User talk:WickerGuy/Archive2

Star Trek (film series)

Thanks for your work so far on the article. After finding and adding all the information to the respective film articles, I've been loathe to go back and summarize it all again :) Most of the content you need to fill out the sections should be available in the respective FA film articles; I'm working on finishing off Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and after jumping around a bit (II→VI→I→VIII) I'm sitting down and starting to plow through them chronologically. Ultimate goal is that :) Any and all help at cleaning up that mess of a page is appreciated :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SellersMontage.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SellersMontage.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2001Montage.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2001Montage.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:M Briefing.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:M Briefing.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BondPersona.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BondPersona.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi WickerGuy. Thanks for your note. It is good to see that you are still editing away here. I have been gone for awhile and I am not sure how long I'll be back for. It is good to know that the articles about SK and his films are in your capable hands. Keep up the good work and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 05:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bond girls

I notice you uploaded Image:BondGirls.JPG and its caption in James Bond (film series). Could you note who the other Bonds and Bond girls are in relation to the collage please? It could be on the image description page as the caption is currently encyclopedic and long. MeekSaffron (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, I noticed 3 images noted in the GA review Talk:James Bond (film series)/GA1, which resulted in a delisting though not from the images, were deleted from non-use only a few days ago. Only one, File:BondGames.JPG, was removed from the article then, and I haven't done an extensive history search of this and other articles they could've been recently removed from. Do you know why they were removed? I see SkierDude's notifications above deal with the other two images, but he seems to just deal with notification, not the person who removed them from articles.

I'm asking you because you said "Well, I'm the miscreant who uploaded most of the images that are in montage form." and I agree with the reasoning in your paragraph beginning "A lot of attention in this article is given to recurring motifs, most of which are fairly obvious to viewers of the films, and are hard to provide citations for." I'm not sure if they are hard to provide citations for, as I haven't looked but would think there's a ton of analysis and commentary for such a famous film series. But I do think the images add helpful visual commentary that would certainly complement the text. MeekSaffron (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kent family religion?

There's no mention of religion directly, but they did bury Jonathan in the cemetery of a Christian church (visible in the background). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I was just pointing out this technicality. In the film the family is implied to be Christian. But the religious implications of Kal-El himself are far more evident. "I've sent you, my only son..." and all that kind of thing. As far as I know, religion was never particularly a topic in the Superman saga. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also important to keep in mind that Siegel and Schuster had, as far as I know, no input on the Reeves films; just a screen credit as the character's creator and (maybe) some money to go with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Stanley K

Hi WickerGuy and Happy New Year to you too. Thanks for your note. Also thanks for finding a way to keep the note about overall regard for The Shining in the lead. The other sentence that I took out was so odd. Few things are thought of as iconic at their beginnings. Although I have to say that, as a devotee from "Strangelove" on (I was a bit too young to see the others in their original release), one of the great things about being in the audience of a Kubrick film was knowing that you were experiencing images and sounds that were unique (even iconic) and special.

A couple of other Kubrick things that I would like to run by you.

1. In regards to The Shining - In the late 80's I remember reading a TV Guide that was discussing things to view at Halloween. King was quoted as saying that although he had disliked the film at first he had come to feel that it could not have been made better by anyone else. Of course, this was years before the miniseries. The shift in his views over the years is interesting to note although I don't really think that there is anyplace for this in the article. I thought that I would mention it in case you had not encountered it in your Kubrick studies.
2. As we reached the end of this year I was reminded of another piece of Kubrickiana that sticks in my mind. Somewhere in the mid to late 90's (I think - although it might have been earlier) I remember reading some kind of discussion with Kubrick and/or Clarke and/or members of the MGM team that oversaw 2001.... They were discussing the fact that, as the film was nearing completion, the were trying to decide whether they going to pronounce it two thousand and one; or twenty hundred and one; or twenty "o" one. In opting for the first choice they felt that they were setting a precedent since they could not find any data that this wording had been used to describe the 1900's (except, perhaps, for the aughts). Since this way of pronunciation has stuck with us I am thinking that - if you remember any of this and - if you can source it - that it might be an interesting enough fact to find a place somewhere in Wikipedia. Maybe on Kubrick's page or the page for the film/book or even the page for the year 2000.

Of course, I am not asking you to spend any of your time on looking in to either of these items if you don't want to. I just thought that I pass them along for your perusal. Cheers and continued Happy Editing!! MarnetteD | Talk 01:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've responded to your message about "Eyes Wide Shut" on my talk page. Regards. Ironman1104 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:2001Montage3rd.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:2001Montage3rd.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Shining/Boing Boing

I feel this link is being assassinated unfairly by you and MaretteD. The notes are primarily liminal, they exhibit images, symbols, text and spoken words used directly in the film. It describes cogently cutting manners, disorientations, and dialogue paradoxes and specifically the Native American and Meso American patterns used extensively in the film and their proper symbolic placements within the film (all are academically referenced), surpassing the very weak Blakemore exegesis you seem interested in keeping. It even ends with a direct linkage to the Chief Cornstalk Curse, which your main article ignores, is dated EXACTLY on July 4, 1921, something that disintegrates Blakemore's assertion of irony, it is actually corollary. Please leave this link as it has provided numerous users with a vast resource for the film's understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.10.71 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all your link is to a page with a link to the article you are interested in promoting, while it also has links to mash-up trailers which potentially get WP mired in copyright problems. Why did you supply a link to a link? To make it appear more acceptable? To avoid having users see the F-word in the page-title when clicking on the initial link?? The specific article you want a link to contains a lot of "unverifiable research" which is overtly banned by Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. The Blakemore exegesis may be problematic, but it is mentioned in the main text of the article as a one possible (and mainstream i.e. widely promulgated) point of view, plus its contents are echoed by the exegesis of Geoffrey Cocks who is also cited in the article as having a similar interpretation. Other observers (notably Julian Rice) find Cocks' exegesis a bit strained and improbable, and actually the article probably should (and fails to) mention Rice's skepticism of Cocks on this.

In your exchange with MarnetteD you state that "The articles are excerpts from unedited notes to a book that is being printed this fall." That suggests you have some personal interest in promoting the material which is also against the WP:Conflict of Interest policy even if you are not the direct author. I admit I find MarnetteD's appeal to "fancruft" slightly problematic (Actually there is a WP policy Wikipedia:Don't_call_things_cruft), but his basic point about this having all the signs and appearance of self-promotional "linkspam" is quite valid. Even if we allow the term, nothing published in a mainstream publication like the San Francisco chronicle remotely qualifies as "fancruft", so in no way does your claim "the whole article is fancruft" carry any weight.

Especially damning is that you signed your first message to MarnetteD with the initials KM while the author of the article is "Kevin MacLeod" and although you claim later in your exchange with MarnetteD to be not the direct author of the article, both you and the article's author have remarkably similar mangled English syntax. Both you and the article speak a lot about "mysteriums" and "portals", and interrupt sentences with parentheses in the same slightly tortured fashion. These are strong indications you are the author of the piece.

Minor conflicts of interest can slide when verifiable information in minimal quantities is being promulgated. This is not one of those case.

I personally take a somewhat dim view of post-structuralism, and am a fan of the book "Fashionable Nonsense" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, but I strive here to not let my personal biases against that sort of work influence my judgement here.

As MarnetteD pointed out, follow the message on your talk page about signing your messages and try also to be a bit more grammatical. --WickerGuy (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: am not the author of the link, I am the author of the notes. I was never attempting to signify otherwise. If this is the rationale for violating the rules, then there is nothing more to say, but I have received substantial interest in the notes (both from individuals, media outlets) that allow me to perceive the notes are making believers out of many. Outside of Blakemore, you have plenty of unsubstantiated and divergent material (Ager) that could be labeled cruft through her lens (and its very undeveloped). I am not a post-structralist in the philosophic sense you're indicating (what Sokal is satirizing), I am a brain scientist, and rely on structuralism developed by thinkers like Pribram, Laughlin, Braitenburg and Gazzaniga to make my points, and Kubrick no doubt utilized a psychological method based in right-left brain structures to dictate the messy centers that comprise The Shining. Portalling is just an advancement of the biogen structuralists that are affecting neuroscience these days. MarnetteD was quite insulting, she ignores even the most basic distortions Kubrick was achieving here. Also, is not Boing Boing a mainstrem outlet now? It gets many more hits than the Chron ever will again? --24.193.10.71 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Also, I fear the semantics of this are failing, all of the data I've mentioned in the article is verifiable, carpets, rugs, wall hangings, hidden views, clear spatial distortions, by bridging the material together, I've made it causal. Also by verifying things like the missing power cables, changing backgrounds (missing wall hangings within sequences), there is a pattern that emerges that is quite obvious.--24.193.10.71 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, again, posting a link to a link of something you have written is a slightly cheesy and evasive way of getting around the WP rule against self-promotion. What is cruft is a bit subjective (as the Wikipedia Manual of Style makes quite clear- hence the rule not to use the term in edit-disputes), and I will concede that a lot of Ager's material borders on cruft and hence ought to be used selectively if at all. I deliberately avoided using much of Ager unless his views were shared by others. A bit of his work is suitable for WP if placed in context of a larger discussion (among many interpreters) of a particular aspect of The Shining, but much of Ager is indeed not suitable for WP.

Boing Boing is a group blog and is a directory to other things, and since you used it as link to your article rather than linking to your article directly (again a really cheesy move), its mainstream status is irrelevant.

You need to review Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and Wikipedia:RS#Reliable_sources. These policies are an integral part of the WP policy on research being verifiable. (Note WP makes a distinction between verifiability and truth.) WP is meant to reflect consensus and/or range of opinion within third-party sources that have being previously (in a loose sense) peer-reviewed. Making converts is not the same thing as peer-review. Note the policy reads "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

You say "I am a brain scientist, and rely on structuralism developed by thinkers like Pribram, Laughlin, Braitenburg and Gazzaniga". In psychology, structuralism was largely developed by Edward B. Titchener who was a psychologist (NOT a brain scientist) who died in 1927, a theory that is now largely gone and departed from brain research. As a neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga would not be considered a structuralist in the sense that psychologists use that word. Folks who study the architecture of neural nets in the brain (such as Simon Laughlin) are generally not referred to a structuralists. If you are confusing this with structuralism in literary theory and anthropology, all the worse.

What especially concerns me is that according to the mstrmnd website, you, Kevin McLeod, have "produced film, documentary, music videos, commercials, was a developer of the groundbreaking A.I. Webgame The Beast (Warner Bros.), coproducer of the documentary The Cruise (Artisan) and is the founding director of mstrmnd." You were also (according to Internet Movie Database) a co-production assistant on "Silence of the Lambs" and composer for the film "Jim". Other sources say you were a production assistant on "Cousin Bobby" and other films. However, here you have claimed to be a "brain scientist". It doesn't take either a rocket scientist or a brain scientist to realize that no practicing professional brain scientist is working as a production assistant on multiple films. (Not to mention that the term "brain science" is more frequently [though not always] used in the real world mainly to denote investigating physiological elements of the brain- the area you are exploring is more often called "cognitive science" and "neuroscience"- marking you as an amateur as does your confused usage of the term "structuralism") Both this and your original evasive practice of posting a link to a link of your own work then protesting "you are not the author of the link" peg you as unreliable and untrustworthy.

--WickerGuy (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your accusations indicate poor manners, I guess that's what happens when you only have the web to use as a source. I have a BA and an MS in neuroscience, I worked on the first GUI computer ever developed (by Bausch and Lomb in 1981) in HIGH SCHOOL, and the structuralism I am referring to is not dead by far, it was deployed in the 80's as a facet of neurophenomenology. The structuralism you refer to is the Structuralism/Functionalism divide has little or nothing to do with brain architecture if I remember properly, and I was referring to Charles Laughlin, one of the founders of Biogenstructuralism not Simon, and yes, Gazzaniga, Braitenburg and Pribram are not themselves structuralists in both your used definition and the one I was actually referring to, but their research completes into structuralism, the structuralists Laughlin D'Aquili Hobson Varela all rely on the the work of Gazzaniga, Pribram, Kandel, Le Doux, Tooby as critical reference. I would go as far as to say that a thinker like Braitenburg is a clear structuralist, but that is merely an opinion. And yes, I did split time between an MA and production work in the early nineties. Right now I am splitting my time between epigraphic studies and an animated series, I do a lot of things and brain science was my first love. And the composer of the music for the film Jim is another Kevin McLeod. You should discover how poor your behavior is and how poorly the above paragraph reflects on your limited knowledge. You my dear are not inquisitive but derogatory without proper data. --24.193.10.71 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In March, my afterword is being published in a peer-reviewed book, published by a major academic press, regarding a critically important, now widely unknown thinker that revolutionized his field and only now are his concepts being fully deployed. I was asked to write the afterword not because I knew anything about him (I knew of him only because of a lecture I saw at the AAA), but because I blended my fields and discovered new things in the process. I will take no greater satisfaction sending you a link to it. You know my name, I do not know yours, please publish it here.--66.65.191.126 (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that Charles Laughlin, although normally thought of as a anthropologist, is a founder of "Biogenetic Structuralism" which deals with the neurobiological foundations of socialization and society, and he is indeed on the cutting edge of the interdisciplinary mix of anthropology and neuroscience although he is usually classed as an anthropologist. His 'structuralism' is fairly close to the way that term is used in anthropology, rather than the defunct way it is used in psychology. However, in your correspondence with User:MarnetteD you speak specifically of post-structuralism, which only refers to structuralism in the sense used in both anthropology and philosophy. Post-structuralism is actually anti-structuralist, and is what Alan Sokal was criticizing in his book. If you really have a background in neuroscience (which I now acknowledge is quite plausible), your use of the word "post-structuralist" in your correspondence with MarnetteD is at least a careless slip, and it was legit of me to appeal to Sokal.

I think that after your book is published, it might be appropriate to include a short discussion of its contents in WP, but not while is exists in self-published form per WP rules of sources.

The Internet Movie Database lists the other Kevin Mcleod (whom they have dubbed "Kevin McLeod (II)") as the composer for the films "Date Night" and "Void", but you (whom they have dubbed "Kevin McLeod (I)") as the composer for the film "Jim". Clearly, a mistake on their part. (All 3 films are within the past 2 years.) I may indeed be "derogatory without proper data" but I assure you I am very inquisitive, and I already had grounds for being a bit suspicious given your disingenuous posting of a link to a link. If I over-reached, my apologies. We deal with a lot of oddfellows (and I use the term broadly) here at Wikipedia. WP's "Manual of Style" still constitutes the ground rules around here, and I think your stuff still falls into the self-promotion category as long as it is only self-published.

I remain bothered by the tortured syntax and structure of your sentences. Take for example "Portalling is just an advancement of the biogen structuralists that are affecting neuroscience these days." Wouldn't that be "who are influencing"? Wouldn't "It describes cogently cutting manners, disorientations, and dialogue paradoxes" be better written as "cogently describes [reverse those two words] cutting styles...". Did Kubrick "dictate" the "messy centers of the Shining"? Don't you mean "structure" or "shape" rather than "dictate"? When "dictate" is used with an object, the direct object is usually the contents of the dictation. What is controlled is the indirect object. This kind of unclear syntax is one of several reasons Alan Sokal was very critical of post-structuralist thinking. You may be working in a modified version of anthropologist's structuralism rather than its philosophical critique post-structuralism, but your writing abounds in the kind of unclear syntax and structure that Sokal took post-structuralists to task for and you did refer to "post-structuralism" in writing to MarnetteD.

If you go to my WP user-page you will on the left see a link that says "E-mail this user". Send me an e-mail and I will tell you my name.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Robinson

You accidentally re-added the reviews & chart position fields that I removed. Those are deprecated fields. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As always thanks

Thanks for your note WikcerGuy. I would like to email you about last months drama but I also respect your privacy and won't do so unless you okay it. MarnetteD | Talk 18:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know an email is on its way to you. Have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 03:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Lerner

Hi. The semi-protection was set to last for seven days, and then it expires. The indicator in the top right corner is the result of a template. There's a bot that removes expired protection templates, but it hadn't fixed the Lerner article yet.

Instead of protecting the article again, I blocked the newest sockpuppet. If vandalism becomes a recurring problem, we may need longer-term protection, but generally articles aren't protected unless they experience frequent vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like another admin semi-protected the article for two more weeks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hannibal Rising (film) and Xnacional

Hey, I could use some helpful eyes on Hannibal Rising (film) - Xnacional is bound and determined to force his preferred text on the page, disregarding the compromise version. Thanks! MikeWazowski (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring at William Blake

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Modernist (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion to you is for you to add information about Blake to the text of the article. Clearly you are an expert on Wm Blake. Repeatedly re-adding an ambiguous category against consensus of several experienced editors is pointless...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

carnival masks

Regarding this edit, you note that the women were wearing carnival masks, but you haven't citation for it. We have solid cites for the Venetian masks. Do you have citations that the women were wearing carnival masks? If not, we can simply describe the masks, like "feathered masks" instead of seeking to identify them without benefit of citation. Let me know your thoughts on this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i wasn't being clear: we can note the Venetian masks of the partygoers, as we have citation for that. the women wore feathered masks of a different kind, and we cannot classify them as "carnival/carnivale" masks without equivalent citation. It is the primary difference between you saying they are such and someone notably citable saying so. You might be an expert on the subject, but unless you are cited in published material, we cannot use that expertise to substantiate something - indeed, anything - within the article.

Unless you can explicitly cite the women as wearing carnivale masks, we cannot call them such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WickerGuy, I have said this before: your expert observationof the masks is immaterial here, and cannot be utilized in any way in the article. You need to cite where someone has explicitly specified the masks as being carnivale masks. Without it, the descriptive cannot remain. In the alternative, we could call them feathered masks; beyond that, we need citation. As for the parallel with the Lion King, it is cited that the story takes place in Africa (indeed, Dische's uncredited story treatment was called "King of the Kalahari"). No such citation exists that the masks that the women were wearing were specifically carnivale masks. Providing a link showing the same sorts of masks means you are comparing the two, advancing the opinion that they are of the same type: that is advancing a new position (ie., that they are the same); that's original research. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the burden of proof lies with the person seeking to add new information; in this case, that means you, WickerGuy. We are not in the business of advancing a viewpoint; we are pointing out connections and viewpoints that others have already made. You cannot make these connections. If you think I'm being too nitpicky, ask some admins about it (as many of them have thousands of edits under their belt, and might offer different opinions than myself).

The Nelson citation indeed identifies the masks as "Venetian masks"; it does not identify the subtype of mask, and it is inappropriate to do so without explicit citation.

Citation #2 confirms that Venetian masks were used in EWS. Nothing else. You are looking at the article and tying the history of the mask to the film, and the article - to be blunt - does not do that.

Citation 3 does not "specifically identify" the mask as being worn in EWS. Look at that citation more carefully. It identifies a model of mask with a model name. It is a marketing gimmick, not a explicit identifier. For further proof of this, look a little further down that seller's website. See the gold half-mask identified as the "Phantom of the Opera"? I think we both agree that this is not the mask used in either the stage production or numerous films of that musical. they are product models, not citations. You should probably avoid seller's websites, as their sole job is to make leech a connection off something popular to make money; their motives are suspect. This makes them unreliable.

You need to aim for citations that are bulletproof - ones that cannot get shot down by someone seeking exact, explicit statements of fact or quotes. You absolutely need to remove yourself from that equation, WickerGuy; we cannot use your personal expertise or familiarity on the subject.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

:Btw, you need to cite your contributions to the article on Ventian masks. I was going to remove it completely, but I am hoping that these conversations we are having are helping you to understand how to strengthen your statements. I am hoping that you will go back and properly cite your statements. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WickerGuy, we avoid using shopsellers, as their information is driven by their market and they are therefore unreliable and often becomes a dead link when stock runs out. As well, it is not my job to ensure that you cite the material correctly; if you do not wish me to assume facts that are missing in the citation, take special care to include the relevant information in the citation, such as page number, etc. Pardon All the Harsh™, but it is not my job to make sure "I read Nelson well enough"; you are the one adding him, so you need to insure that your text and the citation connection is utterly clear. If you have even the slightest whimsy of doubt that you are going to be misunderstood, head to the article discussion page, open a new discussion section and seek some assistance from others. Most of us are happy to help someone avoid creating a misleading statement in connection to a citation - it makes for a lost less work later on. This willingness to help others is one of the strengths of Wikipedia; none of the articles are written individually. Why else would I be helping you to understand some of the more subtle weight of our policies and guidelines?

Your comment about the cold glittery Phantom of the Opera mask doesn't seem accurate. A simple Google image search for Phantom of the Opera (after searching the disambiguation page of the subject for insight) brought to light precisely zero gold Phantom of the Opera masks. Indeed, in practically every incarnation save the original 1909 novel, the mask is white or off-white. Not gold. This is likely an attempt by the seller to appeal to those folk interested in expanding their Mr. T Starter Jewelry Kit (hat last bit there was a joke, btw). In any case, it proves my point rather well; just because the seller is marketing something by a certain name doesn't reliably make it that thing. This is why we avoid shops as citations, as they are notoriously unreliable (and fleeting).

What you saw as faulty reasoning was me insisting you don't wander too far away from the citations you went out and found. There isn't the slightest bit of explicit citation to note that the women were wearing feathered Venetian masks. In the absence of that, it is far more durable to simply stat that the women are wearing feathered masks - this is what I have been pointing out repeatedly and continuously since this discussion started.

I am sorry that you are beginning to have trouble taking this matter seriously. I do take the matter of citations very seriously; when Wikipedia gets slammed in the news or by its online opponents, it is almost always due to bad citation work or worse leaps of faith. I am not suggesting that the presented situations constitutes such, but I am here in Wikipedia to create exemplar articles. That means ensuring that the citations used within my range of articles are solid enough to whether any storm of criticism. To that end, we don't use unreliable sources. We do not go further than the citation gives us. We do not bring our own familiarity or expertise of a given subject into the article.

You have found enough to carry the subsection on Venetian masks, though I personally feel that you had enough to instead focus on what the use of the Venetian masks was meant to symbolize, using the numerous sources you found to develop out what Kubrick was seeking to do in the film. To paraphrase Olivier, don't focus on the prop, focus on why and how the prop was used. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WickerGuy, I think we need to avoid any links to seller. I am almost positive that were you to ask any set of administrators about this, they would agree - websites selling things aren't reliable and their information is unsupported (we don't know how their information was arrived at). We don't use them for anything.

I know what Venetian masks look like; I just don't think we can prove that the women are wearing carnival masks, and should avoid doing so without citation. We can look at all of the images we like and personally note the similarity of the images in the film, and those feathered images from websites. However, our observations cannot be used in the article or discussions, as we are not notable.

Find a citation that explicitly notes that the women were wearing masks, but Venetian carnival masks, and I won't have a problem. Until then, we need to simply note that they are wearing feathered masks. The simple descriptive of feathers is okay; explaining the background of the masks is not without supporting allowable documentation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned that your changes are going to get altered or changed, come to the article discussion page and we can iron out potential problems before they occur. As well, i would appreciate if you would start using the proper citation templates now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BlofeldEvil.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BlofeldEvil.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BondGirls.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BondGirls.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:QMontage2.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:QMontage2.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Shining

Hello WickerGuy. Along with the cast list situation the editor is removing over 3700 characters from the article. Because of the reordering of the sections it is hard to tell exactly what is being taken out. As you are much better at tracking this kind of thing down than I am you might take a look and see whether any of this info should stay or go. As always thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in. It would have taken more than a little while for me to find all of that. Have a great rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the note. A few of us have been tracking a problematic editor (see my post here User talk:RepublicanJacobite#Do you remember.3F for more info. You can also see their replies on my talk page. One of the tough things is that there is no consistency to his edits - the items he puts in on one page he takes out on another. The few edits that aren't bad sometimes get reverted (as on EWS) in the process of cleaning everything else up. Mass adding of categories is another of his favorite edits. As to the specifics of The Shining I can add to my edit summary with info that you probably already know. Nothing that I can think of was filmed in CA. The opening montage was filmed at Glacier National Park in Montana and I think it was done specifically for the film. There is one shot of the Flatirons at the edge of Boulder, CO just before we meet Danny and Wendy (and Tony ;-)). This is the one that I think might be stock footage. The scene of Halloran calling his tow truck friend from the airport looks exactly like the interior of Stapleton Airport (now torn down). In my early years of watching the film I was convinced that a 2nd unit must have shot that scene here but as time has passed I am not so sure. It is just as likely that SK recreated that interior on the soundstage. If you haven't been there the few long shots of the Timberline Lodge in Oregon are quite clever in making it look isolated. There is a sizable ski lift and huge parking area right next to it. Today a filmmaker would just have the computer remove it. Again - and as ever - thanks for your updates and your work here at wikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about Google Earth. That must have been a fun project. These computers are amazing - I am such an ignoramus about them - I know that I only use about a 10th of what mine is capable of. MarnetteD | Talk 11:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

April 28

After perusing your userboxes (and copying a couple for my userpage) I just have to ask "Did Godot show up yesterday?" Or do we have to wait until next year? :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 08:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Kubrick

Sorry about that. I just thought it was kind of random to put that in the first sentance of the article. I just thought that we should acknowledge his greatness from the first sentance of the article, but I understand. jordancelticsfan | Talk May 12, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC).

Using talk pages as message boards

Hi Wickerguy. I hope that you have been and are well. Before removing User:PeadarMaguidhir question at the TTSS talk page I took a look at the editors edit history. Their edits are, almost exclusively, to talk pages and most of them are message board kinds of question. To be fair, occasionally, some of them pertain to improving the article but most of them are just "I want to know things". Hopefully they will respond to you with something that improves the article. This is just my opinion, of course, I just wanted you to know that I didn't pull the trigger on this without doing some investigation first. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 18:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that this editor removed his question from the TTSS talk page. It makes the section look odd with only answers there :-) MarnetteD | Talk 01:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

CO

I hope that you are well and that the weather in your area,as it moves toward summer is going okay. Thanks for the note in your edit summary. Always great to learn where my memory is betraying me. Also fun to learn new info like when the law came into being. I guess that I would ask whether it is necessary to the plot section. To me it is too much detail and starts to move the section towards being too big. As well you know that is always a tough thing with SK's films here at wikiP. Each editor wants their own - best remembered - detail from his films in the plot sections. I will leave it up to you whether that adds value to the article. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the French Lang track info - sounds interesting and I will have to do that sometime. Being a Brit TV fan I have gotten pretty good at the various accents over the years, though I was better in my late twenties when I could even discern what region of the island I was hearing. Even so I turn on the subtitles at times and I recommend doing that quite often to friends. Even I picked up a few things that I missed when I rewatched the UK version of Life on Mars recently. If you haven't seen this series I can highly recommend it (with the proviso that if you hate it I will apologize for wasting your time.) I hope that your week goes well. MarnetteD | Talk 03:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Omega Man

Sir, you stand accused of OR! A Fellow Scottish Wikipedian

Thanks. Mannafredo (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WickerGuy. You have new messages at PiRSquared17's talk page.
Message added 00:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As ever, thanks

Hi again. Thanks for the reply. I was a tad suspicious of what was going on when the edit summary did not match the edits. I appreciate your checking on the additions to the references and filling me in on why they weren't the right way to go for the article. As I said in one of my edit summaries it was fun to see your work on a page other then one related to Kubrick! Have a great 4th of July weekend and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you won't get this until you get back I will just say that I hope that you had good weather and a wonderful time in the Sierra's. MarnetteD | Talk 17:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jadis

"Jadis" appears in the notice that Maugrim leaves in Tumnus's house (at least in my edition -- Collier, 1970). That said, I think the IP is being fussy adding the name in at each occurrence -- Elphion (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The name Jadis is mentioned in the book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe only one time. That's when Peter Pevensie finds Maugrim's parchment in the house of Mr. Tumnus and then reads the parchment. 84.86.199.99 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think for the casual fan TWW is more recognizable than Jadis and should generally be used. I'm failing to remember whether her name is mentioned in the film...any thoughts? Also, edit summaries would be greatly appreciated so that people know -why- you're making the changes you're making. Doniago (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverts By YLee in 2001 Article

Sorry for the mixup on that thread, I confused you with YLee. I just put a correction on the page. Won't happen again.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PDVD 006.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PDVD 006.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)