User talk:WickerGuy/Archive1

Potential conflicts of interest

Hi. Please be sure to read WP:COI, Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. I would hate for somebody to challenge your contributions to Wikipedia because of a perceived conflict of interest. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Malik. I did indeed read the Conflicts of Interest page, and elected to just do a very short summary of "Left Hand" instead of the one and a half page detailed analysis I had originally planned. This is my 'compromise' with the COI policy. Basically, I just wanted to get some Wiki entry into existence. A more detailed summary I think most definitely WOULD be a conflict of interest as my current job for Michael Lerner is to help develop the forthcoming Study Guide for the book "Left Hand of God". WickerGuy 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. If you're ever in doubt about whether something might be perceived as a conflict, put it on the article's Talk page and let other editors review it. Please feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Good luck with the Study Guide. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hello WickerGuy. The main problem with your edit was that you made it at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this encyclopedia requires verifiable outside sources - see WP:CITE - for an entry like yours. If you can find a book or website by a known Kubrick scholar (I mention this because blogs that might mention this usually don't count) then you can cite it and the entry can be made. If you can't the entry falls under the wikipedia policy of "No Original Research" - see WP:OR - which basically means that you are using your knowledge and opinion (more about this later) to make your entry.

Please don't let this put you off using this knowledge of SK's reuse of actors somewhere. They're are other wikis (some of which allow original research) or blogs or message boards (like IMDb) where you can put this out there for others to learn about.

The one other thing that I want to mention is that SK reusing actors may bump into a couple of things where other SK scholars and fans may disagree with you. In the first place it isn't unique to Stanley as many directors reuse actors that they like. John Ford and Akira Kurosawa used the same actors many more times than Kubrick. I think that the biggest thing that you would bump up against is the fact that on several of the commentaries and documentaries that have been included on the recent DVD releases of Stanley's films it is mentioned several times (most notably by Malcolm McDowell) about how exhausting it was to work for Kubrick and how most actors only had one SK film in them. While there were several who did two only Philip Stone did three and his screen time is mininal in two of them.

Now please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to start an argument over this point. I am just trying to give you a few things that are pitfalls about editing here and yes it does take some of the fun out working here.

As one more note - I appreciate your knowledge of, and looking for reoccuring actors in film. I love seeing some of my favorite British actors in both films and TV. As an example I recently got to see the very first episode of The Avengers. It originally aired in 1961. Sadly, only the first 15 minutes of it exist but I was amazed to see Godfrey Quigley, Murray Melvin and the aforementioned Philip Stone in this episode. I hope that you will appreciate the fact that I recognized right away that they all appeared in Barry Lyndon over a decade later.

I freely offer my apologies if any of this has offended you as that was not my intention. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lolita

Hi, thanks for adding those sources! I am not really sure what the accessdate parameter means to other people; I generally put it in because it makes it more obvious that on such-and-such a day, somebody actually looked at the source. It also makes the reference look better if the link itself goes down or something. Which I don't think is a problem with the NYT, but other web sources more likely. EAE (Holla!) 01:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello...I'm Luigibob. Nice edits on Lollita re "Differences between the film and the book". Super film, no? Best -- Luigibob (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh

FYI. Ty 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, as you suggested. Ty 13:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Names of spaceships in 2001

Hi there: Sailorlula here responding to your note. For years now, the general rule of thumb we've been following for plot/synopsis portions of the 2001/film article is simple and strict: if it ain't in the film, it doesn't belong in the article. WRT the scripts, you could find all manner of references in the various script fragments, both real and fabricated, that are floating around the web. Since even the genuine fragments of the script vary wildly from the final film, and since Kubrick was cutting and jettisoning frames of the film up to and after the premiere, that really doesn't amount to much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailorlula (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi. Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You may want to consider discussing the issue of spelling on the article's Talk page before you start Americanizing it. Just a suggestion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Remakes

These three films are not considered remakes of Kubrick's films. There was no attempt to emulate his filmic or storytelling style. They are completely different takes on the source material, none of which Kubrick wrote. The Dumas novel The Three Musketeers has been adapted into films on numerous occasions and none of them are considered remakes of the first silent version or of each other. Peter Jackson's King Kong is considered a remake because a) the source material for his film is the original Cooper film and b) numerous scenes copy, enhance or pay tribute to the 1933 film. Please also be aware that that some of your entries are still Original Research. I have let some of them go though others have not. Also be aware that IMDb is not considered a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes. I am not trying to stop you from editing. The alternative versions could be mentioned on the pages for the three books involved. There are also numerous places on the web that you can share your enjoyment and knowledge of Kubrick's films including other wiki's that do not have Wikipedia's more stringent guidelines. MarnetteD | Talk 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

2001

I appreciate your polite note regarding my edits to the article but I believe if you read the archives and look at my most recent edit summary you'll understand my reasoning. I believe you should attempt to expand the "Music" section with properly sourced references instead of simply inserting into the narrative details about what music is used in specific sequences. Also, some of your additions seem like critical interpretation/opinion rather than plot details. I do agree with you that one of my edits was a tad hasty and inadvertently removed an important mention of the waterhole. However, I also agree with you that your version was sloppily written. Any good faith attempts to improve the article are much appreciated -- you should have seen how truly horrible the "Plot" section was a year or so ago! If you'd like to further discuss this, please add more comments on my talk page.-Hal Raglan (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lists

Hi. I'm not too familiar with the style guidelines concerning lists, but the changes you've been making look like they're big improvements. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDb trivia

One of the criteria for verifiable and reliable sources is that they cannot be another wiki since anyone can edit them. IMDb is considered a wiki by wikipedia (though I know that there can be some argument about that). The main flaw with IMDb's trivia sections is that, in spite of the fact that you have to submit your item for approval, they do not have very rigorous standards for the people that are doing the vetting of the items. The best discussion about this that I can find is here [1] from several months ago at the filmproject talk page. It is a bit of a lengthy thread - somewhere in it Ed Fitzgerald points out that IMDb might be a good place to start but it should always be backed up by other sources. In my opinion (POV I know) you are so good at finding other reliable sources that I think that you should always go with citing them and skip trying to use IMDb. MarnetteD | Talk 20:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


AfD nomination of List of James Bond films with synopses

I have nominated List of James Bond films with synopses, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond films with synopses. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Lithoderm (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Lithoderm (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad that this seems to have turned out well for you. Lithoderm (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

James Bond

Thanks for your kind message, much appreciated. I noted in Talk: James Bond (film series) that there is a discussion re. the length of the plot summaries. I agree that the complex plots of certain of the films do present problems. With regard to The Living Daylights, how about this for the first sentence: "Bond teams up with a female cellist when it transpires she is not the (fictitious) Russian spy he was assigned to kill." As it reads at the moment there is some ambiguity, as she's not impersonating a cellist as well — she is one (or she certainly is by the end of the film)! IMO, ideally, each summary should be just one sentence. Any screenwriting guide will tell you that 99% of films can be summed up in this way: protagonist must overcome obstacles to achieve goal. Example: "Bond is pitted against a crazed industrialist to stop him from destroying Silicon Valley." However, for that to happen some of these would have to be pared to the bone and admittedly some of them don't lend themselves to it. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think what we have now is a good compromise. Unless there are any obvious fixes, I'll leave it as it is and keep an eye on any expansion. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I sometimes see further trims after I've hit the 'save page' button! :-)

"Death-defying" is a very overused journalistic phrase. Stunts are by definition "death-defying" as the job of any stunt coordinator is to ensure that no harm comes to any of the stunt performers. There is always a risk but since they are ultimately providing an entertainment, that risk is minimised so far as is possible. Sorry if you disagree with my edit but I just felt that the description was a little too clichéd. How about 'spectacular' as an alternative, since they certainly provide spectacle? :-) Chris 42 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked my watchlist first! Yes, the current wording is fine. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Arturo Bandini

Hello WG. My apologies for the lateness of my reply. It wasn't until I received my film project newsletter today that I realized that I had not responded to your message. It looks like AB is leaving Kubrick alone. I haven't taken the time to find out if he/she has moved on to other areas of wikipedia adding OR yet. I will try to do so if I get a chance but at least they aren't causing headaches in our area at the moment. Cheers and enjoy the new Bond film when it comes out. MarnetteD | Talk 14:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:FullMetalJacketUrbanWar.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FullMetalJacketUrbanWar.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

'The Shining' and Kate Bush

Hi, W. I've just stumbled upon your latest edit to The Shining (film version). As a Kate Bush fan I always thought that her song Get Out of My House was inspired by the novel, not necessarily the movie, though there's always the chance that you've found evidence to the contrary. Thoughts? -- DropShadow (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the song came out about two years after the movie. However, in an interview at "www.paradiseplace.org.uk/Kate/Katep15.htm" she does cite mainly the book, as she does in http://gaffa.org/garden/kate14.html. So you might have a point there.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC) PS. Two other wikipedia articles attribute her song to the film. But they don't cite direct evidence either. Think I may need to change this.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just one of those very minor points. I'd like to think she's seen the film, and been affected by it so much as to influence her music - but alas! I don't know if you've heard the song, but it's obvious that the novel is only an "influence" ........ there's actually nothing of the book (or film) in there at all. -- DropShadow (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Film Barnstar

The WikiProject Films Award
I noticed you've done a lot of work on film-related articles; so, I thought I'd award you The Film Barnstar. Good job! -- Luke4545 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote Liesl from the Sound of Music (in a less romantic context)
"Wheeeeeeeee!"
--WickerGuy (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:QMontage.JPG)

You've uploaded File:QMontage.JPG, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

Having 15 fair use photos on this page is inappropriate. It might be appropriate to use some of the images on the respective articles on the movies themselves. On this page about Kubrick, it's massive overuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A two-part reply
1. General defense of more photoes for Kubrick article.

Kubrick is one of the most visually distinctive directors of our time (he having begun life as a still photographer) as opposed to some other directors who are better known for creating great acting performances or gripping social commentary. As such, a very liberal use of photoes appears in a lot of other published work on Kubrick, moreso than books on other major directors. There are three entire books: "Stanley Kubrick, Director: A Visual Analysis" by Alexander Walker and "Stanley Kubrick: Visual Poet 1928-1999 (Basic Film)" by Paul Duncan and "Stanley Kubrick, Director: A Visual Analysis" by Alexander Walker which contain frame-by-frame analyses of scenes from his work. And another more literary study "Kubrick: The Definitive Edition by Michel Ciment" is jammed with 400 photoes discussing Kubrick's style. And four photoes from his films appear merely on the cover of Vincent LoBrutto's general bio of Kubrick. To my knowledge only Hitchcock has been subjected to such intense visual scrutiny in printed books (and perhaps the specific film "Citizen Kane").

2. If Photoes must go

I'm not sure if there is any specific upper limit, but if photoes must go, three of my top four candidates would be the photoes accompanying Spartacus, Lolita, and Eyes Wide Shut. The first (at best) communicates info about Kubrick's relationship, not his directing. And the other two have more to do with plot elements of the film that provoked controversy or speculation rather than Kubrick's distinctive visual style (although you let stand the "Lolita" photo on your week-ago purge of photoes in the article). Finally, the third or three photoes down way below in the "Trademarks" session showing instances of CRM-114 might be a candidate for removal. I feel all of the other photoes communicate info about Kubrick's film construction technique sufficiently to warrant inclusion.

On the other side of the spectrum, top candidates for inclusion would be the Stedicam shot in The Shining, the photoes accompanying Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket- both showing Kubrick's cinematographic approach to war, and the photoes for 2001 and A Clockwork Orange showing the contrasting approach to using music in those films, and the Barry Lyndon shot re the candlelight.

P.S. Your user page is disarmingly funny. --WickerGuy (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Change of mind

On second thought, I think the clearer candidate for deletion would be the photo accompanying Clockwork Orange as it the caption is about the use of music in the film (in contrast to how music is used in 2001). The Lolita image nicely illustrates what is a source of controversy in the film, and I think now should be retained. Perhaps we need only one image showing how Kubrick photographed war instead of two, so that would nix the Full Metal Jacket image. I remain ambivalent about the Spartacus image since it does (very indirectly) illustrate a point about Kubrick's relationship with Douglas.

So now my top candidates for deletion (if any) would be the photoes accompanying Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, and Spartacus. --WickerGuy (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Also, as excellent a picture choice as it is, the film The Killing is a relatively minor work of Kubrick, so that would be choice #4.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply re Narnia

Thanks for the note, and thanks for supplying article content. Interesting sections tend to show lots of tread marks; I figured the time had come to reset the prose. It took a while to come up with a relatively concise heading, though: my early attempts tended to run onto two lines. Elphion (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: added refs to Trek section you recently tagged.

Thanks for letting me know of the changes - you have no idea how much that sort of little note is appreciated, WickerGuy. :)
To begin with, while I looked at the Star Trek sources you provided, I am concerned that the ones from startrek,com don't have authors. We don't know the provenance of the stories, and I am not sure that the general reliability of the site is good enough to take citations from. It would be awesome if there were references from outside the biased Trek community.
I am also concerned with the use of episodes to make points; its on the wrong side of the line between citing sources and making our own connections. This is also called synthesis. I think the article would be much stronger if we were able to find sources external of the episodes themselves and websites dedicated to the minutiae of Trek. In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am in fact an old-school Trekkie, and agree with most of your points. However, the article isn't written for us but for the casual reader. We want to find sources that they can find compelling and objectively neutral. To that end, there have been literally dozens of books dedicated to analyzing each and every episode of Star Trek in all of its incarnations - there must be ones that we can cite that make these connections, as we are not allowed to. Books are eminently more compelling a resource for citations, as their content does not disappear, as can happen with websites. News stories (be they on the web or in print) are preferable to a biased forum presented by Paramount; put in another way, who trusts Bush to give the full record on his own presidency, or a bank to give an account of every banking error it has made? Independent sources are much better, I think. I hope you think so, too.
On a last note, I think you might want to check out from your library the book "What Star Trek Means". It addresses a lot of your concerns. I'd do so myself, but I just finished moving into a new condo, and my books are stacked 5 deep along the walls; it will be a while before my bookshelves are occupied. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand where you are coming from, which is why I didn't revert the edit - I know you are thinking long-term, and not acting out oif immediacy. However, those citations should probably get replaced. If you need some help, I was planning on stopping by the library this weekend. I can look for some citations via the periodical database.
On a side note, are you aware of any sort of citable reference as to how the phaser evolved from a handgun-type to a wand-type? I recall reading somewhere that they were looking for something notably less-raygun looking, but I cannot seem to find it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Narnia talk

Your response [2] is right on target. Watch the civility in the edit summary though. Good faith, and all that. Cheers, Elphion (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to justify -- I agree completely with the reversion and with the analysis in your talk note, which is fair, accurate, and just (as your edits usually are). But the force of your argument will be diluted by the, um, frankness in the edit summary. All I'm saying is, things work better if we keep the discussion civil. Elphion (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Films? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Inter-series home video anthologies

Sorry about your section getting cut out. I put it on the talk page, however so others can debate the merits of keeping or removing it. Oldag07 (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling it needed more surrounding context to survive. But you made a good case that the surrounding context didn't belong there. Yet without the context it seems somewhat trivial. A Catch-22. It's a sort of orphaned concept given the current WP:Trek structure. DVDs need to be discussed with articles on individual series, but those DVDs bridge series, etc. Thanks. We'll see if another solution emerges.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

Hey, EXCELLENT images you posted on the Stanley Kubrick article. I've visited the Stanley Kubrick page on Wikipedia from time to time and was amazed at how it's been so wonderfully refined over the months. You've really bestowed the article a massive improvement as an in-depth and relevant analysis of Kubrick's filming techniques and style. Your efforts were obviously a labor of love and I would just like to commend you for the undertaking! WACGuy (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That James Bond page looks really good with the images. Good work! WACGuy (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

English usage

Thank you for your note. As to the first-person plural in this case, here's what Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:MOS) says: Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person's opinions or experiences; thus, the pronoun "I" is never used, except when it appears in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the pronoun "we"; a sentence such as "We should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal" sounds more personal than encyclopedic. As with any rule there are exceptions, but I do not believe that the examples in the Clark Kent article meet the criteria for exceptions. Additionally, the encyclopedia you cite, at least from the examples you provided, seems to be more of a teaching tool than general encyclopedia, and thus there is a common and natural collegial aspect to the writing, a teacher-to-his-students quality that does not apply to Wikipedia. I believe that, in any event, the WP Manual of Style does not confirm your position in the current instance.

As to the possessive form of Reeves's name, WP:MOS accepts the fact that there are two generally recognized means of forming the possessive of a proper name ending in "s". However, it emphasizes that making a possessive of a name ending in "s" by adding only an apostrophe is "more common for biblical and classical names (Socrates' wife; Moses' ascent of Sinai; Jesus' last words)." Also, there is a considerable evidence to suggest that American and British English differ on this matter in what is most commonly taught. Also, as per the Manual of Style, the articles must be consistent, and this article was not at all consistent in this matter. Finally, the most prominent style manuals available in the U.S., Strunk & White's Elements of Style and the Chicago Manual of Style support the use of 's at the end of all proper names, whether ending in "s" or not.

I believe my edits are more consistent with Wikipedia policy and with standard American English usage, which of course should prevail in an article on an American topic (also as per WP:MOS). Thanks for your message in explanation of your reversions. I will wait to hear from you before making any reversions of my own. Cheers. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

James Bond film series GAR notification

James Bond film series has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (novel)

Hi, I think you are reading that section wrong. The mission was originally planned to go to Jupiter but was changed to Saturn after the discovery of the monolith and it's message to Saturn. Garion96 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Blake

Hello. Thanks for your message. I do not doubt that Blake may have influenced the authors that were added to the infobox, but this influence has to be discussed somewhere in the article. Some biographical articles have references in the infobox for every name that is listed as influenced/influenced by (see, for example, William Gibson), but others do not. At some point, there has to be a limit to how many names can be listed, and we should stick only with those who are of great importance. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reversion of Kubrick Edits

To WickerGuy, First of all, thank you for informing me about the reversion of the edits and your reasons for doing so. My reasons for most of my edits and removals is that the article feels in several places too reverential, such as in the Tarantino reference and captions for images such as Paths of Glory as being anti-war before it was "popular", and ruins the objectivity we should be going for. There is also too much reference to the plots of the movies or trivia surrounding their production, which clutters the summarization and is better suited to the film pages.

Shall perhaps attempt further edits in future, especially in the incomplete projects section that has plenty of information but runs far too long. Thanks again Ode2joy (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)