User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 40

Goodfellas

I notice you recently recently reverted my edit of adding Category:Films about race and ethnicity to Goodfellas, saying it is an inaccurate category. I believe it is in fact and accurate category as the film has some fairly prominent ethnic and religious themes; for example Henry and Jimmy can never made made men because or their Irish heritage, and Henry must pretend to be Jewish in order to marry Karen.

Thanks, Shaolin Punk (talk) 1:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, but the issue should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Popeye (film)

Not sure why you deleted an addition of a Metacritic score to this film? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to go back and look at the article history, as I cannot honestly remember this. Thanks for the message. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. The score was added by an IP (I think) and lacking a citation, but even I normally won't even tag something that can be so easily fixed by an editor with a couple of minutes to spare. :) DonIago (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no explanation for that edit. Maybe I was drunk? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us! Being drunk, I mean. :p DonIago (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Uncle Buck

Please answer the note on the talk page of this article. Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of reverted "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres" to "The Sting"

There is relevance of revision 783892589 of "The Sting" (addition of See Also "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres"), which you reverted. It's in the reference in the Shady Deal at Sunny Acres page:

 "... the first half of it [The Sting] is 'Shady Deal at Sunny Acres'!"

So perhaps the reversion should be undone, perhaps with the addition of "(plot similarities)".

BMJ-pdx (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

+Pictures

The billing block says "Warner Bros. Pictures presents", that's all I was citing. I would prefer that it be used. Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 12:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"not an improvement"?

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment of my edit as a whole. Specifically, there are some spots in the previous version that I think read very poorly. "These last two band members, who now run a soul food restaurant, rejoin the band against the advice of one's wife." is a pretty poor sentence. "The band stumbles into a gig" may be concise, but not very accurate. "After her volley of M16 rifle bullets leaves them miraculously unharmed" is also fairly poor, grammatically speaking. Maybe some of my other choices were unnecessary, and I realize it's easier to revert wholesale rather than pick and choose, but I do think the plot needs some work. I'll leave it to someone else next time. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd have to agree with TheOldJacobite; your edit was not an improvement and actually made things less clear. There was nothing wrong with the text as it previously existed, and it was more informative. The article has Good Article status and there's no reason to re-write the Plot. Softlavender (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll accept the opinions of two experienced editors, but I'm going to have to ignore the plot section, then, because some of those wording choices just seem really awkward to me. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for piping in, Softlavender. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Home Alone

Look at the talk page of Home Alone, regarding Larry Hankin on that movie. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Suggest you stay "semi-retired" if you cannot leave messages politely. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 15:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gareth. I really have nothing to add. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Schindler's List

Hi, can you check your edit to the above - the quote was made in German, not in English and the normal past participle of the verb broadcast is broadcast (OUP)? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The Exorcist

May I ask why you chose to remove my source for the "spider walk" special effect reference? There wasn't one provided, so I backed up the claims. Right now there are no sources provided. I was trying to rectify that.Partyclams (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Tom Waits

Can you please discuss our dispute with me on the article talk page? The three sources I provided call Waits a bluesman. I can easily find more, but isn't this evidence enough that the blues has been considered essential to his sound rather than just one aspect of it? Let me remind you that this sourcing is far better than what you have provided for rock and experimental music; nothing. You have not engaged in discussion since claiming that "he has explored experimentation with multiple genres, but always in a rock idiom. Rock and experimental define the majority of his music better than folk, blues, or jazz." What evidence do you offer to back this? Also please explain your reverts on Mule Variations on Bone Machine, I do not know what you are saying was "refuted on talk page".--MASHAUNIX 15:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS discussion about production section

I'm attempting to start up a discussion about changing the MOS wording in hopes of improving production sections. You can find the discussion here --Deathawk (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The Pogues

Hello TheOldJacobite. I have started a discussion on the Pogues talk page in response to your removal of the word "British" from the opening sentence of the article. With at least three British band members and having formed in London, it is hard to see how "Irish" is a more accurate description than "IRish-British". I would welcome your contribution to this discussion. Thank you. Peteinterpol (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the word because it was added by an anon. who gave no explanation. I find such edits troubling, to say the least. It has said simply "Irish" for a long time, and, if one is going to change it, they should give a reason. That said, I have no objection to a discussion and look forward to reaching a consensus. Thanks for your message. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks TheOldJacobite. I see we are on the same page in terms of seeking a discussion and consensus on this. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Themes in Blade Runner

I am confused by your revert of my edit to Themes in Blade Runner. The reason you gave was the article was about the original film, not the sequel. Most of my edits were not about the sequel. Isn't it a bit drastic to revert the whole edit? Also, the views of Denis Villeneuve on the matter are probably relevant since he undoubtedly discussed it with many of people involved in the original production.--TimSC (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything you added derives from the second film – ideas and revelations that are not in the first film and could not have been known at the time. Hence, they are not relevant. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• On daydreams being different to memories, my reference predates the sequel, so the ideas were already in circulation. If these ideas are in the sequel, that is a coincidence since I've not actually seen it. (Please no spoilers for a few more days!)
• I've added evidence that corrects the misleading statement that Ford has changed his mind on the issue. That is certainly relevant. Just because it is recent evidence does not change that.
• Probably the most contentious addition(?) was the Villeneuve quote. In context it is: "I know Hampton believes [Deckard’s] human, and Harrison believe he’s human ... I went to see the film with Ridley when it was playing in London on Imax and after it ended, he turned to me and said, ‘See, now you know that he’s a replicant,'... I said, ‘OK, Ridley, it’s your film, you can think whatever you want.' ... But as a fan of the original film I enjoyed the ambiguity and I did not want to ruin the mystery for fans." [1] His view is relevant because of his connection to the sequel but he is clearly discussing the first film. The statement "I did not want to ruin the mystery for fans" is primary about the sequel but does show his view on the issue under discussion. Perhaps a different part of the quote might be better to include. Why specifically do you think this is not relevant?
• "because he has fallen asleep" That is obvious from watching the original film but I'm still not very happy with wording. --TimSC (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
• I just watched the sequel. Daydreams being distinct from implanted memories is not mentioned in the movie. I planned to continue editing the article (once I get time) since there are other themes that are not discussed. --TimSC (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Tears in rain monologue

Hello - I have made some comments at the link below on the Tears in rain monologue and the appropriateness of its inclusion in the Death in fiction category. Please feel free to comment. Also, I want to make sure not to give the impression that because I have a different view on this aspect of the article that I do not appreciate the work that I see you have done on this and other Blade Runner-related material in WP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tears_in_rain_monologue#Addition_to_Category:Death_in_fiction

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello! Why my edits were reverted? Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Because they were not helpful, as I stated in my edit summary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

But many films have such descriptions in the first paragraph, for example Gladiator (2000 film), The Dark Knight (film), Titanic (1997 film), Mother! etc Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Beetlejuice

I saw that you reverted a bunch of edits to the Beetlejuice article, including some made by me. I put one back in place, and that is the word "counterproductive". Though I was pretty certain it is one word, not two, I googled it for good measure and the results confirmed by suspicions. That was the only edit I put back in, and I wanted to see if you concur with that. Shaneymike (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry I overlooked that. Thanks for fixing it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Vsmith9 (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC to change film MOS

I opened up an RFC on proposed changes to the Film:MOS. You can vote on it here --Deathawk (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

AIV report

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I declined your AIV report because this looks more like a content dispute, rather than outright vandalism. While the IP clearly is not following our generally accepted processes, it looks like the editor is making good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your message. However, you might change your mind if you look at the talk page post that I deleted. His attack on other editors makes me doubt his intentions. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWN

In edit summaries, please refrain from referring to your preferred version of an article as the "last correct version". There is no such thing as a 'correct' version of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS. Dlabtot (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

When an editor (generally, an anon.) adds incorrect, uncited, or deliberately false information to an article, the previous version is the "last correct version." There is no need to seek consensus on that and it has nothing to do with article ownership. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Stop being so bloody imperious, Dlabtot. Your views are pompous and unwarranted. He has removed your earlier posting here. Take the hint! Go away! The OJ's reply above is in accordance with the majority of established editors. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 09:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gareth. I appreciate the support.

Dlabtot, when I remove your comment from my talk page, that is the end of the discussion. If you feel the need to go a more formal route, that is your business. I have nothing further to say to you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. You are encouraged to change

---<font face="Georgia">'''[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]'''</font><font face="Courier New"><sub>''[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]''</sub></font> : ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45}

to

---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]</sub></i> : ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45}

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed it. ------The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Raiders of the lost ark

Hi TheOldJacobite. You may not have noticed, but the rfc at Raiders of the lost ark was closed with this version being agreed upon. AIRcorn (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the time stamps the closer was linking to the version without "often". AIRcorn (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

Thanks for explaining why you removed Alan Moore from the infobox. Do you have a link showing why uncredited authors should not be included on Template:Infobox film? I looked at it, Template:based on, and their talk pages, but I only found reference to uncredited actors, which makes sense. I don't understand the rationale behind omitting uncredited creators of source material. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't point you toward the policy, specifically, it has simply always been the rule in the Filmproject. -----The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 02:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome - Had to fix a cut paste error to make the card complete:-) MarnetteD|Talk 03:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da

		Compliments of the season Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment
		Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 18:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend! I wish the same to you! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)