Hello again. Thank you for all the information regarding the infobox and appropriate awards. It was a big help! - Dinker22089 (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page you need to edit is User:LiteraryMaven/monobook.js. Add {{subst:js|User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js}} to this page, save it, and bypass your cache (the latter usually involves holding down shift or ctrl while reloading the page). Then when you go to any article you should have the Page size link in your toolbox in the left-hand column.
The reason the link to "your monobook.js" which was on the instructions page didn't work was that it used a special page to automatically go to the correct monobook.js for whichever user was reading the instructions. This link was added by another user, but the name of the special page has subsequently changed. I have fixed the link now. Dr pda (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure why it's not working if you can see the "Page size" link. Have you tried it on a few articles? Did you definitely bypass your cache on your monobook.js page? If yes and it still didn't work, maybe it's something to do with some other setting in your preferences or in your browser. It's possible to run the page size script without having installed it. If you want to try this, go to the page you're interested in, then copy and paste the following into the address bar of your browser instead of the URL:
Sorry, I'm not sure why the script is still not working for you. Maybe it's something to do with your browser settings. Dr pda (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This WikiProject Films Award is presented to you for all your valuable contibutions to WikiProject Films and related articles. Your recent expansion of Farley Granger, in particular, is excellent. Congratulations! MovieMadness (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Shocking Miss Pilgrim, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You complained about my edit. You'll note that I took an at-best-ambiguous (and ungrammatical) sentence ("submitted the property"? C'mon, what property?) made it at least grammatical, and then asked if the result was correct ("did they give the rights, or the ability to sell them?"). Now, you've reverted it to the unclear prior form. You should at least make it clear in the text just what was given: agency? actual IP rights? Clarity and accuracy should not be sacrificed for brevity. That's what I was trying to get to.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, a film script commonly is referred to as a "property," and there was - and is - nothing ungrammatical about the sentence. What is "unclear" or "inaccurate" about the statement "The couple submitted the property to agent Paul Kohner, who brought it to several studios"? I hardly think it's necessary to add "It was his responsibility to find one that would be interested in adapting the story for a film," since that basically is what an agent does. The article is supposed to be about a specific film, not a lesson in the filmmaking process. Furthermore, why make a change to an article and then ask if the edit was correct? Isn't it preferable to pose your question on the discussion page of either the article or the person who created it and wait for a response? Thanks for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Property is a collective noun; if you're going to talk about "a 'property'", you may as well talk about "a money". Even if a movie script is "a" "property" (this is a specialized use of the term, and should be explained in a general-audience encyclopedia, whose audience includes non-movie people), there are still ambiguities: is "the property" in question the script? just the rights to it?(Yes, they're different; it's the "bundle of sticks" construct.) It's still not clear whether the agent actually acquired the rights to the script, or just the authority to shop it around as a broker for the owner(s); the two are different, and both are possible.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the word "property" you find so disturbing, although I feel most readers not familiar with film industry terminology would have understood it referred to the story discussed in the previous paragraph. I have rewritten it to say Kohner was acting as their agent, and anyone too dense to understand what that means probably isn't reading Wikipedia in the first place. :) LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 22:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I had noticed the other editor working through and removing "award-winning" from actor bios and had considered correcting something, but I didn't want to discourage him. That's when I noticed you'd left this note about his work. I posted a response to that for him and thought I'd share my thoughts on it. Sooo, I'm quoting myself here: [1]
Actually, yes but no, it isn't that simple. MOS:FILM isn't the governing project of actor articles, it is WP:ACTOR, so that is the project to cite. It isn't acceptable to refer to someone as generically "award-winning" without qualification per WP:PEACOCK. However, it's been generally accepted that the lead sentence of a biography should be simply descriptive in nature. As noted at MOS:BEGIN, the sentence should tell who the person is and why they are notable. Saying someone is an "Academy Award-winning" or "Academy Award-nominated" doesn't satisfy either of those conditions. While the assertion is true, it doesn't tell us who the person is, and they would not be considered notable because they won or were nominated, but what accolades they accumulated after becoming notable. The award doesn't make the person notable, the award is won for doing what one does that already makes him or her notable. It's a fine-line technicality, but it's an important one. It is also often considered POV, especially when one has undoubtedly been nominated for, or won, multiple awards. The POV occurs when the awards/nominations are chosen from a perception of importance of the award. However, WP:ACTOR has the removal in its list of things to do, stating "Remove lead sentence mention of "______ Award-winning" and/or "______ Award-nominated". This can and should be included in lead sections, but not in lead sentences. Please change leads to include mention of major awards, but do so in context." Note that it doesn't suggest just purging the mention of awards if they aren't already present in the lead. In short, removing the wording is suggested, recommended and supported by WP:ACTOR.
Hope that conveys my viewpoint on it, as well as what's been accepted by the project. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I was aware of the WP:ACTORto do list, but I interpreted the statement "Remove lead sentence mention of "______ Award-winning" and/or "______ Award-nominated" to mean the mention of specific awards, i.e., Oscar, Tony, Grammy, etc. I thought by designating an individual as simply "award-winning," there is no POV attached to the description, given you're not citing one honor over another. I appreciate your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 21:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll clarify that in the to do list. In most cases, the articles do contain specific references. WP:PEACOCK does cover the non-specific reference to winning awards. I was hoping the new editor would do a bit to not just strip the lead section down to "Blah blah is an actor", but I'm not going to go through and revert his removals. Rossrs has an ongoing (long-term) project to improve lead sections of articles that I help with when I have time and to the best of my knowledge, a tremendous number of the articles under WP:ACTOR are on the list and initial assessments are nearing completion for all of them. We're addressing lead size and comprehensiveness, infobox and image issues and whatever pops up. The removal of awards from the infobox and whatever other systemic weaknesses are part of that. I did ask the new editor if he could possibly also look at the other things on the to do list as he's working through and I believe he's expanded his focus. It seems silly to me to go through a list to remove the "Wowsa Award-winning" from the lead and leave the succession boxes and awards in the infoboxes when it can all be done in one edit. I often get hung up on many other article issues like filmography tables, spelling and reference errors so I work more slowly. Thanks for your interest in the project articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On July 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Toys in the Attic (play), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, Thank you for the improvements. The article is already listed as a DYK nomination, I've requested that you get part of the credits for its improvements. --TitanOne (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LiteraryMaven. You have new messages at TitanOne's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I just saw your note regarding my edit as I was leaving you this note. As odd as it sounds, yes, we do still refer to a series in the present tense even though it's no longer on the air. If you'd like further confirmation, you're free to ask someone else at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television or the village pump. Further, you can take a look at other television show articles like I Love Lucy, Adventures of Superman or Alfred Hitchcock Presents and check out the tense. All these series have been off the air for decades. Pinkadelica♣ 15:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I Love Lucy is still broadcast on a regular basis, so referring to it in the present tense isn't that odd. I think if a show is seen regularly in reruns, the present tense makes sense. But an old series that hasn't been broadcast in 52 years? It seems silly to say "The series is packaged and produced by Showcase Productions, Inc." when Showcase Productions probably doesn't exist anymore. I'm posing the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines and hope you'll contribute your thoughts there. Thanks for your feedback! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tense of the article has nothing to do with whether the show is airing anywhere. If we based tense on that, we'd have to change articles all the time as I'm sure some show is airing somewhere in the world at any given time. To be honest, the policy tripped me up at first too. I figured if a show was off the air, it should be referred to in the past tense - end of. Evidently it's an "in-universe" thing and real world logic isn't applied to television show articles. Looking back at the Wikiproject's archives, it seems this issues has been raised before (see here). You're free to bring it up again, but I've no idea how successful you'll be at changing the policy. Pinkadelica♣ 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I re-added the closing date, the Playbill article is incorrect. I've put a correct reference in from Official London Theatre. It's definitely a limited run as the next show in the theatre after it has already been announced (Opens September 17th- Prick up your ears). Many people reccon it won't even make it to that date anyways lol.
Thanks for cleaning up the article abit though, after ages using wikipedia im still no good at all the formatting stuff.
xxMark E (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We normally do not rate a musicals article as a "start" until it has a substantial plot summary and complete list of musical numbers. I would still call this article a stub. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on the article's discussion page. Thanks for your feedback. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 12:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On July 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Sawyer (1930 film), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Considering the DYK hook used was based on information you added to this article when you cleaned it up and expanded it, I think you should receive some credit! LargoLarry (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This WikiProject Films Award is bestowed upon you in appreciation of your effort to complete the template for Otto Preminger. MovieMadness (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On July 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Under Your Spell (film), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi LiteraryMaven, I've not logged on much in the past few days but see now that another has closed this and the image has been kept. Happy editing - Peripitus(Talk) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. The rationale behind F2 is ludicrous, but as long as the policy is in effect, there's nothing to be done. The DYK is irrelevant. My satisfaction is in knowing that although I may not have expanded the article 5X, I improved it 100%. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If insufficient volunteers for quality debates – at a time of an unusually large backlog – strikes you as a ludicrous reason, you are of course welcome to volunteer as described here, or to extend the article, or to start a genuinely new article, or to propose rule changes here. Art LaPella (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Literary Maven. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that User:172.162.149.169 and User:172.137.109.124 are both you, based on the fact that these accounts have made the exact same edits and reverts that you have made to the same article, and the fact that both accounts are from the same metropolitan area. I'd rather not go further with this in terms of involving admins and such, so if you are editing or discussing in the future, please remember to use your logged-in registered account. Thanks very much. On that note, please remember the Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_as_a_result_of_the_editing_process, and feel free to discuss your thinking on the article's talk page. The other editors on the article will be happy to discuss and reach consensus. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I go away for a few days and look what happens! Let me warn you that limb you're on is very shaky indeed and if I were you I'd get off it fast. Your rash accusation is so ridiculous I actually laughed out loud when I read it. I've created more than one hundred articles and edited hundreds more, and I'm both pleased with and proud of my contributions to Wikipedia. If you took the time to look at my history, you'd see I've engaged in a number of lively discussions over time. I have no qualms about expressing and defending my opinions as LiteraryMaven and have no reason to edit articles or make comments anonymously. In the future, please refrain from approaching me with veiled threats ("I'd rather not go further with this in terms of involving admins and such") and supercilious admonishments ("if you are editing or discussing in the future, please remember to use your logged-in registered account"). Who exactly do you think you are?
Edits do not have to be discussed and a consensus about them reached before they are made. If that were the case, discussion pages would be endless and it would take forever for articles to change. You appear to have problems with edits made by 172.162.149.169 and 172.137.109.124, but instead of discussing them, you simply reverted them, which ironically is contrary to the very guideline you pointed out. You can't expect others to follow rules you choose to ignore.
In my original edit of the article, I removed the unnecessary section listing characters and incorporated their names and descriptions into the plot synopsis. I also identified the actors who played these characters in the production section. I offered a rationale for doing so on the discussion page, and in your response you seemed to have no disagreement with what I did, yet you rewrote the synopsis and in doing so eliminated the name of the judge, a key character. You also replaced the easily understood phrase "As testimony is heard" with "As findings progress," which doesn't even make sense. Finally, you changed the correct formatting for listing IBDb as an external link with the incorrect one you had used and I had replaced. Your edit summary for these changes simply says "tweaks." I hardly would describe removing a character's name, replacing good grammar with bad, and substituting incorrect formatting simply as "tweaks." Then you changed "manslaughter," which I had added to the synopsis in place of your inaccurate description of "murder," back to "murder" with the edit summary "IMO no reason to split legal hairs here -- 3.5 times more Google sources refer to 'murder' over 'manslaughter', plus the para has too much blue already." Now, I don't know which Google sources you're consulting, but when it comes to a plot sysnopsis the only reliable source is the play, film, book, etc. itself. In the play, Claudia is charged with manslaughter in the first degree. This is an irrefutable fact. You finally allowed it to remain "manslaughter" but with the comment "no wikilink please; too much blue." The idea of a Wikilink is to lead readers to articles explaining terms they might not understand. You refuse to Wikilink "manslaughter" because it's "too much blue" but think it's okay to Wikilink "New York City," which certainly is less of an unknown than "manslaughter" may be to a lot of readers. "Too much blue" hardly is a justification for not linking a term that might need additional explanation.
172.162.149.169 removed mention of the film adaptation in the opening with the edit summary "This article is about the play so why is the film mentioned in the first paragraph before the stage productions?" A valid point indeed, yet you reverted the edit without responding. 172.137.109.124 left a message on your discussion page listing several plays whose articles do not mention their film adaptations so early in the article, but you ignored him (or her) as well and put the reference to the film back in the first paragraph. I have accessed articles for a dozen or so plays that later were filmed and none of them mention the film in the lead. I suggest you acquaint yourself with [2], where you will find a section for adaptations and/or versions is optional, and in the event one is included, "If a play was turned into a TV show or film, that should be noted here, with a link to any relevant Wikipedia articles." Nowhere do these guidelines even remotely suggest the film adaptation of a play should be included in the article's lead or mentioned before History, Synopsis, and Productions sections. To use a phrase you no doubt will understand, "I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that" if the film adaptation of Nuts had starred Gladys Glimschlitz instead of Barbra Streisand, you never would have mentioned it in the second sentence. I wholeheartedly agree with the removal of this information from the lead.
In an edit summary, 172.137.109.124 reminded you, "If you don't want your writing to be edited, do not submit it." He (or she) is right. The fact you created this article doesn't give you ownership rights to it. The edits that were made to this article since I last contributed to it were legitimate and I am reverting them for all the reasons I have cited here. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've just assessed your DYK. If you could just shorten the hook a little it is ready to pass. Everything else is fine Francium12 (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Ignore the above message. It was well under the limit. It is ready to go Francium12 (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Barnstar is awarded in recognition of your efforts to create separate articles for the different versions of My Sister Eileen. Well done as usual! MovieMadness (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On August 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article My Sister Eileen (play), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I want to express my deep apology for my uncivil and thoughtless behavior, being called away from my computer is no excuse for what I have done, how can I make it up to you? (You seem so nice, and are so good on Wikipedia, that you are the last-or one of the last-editors I would ever want to put in distress.)JeanColumbia (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly weren't being uncivil and thoughtless, and there's no need to apologize! I wish there was a way to put a notice on an article that it's in the process of being edited so nobody would experience edit conflicts. No harm done - we're both aiming for the same goal and it looks like we're getting there slowly but surely. By the way, I just found a listing for the production in the RSC archives - it opened in Stratford, not London, so I made that correction. Thank you for your note, it was very nice of you to write. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, hope you are well today! In case you were not yet aware, the coordinator election for WikiProject Films is coming up, and the selection is underway. You have been a reasonable voice in discussions, and you have contributed greatly to articles under WikiProject Films, especially stubs and articles that should not exist. You seem knowledgeable in this particular quarter, so I think you would add a fresh perspective about the work that can be done in these particular categories and what the WikiProject can do on a higher level. I hope you will consider becoming a candidate! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; I noticed your comments at Erik's talk page citing your reasons for not wanting to become a coordinator. While I respect and understand your position, I hope you don't mind if I try to convince you otherwise! The post isn't one that necessarily requires much experience, at least not anything more than you already have. It's also quite informal, as there's no official authority that comes with the role. Some of what you would be doing is what you do already—contributing in a calm and considered manner to discussions at WT:FILM. It just makes you more of a visible "point of contact" for such discussions. The other open tasks are ones that you can tackle at your own pace; there's absolutely no requirement to spend all your time on coordinator-related responsibilities, and as the term is only six months, if you feel at the end of it that the position isn't for you, there's no obligation to remain. Anyway, I hope you reconsider. All the best, SteveT • C 08:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thankyou for helping out at DYK suggestions, we really appreciate it! However, I'm a little concerned about the comment you left at the German pre-dreadnought submission, where you said the article had been expanded from 811 bytes to over 10k. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but I think perhaps you need to check our rules for prose counting. For a x5 expansion, we take the last version from before the expansion started, which in this case was over 5k long (or about 2k by DYKcheck). We usually use either DYKcheck or prosesize.js to do the actual count, so I'm curious to know how you calculated your estimates. Gatoclass (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the article expanded from 811 to 10,049 bytes, I said it expanded from 811 to 10,049 characters. I started exactly where you did, at [4], and used [5], a tool recommended at [6], to calculate the expansion between that point and the article in its present state. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I guess that website isn't too accurate. I suggest you stick to DYKcheck or prosesize in future (DYKcheck gives a count of 1937 chars BTW. I normally use "bytes" and "chars" interchangeably in this context, sorry if my terminology caused confusion).
In regards to your query about why I de-approved the article, I had already run DYKcheck twice on the article and was confident I hadn't made a mistake, and as I knew the pre-expansion was 2k long assumed you had just made an error or didn't know about our count tools. Even then, I would normally have checked again before leaving a comment, but sometimes articles get picked up and promoted the minute they are approved, which means more work getting them un-promoted. So I figured the best thing to do was leave a comment first and then recheck. In this case I guess that turned out not to be the best strategy. Gatoclass (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On September 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Glass Menagerie (1950 film), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On September 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Counsellor at Law, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Could you make it really obvious where the hook is referenced from by adding a reference to the exact line in the article. Will pass this because it is Frank Capra. Francium12 22:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference cited at the end of the paragraph pertains to everything that precedes it. If it will make you happy, I'll repeat it right after the sentence that relates to the hook, but that generally isn't the way references are cited in film articles. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 13:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On September 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lady for a Day, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If the critic is not notable, but the paper, is, why not just say that Variety wrote that... etc.? I'm probably not going to convince you to change your mind, but I don't see why you want to include non-notable names in the response section. Instead, what would be valuable, is to begin Response sections with a summary of the typical reviews: Most of the reviews were warm, with Variety and The Guardian agreeing that the cast was excellent, while The San Francisco Chronicle expressed doubts about the cohesion of the book. Clive Barnes, writing for The New York Times commented: "..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the simple reason Variety didn't write the review, its critic did, and while he may not be as notable as Frank Rich or Walter Kerr, he deserves to be recognized by name if he's being quoted. Don't we all want credit for our work? :) LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is an encyclopedia. We present the most notable information about a subject. If a critic is not well-known, mentioning his/her name just clutters up the article. We don't mention non-notable actor names (and these people actually performed in the show that is the subject of the article), so why mention the name of someone who just happened to review the article. The article is not about critics, it's about the show, and this person's name is irrelevant to the show. His/her name will be in the footnote, so why mention it again in the text? If his/her notable newspaper reviewed the show, it's useful to identify the news source, so the reader can make their own judgment about the reputation of the source, but identifying the non-notable reviewer by name does not add anything. Like I said, I doubt I'll convince you, but I figured I'd take a shot. Have a nice weekend, too! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't edit in the film area, because I usually disagree with the film editors. So I don't care what you do in film articles. I was interested by the guy who said he only names the non-notable ones, because the notable ones already have articles. I think this is backwards! The reader might be interested if the critic has an article (i.e., is notable) but if the person is not notable, who cares what his/her name is. You can see the name in the footnote if you're interested. The grammatical issue is a straw man. You don't have to say "The New York Times wrote..." (although that is perfectly acceptable). If you prefer, you can say The New York Times review was harsh, noting that "the book is unfocused...." and so forth. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Pocketful of Miracles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LargoLarry (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I expanded the article as much as possible using the three sources I had at my disposal. It's okay if it doesn't meet the 5x rule . . . I think it's still considerably better than it was before I worked on it. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You put down that the 1953 film was "originally released in 3-d", correct? You cited a reference with the database Web site; however according to IMDb, there is no evidence to support that, not even from the original negative.[7] I am wondering if the 3-d release is true due to debate on this issue. --Gh87 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The film project does not consider IMDb to be a reliable source of information, whereas a website dedicated to animation such as the one I referenced more likely would be. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling my concerns about your ignoring sourcing notices, and indeed edit warring to add content without such sourcing, "trash" or are you calling me "trash"?[8] I await your response; I will be watching this page. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing Wikipedia for a year. If you had shown some respect by acknowledging I'm a long-time contributor instead of treating me like a newcomer ("Welcome to Wikipedia"???!!!), I might have taken the time to respond. I am not engaging in any "edit warring" nor am I interested in pursuing further discussion with you. Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You added content directly below a notice to add nothing without sourcing. I later carefully culled the unsourced statements from that section. You did a mass revert(!!!) of my edit, and your summary misleadingly mentioned only your (still unsourced) addition. Please explain to me how my post was uncivil - it was the first level template for adding unsourced content - and your blind revert to edit war to keep your unsourced content in was civil! I am more than willing to discuss this with you, and hope to resolve this amicably. We will not be able to do so, however, if you remove my posts with edit summaries of "trash" and demand respect after you edit warred to keep in unsourced content! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be unaware, but almost all level one templates begin with "Welcome to Wikipedia" and they are the only level which assumes good faith:
Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some variant.
Level 2 – No faith assumption; just a warning
Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; cease and desist
Level 4 – Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning
Level 4im – Assumes bad faith; very strong cease and desist, first and only warning
It appears you would have preferred I start with level 2 or 3. Given your experience, perhaps level 3 or 4 would have been more appropriate; you certainly know about sourcing and you know what wholesale reverting means. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Again, I did not "edit war," nor did I ever say your post was "uncivil." An "edit war" involves reverting information several times - not once, as I did - and it usually is prompted by malicious intent, which was not the case here. I did not see the notice to add nothing without sourcing because I was looking midway down the list, not at the top. Had you sent me a pleasant note with a personal message explaining the situation, instead of treating me like a novice by using a template instead, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You now have taken the time to bring it to my attention by explaining more fully, so I'm aware of it. You made your point and it has been noted. Thank you very much, and enjoy the rest of your day. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am delighted we are now conversing civilly. I am still waiting for an answer to my earlier question; were you calling my concerns about your ignoring sourcing notices, and indeed blanket revering to re-add content without such sourcing, "trash" or are you calling me "trash"?[9] I await your response; I will be watching this page. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I will accept that you did not see the notice, even though it was in the exact section you edited, half way down the page, as you point out; I'm having trouble believing you didn't read my edit summary, which mentioned sourcing, and I wonder how you missed the linkfarm template on the face of the page itself. All that is merely a sideline however, to your ignoring the core policy of WP:V. Perhaps you have been here so long that you have forgotten the core policies; allow me to remind you not to add content without sourcing, and if called upon to provide such sourcing, blanket reverting to keep your desired content in an article is not a suggested best response. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured I was not calling you "trash." I was being facetious as the result of feeling as if I was being treated like a naughty child. In the future you may want to avoid generic templates in favor of a personal message. It may take a bit longer to write but in the end it tends to be a much more pleasant way to initiate a discussion. Thank you again. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you in the future to express such concerns directly and civilly rather than escalating as you did. I have in the past used both templates and hand written messages; I find results mixed either way. As there is one active admin for every 6,000+ active editor, I am currently using templates. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Porgy and Bess (film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
