Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:43, 13 August 2009

Le Rayon U

Hello, I saw your nice work about this comic book. Have you finished with it ? If yes, I will proceed to some "wikification", if no, I let you finish first. Lvr 11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please go ahead marktreut

Edgar Pierre Jacobs

I thought I had read on one of the WP:MoS subpages that writing a biography in the present tense is a good way, but I can't find that anymore, and I notice on checking that WP:MOSBIO says that for a deceased person (like Jacobs), past tense should be used. I'll undo my changes. Fram 13:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

King Ottokar's Sceptre

Hi! I see you just reverted the graphicnovel infobox back to the Tintin infobox on this article. This may be unfortunate, since we are planning to change all graphic novels and European comics (Tintin, Asterix, Valérian, Yoko Tsuno, The Smurfs, Bilal comics, and any else that may have articles already) to the graphicnovel box. Currently, there are four different infoboxes in use for European comics, three of them specific for one series (Tintin, Asterix, and Valérian). This is an unproductive situation, and therefor it has been suggested that they should be replaced by one. This has been discussed at the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comics, and at both Template talk:Infobox Asterix and at Template talk:Valerian Album Infobox. You are more than welcome to voice your opînion of the new template at Template talk:Graphicnovelbox or at the Wikiproject (or at my userpage). I'll not revert to the other template again, its better that we first discuss this, but I have to say up front that I would definitely prefer to use the new template, and that I think it is best that we make the new template as good as possible instead of using three or four different ones. Fram 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the info of previous and next comic is missing in the new infobox. I personally don't find that necessary (I would not browse through the comics in that order or so), but I see where it can come in handy. If we add such navigation (perhaps in the format now used in e.g. Asterix and the Golden Sickle, where we keep the two columns instead of three very small ones), do you think you would be happy in using the graphicnovelbox? I'll try to add it myself, or ask help from User:A Man In Black who is better with such tenchnical stuff. Fram 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now added the two fields, and used the corrected template in King Ottokar's Sceptre. It looks good to me (although there are still a few layout issues to do with aligning everything), but if it is not to your taste, just let me know (and feel free to reinstate the previous infobox in the article again, it was just to show you what was the effect, not to start some revert war). All the best, Fram 20:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Responding to your question to me

Sorry, I was quick editing through for vandals and it hit my filter and what I read read more like useless then needed. Feel free to revert the change. Century0 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr strange love

I reverted your edit in here, because it didn't work, feel free to revert me after correcting the references codes. --Pejman47 23:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anarky as Robin?

Hey, is it really necessary to include that paragraph you've added to the Anarky article? I'd considered adding something akin to it a long time ago, but dropped it since I couldn't prove that was actually intended to be an indication of Alan Grant's idea of making Anarky into a Robin. It's just original research. In fact, according to Grant, he only decided to try and make Anarky into Robin after the first comic came out. We don't see Anarky again until he's being confronted by Tim Drake, and Tim is well on his way to being Robin by that time. So Anarky never actually appeared in a comic during that period when Grant wanted to make him Robin. So I figured that wasn't the intended message at all. I suppose more than anything I'm merely concerned that this paragraph is misleading, and should be removed. I wont' do that immediately however. If you have some other way of explaining that scene without using original research, go for it. If, however, you can't, I'll remove it eventually. --Cast 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend this paragraph as an actual part of the "Anarky-as-Robin" debate, more as a footnote: how the idea was raised but quickly rejected, if only by the characters of Batman and Gordon. I've rewritten the opening sentence to point out that the issue was raised "in the comic itself" rather than a full-blown debate between writers and editors. Cheers.--Marktreut 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't feel comfortable with it, although I concede that it is an interesting footnote. The problem, as I see it, is that it's misleading, because it implies that Grant was preparing for Anarky to become Robin as early as that issue, which he was not. A reader of the article could be confused otherwise, and would only understand the correct timeline concerning the events if they persuade various footnotes and fully read interviews with the author. Also, the paragraph was written in an in-universe perspective, which needs to be weeded out of the article. I think it's mildly permissible in the "fictional biography" section, but even there it should be heavily reworked to present the background decisions made by writers and editors behind the character's history. I'm still trying to work up the nerve to do it myself. It's a lot. But I don't want to see it cropping up in the "publication history" section, as that's just about the only section that has fully excised all in-universe language. Maybe the paragraph can be reworked so that it properly explains that Alan Grant wrote the script, and that it is only a minor footnote regarding the possibility of Anarky as a future Robin.

As for the paragraph you added concerning the Knightfall saga reader letters, I think that's really interesting and successfully out-universe in scope, but it needs a citation. Also, maybe it should be included in "Political themes and reception." If you have any access to reader responses to other Anarky appearances, that'd be really great.--Cast 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have restored my Anarky-as-Robin point, though just as a brief sentence. I really do think that it is an important factor. I'm not trying to say that it was part of an elaborate plan by Grant to introduce his own Robin. All I'm saying is that the scene was included.

I read in an article that even the briefest of stories can be the subject of intense debate in editorial meetings between artists, writers and editors during which various points are raised. Every scenes is discussed even the minor ones. Some of the writer's original elements are taken out, new ones suggested by others are adopted. Thus, the Anarky-as-Robin issue must have been raised at some stage - its mere presence is proof enough. After all, Anarky had the right age and ingenuity for a potential Robin; it was just his targets and methods that were wrong as far as Batman was concerned. Alright, it will be difficult to obtain hard, foolproof evidence that actually turning Anarky into Robin was ever raised at this time, but the fact that the characters mention it at all shows that the idea must have cropped up at some stage of the planning of the story, and not necessarily by Grant himself. Cheers. --Marktreut 12:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Without real evidence, it's impossible for anyone to know for certain, and I will admit that Grant's own words in interviews are sometimes self-contradictory, being based on whatever he happens to remember at a given moment. However, I think the scaled down sentence is a mixed improvement. Perhaps it would be best to expand the explanation, given what you've just noted, but to mark it to the a citations and footnotes section, since we both acknowledge that is essentially what it is. That'll give you a place to properly explain what you've just pointed out to me in a fool paragraph, but without cluttering the main body of text, with what other editors might consider to be nothing more than trivia.--Cast 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:JWMuller.gif

I have tagged Image:JWMuller.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Misplaced Pages policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You may delete it if you like. --Marktreut 19:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Naked Killer trivia

Sorry, I had accidentally put this on your front page rather than here:

Hi. I removed the trivia because it was unreferenced (per WP:V Misplaced Pages policy), and also, well, trivia (per WP:Trivia and WP:NOT). Marašmusïne_Talk 13:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you've put it back again, I've tagged it with 'unreferenced' and 'trivia' tags, if you'd care to read the relevant policies. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

General Alcazar images

Hi, I've nominated four images of General Alcazar that you uploaded for deletion. Please see Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 26#General Alcazar images for the discussion. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The images are intended to show Alcazar in his various guises: as dictator, knife-thrower, exile (the one from The Red Sea Sharks), and guerilla leader. I think that they showed the importance of the character and how he evolved. The one in carnival costume is especially important since it shows he and his bitter rival found something in common at last. Herge was showing how, all-in-all, all dictators are the same and many see it as an important element of the Picaros adventure.--Marktreut 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck in other languages

Hi, it probably fits under WP:NOT a dictionary. See also this discussion about the same topic. It also is removed (if it exists) for every article having a review to become featured. Garion96 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you say so. Still, I thought that it was an amusing point to raise, but I will not argue. Cheers.--Marktreut 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Previous IP edits to your userpage

Good morning, sir! I've been asked to explain my reversion of the following text to your userpage:

I frequently make alterations to other peoples websites despite the fact that my grasp of English is very poor.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. One specific type of vandalism is an attack against an editor, covered by WP:NPA. This particular addition - coming from a user other than you, stating that you have poor English - is a personal attack in that it attacks your grasp of English, stating that you may not be as good an editor as others. I reverted this for those reasons, and also as it was a user editing someone else's userpage, and as I always do with first-offense userpage vandalism, warned the user with a level 4 'no personal attacks' template. You are permitted to place that sort of content on your userpage, but it should not be done by anyone but you. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How can I link to a specific part of an article

{{helpme}} Hi,

I know that links usually go to headings or sub-headings. For example, Windows XP takes you straight to the article "Windows XP". Another link, Windows Genuine Advantage takes you straight to the "Windows Genuine Advantage" sub-heading of that article.

But what if you wanted a link to take you to a specific part of an article which in not near the headings? For example, I want to enable the user to click on a link which will take him straight to the 4th paragraph of the "Windows Genuine Advantage" section, rather than going to the top of that section.

Is that possible?

Thank you.

Yours Sincerely

--Marktreut 12:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Use some HTML to give that part of the text an id. For example by adding <span id="G1"/> to the start of General 1 clause of WP:CSD allow someone to go to that point directly via WP:CSD#G1. KTC 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That solved it. Thank you. --Marktreut 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DumbBOT protection

DumbBOT didn't unprotect William Herbert Wallace, just removed a template from it: . Please see User:DumbBOT/Protection for details. Tizio 07:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect pages

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that categories are not needed for and shouldn't be added to Redirect pages. I just came across the Redirect page you created for "These Are the Damned" because it showed up in italics (meaning a Redirect page) in a category I was working on. I've already removed the cats from that page, but if you've done any others like that you should go back and delete the cats. Regards, Cgingold 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, "These Are the Damned" is the US title of a British film called The Damned (1963 film). The purpose is for US users to get access to a film they do not necessarily know was released under a different name. I should think, therefore, that my including categories on a redirect page is justified, isn't it?--Marktreut 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, just got your note on my talk page, with the explanatory link, and I see your point. I've gone ahead and reverted my edit to restore the categories -- and I've also added a new one, Category:Films dealing with nuclear war and weapons. Cgingold 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Goldstein

Deleting Goldstein would be wrong. Merge with a redirect seems a good option. Erudil 15:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I will do just that. Thanks for the suggestion.--Marktreut 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Batman:The Dark Knight Strikes Again

You may want to read about "original research". Drawing conclusions, comparisons, or analyzing situations based on your own interpretation is not permitted. You need to have reliable sources discussing these things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do I do this "original research" ? By contacting Miller himself ? I think he has better things to do that confirming minor details like this, but which might still be of interest to enthusiasts. Besides, my interpretations, especially Marvel's hair style, is based on simple observation which should be apparent to most.--Marktreut 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Big got here before I did, and fairly encapsulated the issue. The OR he is referring to is your noticing of the similarities between the DK Cap Marvel with Uncle Marvel - I agree that this similarity was intended, but Misplaced Pages needs citations to compare these two. Your contacting Miller wouldn't do the trick, but if Miller said so in an interview with a reliable, notable news source (blogs and fansites do not meet this criteria) then we could use that. Click on the link that Bignole provided you and read up on that. If you learn the ins and outs of that policy, you will have a leg up on roughly 1/4 of the contributors to WP.

The second issue is almost identical in reasons for removal. Your perceptions do not meet the criteria for inclusion as a source in Misplaced Pages. So how you feel that Bruce interacts with Dick is not - not to sound harsh - noteworthy. If you happen to find a published source that notes that observation, that's sopmething you want to include.

If I can answer any questions for you regarding this or other topics, just ask. - Arcayne () 01:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Damned

I understand about categorizing redirects; I usually deal with slight variations instead of a mostly different film title like The Damned and These are the damned. Thanks for the clarification. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story

Hi there. Thanks for your recent addition to the article. Can I ask that you add a full citation to the bit you inserted? That way it's easy for people to cross-check exactly where you got that from. The same applies if you add any more of the book's points. Cheers, John Smith's 16:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I got it from the book itself, which I read recently from beginning to end. I would have thought that that was enough.--Marktreut 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Valkyrie

What are you talking about? I haven't removed comments relating to the opposition to Cruise's casting. Indeed, should you care to look at the page history, I have in fact expanded upon such detail in the past. Secondly, I removed the explanation of the name because Operation Valkyrie because it is already briefly explained within the article, with a link to the full details of the plot. Liquidfinale 06:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you have restored the mention of Stauffenberg's family objecting to the casting. On the other matter, the synopsis implies that Valkyrie was the name of the actual operation to kill Hitler. In fact it was a military plan, approved by Hitler himself, to put Germany under martial law in case of internal trouble. The conspirators simply planned to use it for reasons that Hitler had not intended.--Marktreut 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I already included mention of Operation Walküre toward the end of the first paragraph in Production. What you suggested is original research, to delve into the so-called irony that Hitler set Operation Valkyrie up himself. If you can provide verifiable content via reliable sources about how and why the filmmakers implemented the title, that'd be great. You can't use a non-film-related source to suggest the meaning of the film title, though. At the moment, the brief cited mention of the operation influencing the title is enough. Like the article says, it's a working title, so it could be changed by the time of its release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From reviewing the citations in Valkyrie (film), there is either no explanation of the title or the incorrect mention that the July Plot was also known as Operation Valkyrie. Considering the lack of verifiable content from reliable sources from what I've seen so far, the title's importance is minimal. How about this -- take the first portion of my sentence, "Valkyrie is titled after Operation Walküre ("Operation Valkyrie")," (with the ref tag after it), then include a description of what Operation Valkyrie was to complete the sentence. The wording I used was from an incorrect explanation of the title, so I tried to render it vague. The sentence from the citation was this: "The film... is called Valkyrie after Operation Valkyrie, the plot's codename." Let me know if you can sum up the true definition of the operation in a sentence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can, take a look at the Synopsis section and clarify anything about either Operation Valkyrie or the July 20 Plot for the readers. I think that the meaning of the film's title would be clear in a reading of this section, but some re-wording may be needed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

blanking dispute notifications

please don't blank dispute notifications. you should leave them up at least for a few days so interested parties may stay informed. Anastrophe 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed them because a program called BetacommandBot kept telling me to provide fair use justification for the images I uploaded. I did this and once the job was done I saw no reson for keeping these notifications. However within an hour BetacommandBot had come up with the same objections to the same images, so the same dispute notifications are back.--Marktreut 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Long user talk page

This user talk page is becoming long. Some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. You can do this automatically with MiszaBot III. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

White Heat

The part I have a problem with is this: "He even appears to look on him as a kind of Ma-substitute..." The quotes you bring up are good, but they only indicate what Evans would like to have happen, not necessarily that the relationship between Cody and Vic actually becomes that close. That's clearly an interpretation. The phrasing shows that - "even appears to look". To be kept in the article in that form, it would have to be sourced. Clarityfiend 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Clarityfiend 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hello Marktreut. Thank you for your note in my talk page. My main objection is not the trivia nature of the section but the fact that it is all original research. Your additions of sources for the historical facts take care of some of that (unless you get a historian that interprets the same set of facts differently of course) but in comparing those events to the film you are giving your research and interpretation of the differences. Unfortunately, removing this kind of thing is the direction that wikipedia has chosen to pursue in the vainglorious attempt to become some kind of official encyclopedia. In doing so it is turning its back on its editors own knowledge and abandoning the "have fun" principle that used to be a part of editing when I first started here about two years ago. As to the specifics of the Cromwell page I will leave the section alone now (my apologies for adding to any wikifrustration for you) but don't be surprised if someone else comes along and takes it back out as there are many deletionistas that will nuke it on sight. In return would you please look at the trivia section that you restored for the film The Damned (1963 film) and think about taking out an item or two. The first one, in particular, is just not true. I was alive then and we did not feel that nuclear war was inevitable. The last one in the section is also just one viewers opinion but I am not going to fuss over it.

One other thing that you might want to think about. I have come across a couple of editors who have ceased editing here and have moved to Wikilink. This site encourages original research and items like your film to history section would be welcomed. Please don't think that I am insisting that you do this it is just a suggestion should things start to drive you nuts here. I haven't decided yet whether I am going to go over there part or full time yet, but, I am considering it. Though I do have a big project working on British films that I want to finish first. Thanks for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Persuaders.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Persuaders.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. CCruise (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Robin (comics)

If you copy or merge text, you need to attribute it accordingly. You appear to have cut the sexual interpretations section from Batman and pasted it into Robin, without noting what you did. If you did cut and paste, then we need to fix that to comply with the GFDL. It's not a huge problem and I don't mind doing it if you confirm whether it was a cut and paste. In the future, when you do so, it's best to leave an edit summary like, Incorporating material from ARTICLE, version per time-stamp of this edit. Cheers, Hiding T 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations

Hello!. I've put the info available at User:Marktreut/List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations so that you can proceed with any info merging to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. --JForget 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack Lord

I see you edited the article. In 2 weeks (January 21), it will be the 10th anniversary of his death. Poor man. At least he captured a lot of criminals (fictional). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Draco Malfoy - good faith?

Hey, thanks for writing. Your edits were considered "good faith" because there was clearly no vandalism involved. However, the part where Narcissa lied to Voldemort had already been covered, so it ended up being mentioned twice after your edit. Plus, it was already implied that Harry was disturbed by his visions of Draco, so including the quote was essentially repeating the incident. That's where the "redundant" comment came from. Hope that clears everything up. Beemer69 00:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Male Call

You added a section in the Male Call article on a Franco Belgian comic called Pin Up. You described it as a spin off, but I think that is kind of overstating it - although the two have similarities, there doesn't seem to be a direct connection between the two. I suggest starting a stub on Pin Up, and then linking the two articles through See Also sections. ike9898 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing tags

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Scrameustache, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal. Your removal of this template has been reverted. Thank you. BKNFCC 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Marvel 1602

I've started a new topic on the talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Power Pack

Hey there. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but I'd like to ask you to please stop adding "Mum and Dad" to the Power Pack article. This isn't a conversational piece; it's an encyclopedia article, and a colloquial style is not appropriate to the article under the MoS. I'm not the only one who has reverted your additions, so it's nothing personal--but please stop. If you have a compelling reason for your changes, please discuss them on the article's talk page or seek a third opinion. Thanks. DanielEng (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for your reply. You know, I do agree with you that Wiki is becoming less fun these days, and that it's a losing battle trying to keep articles in order and keep people from deleting work out of hand. It's one of the reasons I'm mostly on a Wikibreak right now, because I'm tired of fighting with other editors over every small thing. For what it's worth, I think your writing style and the "Mum and Dad" thing, for the PP article, would be excellent elsewhere, just not on Wiki. Thanks for being willing to talk, and I hope that whatever is up with that other article will work out for the best. Thanks, DanielEng (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Superman

Okay, looking at what you added:

Due perhaps to the elder Kents surviving into Clark's adulthood, another Byrne change was the relationship between Superman and his "normal" alter-ego. In line with the majority of superheroes Byrne put the emphasis on Superman being a disguise for Clark Kent. Previously the theme had been that Kent was a "secret identity" for Superman: in an adventure published in the 1960s, Kent finds himself at a loose end when staff at the Daily Planet go on strike and seriously considers it a chance to try out a new identity in case he has "to abandon Clark Kent role permanently". His options include becoming a full-time policeman or ever a mere tramp "whom no one would ever suspect of being the Man of Steel."<ref>illustration included in the ''Penguin Book of Comics'' by George Perry and Alan Aldridge, published in 1967.</ref>

So in the first sentence you're stating "Due perhaps". Unless you can source that opinion in the words of a reliable secondary source, it's original research because you're analysing the comics, prohibited under policy. Next, you state that the "the theme had been that Kent was a "secret identity" for Superman". Again, unless you can source that theme to a reliable secondary source, it is analytical. You aren't relying on the Penguin Book of Comics to source what John Byrne did, since it predates it. Also, you don't appear to be relying on it for the adventure published in the sixties; you're relying on the adventure published in the sixties.

Now, what you're looking to get into here also already exists further down in the article within the Supporting cast section. It's brief, but summarises the position you're getting across and cites reliable secondary sources.

The second part of what you wrote was:

There was also his relationships with other heroes, most notably Batman. From the 1940s to the 1970s, they had always been depicted as close friends and allies: the "World's Finest". From the 1980s, however, it was depicted it as an edgy and uneasy one: grudging respect and uneasy friendship due to their vast differences. After their first, tension-filled meeting, Batman considers that in "another reality" he and Superman may have been friends.<ref>''Man of Steel'' miniseries #3, August 1986</ref>

Again, this to me is analytical of the primary source rather than descriptive. For instance, you seem to be deducing that based upon the quote from one comic book that it colors their whole relationship. This is the sort of stuff that needs to be cited to secondary sources. I hope that helps to explain. Best, Hiding T 09:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that there is less fun to be had in editing Misplaced Pages nowadays. The issue at hand here is that Superman is a featured article. It is held to higher standards if it is to remain a featured article. Besides which, I note the information is in History of Superman, added by yourself. Since that is a part of the body of work we have on Superman, and since we try and avoid redundancies where we can, I'm not sure I understand fully the issue. I'm truly sorry I have frustrated you, but I'm trying to work within the featured article criteria. Hiding T 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The points you make are good ones, but conflict with our policies at WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I suggest if you wish Misplaced Pages to include this kind of information you bring the argument up somewhere more appropriate, maybe at WP:NOR or possibly Misplaced Pages:Plot summaries. Regarding the information you added and why I did not rewrite it; as I have explained, the first paragraph you added was already in the article in a different form, so it didn't need adding. On the second paragraph, there was wording to that effect in the article before, which had to be either sourced or removed when the Superman article was undergoing a review of its featured article status. If it wasn't it would have lost the FA status. The users working on that article, myself included, decided to retain the FA status, and since we could not source the material, we removed it, placing it, I believe, in Superman character and cast. I apologise if I have not explained this as well as I could, but I have tried to comply with WP:EP and make sure the broad thrust of what you added has been retained in some shape or form where it is of most use and best presented. I can't unfortunately find sources good enough to place it in the Superman article. It should also be noted one of the complaints about the Superman article at its review is that it was too large. We need to keep that article as concise as we can. I hope it is an acceptable solution that the information is already present in our body of writing on Superman. Hiding T 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again edits

In regards to your undoing the removal of uncited and specialtive information, we cannot connect the dots. We cannot fill in the blanks left by a lack of sources. If we do not have enough to include a connection, then we do not make that connection. That is part of our core policies, WP:NOR, specifically a connection made via synthesis. I understand that this might seem like the most obvious thing in the world, but it needs solid citation so as to remain. Without it, we cannot include it. Sorry. - Arcayne () 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(carried over from my user talk page):

Are you seriously suggesting that DC comics or Frank Miller might take wikipedia to court for speculating on the parentage of a minor, one-off, hardly-seen-before-or-since character? Get real!--Marktreut (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying, though Miller could have a case, if such were to occur and remain. Misplaced Pages is a collection of articles on every subject. The policies that guide the Wiki are consistent throughout the Project so as to preserve neutrality and be more encyclopedic in their coverage. We don't make exceptions to those policies for one article , because the exceptions could easily set precedents for other articles wherein the subject matter would open the Project to significant liability and challenge our neutral stance. As evidenced by the conversation in the NOR discussion page, this opinion seems rather consistent. - Arcayne () 04:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Comments

This action was done via Lupin's anti-vandal tool. This uses bad words and helps good faith editors roll them back. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. StewieGriffin! • Talk 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just undo my edit. Lupin is not involved. StewieGriffin! • Talk 21:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

One of several issues not addressed in your edits to Benedict Arnold, etc., is that of notability - rather than (for example) put the material in a topic which is relevant, e.g., Voyage to the Bottom of whatever, it's being put into topics which have no relevant context to support the comment. Tedickey (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Avengers Forever

With regards to your note, the 1950's Avengers mention was always on the way, but I'm simply didn't get time to insert it yesterday. The rest, however, is in-universe storytellng and "point of view". For example, you state "some people who are unfamiliar with the Marvel universe may find of interest." Unfortunately, that's just your opinion. And yes, "The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform", but it does so without a slant or point of view. There's no need to mention every man and his dog, and in doing so you spoil part of the story and also insert opinion ("appears to wear Batman's utility belt, and a poncho made from the remains of Superman's cape") and use references to comics in the FCB, which disrupts the flow. Such mentions are for the PH and References. I hope this helps.

Asgardian (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...no need to be snide, yes? I have added an Old West mention, but in the correct context and without POV. Have a close look at the article now and see the differences. It is factual, sourced and simply states what happens without POV and unnecessary extrapolation. As for 1602...sorry, I agree with the other user...

Asgardian (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Try to remember that it was only a limited series, and so there's no need for a blow by blow account. Also, what you may feel is important may not be overly factual and may be presented in a POV fashion. Sorry to sound like a killjoy. It is just that there is a Misplaced Pages-style that needs to adhered to. Otherwise, the articles just read like something from a fansite.

Asgardian (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cowboys

Just wanting to let you know that I moved the section on Claudius Smith and the loyalists to the bottom of the Cowboy article and tweaked some of the formatting, tossed the one sentence on weapons. Also took it all out of negative connotations. Please understand that because there appears to be no historical link between them and the cowboy of the west, it puts undue weight to place info on this group early in the article. I actually think they need their own article, where things can be expanded upon--and you may want to read Claudius Smith plus search wiki to see if there are other articles there on guerilla militias. Maybe links to more articles would help. If you are not happy about this, instead of further revert and editing spats, please take it to the talk page of the cowboy article where we can discuss it further and perhaps bring in the opinions of others who have contributed. Thanks. Montanabw 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Darkgreencube.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Darkgreencube.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 03:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lightgreencube.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lightgreencube.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 11:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

Please read the policy on original research. An editor cannot make personal assumptions about anything, not unless they're plain as day (e.g. the Sun being yellow or the sky being blue...even though depending on the time of day the Sun could be orange and the sky could be black...but you understand). You can make assumptions based on math (e.g. John has 5 apples, Sally has 6 apples. With John and Sally's 11 apples, blah blah blah). You cannot make give your personal interpretation of things though. When you start interpreting you start using original research. The fact that you see some correlation between Norman Bates and Pamela Voorhees does not mean that there is one, nor does it mean that anyone else has seen one. Regardless, since neither Victor Miller, Ron Kurz, or Sean Cunningham have stated any such connection, interpretations of said connection are not appropriate for a section that details the writing of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Such a fuss over a simple comparison between two famous movies which deal with psychopaths whose broken minds are caused by the mental possession of dead relatives.--Marktreut (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Puschov Black island.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Puschov Black island.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Greycube.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Greycube.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Over the Rainbow covers

Marktreut, I understand where you're going with "Over the Rainbow", but disagree with the approach. This is what you'll end up with. Wouldn't a brief treatment about the popularity of the song among other artists be better, referencing the more significant renditions?
Jim Dunning | talk 14:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Great Escape

Marktreut, I see you're working on a treatment of "differences" between the fictional story as told in the film The Great Escape and its inspiration, the actual WWII escape. I have grave concerns about this, especially with regards to WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Also, Film Style Guidelines tell us that differences must be put into real-world context and that merely listing and describing the differences are discouraged. Consequently, the focus of such an article should be on why the screenwriters and Sturges decided to deviate from Brickhill's book and reality (i.e. what production and artistic goals, realities, logistics, and opportunities caused them to make the changes). This is the real-world context that is required to truly make this article interesting and of value. This approach would require extensive sourcing.

As it stands right now there are many problems with the article since much of its content lacks development and production relevance (not to mention appropriate sources). Also, I question why this treatment — which would nicely augment the Production section of the film's article if done well — is being done as a separate article rather than at the film article? Especially since that and related sections in the film article are sadly deficient. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut, thanks for the response. I agree with you that people are interested in both the actual escape and the film relationship to it, but you're trying to straddle two different articles. The escape itself appears to be well-covered in the article Stalag Luft III. Readers looking for information on the escape are taken to a diambiguation page which lists the novel, film, and stalag articles as possible destinations. And, yes, film fans are likely to be interested in the iconic Hilts character. A possible way to sate that interest and address it appropriately in the article is to weave the story behind the character into the Casting subsection of the Production section. This was done here. Where sources are available, this can be done for many parts of the adaptation process, such as location, set, casting, screenwriting, and editing.

You mentioned that much of the material you are addressing was removed from the film article because of length considerations. I removed most of the "Historical inaccuracies" material in early November not because of length, but because of topicality and concerns about WP:NOR, WP:SYN, and WP:RS. (In fact, the length consideration is actually about the Plot size relative to the rest of the article: it either needs to be reduced or the other sections expanded - such as Production - or both.) As you know, I did "store" the removed copy on the Talk page, however, just a cursory review of the material shows that eight of the nine items have no direct relationship to the film (article) and should be considered for the Stalag Luft III article: they're about the escape, not the film or even the relationship (adaptation process) between the film and the event.

This is why I'd like to direct our efforts toward expanding/enhancing the Production section with this material. This should achieve your goal and significantly improve the quality and value of the article (it would be nice to bring the article to GA status). However, we have to guard against original research and ensure we use credible sources. What do you think?
Jim Dunning | talk 05:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut, in regard to the Orient Express issue, your revert with a comment about "going around again" without first engaging in discussion with other editors could be taken negatively. My previous exchanges with you don't lead me to believe that's your intention, so please consider joining the discussion on the Talk page before trying to add the differences items again. Look forward to working it out with you.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevant info: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Difference Between Film and Non Fiction Source Book and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines/Archive 2#Adaptation differences.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut, pursuant to my comments above, I am nominating for deletion The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction article. As I've said, I think most of it lacks context relevant to the film (see Film Style Guidelines), is the result of much original research and understandably lacks pertinent credible sources. Please jump into the discussion.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Steve McQueen and Wally Floody 001.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Steve McQueen and Wally Floody 001.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Spy-vs-spy.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Spy-vs-spy.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812 lead

I apologise for unilaterally reverting your recent change to this article, but at present there is discussion over whether to keep the "Overview" section under the existing lead, or not (Talk:War of 1812#"Overview" section redundant). Your addition of a heading within the existing lead resulted effectively in two rival "Overview" sections, each consisting mainly of personal essays. Hopefully, some concensus can be reached over junking the "Overview" section, when we will be able to reinstate your change. HLGallon (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Rayonucover001.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rayonucover001.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chillum 03:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis in Murder on the Orient Express

Marktreut, I know you're trying to improve film articles with contributions such as this, but it may be Synthesis, lacks a reliable source, and I don't think it adds to the article. If the connections had been noted by a critic and were significant in some way (such as "the director actively sought to have so-and-so and such-and-such in the film because of his previous experience with them in other productions", then that adds value to the article. Otherwise, I think we're just playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon and where will that stop?
Jim Dunning | talk 11:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut, thanks for your response. All I can suggest is that you review the Film Style Guidelines before further discussion and edits. You'll see that Plot description can be taken from seeing the film as long as there is no interpretation by the editor, but everything else needs to be supported by a reliable secondary source. So you can't do what you stated. Once you go to the Guidelines page, try pressing CTRL-F and search for "reliable" to see how everything but the plot description does indeed come from what persons other than WP editors say. For further reference see WP:NOR, WP:SYN, and WP:V. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe you went and reverted immediately after you must've read this without discussing with those offering to work with you.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Murder on the Orient Express (1974 film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Continuing to restore uncited trivia, substantiated because *you* (rather than a cited reliable source) think it's ironic -- i.e. presenting original research -- is disruptive, especially in light of your failure to respond to the rationales for excluding this content at Talk:Murder_on_the_Orient_Express_(1974_film)#Kevin_Bacon_and_other_trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than a glib "we can go on forever," how about actually responding on the talk page? Can you substantiate a claim that this "casting" trivia is not original research? --EEMIV (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Murder on the Orient Express (1974 film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut, I had forgotten about the previous suggestions to review Film Style Guidelines and explanations about OR and SYN and citing sources at the film Talk page (as well as the same issues on The Great Escape article) before I wrote the above posting to you today. Now that I recall it, I must say I am at a loss to understand your edits. Especially since you refuse to engage in an authentic discussion about the issues. WP is a community with rules. You are free to attempt to change those rules by discussing them on the appropriate Talk pages. It happens. Such discourse is welcome. Do not risk being blocked. Present your positions in something other than Edit Summaries which you apparently never use anyway.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Law & Order: UK, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — pd_THOR | 15:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Genuine facts

Wanna know what one of my favorite games is? Trivial Pursuit. I suspect we have much in common because I'm interested in much the same thing you are when looking for connections between things. But here's the rub. Trivia question: Do you know the first place high school students go to when assigned to research something for English, history, or science classes? Answer: Misplaced Pages. In fact, it's often the only place. Despite being told time and again by teachers that encyclopedias are not good sources, millions of teenagers use them (almost exclusively WP because of its ease of access). Now, encyclopedias are recommended by many teachers as good starting points: sure, go to the WP article and immediately check out the References section and assess the quality of the sources; also, if you find material pertinent to your assignment, look for its citation in the WP article and then go to that source and verify it.

However, the researcher is either at a dead-end or misinformed if the "genuine fact" she has found lacks a solid citation or is just plain wrong.

Misplaced Pages officials agree — in part — with Middlebury’s history department. “That’s a sensible policy,” Sandra Ordonez, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail interview. “Misplaced Pages is the ideal place to start your research and get a global picture of a topic, however, it is not an authoritative source. In fact, we recommend that students check the facts they find in Misplaced Pages against other sources. Additionally, it is generally good research practice to cite an original source when writing a paper, or completing an exam. It’s usually not advisable, particularly at the university level, to cite an encyclopedia.”

That is the number one reason I work on improving articles in Misplaced Pages and am zealous in the use of solid sources. So, I appreciate your desire to have fun with information, but there are other forums for that. And keep in mind that valid research can support some of these "fun" connections. For example, if you notice that the same actors keep working with the same director or producer, chances are that some critic or reviewer has noticed the same thing and written about it; all we need to do is make the effort to find the reliable source. It's also likely that that critic, with her industry connections, has been able to find or solicit additional "fun" information about the connection.

By the way, it's not a matter of "winning or losing": it's making WP better. I certainly don't see myself a winner if that page is deleted, nor do I see myself a loser if it stays. Please look at my communications with you leading up to the nomination; if they were in the least adversarial, I apologize since that was not my intent.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting facts

I forgot to mention the "facts" should be interesting, too. Dude, are you trying to get banned? Put meaningful stuff in the articles. If anyone is interested in the other films (and plays) Colin Blakely has done besides Orient Express, all she has to do is click on the actor's link (that's why we have links). Based on what you did, why didn't you also list the hundreds of other roles he's played. I get it you're linking the two Christie stories, but why stop there? Why not cross reference other productions based on the crew? Other actors? Then try mysteries? And maybe films adapted from novels? Where do you stop in these Kevin Bacon links? Now what would be truly interesting would be to discover if there's a Brabourne/Blakely connection. I'd start wondering how is it that Blakely ended up on another Brabourne production eight years later. Were they friends? Lovers? Whatever it is (if it's not pure chance), dig it up and add it to the article. Anyone can say, "Colin Blakely was in two Agatha Christie movies produced by Brabourne", but how much more interesting and valuable is it to be able to say, "During the production of Orient Express Colin Blakely and John Brabourne struck up a life long friendship which led to Blakely being cast in five more Brabourne productions, including another Christie adaptation, Evil Under the Sun. Brabourne credited Blakely with adding a distinct Shakespearean flair to his roles." (appropriately sourced, of course)? This is why EEMIV and I remove or question or work to enhance trivia factoids, so the material in articles is substantive rather than banal.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Space Adventure Cobra

I'm sorry, but I think this is going both ways. I mean I know the feeling of putting lots of work into something and having it be deleted. I deeply apologise for that. ^_^ However, you need to remember to put citations for things you have written. You do realise that I rewrote the WHOLE article, and put citations everywhere, now THAT is a lot of trouble. I also don't think that image is really needed, it doesn't put any value to the article. – J U M P G U R U 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Marktreut, I've reviewed your edits to Cobra (manga) and they are not appropriate. Your edits go against Misplaced Pages's style guidelines, including WP:LEAD and WP:MOS-AM which governs the article's structure and content. Your "clean up" is not, in truth, cleaning the article but reducing its quality. The article needs copyediting for grammar, but not restructuring or the like as it is perfectly structured per guidelines. If you feel relevant information is missing from this article, please discuss it on the talk page, but per WP:BRD, please do not revert back to your version again. It was a bold move, but was reverted, and should now be discussed if you feel the article should, for some reason, not follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Then that is original research, which does not belong here. I have seen the anime and read the straight-Japanese manga. You are not Public Enemy #1, why don't you just learn from your corrections and move on, that's how I learned. :) You can only make your self Public Enemy by breaking Misplaced Pages's rules. I love Public Enemy... – J U M P G U R U 02:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Cobra_with_Lady_and_Dominique.jpg

I have tagged File:Cobra_with_Lady_and_Dominique.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Misplaced Pages, it must be included in at least one article. Otherwise, it will be deleted in seven days. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cobra (manga). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Smurf versus smurf.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Smurf versus smurf.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:City on fire 1987.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:City on fire 1987.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nav box for Aristophanes

Hi Marktreut - I notice that you removed a navigation box from the top of The Clouds and placed it at the bottom. Someone has also done this to all the other articles by Aristophanes that I have been working on over the past few months. I have put the nav. box at the top of all the plays because it allows for easy cross-referencing between plays and because it is a useful reminder that each play is best understood in the context of all the plays. I think this is a valid reason for undoing your latest edit. Please discuss with me on my Talk page if this is a problem. Thanks Lucretius (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. I've answered it on my own Talk page. Thanks. Lucretius (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Green Party peer

He was called Tim Beaumont. Why not do a quick Google search, find an article, and add the citation. Fences and windows (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Great Escape controversy

It would be helpful if you would jump into this discussion and vouch for the accuracy of the material you placed in the Factual accuracy of The Great Escape article. It might save a lot of work for a number of editors. Thanks.173.72.140.146 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

David article

Hey I removed your contribution to the article and was kind of a jerk about it, but here's my reason - I'm just not sure it is relevant. There are probably a lot of speculative opinions that could be included in this article. I'm not sure why this is a standout. Seriously, sorry about the remark, I was just in a bad mood.

Steven McKenzie, Associate Professor of the Hebrew Bible at Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee, USA and author of King David: A Biography, argues that the Biblical version of David was conceived by spin doctors. He states the belief that David actually came from a wealthy family and was "ambitious and ruthless": "The vigor with which the apology in the Bible asserts David's innocence against Saul strongly suggests that he was in fact involved in a plot against him." The story with Goliath was probably part of the propaganda in David's favour. McKenzie's view is that David was a tyrant who murdered his political opponents, including his own sons.

Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marktreut for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi. Is there a rule in English Misplaced Pages regarding rollback abuse? If yes, is it suitable for Arbcom? OckhamTheFox (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone abuses the Rollback feature, their rollback priveliege will be revoked. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 15:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance tag removal

Please stop removing maintenance tags or deleting their dates as you did here. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't intend to. Must have happened by accident when I editing the article.--Marktreut (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't blank a Talk page; the information on it was there for a reason. By including an article's Class, any needed improvements are brought to the attention of those editors interested in contributing (such as the WP Film community and relevant Task Forces). Thank you for your interest in contributing to WP. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It just seemed to indicate that the article was a stub, which it used to be but is not the case now.--Marktreut (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured. It would have been a better idea to update its Class status -- better information for other editors. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marktreut, I have reset your block to expire in 2 weeks. The block evasion on the IP range 79.64.0.0/13 is known about. If you are seen evading this block–and it will be obvious if you are–your block will be extended indefinitely. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny how a suspension from wikipedia also coincides with a well-earned week's holiday abroad. It also gives one the opportunity to work on new articles for wikipedia (see La Ribambelle), find more details for articles (Birdman of Alcatraz (film) and Battle of Alcatraz) and makes one all the more certain that one was right all along.--Marktreut (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference McKenzie_on_David was invoked but never defined (see the help page).