User talk:Clarityfiend/2009

Cleopatra

Many many thanks, you hit the bullseye and I can finally sleep again :-)

Big H'wood extravaganzas, they don't make 'em like they used to anymore!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arjun MBT article...

The flow of the article is much better now. Thanks! By78 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine (disambiguation)

I see you've re-edited this after me. It looks tidier, but you've lost "periodical publication" completely now; was that intended? I was only seeking to put it into it's proper context. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. I hope dis is better. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's pretty much what I'd edited it from. Periodical publication isn't the main meaning of the word; the main meaning is a wharehouse or a store. (That's why the french meaning was added; that's where it comes from, and they still use it}. The publication takes it's name from a "storehouse" of information. So I changed the page in line with that. Are you objecting to me doing that? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the main meaning is the publication, as demonstrated by the main article being about it. Also, as per WP:DAB#Partial title matches, The Gentleman's Magazine should not be included. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(back again!)Well, the dictionary Ive got here (Collins), and Wbster’s [1] and the Wiktionary entry all give storehouse, so if the main article gives periodical publication as the meaning, maybe it’s the main article that’s wrong; perhaps it should be moved to Magazine (publication). How about that? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure that publication is the main meaning, with storehouse as a less common definition. However, if you want, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and see what they think. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I’ve moved this discussion to the article talkpage; perhaps you'd like to take it up there. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome to Hard Times

I apologize about that - I made a bad assumption that the pages listed on your user page were article creations. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easier fix for 10,788 asteroid articles

18-Feb-2009: I have tested an update for Template:Infobox_Planet to show the source footnote as "^[a]" listed at the bottom of the infobox in a new "Notes" section. That will fix all articles (among those 10,788 articles) to stop the red error message "Cite error:...no <references/> tag was found". Thank you for listing that problem at WP:Help_desk. I had been compiling an essay about news, user-surveys and help-pages when I accidentally saw that problem about asteriod articles. Also, I had worked on some of the lists of the 171,000 asteroids (2 years ago), so I knew about the general situation. Changing the template will avoid the need to edit any more of those various 10,788 bot-generated articles.

Please note that it might take the Wikipedia servers more than a week to schedule the auto-formatting of all 10,788 articles: for over 3 months now, Wikipedia no longer instantly reformats all related articles (as was formerly done within minutes) after a template is modified/saved. However, the anticipated results for a particular asteroid-article could be viewed by clicking the "prev" differences of the top revision (under the History-tab) of an article. The diff-page must reformat the article, to display, using the latest revisions of templates in the text coding. The actual "live" article is a canned page, as formatted when Wikipedia last had the need to reformat that article. Eventually, after several days, each canned page will be updated when slowly reformatting all 10,788 (or more) articles using that template. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk, Language: broker

Hi, Clarityfiend. You posted a comment in this section of the RefDesk, regarding the term broker and its translation into Spanish. I confess I can't figure out its meaning. Am I missing an evident pun? Or maybe I'm missing something obvious? Greetings, Pallida  Mors 16:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olorgesailie

Hi Clarityfiend, I nommed your new article at DYK. Add or change anything you like, (oops had to change the date started) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O my darling Clemetine

Your reply was hilarious! --Thomprod (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Next time: If you see a Copyright violation. You put: Remove copyright material copied from (Website)

By the way, it's not a Copyright violation. I did not copy It.

I will help you out.

My Edit is Here

Yahoo Search for word for word Here

Google Search for word for word Here

By--Michael (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on patrolling pages. Please Go to, Wikipedia:Copyright problems. By--Michael (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...let's see now:

IMDb - "Huckleberry Finn, a rambunctious boy adventurer chafing under the bonds of civilization, escapes his humdrum world..."

You - "Huckleberry Finn, a rambunctious boy adventurer chafing under the bonds of civilization, escapes his humdrum world."

IMDb - "Accompanying him is Jim, a slave running away from being sold. Together the two strike a bond of friendship that takes them through harrowing events and thrilling adventures."

You - "Accompanying him is Jim, a slave running away from being sold. Together the two strike a bond of friendship that takes them through harrowing events and thrilling adventures."

OMG, how silly of me. You have a period after "world", whereas the IMDb summary continues on. That makes it 100% all right ... not. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mad at you or anyone else..... Don't worry, OK... So, good job on attempting to remove copyright text from Wikipedia… Good luck to you.--Michael (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Congo region

Hi,
You changed the redirect Congo region (I created recently) to Congo river. But maybe that is not a good idea. I created the page with this in mind: while cleaning up all the ~260 links to Congo (disambiguation), a lot of links to 'Congo' really meant the Congo region, not being bothered by state-borders (artificial, often) and not by current names of the Congo-states (forgotten Cabinda, Angola, should very often be included). E.g. America-slave-related articles say things like "from (the) Congo", being pre-1880. Or: languages and people-related. So: I needed a page that wound describe the geographical region. The first name I could think of is "Congo region". A link here can always be improved by being more specific (states, etc). I also added "R with possibilities", so someone could replace the redirect with an article (probably along the lines I wrote here?).
Now that the redirect is to the Congo River, it is not a region anymore. Also the link does nothing extra, it does not denote a possible article (just check the links there are to that specific link. All 24 recent made & with the region in mind; else of course I would have linked directly to the river). I propose we restore the first redirect, and try to find someone who would like to write an article in there.
Or maybe you see other Possibilities than I do: then I'd like to read it here. Bye, -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm didn't know what the "R with possibilities" meant. By all means, restore it. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody's just created a suitable stub article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All OK now then. Thanx. -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR

Hi. I noted your edit here and appreciate the sentiment. However, "humourous" is incorrect in all spelling variants of English. See User:Spellmaster for details. Best wishes, and thanks for caring about spelling. John (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently rare, but not incourrect, since it shows up in dictionaries. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on this project is that it is rare and also incorrect. What dictionary does it show up in? --John (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hier, heer, and even hear. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are user-created online resources which do not cite any sources, and so are not reliable sources, apart from the first one which cites: "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co." If you can find any more recent "proper" dictionaries which have this spelling, it might well be worth revisiting the consensus that this is a typo. Until then I think the consensus stands. --John (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates on set index articles of lakes named "South Lake"

To help locate the places, please leave coordinates in such pages (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles). -- User:Docu

Have you read the section you linked to? Set index and dab pages are distinct and separate, as stated in the second paragraph. South Lake is a dab page. I suggest you (or I) create a set index page called List of South Lakes. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will set up one for South Lake (and other lakes). It might take a couple of days, as for now, these are all included in dab pages (e.g. Murphy Lake). In the meantime, maybe we could just replace {{geodis}} with {{SIA}} -- User:Docu

Battle of Midway

Thanks! I am not sure what happened. My browser seems to have lost part of the buffer when I undid the prior edit. Jehochman ^Talk 10:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protons

A proton with fuzzy dice would be great! Instead of spin-states of ±½, it would have roll-states of (1,1)...(6,6). DMacks (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh! Einstein might be listening. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivores' flesh indigestible for humans?

Thanks for the swift and informative follow-up. I must say, though: I defy anyone to visit that site you cited and not think right away of the Great Outdoors' answer to Martha Stewart. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Nights (disambiguation)

Thanks for the pointer. Mgreason (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia

Thanks for your work on this. older ≠ wiser 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit "overgrown". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Tempest

Early days at Wikipedia! I haven't gotten around to changing the references to using specific page numbers; right now i'm in the middle of exams so I won't have much time to do anything for the next two weeks. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Why do you create red links for names, titles, etc. that are so obscure they will never have their own articles? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I add redlinks when they are likely to merit articles. Can you provide an example? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful in your pursuit of "clarity"

...as your edit to Walt Disney resulted in an inaccurate statement! Robert K S (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been Goofy when I did that. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'dem darn commas

Before you go much further, April 1, 1939 is correct as is 1 April 1939 (note no commas if the day-month-year protocol is used.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No, habla; punctuation. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parry

No it is correct - D.A.G "George" Parry. Sharp eyes though. Dapi89 (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Rickenbacher

I noticed you have been doing a lot of work on the Eddie Rickenbacher article and I wanted to say thanks. I work a lot on Medal of Honor recipients and outside of the lists there are zero Medal of Honor recipients at featured status and only 4 currently at Good Article Status. I think this article is very close to being at GA status and I would like to help. Before I do though I wanted to drop you a line so that we are not stepping over each others edits. I already made 1 edit before I noticed that you have been working on hit heavily the last couple days. I was going to add in some inline citations, restructure the honors section a bit as well as adding some more info to it, add a table displaying his ribbons and A table with his confirmed victories if that is alriht with you. --Kumioko (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. I've just finished reading his autobiography and will probably be getting another book about him by somebody else to get a different view, so I won't be making significant edits to the article for a while. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H*Commerce article following your edits

Hi Clarityfiend, I noticed that last week you helped clean up the article about the film series currently in my userspace, I presume based on my discussion with Collectonian last week. Thank you for that. Do you think, with your edits, it's ready for moving into the mainspace? If you have any pointers on what to do next, I would appreciate them, or if you think it's OK to move, please let me know. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed a problem in the synopsis. It's partly in the past tense and partly in the present. I'm not sure which is appropriate (I'll ask at Wikiproject Film). Other than that, it looks fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking for this information just now, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines seemed to be the right place. However, the "Plot" section there did not contain any details about preferred tense, and the only part dealing with documentaries was about how to discuss criticism. In any case, thanks for your help, and I'll check back again later. NMS Bill (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help again on this. Do you think it is OK if I move it into the mainspace as it is now? Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kournikova

You might want to readdress where it says under personal life that she's married. Just found this article published on July 6, 2009, by the Associated Press: [2]

Rwils (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Herders

Thanks for the answer: "Something that isn't out yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)" Scifiintel (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Strada

Thanks for taking a look at La Strada. I look forward to working with you to fix up the site of a cinematic pinnacle. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's really accurate where we say that Zampano uses cruelty to train her as his assistant. Isn't that some kind of inference that would qualify as OR? I'm going to try to review the sequence. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrada of Laon

Re: Bertrade of Laon. What I mean is that we really have no good idea of what year she was born. It was between those years, but we don't have any way to pin it down better than that. You're welcome to try to come up with a better way of expressing it if you wish. Wjhonson (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin

Wikipedia shouldn't be a burocreacy, right? Your swiftness to delete my edit is not fair, to say the least. And also as burocreacy it is stated that: Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.).

As always, strangely enough, a recomandation became a comandament. Wikipedia is perhaps endangered if the plot raises to 1000 words? Is written 'must' be between? I'd say NOT. So i don't accept your censor. Sorry, your rules even consider that this limits is superable if there is the need. And in this case the need should be. And finally, forgive me, but it's more and more ridicolous that movie has this limit, while there are articles longer than 100 kb and not necessarly with a extreme need to do it. Expecially if there are 837 words, just slighty than the max recommended, we are not talking about 8.450 words. But to make you happy i'll cut it shorter, so we will see if the problem are the rules or to forbid to me to editing at all (it is not the first time.. what is became wikipedia?). Regards--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does swiftness have to do with it? The fact is, I found your additions to be overly detailed and about minor plot elements. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unformatted link at the bottom of "The Real Glory" page has lots of useful stuff

I was planning to build this up, so thanks for the plot summary. I might take the liberty of editing it slightly, but it's good work. You might find lots of details, especially those linking the film to the conflict, in the unformatted link at the bottom of the list. Good luck! BusterD (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've since formatted and built up the references. I'm going to build this, feel free to jump in. BusterD (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had moved Moro Rebellion to See also because the movie really doesn't have anything to do with it, but I can live with it being a "backdrop". (See also's are discouraged?! Do you have a link to the guideline or policy?) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Catapult

Greetings, In the last pages of Heinlein's "Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" the text mentions that two catapults have been built on Earth, A Chinese catapult in Tibet and another using Mt Kilimanjaro. cheers, -- Rydra Wong (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're Wong, Wong I tell you! [jk] (It's been a while since I read the book, so I phrased it so it works in either case. You can change it back if you like.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAB

Hi! It's my intent that this discussion be separate, but it was sparked by the conversation you began on my talk page, and I thought you'd be particularly prepared to dialogue with me as a member of the dab wikiproject. I realise that dab pages aren't search indices, but I've always been puzzled by the fact that a search brings up an article rather than a search index. If dab pages can't produce indices for searchers, then users need to be extremely precise when looking for something. I run into this problem all the time and it's such a hassle to search, discover that you can't find what you want because what you searched for comes up with a different article or a dab page, which is limited as to its content, and then use a separate search function to find what I need. It doesn't seem very user-friendly to me. I already have an inkling that you're an exclusionist (and I'm usually not an inclusionist, either, though I might seem like one today), but I would very much like to hear your thoughts. Cheers! --King of the Arverni (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Tierney

I will find a way to integrate the Premiere Magazine's link into the article, the magazine was a well respected and known weekly and is still published in France.JGG59 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere may or may not be a notable publication, but its ranking of stars? I don't think so. Somebody recently commented that magazines come up with lists just to boost their circulation. Very few are worth mentioning. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Lake

I found and am sourcing some much better assertions of notability. The aleged connection to Hearst is only an interesting by-product. Lake was a major player in the Golden Age of Radio. She was part of an institution when for 5 years played Blondie in the old-time radio show Blondie, opposite her real-life husband Arthur Lake who voiced Dagwood Bumstead.[3][4]. Now that the light is on, care to lend a hand? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blondie might be enough. I'll have to think it over. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... and the article will be continually improved as you consider. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Her alleged parentage might have caused initial press certainly, and yes... being part of the Hearst entourage gave her continued coverage. But it was being part of that clic that got her connected to the various social and entertainment circles that led to her career in pre-50s stage, film, and radio. I discovered all this (and more yet to be added) because of your inciteful question as to what makes an actor. Quite a nice question, actually. In agreement, appearing as oneself does not make an actor. But it gave me pause for thought and caused me to research further to find out just why it was she was asked to be "herself"... creating a fun little treasure hunt, and one with more gold forthcoming. If seen only as only the wife of Arthur Lake, her notability might have been seen as inherited... but as an accomplished actress in film and radio, she created a seperate and yet related notability... like Gracie Allen had with real-life husband George Burns. And as a matter of fact, the Allen article will be a good template for the rewriting of the Lake article. Take a look and you'll see some suprising similarities. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tweaks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good job saving the article BTW. (I've notified IMDb about their duplicate entries.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Man

A film released in a presidential election year about a fictional presidential election is related to the actual presidential election. How could WP:OR apply to a See also section? It's just links. 96.255.252.189 (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a connection between a fictional election and a real one. Maybe there is one, but you have to show that WP:Reliable sources consider it so. Otherwise, it's just your thesis. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of Mole

Is it not the purpose of the disambiguation page "mole" to distinguish one animal commonly called "mole" from another? Please undo your deletion of my contibution. Chrisrus (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody is looking for Mole, they get the main article, which lists the entries you want to put on the dab page. So what is the point of duplicating these links on a page they would normally get to from a page that already has them? Take a look at Bear (disambiguation). It doesn't list Polar bear, Grizzly bear, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to help the reader find the moles they are looking for more simply and easily. Your example is bad and betrays you don't understand. Polar bears and grizzly bears really are bears and should be a part of the article on bears and do not need to be distinguished from true bears. Golden and Marsupial moles, on the other hand, aren't true moles, but other animals which also are called "moles" in thier countries but have nothing to do with Talpidae moles or the subject of that article. Talpidae moles are not the only animals commonly known as moles. A reader who finds the article "mole" finds that it is not about australian moles or south african moles at all, and barely mentions them. Chrisrus (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Bear (disambiguation) doesn't list Koala bear either, and that isn't a real bear. Second, if "the purpose of the disambiguation page 'mole' [is] to distinguish one animal commonly called 'mole' from another", why wouldn't we list real moles along with non-moles? Links like those would clutter up a dab page. IMO, such details belong elsewhere. The fact that they're barely mentioned in the main article is irrelevant. They are linked there. If you want to make them more prominent there, be my guest. Still not convinced? Then I suggest we take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, if the Bear disambig doesn’t list “koala bear”, that might be because the authors thought, as I do, that there really isn’t really much chance that someone would confuse them; that it isn’t a real problem for readers. This is not the case with golden moles and talpidae moles, which have been confused very often for a very long time.

Second, we do in fact list the “real” (talpidae) as the first listing, so I have no idea what you’re talking about when you ask why we don’t list the real moles along with the non-moles.

Third, if you want to remove some clutter from the mole disabig page, you can find it further down.

Fourth, the only reason that non-moles are briefly mentioned at the end of the article is because there is a lot of confusion between African and Australian sand moles and true moles, only delineating the need for the disambiguation. What I have done helps with this problem as well.

Finally, I see no reason to continue this anywhere, unless you do it again. Chrisrus (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to post it at the project talk page. Whether you participate or not is up to you. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the last section of the Mole discussion/talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Museum

Four sources, including Mort Walker's own site, say it was in Greenwich, so I changed. Pepso2 (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I distinctly remember checking out where the address (which I can't find now) was, but maybe it was for the storage place. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Found address, moved to article talk page.[reply]

Okay... I'll fix. Thanks. Pepso2 (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be safe, I've sent a inquiry to Walker's site. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Sir in article name

I moved them as I noticed that there are many "Sirs" listed on Wikipedia (examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Richard_Newdigate,_1st_Baronet and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Alexander_Cockburn,_12th_Baronet etc.) but if you feel this is contrary to Wikipedia's protocol then by all means feel free move them back. Yourfriend1 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iliad

Hi there. I noticed you've been involved, to a greater or lesser extent (yes, this is a form message), on the Iliad article. I'm planning a bit of a reorganisation, and would appreciate any thoughts on the talk page (topic is at or near the bottom). Cheers! --Quadalpha (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent changes!

Thanks for your recent edits!! - Did you know that there are over 40 edits (just in the english wikipedia) on each minute? 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Casablanca

I am not clear as to what you meant by your edit summary. Can you explain, please? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is already fairly long, close to 900 words. I ask myself, are these details necessary for an appreciation of the plot? IMO, the answer is no. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense, thank you. I reworded what had been added, but you are correct, it was not necessary. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patton and Caligula

Thanks for noticing that odd bit in Patton (film). Would you mind chiming in on the thread I started at Talk:Patton_(film)#"Inaccuracies" section, just so we have our bases covered? Ibadibam (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fugitive twilight zone episode

Hi!

I added a line to the end of the article about the twilight zone episode "The Fugitive".. it said that the identity of the young man in the photo was Bill Clark, who graduated from University High School in 1960.

I understand the need to verify this, and am more than willing to send a copy of the page from the yearbook that includes his picture if you wish. I don't see anywhere to attach it (your needed proof). I know it's not a big thing, but it does answer the "There has been much speculation about the identity of the uncredited man in the photo." question.

MarilynMizmarilyn (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the yearbook would fall under WP:PRIMARY. In my opinion, the best place for this info is on the article's talk page. You could also try asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Casablanca, Jack Warner and "onkel"

Hi. I've been mulling over your message for some days now, but I'm afraid I'm none the wiser. What does it mean? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some months ago, you wondered why I was so picky as to take out Ilsa being Norwegian. Looking back on it, I have to ask myself what I was thinking. In any case, I found a source that has Jack Warner confirming it. Onkel is Norwegian for uncle, no? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I know no Norwegian, so I can't confirm either way. Pardon my obtuseness, but what do uncles have to do with the issue? There's obviously still something really basic I'm missing here. Sorry. I'm in holiday mode so maybe my brain's gone on vacation. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have this idiom down there? I was just conceding the point. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]