en User talk:Clarityfiend 2008

What is original research... really?

This is in regards to The Andy Griffith Show, which you recently edited, and tagged WP:OR. According to the WP:OR page, “research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.” All I did to come up with my edit info was to look at imdb.com, add up the number of episodes for each recurring character, and push a few buttons on my calculator; it took maybe, 5 minutes tops. I wouldn't call that original research, since anyone can verify within a few minutes the info I put in. I though it was an interesting bit of trivia about the lack of marrieds on the show which I observed. Leon7 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you responded to this from 6 months ago. Since this isssue came up again recently, I would like to find out more about your way of thinking. Leon7 (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry barnstar?

Care to post the cherry barnstar User:Ling.Nut made for you (Wikipedia:Reward_board#New_barnstar_design) on WP:BARN? -- Ddxc (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Tierney

I not sure how to link The Official Gene Tierney site to the wiki article, In the bio it makes reference to the The Mirror Cracked and Tierney's real life ordeal around her daughter' s birth. Can you help?71.247.67.249 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.71.247.67.249 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

19th-century novels task force

Hi, Clarityfiend/2008. I'm starting up a 19th-century novels task force for WP:NOVELS. This would cover the works of many well-known authors, including Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Victor Hugo and Leo Tolstoy. If you think you'd be interested in supporting or participating in the task force, please let me know. Cheers. – Liveste [talk • contrib] 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for cleaning up my twice-used references formatting on the Tammany Young page. J. Van Meter (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletivore

LMAO thank you so much for the laugh on the AfD for Burnivore. Travellingcari (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Begley

I must apologize. I've been working on this article, doing some clean up and working toward adding a decent filmography, tv appearances and Broadway. I got so far the other night and actually meant to add the "underconstruction" tag to it and simply forgot. What you walked in on was the middle of the work. However, I do want to thank you for wikifying the films, that saved me some amount of work. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Matter of Life and Death (film)

The whole of Wikipedia is all trivia really. Those bits that you just deleted were under References in Popular Culture which shows how much a 60+ year old film is still fresh in the minds of people. So much so that they can not only include references to it but they don't have to explain them either -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

From anudder Canajan, thanks for all your help here and on other film pages. Can you also look at the Talk:Mr. Deeds Goes to Town‎ page, I can't seem to make a dent there. WFIW Bzuk (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Cast notes

I have now edited quite a number of articles (18,000 edits) and only recently have gone into the film world. The reason for this proviso came from a discussion that arose on one of my first movie article edits. It was suggested that it was a good idea since I was quoting waaaay too many cast and crew members. The note first identifies the screen credit order and then indicates the source of information. It may seem like overkill to have two citations and I will revise that but the note does provide information for the reader. Let me try a revision and see how that goes. FWIW, this is a minor issue, see above section. Bzuk (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Further discussion on article talk page

I thought your ten-day silence indicated assent. I have posted a detailed reasoning on the Prisoner of Zenda talkpage and look forward to your response. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I meant here, of course, not there. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Hatnotes

I'm even more confused now! Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes two of us. To which edit are you referring? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey re The Best Years of Our Lives

Thanks for your follow up...but this person is new. Hence, he/she cannot start going against policy so quickly. OMG. I've been hit hard by many Wikipedians, and I listened. Can you communicate with this person....he/she reversed with no policy in mind. I don't not want to get in a squabble.. Thx.. Luigibob (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I made the changes. With descriptions of characters. Luigibob (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey from Luigibob

Thanks for all your help. Form you Home Page, I see you like Heinlein...me too, athough I'm not a libetarian like he was. Me, I'm a Social Democrat, hence why I work for Obama these days (when he ran he ran his campaign in California....we lost, but we have high hopes). But my favorite book when I was young was Tunnel in the Sky, which is not on your list but it was so cool reading the when I was young. I've read most of his books written in the 1950s. Finally, thx again. Luigibob (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in here but I strongly endorse your candidacy for this role as your contributions have been extemely benefical to the WikiProject Films group. FWIW, remember consider the source (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Dawn Wells

I've commented out something you've added because I don't understand its function - {{Rp|5}}. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•Umm, when you took your quick peak at the documentation for template {{Rp}}, and seen that it is a reference suggested for page numbers, did you not download the cited document ([1]), and instead of having to manually search for the cited section title "Good...Better...Best", did you turn to the cited page number where, you found the cited price in that section title on that page?
•You can either place the number inside of the <ref> tags or put the page template back -- which ever suits your taste.
•The page number template documentation suggests that sometime in the future that a bot or other process could use such template information for automation of a conversion to an enhanced ref system that handles page numbers in a better way.
Warning, holding one's breath on that last point, is only recommended for high endurance athletes, consult your doctor accordingly before persuing such a regime.

WurmWoode^T 02:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your reply, I'll try to be more wary for the naive or casual user when using tools.
• In return for your advice, to help you with the things that you do not understand, you might try Templates with All Pages.

WurmWoode^T 09:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

WP:DEMO Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not going into every page and changing the format, I'm simply doing it on pages that I work on, where I think it's visually appropriate, and it is not forbidden by MoS film, no matter what people seem to believe.

Perhaps I barged into "Female", which I believe you worked on before I got there. I offer a compromise - go back to no italics on Female, but leave them on Godfrey - where (I think) I put in the cast section. In the future, I'll continue to use italics on cast sections that I create (if I think it appropriate - it's not always), but I won't convert existing cast sections unless they're really in a mess and need major redoing, but I'll only do it as apart of a major overhaul - I will not simply covert existing cast section to italics for its own sake. On the other hand, you don't take the italics out of those cast sections I've created or majorly reworked.

There's no particular reason that both formats can't coexist, there're not so radically different that it's something for either of us to get bent out of shape about.

How about it? Can we sign the Clarityfield/Fitzgerald Peace Friendship and Prosperity Pact? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a gesture of good faith, I've restored your version of Female, and I'm removing it from my watchlist. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No can do. It's not a matter of WP:OWNERSHIP. If you can ignore a clear consensus, what's to stop somebody else from deciding that switching to Wingdings would be an improvement? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that you seem more interested in crushing me than you are in working together. Oh well.

MoS policy says the formatting I'm using is allowable, and a couple of people expressing their opinions on the talk page of an obscure article is hardly sufficient "consensus" to decide a matter of Wikipedia-wide policy. I offered to take part in a conversation somewhere of a more general nature, but I don't feel the onus is on me to bring it up, since what I'm doing is clearly allowable, and you're the one who needs some kind of ruling to make the MoS more restrictive than it is at the current time.

So, your rejection of my "live and let live" compromise leave us precisely where we were, except that, for my part, I'm going to uphold my end of the offered compromise anyway. When editing film articles with existing cast section, I will not convert them to italics, even if I think they'd look better that way, but if I write a new article, or add a cast section to an existing article, or if a cast section needs radical re-working, then I may do so, if I think it's appropriate for the material in that article.

You are, of course, free to follow me around and alter my formatting, if that's what you'd like to do, you're free to take whatever course of action you believe is justified, and I'll respond in whatever forum you choose. I have a hard time believing you'd want to expend that kind of energy on such a trivial matter, but, heck, if that's what you decide to do, that's what you decide to do.

I'm sorry you couldn't see your way clear to work together on this. Best. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I will not be watching this page, so if you need to contact me, please make use of my talk page. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, final thoughts from me. I posted on the Female talk page about our conversation here, and mentioned that I am discouraged and disheartened to be at loggerheads with an editor whose work is generally of a high quality, and that stands, but, really, my friend, your slippery slope "wingdings" argument, and suggestion that if italics are allowed in character names in cast lists it's somehow tantamount to "anarchy" on Wikipedia... well, they're just plain silly, don't you think? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spring in the Air!

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 02:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Bulge

Hi. This is not an unfriendly message. I note that we both obviously watch TCM and like to update articles about films we watch there (although I seem to do it while the film is playing and you seem more inclined to do it after it's finished), so we have that in common, but I happen to be reading Eisenhower's Lieutenants about the European War from D-Day on, and I'm in the middle of the chapters on the Battle of the Bulge -- and I noted that you've just been there doing some editing. That was just a little too much synchronicity for me! Weird. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tunnel

It seems you started an article on The Tunnel (film), but I had already done so. Since my article has date/time priority, and is a little more developed than yours (not much), I've moved over some stuff from yours to mine, converted incoming links, and I'm about to convert yours into a redirect.

Sorry about this, if it had happened the other way, I would have moved my stuff into your article. I don't think I've lost any of your material that wasn't duplicating mine. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gayelle

hey at least Gayelle (lesbian) had sources and links.NewAtThis (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an honest question

Greetings! I was trolling through some stuff and reflecting on things I've worked on around Wikipedia, and ran across an article of mine that I had put several hours into, and several others had contributed to, that you nominated (successfully) to AfD. Personal opinions about the conduct of that AfD aside, I just wonder what it is that drives you to nominate pages for deletion? Is it a feeling like you've got to contribute to making sure that the WP servers don't run out of space? Or just that things you don't find important aren't at all? I know this probably sounds like I'm coming in with a chip in my shoulder, but I mean to ask this in an open and honest way, I really am curious. Thanks! – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 21:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have guessed that you feel like it makes it "better" to delete articles, but I have a hard time making that leap of logic that says that "less is better". *shrug* – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terentia

Regarding the statement "Terentia outlived her husband by many years, dying at the age of 103." I have just added two sources to the article (Pliny, Natural History, vii. 48. s. 49. and Valerius Maximus, viii. 13. § 6.) I hope that helps. :) -- Pichote (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Matter of Life and Death

Since you've reverted my perfectly legitimate formatting choices in this article several times now, and are making demands of me in your edit summaries, perhaps you should bring your concerns to the talk page there, so we can discuss it? I capitulate on question of using IMDB trivia as a reference, I admit that it's not a reliable source, so I'm referring primarily to my use of bolding in the "Cast notes" section to point out who the note is about, a fairly standard technique which is widely used in that way. I'm always open to talking about this stuff. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film coordinator opening

As you may be aware, we've had to disqualify Creamy3 due to indefinite blocking of his account, and this leaves us with an open position which the new coordinators will appoint. Several of us have floated your name for the remaining spot. While this is not an offer yet, I wanted to gauge your thoughts on the matter. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Fourth Protocol

Perfectly alright. Glad to see you expanding and bettering the plot synopsis I hastily threw together as I was watching the film a week or two ago ;) My version felt a little unfinished, and that's not to mention I'd made a few mistakes. Falastur2 (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Evans

Thanks. I got interupted before I'd finished. You have saved me the effort! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selected filmography template

Hello, Clarityfiend ... Thnx fer the recent additions to Stepin Fetchit ... if I might intrude for a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on the {{Selected filmography}} template I created ... the talk page records that this was the article that led to its creation. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) _{19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Rfc on Ed Fitzgerald

Thanks for that RfC. I didn't have time to mount one, but I'll contribute what I can to the one that you've raised. For now, I've certified the matter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and read the blurb at the top of the page again carefully. The section saying "each of them must certify it by signing this page with nowikiTagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)</nowiki>." You have not signed using the four tildes, and so technically the RfC will be thrown out right now. It would also be handy if you would sign all of your additions throughout the page - e.g. I'm not about to add anything to the statement of complaint, since at the moment it will not be obvious which are my comments and which yours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who file Rfcs are expected to provide evidence (in the forms of diffs and short explanations) in the evidence section, provide a statement of the dispute (a brief summary of 1-2 lines of what is the dispute - this is what appears on the Rfc list), and a description that can specify some more details. Please ensure the Rfc that you've filed against Ed Fitzgerald complies accordingly, as it currently does not. A good example to follow is [in-this-Rfc]. Please also note - when providing evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute, diffs are expected to be provided - entire talk pages are not accepted as evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity, despite your colourful choice of words in describing my assessment of the RfC, I do think that the issue is more of personal relations as I recognize that two very capable and experienced individuals are involved. Nothing wrong with a RfC, it does tend to "clear the air" and I hope that everyone can clearly identify the problems, deal with them and move on. I realize you have made that effort already but all parties must agree to a resolution. FWiW, I recommended both of you as "prime" candidates for Film Project Coordinators because there is a similar pattern of reasoned, deliberate and thoughtful contributions mixed in with a sophisticated research and writing capability. I wish you both well. Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Re Rfc

Greetings my fellow Wikipdian. Even though I'm editing far less this month due to work constraints, I'm sure learning a whole lot...from you and a super Wikipedian User:SilkTork. Silky helped me get through the distasteful events re the same person. I will make a comment, but will have to add that EF and I have reached a more accommodating situation on another article. SEE: The Hitch-Hiker and my User_talk:Luigibob. Much more in my comment. My warmest regards -- ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior Lengyel

Thank you for your contribution in making this article clearly arranged. --Elkagye (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spy Chasers

Why are you tagging this article? It links to IMDb, Turner Classic Movies and All Movie Guide, all reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but that doesn't explain where the information is retrieved from. The reliability of these sources isn't disputed, only which of the information comes from them and which ones. I have removed the tag and apologize as they do have the information. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thief of Bagdad (1940 film)

Casting notes. Maybe as a note at the end of the Cast section? I really wanted to stop quite a long note breaking up the flow and structure of the cast list -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works much better, thanks -- SteveCrook (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Years of Aviation films

My apologies about the sudden reversal as I was just about to go to bed and had not considered that you hadn't checked the talk page. FWiW, The Blue Mess is certainly a project and a half; give your best "go." Bzuk (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Clarity, what's the deal?

You editing aircraft articles? In the words of Barack, have you lost your bearings? LOL Bzuk (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

IMDb link removal

I've been offline for a week, so could you please indicate when IMDb links were banned from Wikipedia? My understanding from working with the Films Wikiproject is we're supposed to use them whenever possible - there's a link template and everything. Nothing wrong with the TCMb link being there too, but last I checked the IMDb links are perfectly acceptable. If this has changed (and I am actually not being snarky on this as Wikipedia policy has a tendency to change on a dime without widespread discussion so I've leaving this note with the assumption that policy has changed overnight), please let me know. I'm referring to your change in the article The Saint Takes Over. Personally I can't see how the IMDb link can be considered redundant as it contains information different and more thorough than the TCM link. Cheers. 23skidoo (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I misunderstood what you meant by redundant. As I understand it, however, the IMDb link is supposed to be in both the infobox and the External links. I've seen this done on many articles. I'm unaware of a style guideline or policy that says to only use one. 23skidoo (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 greatest songs of all time

Personally, I think that that restriction would make the list better. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Your edit summary here is quite funny. Made me laugh. Useight (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs, notes, footnotes, whatever

Yeah...I was corrected and I think Ed Fitzgerald got involved, and I was under the impression that was the consensus...yes, I agree it's bullshit, and redundant, but I try to keep articles UNIFORM...I'll send him a note, and seee if I am under the WRONG impression.... More soon....Best -- Luigibob (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it, I'm not going to waste my time on such a trivial matter. If you want to change it go ahead. Heck change all the articles I work on. Let's just try to keep it uniform. And, I do agree, it is redundant. My best -- Luigibob (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca (film)

You are correct about what Renault says about Laszlo going to America, and I have apologized on the talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, concerning your "No honor among thieves" remark on That Uncertain Feeling (film) -- I told you that I would not italicize existing cast lists, but if I added a cast list or had to do a major revamping of the cast section, I would, and I have held strictly to that pledge. If you can find an instance of my doing other than that, I will apologize for it, but you won't, because I didn't. I made that pledge on March 16, when I had already added the italics to The Uncertain Feeling on March 9.

There have been numerous times when I have been sorely tempted, but I have held to my word. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My turn to apologize. I didn't notice the date. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- and thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crow tastes awful. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't I know it!

Hey, there's something still not quite right in your re-write of Ilsa's Paris explanation. I can't put my finger on how to fix it, but the problem comes in the transition from her explaining what happened in the past, to Rick's actions in the present. For a moment, I'm uncertain about where in time we are, and it's not until the end of the sentence that I realize we're in the present, in Rick's reaction to her explanation.

It might be worth taking a look at it again to see if you agree. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering it -- your edit looks good to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 09:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Living (film)

I just wanted to let you know that I'm working my way through the Preston Sturges filmography, upgrading the articles on his films, and I've just finished doing Easy Living (film), which I know is an article you've worked pretty extensively on. I don't think I've done anything terribly intrusive to it, but you should take a look and see what you think. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anzio (film)

Hi Clarityfiend, (yes we do like Canadians) I've only recently discovered that SOME edits to Wikipedia have reasons for edits and have JUST found the magic way to find out.

I used the phrase 'Dino DeLaurintis's version of 'The Longest Day (film)' for a few reasons. 1)It's a great 'sound bite' of what the film is about to the layman 2) Mr Dino has a name and a reputation as a well known producer whether for good or bad 3)Mr Dino seems to have a knack for making his own version of a particular popular film or genre (i.e. Burt Reynolds' stories about how Mr D explained that 'Navajo Joe' was going to better and more popular than 'A Fistful of Dollars' as it had a higher body count. 4)'The Longest Day' was about the first war film to show a battle from both sides with an all star cast as opposed to the usual Hollywood practise of using the famous battle as name for a love triangle with some action scenes in it ('D-Day the Sixth of June','Pearl Harbor'). 'Anzio' followed the practise of those 'Longest Day' traits though I didn't like how the film went into the account of the survivors going back oblivious to the battle (I would've grafted on bits of 'War Italian Style' for a better and bigger climax with the 'Anzio Annie' cannon and more stars of Buster Keaton and Franco & Ciccio!)

I would request that you allow that phrase back in. Thank you very much. Foofbun (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the prompt reply Clarityfiend. Also if it was you who put the Roger Ebert contrasting opinion in on the piece, I thank you; it makes it a balanced article (thought I enjoy RE's 'Big Book of Film Cliche's' I often don't agree with many of his reviews, but who does?) It's no big deal, I just thought it would give Dino a mention (to me not to mention Dino D is like not mentioning Disney or Val Lewton and just calling it 'an American film'). Recalling the war films of the time (I first saw it on its original release) 'The Longest Day' was quite revolutionary (it's still my No 1 fave war film of all time) as strategy (even simplified which is why I have a guilty pleasure in 'The Battle of the Bulge') rarely made it into war films of the 50's and '60s. It's rare you can get a reference from some producer or director admitting 'oh yeah, we copied XXX' the story I previously mentioned about DDL and 'Navajo Joe' was one Burt Reynolds dined out on for years...Hope I haven't rabbited on too muchFoofbun (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Wizard of earthsea

Nice redo! Queenmomcat (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gman Blues Delition.

I recently read your deletion comments about myself (gman Blues) and was astounded that so much time was spent analyzing me and what I've done. Thank you so much! I didn't make the cut but I can agree with your comments; they were reasonable (that is within good reason).

The only point that I would like to clarify is that the author of all the articles with the same name, and me the musician are one in the same. The other hats I wear (carpenter, Studio engineer etc.) were stops along the way. They are all legitimate titles, accomplished skills, and posts that I served on this life's journey. One new title that I find myself adding lately is "excellent sandwich maker" although it doesn't add to my notoriety, it is true that I am guilty of making on heckofa sandwich when I put my mind to it.

I really want to make the cut and be in wiki, but I want it to be REAL and not some social-engineering tactic. I just have to keep doing more notable stuff. I see that I'm referred to as "non-notable musician Gary Wesselhoff". This makes me wonder how far away I am from being notable.

Any guidlines? Any thoughts at all would be most welcome. Thanks again for taking the time to analyze the point of reference where I'm at now.

Hope we can talk again soon

Keep Music Alive and Live! gman Blues

PS. I do like Canadians!

gman (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Day and more

Hey buddy. Happy belated Canada Day...I was made aware of it by an old girlfriend of mine, who now lives in Ottawa. On another matter, I had another distasteful run-in with you can probably guess who. Me, I just try to follow policy --MOS:FILM-- and try keep the film articles I work on as uniform as possible. My contributions to Wiki has been limited these days by my hectic work schedule. Check out my talk page, history section to be specific, because I deleted the ugly rhetoric. Me, I tried to be civil. Never wrote a personal attack, other than to say "follow Wiki policy." I trust you are well.... Oh yes, the articles in question were: The Hitch-Hiker & The Paradine Case. Level-headed SilkTork came in and took care of what I thought were incorrect edits. My best -- ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought I was being paranoid when I had the feeling that people were talking about me behind my back!! It's always good to have my judgment confirmed!

Careful with your rhetoric, though, referring to another editor with the expression "kill the beast" just might be subject to misinterpretation, and you could get a visit from the Politeness Police, who value civility much more highly than they do competence. (grin) Best, Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how is working on two film articles, both of which I had worked on before, "expanding my horizons"? My horizons are what they have always been, and my goals have been the same from edit #1: to improve Wikipedia, to help make it into the best first-choice source of information on the Net, and not to allow the closed-mindedness of lock-step editors prevent the project from evolving, growing, and improving.

"Expanding your horizons" refers to you finding yet another nonstandard use for italics. Whaddaya want? Every time anybody grumbles, should they do it on your talk page? As for civility, civil is as civil does. I don't go around reverting your edits when they are matters of fact, not opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, yet another way to present information to the reader in a way that's clear and comprehensible -- oh my god! WHAT WAS I THINKING!!! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ED, since you let me know in no uncertain terms that I could not post to your talk page, I will state for the record that you are not helpful to the Wiki project. Your attitude makes me ill. I would never tell my friend Rene, who's now an attorney in Ottawa, about my being a Wikipedian. Why? I would be too embarrassed about the load of manure we Wikipedians have to go through at times. Or, she'd laugh of why I bother. My response would be: because: IT MATTERS. And my friends follow policy (for a lack of a better word) to keep Wiki uniform. My friends are the best. Yes, no question, I'm wrong sometimes, maybe, often, and they tell me so, and I comply. "Out of the box," you say. Sure, in education. In fact, I helped write a paper on the question for a graduate political science program, but not on Wiki, unless there is agreement. To be sure, your "bull in the china shop," attitude does not serve you well. -- Luigibob (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lugibob: I asked you not to post to my talk page after trying to get you to discuss the dispute numerous times on your talk page, to which you did not respond. When you did finally respond, it was to say you had no time -- but I noticed you had enough time for other editing, multiple reverts of the disputed edits, and (most tellingly) to run crying to SilkTork to do your dirty work for you. You wouldn't talk to me until SilkTork had come running to your rescue, and by that time I was completely disgusted by your small mindedness, your slavish adherence to so-called "rules" even about the most trivial things, your inability to recognize when something actually improves an article, and your lack of willingness to discuss disputes with another editor. So, yes, you are no longer welcome on my talk page, nor is SilkTork, a good editor whose hypocracy in entering the fray and reverting my edits without discussion - even though he was well aware (since you told him) that there was an active dispute about it - astounds, saddens and depresses me.

Once again, although you won't hear it because it comes from me, I suggest you take a close look at your attitude: "Let's all think out of the box, except not in this particular situation that I care about." Lip service is always easy to give, it's much harder to actually follow through and live your espoused philosophy. I know whereof I speak, since I trumpet rationality, yet I am often motivated by my emotions. It's hard work, sometimes, to get past them and see the facts underneath - sometimes I'm successful, sometimes I'm not, but at least I'm usually aware (although it often happens in retrospect) of what's going on. Maybe you'll develop that facility in yourself, someday. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Hotel Wikipedia

Hey friend. Thx. By the by, If I'm ever doing something wrong on Wiki, please do let me know, because I know you are one heck of an editor and I respect your view point. I trust you are doing well. As for me....this is a busy year trying to get a few qualified folks elected into office (hence my lack of Wiki edits)...let's cheer for the new Canadian Olympic Team...hip..hip.. Also, your comment was brilliant.. eh. I should share w/ my friend Rene (in Ottawa). Best-- Luigibob (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

I appreciate the open dialog and courteus response. Thank you. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Beast edits

Nice work on the recent edits to The Star Beast; much improved. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hah! A fellow minimalist. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in the AfD for the My Fair Lady (2009) film...

...was wonderful. I had a great laugh from it. Kudos!

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AfD: This is Twice Now (album)

Hi Clarityfiend. I noticed you nominated this article for deletion yesterday. Please would you take a look at the comment (more like a question really...) which is under your nom in the article's section at the WP:Articles for Deletion page. Thanks! Plutonium27 (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Planet

They both vanish. It is slightly offscene, but there is no question the Martians disappear each.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Time for the Stars

Greetings Clarityfiend, you've done a nice job with your reworking of Time for the Stars. There is one change that I wanted to discuss with you. I had recently rewritten a portion of the plot summary to read: exploratory spaceships (torchships), but given the distances involved, only near-lightspeed travel is feasible. Your current edit has this as: but only near-lightspeed travel is possible. My main concern is that the use of "possible" reads as if the torchships only travel at the speed of light, whereas "feasible" (defined as: capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are ) and the preceding clause "given the distances involved", allows a more appropriate reading that the torchships must travel close to the speed of light most of the time because of the interstellar distances involved. There may be a less clumsy way to integrate the reference to distance but I believe that feasible (and perhaps the added clause) makes more sense than possible in this situation. A small point perhaps, but it struck me when I read the current version. I look forward to your response. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word feasible implies that FTL travel is possible but somehow impractical at the beginning of the story. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA review for Battle of Incheon

Battle of Incheon has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

(I am informing you of this FAR because of your high number of edits to the Korean War.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady Vanishes

Hello Clarityfiend. I notice that you have made some posts on the 1938 film “The Lady Vanishes”. I have just watched the film on DVD, and was struck by the sparkling and quite racy dialogue (considering when it was made). There is nothing in the Wiki page that reflects this, and I wondered what your view was on some sort of post to this effect. Previously I have had such posts elsewhere deleted as ‘POV’, but it seems to be absurd not to comment on such a delightful script. What do you think? (we had some correspondence about “All at Sea” some time ago)Peter Maggs (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

FYI, I added an image, did some adjustments (lightening, very slight cropping), swapped positions of the three photos, and adjusted sizes. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I give up. Why are you notifying me about this? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were listed as one of the major editors of the article, and I thought you'd like to know, so I told you as a courtesy - nothing more, nothing less. Don't worry, I won't bother in the future. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 07:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCain Quote

"I don't think McCain would like being called a 'Lefty'..." ZING! Nice one. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi, I noticed that you recently gave your vote on the AfD on List of United States presidents by handedness. The article has since then undergone significant changes. This is not an attempt at canvassing, but I would like to ask you to take a second look at the article, to decide if you wish to reconsider your position. Many thanks! Lampman (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andreas_Geremia#Andreas_Geremia

I can see how you think this person doesn't deserve a separate article, but there's options between deleting and keeping the article. Could you return to the nomination and explain why you didn't consider redirecting or merging the content? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquí se hablan IPA

Greetings, Clarityfiend! As I'm a reprobate IPA dropout from waaaaay back who's trying halfheartedly to recover some of my prior fluency,* it occurred to me you might like this gentle guide if you haven't yet tried it. Take your time; it starts falling into place after a while. *Favorite IPA application since graduation: annotating choral lyrics in foreign languages aided by a native speaker, then correcting the pronunciation of my section mates during choir rehearsals. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynafi

Here, you talked about the dynafit system instead of the dynafit-system. I appreciate your help, but it wasn't what I was looking for. Thanks!96.53.149.117 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Clarityfiend/2008