a wiki grant (including at least four books on Kubrick) I got back in April. To date I've only done Althorp. I had begun working on User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick but got sidetracked and partly put off by light show's constant sniping. I suspect long term the article will go to the dogs like Paris has done so I think I'll just compile material from the books in my sandbox and then decide how to distribute it. I have a book on Meryl Streep, an article which is high priority of course too. I'm not sure long term whether it's really worth working on such articles unless they're protected once promoted to protect from excessive editing and clueless editors. I have a book on A Clock work Orange itself which would be good to get up to GA. If long term you think you could help protect Audrey's article from degradation, I think it would be worth working on. It seems a fair amount of the content is already there, the article just needs a structural overhaul and reinforcement I think. Emma Thompson I believe is already near enough FA quality and might be a viable candidate at some point. Her book work could use some reinforcement though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I recently picked up this edition of ACO @Dr. Blofeld:. Although I've known about the final chapter - and it has been available here in the US for a few decades - I've never read it. BTW as a bibliophile I can't recommend The Folio Society's books highly enough. Yes they are pricey but they are crafted with such skill and creativity that I can't resist them. When the budget allows at any rate. Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I am happy to keep an eye on Audrey's article. As you say it garners more than its fair share of unneeded static. MarnetteD|Talk 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've read the book, just not in that jazzed up version! BTW I'll add Nevsky and Wizards to my to see list!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I can't guarantee that Wizards will grab ya @Dr. Blofeld: but there is some fun stuff in it. I will say that it was made at a time when animation was basically dead in Hollywood. Only Don Bluth and Bakshi were keeping it alive as an art form. To show how times change Bakshi's films were heavily criticized for his use of rotoscoping to save on costs. Today a filmmaker like Richard Linklater is praised for his use of the technique. Add to that the extensive use of motion capture and one could say that RB was ahead of his time :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- My mother's clearing out her house, and found a paperback copy of ACO which she passed on to me. She's never actually read it... mainly because she knows what it's about and fears that she won't like it at all. Why did she get it? She won't say: but at the time that this scandal occurred, she was a teacher at the same school. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I can't guarantee that Wizards will grab ya @Dr. Blofeld: but there is some fun stuff in it. I will say that it was made at a time when animation was basically dead in Hollywood. Only Don Bluth and Bakshi were keeping it alive as an art form. To show how times change Bakshi's films were heavily criticized for his use of rotoscoping to save on costs. Today a filmmaker like Richard Linklater is praised for his use of the technique. Add to that the extensive use of motion capture and one could say that RB was ahead of his time :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've read the book, just not in that jazzed up version! BTW I'll add Nevsky and Wizards to my to see list!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I am happy to keep an eye on Audrey's article. As you say it garners more than its fair share of unneeded static. MarnetteD|Talk 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I recently picked up this edition of ACO @Dr. Blofeld:. Although I've known about the final chapter - and it has been available here in the US for a few decades - I've never read it. BTW as a bibliophile I can't recommend The Folio Society's books highly enough. Yes they are pricey but they are crafted with such skill and creativity that I can't resist them. When the budget allows at any rate. Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I saw Jules and Jim quite recently, excellent! Have to get around to watching A. Nevsky. My goal right now is just to see as much as I can and to mark those which really seem great films and come back to viewing them again sometime and in a way in which I fully absorb and study them all the way through. I think I'll probably start doing the list update at the end of every week. I have a number of books through a wiki grant (including at least four books on Kubrick) I got back in April. To date I've only done Althorp. I had begun working on User:Dr. Blofeld/Stanley Kubrick but got sidetracked and partly put off by light show's constant sniping. I suspect long term the article will go to the dogs like Paris has done so I think I'll just compile material from the books in my sandbox and then decide how to distribute it. I have a book on Meryl Streep, an article which is high priority of course too. I'm not sure long term whether it's really worth working on such articles unless they're protected once promoted to protect from excessive editing and clueless editors. I have a book on A Clock work Orange itself which would be good to get up to GA. If long term you think you could help protect Audrey's article from degradation, I think it would be worth working on. It seems a fair amount of the content is already there, the article just needs a structural overhaul and reinforcement I think. Emma Thompson I believe is already near enough FA quality and might be a viable candidate at some point. Her book work could use some reinforcement though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Amazing coincidence R. Thanks for sharing it. In the intro to TFS edition Irvine Welsh mentions AB's ambivalence to the fact that ACO had become the only (or main thing anyway) that he would be remembered for. He also had conflicted feelings about Stanley's film. He wasn't the only one was he? I wonder if the Doctor could be called on to bring Thackeray to our time to watch Barry Lyndon with us. ;-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Do not revert my edits
I have the right to nominate a page for deletion if it does not meet Wikipedia criteria and you do not have the right to stop me so unless you can fix the issues you have no right to remove my deletion nomination.
- If you would do it properly that would be correct. Sadly, you are ignoring the procedures for doing that. MarnetteD|Talk 05:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
1. I am not socking! I created this account because that is the only way to create an article for deletion 2. You had no right to remove that or any of the issues on the page all your edits have been reverted.
- Clearly you are socking and your "Bad Faith" editing is obvious to all. MarnetteD|Talk 05:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can you point to the prior registered account that this user had? It's not sockpuppetry to register an account, especially when advised to do so by other users! —C.Fred (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you!
- Also none of the pages issues were fixed so your removal of the notification about the multiple issues were reverted because you are falsely claiming that they are fixed when they are not otherwise they would not be nominated for deletion. That is just a way to avoid the issue. DeletespagesthatfailGNG (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you!
- Can you point to the prior registered account that this user had? It's not sockpuppetry to register an account, especially when advised to do so by other users! —C.Fred (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @C.Fred: You must be aware that socking DOES NOT require two "registered accounts". The IP and and the SPA made exactly the same "bad faith" nominations multiple times. It is also worth noting that I am not the only editor that detected the "bad faith" nature of the situation. If you could not take the time to discover that then I am sorry for you but AGF is not a suicide pact. I also note that you have not commented at the malformed AFDs. MarnetteD|Talk 06:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Since you reverted edits by IP 50.121.125.51 I am even more confounded "C" that you would not see the connection to the edits by "DeletespagesthatfailGNG". Especially considering the title of this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 07:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- To quote a recent incarnation of the Dr - Yowza - C.Fred your post here User talk:AussieLegend#Redirects were necessary perplex me even more. you discouraged the SPA there but you encourage it here?1? MarnetteD|Talk 07:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Marnette D:You are a vandal. You do not like that pages can get deleted. Also you are not suppose to delete an Afd notification and you keep doing that @C.Fred: is there a way to get this user block for vandalism because they keep removing an Afd when they are not suppose to? DeletespagesthatfailGNG (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also @Marnette D: is vandalizing by removing SPAs that were on the pages prior to Afds. I am reverting all their edits as vandalism which they are. DeletespagesthatfailGNG (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
3RR Warning
I'm going to warn you once about this: you and the anon above are in violation of the 3RR policy here on site. Since you appear to be the more mature of the two editors I'm only warning you to watch out for that in the future, but do keep in mind that it is grounds for a block. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- No I am not @TomStar81: but feel free to report the IP/User SPA who has now exceeded 3rr after your post here if you really want to protect the encyclopedia. MarnetteD|Talk 07:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ouch I had not seen the nonsense above when I made this edit. I appreciate the "more mature" attribution of your post and apologize that I have not lived up to it. MarnetteD|Talk 07:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's alright, as a veteran editor (and a milhist editor at that) I can appreciate having both barrels loaded for a time after a confrontation just in case you need to drop the hammer. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TomStar81:@MarnetteD: I have reported you both to Wikipedia, you TomStar81 for you abuse of your administrative powers by blocking me for 3RR when it was clearly obvious that MarnetteD was vandalising pages by removing Afd and SPA hats when MarnetteD was not suppose to and for you calling me immature TomStar81 when both you and MarnetteD were the immature ones, you by abusing your administrative powers and MarnetteD by vandalizing the pages because MarnetteD did not like that I was nominating them for deletion when the SPAs span from 2009 to now and MarnetteD is immature by calling me a "sock" when I was not and by saying I was "bad faith" editing when I was not. I hope you both get blocked and you TomStar81 get your admin powers revoked for abuse cause if you read WP:3RR it clearly states in exemptions "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." which MarnetteD was doing by blanking the Afd and SPA hats. Also you cannot get me for block-evasion cause I cannot help it my internet refreshes and gives me a new IP address every so often, I just happened to get lucky that it did it at the right time. That is not my fault blame my internet provider. I hope you two enjoy getting into trouble cause you are so going to be when I am done with both of you. 50.121.124.125 (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- ...and that's how you lose your isp editing privileges. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also, if you're gonna claim that you've reported us it may do you better to edit the administrators noticeboard first, then come here. According to your edit history, all you've done is wast words here. Not that I'm complaining, just offering some advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TomStar81: And it didn't work...LOL!...Aww what's wrong, you going to keep block me for WP:Disruptive editing because I am speaking the truth about you both and how you abused your administrative powers by blocking me when you shouldn't have and because MarnetteD was really vandalising. Awww! Poor baby! Maybe you two should grow up! Awww! Lol! And I didn't have to go to the WP:AN I did it by email so there! 50.121.36.249 (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Then please accept my apology, as I had assumed that you would prefer to make public sport out of my admin abuse over at WP:AN. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- @TomStar81: And it didn't work...LOL!...Aww what's wrong, you going to keep block me for WP:Disruptive editing because I am speaking the truth about you both and how you abused your administrative powers by blocking me when you shouldn't have and because MarnetteD was really vandalising. Awww! Poor baby! Maybe you two should grow up! Awww! Lol! And I didn't have to go to the WP:AN I did it by email so there! 50.121.36.249 (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also, if you're gonna claim that you've reported us it may do you better to edit the administrators noticeboard first, then come here. According to your edit history, all you've done is wast words here. Not that I'm complaining, just offering some advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- ...and that's how you lose your isp editing privileges. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)