This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 2 May 2023 (→Manual of style: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:46, 2 May 2023 by Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) (→Manual of style: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Charles Higham quote and McCarthysim
Dear DD - I do not object to you removing the Higham quote, but I do request that you replace it with one that supports the material that preceded it. As is, the material left without a source.
You wrote that the Higham quote is "a hyper-ideological apologia for McCartyhism totally inappropriate" in a Misplaced Pages article. Perhaps you can provide the names of those film critics you consider qualified to comment on the Hollywood blacklist, under which Milestone may have suffered.
Your imperative "The quote has been excised and must not be reinstated" is delightful and daring. In return, I offer you this remarkable obituary on the inimitable actor Richard Harris, like yourself "a professional Irishman", and written by Marxist writer and film critic Paul Bond.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/10/harr-o30.html
--Lord Such&Such (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Tone
This article is in need of editing for tone - encyclopedic writing should not use colloquialisms and should remain impartial. For example, words to watch should generally be avoided, as should flowery phrasings like "had the shared misfortune of competing with a veritable pantheon". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out, Nikkimaria, agree 100% here. Hopefully the repeated reverts by a certain user will stop now and encyclopaedic work will proceed. Robert Kerber (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Manual of style
Not sure why my edit has been reverted but this article is a mess. Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- A certain user has made repeated reverts, including repeated removals of the "tone" banner, but it looks like this has stopped now thanks to the above comment by Nikkimaria. Robert Kerber (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- User:Thedarkknightli: You are welcome to revert, but keep them within Wiki Rules limits. Using the pejorative term "a mess" to describe an article requires positive evidence. The article, as written has been visited and edited numerous times without any generalized complaint. Please enter into a discussion and defend your position.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- CerroFerro, at the moment there are multiple editors who see problems with the article as written, and so far no defense has been put forward for your position that it has none. I'd invite you to join the discussion above. In the interim though, the tag should remain in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly one...ONE...editor has complained about the "tone" or that the article is "a mess." The person who continues to post the notice has not offered a single argument as to why the entire article should be stigmatized as such: "so far no defense has been put forward" by the posting editor. The high quality of article speaks for itself.--CerroFerro (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Three people on this talk page have suggested they believe the article has issues. There are specific rationales for the tagging in the section above. So no, we cannot say that the "high quality of article speaks for itself", and it's not appropriate to remove the tag at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- CerroFerro, three users, User:Thedarkknightli, Nikkimaria and I have tagged this article for "tone" issues. There are clear directions how to proceed with the article before removing the tag. Each time, you removed the tag without addressing any of the issues regarding the article's tone, even despite Nikkimaria's given examples. Neither have you followed the invitation to a constructive participation made by Nikkimaria. Instead you make false claims about the number of users questioning the article's alleged quality and restrict your comments to your reverts to ones like "I see you on the talk page". If you persist removing the tagging for tone without addressing any of the mentioned issues, your behaviour can be regarded as vandalism, which it already has been in the past. Please act according to WP rules from now on. Robert Kerber (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Does the article have "issues"? Then provide examples. Please, be precise.--CerroFerro (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Again, there are examples provided in the section above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)