• SuggestBot postings
• Archive page 1: 2005 - 2007
• Archive page 2: Jan-Mar 2008
• Archive page 3: April 2008
• Archive page 4: May-Jun 2008
• Archive page 5: July 2008
• Archive page 6: August 2008
• Archive page 7: September 2008
• Archive page 8: October 2008
• Archive page 9: Nov-Dec 2008

...to make the exhibit I promised to show why the spacers are useful. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you reverted my edit here? You said "rem joke link", but the point is... well, the character's name was a joke (and one which would have been more immediately understood in the 1970s); this is a link which explains that joke. Shouldn't we include the link, then? DS (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link, you mean this. I've changed my mind, and self-reverted to restore your link. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Palm Beach Story McCrea Colbert.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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. Britneysaints (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some different alterations to your version of the page. They reflect a couple basic changes, but I repositioned some of the images, that perhaps might help. You know my predilection for images not lagging over sections, and I won't be offended if you change that. I probably will be offended if she does. I also took out that insufferable deleted image note that Britney keeps returning. I have a huge issue with her not liking the McCrea-Colbert image, so she nominated it for deletion. Bad faith. Besides, like I've said, it is as valid as any on the Commons page. This is an old issue I've come across with this editor before. Her version is better in her opinion, but the rationale is generally lacking in content or logic. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I think the article was fine before Britney started messing with it. You know I don't always agree with you, ("I have a feeling you may not agree with me entirely"), and I tell you when I don't, but I think you've put up with more bad attitude in recent edits to this article, than you should have to deal with.

Wildhartlivie, when you say "I've come across with this editor before", are you saying Britney isn't Britney? Because I have my doubts. There are a few issues here, but it's dripping with bad faith. Rossrs (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, dear. I've dealt with Britneysaints before, or rather, I should say I've tried to deal with him/her before. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me too. But what I meant was... before I go to work in the morning I put on my shoes and Britneys.... Rossrs (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see if you can hear my intercontinental groan on that one. Besides, a lot of people have come across... oh, never mind. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I heard a distant rumbling. Rossrs (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to both of you for your support. I took a quick look at the article and it seems fine to me, but I'll look more closely tomorrow, when I'll have more time -- tonight it's time to examine my bed! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rossrs (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the layout and the sizes a bit. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You folks should also check out this - nominations of images of Ida Lupino and Miriam Hopkins for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did and I commented. My only comment on what you changed on the Palm Beach Story would be the positioning of the image on the left side below a sub-heading. I'm not fussed over any of it, though, just trying to help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also did. I've added further comments regarding the Palm Beach image, and I think the Louise Brooks image should be kept, so I have commented there also. Even assuming good faith as far as I can, I don't think it's likely that we'll be able to have any kind of meaningful discussion with BS. I've noticed that many edits/comments are copied and pasted from the comments of other editors, and in some cases from policies/guidelines - that's OK, we all do it sometimes - but there's nothing original to suggest any kind of interpretation or discernment. Any original comments, make no sense to me, like the YouTube/TCM comment. That's just plain wrong, and whatever point was being made, I couldn't comprehend it, and I did sincerely try to work out what he/she was trying to say. As for the other images, I'm conflicted. I think it's highly unlikely that those images would have been randomly discovered unless the editor involved went looking for them. The editor hasn't edited either of the articles, but finds the two images at the same time. So, now my assuming good faith is stretched even further. Unfortunately you and I have discussed those images before, and I was borderline and prepared to accept your viewpoint but I feel that neither article has been expanded to the point that either image is mandatory. I see your point, I truly do, but I'm also trying to relate it to image use policy and I believe it falls short.

Think of another actress - unusual first name, played fluttery characters, dead a long time (I'm not naming her because if I do I suspect we'll see another image listed for deletion). I uploaded a free image of her, with the intention of using it in the cast section of the film article. It's a terrible image, and fails to convey anything about her. There's no better free image, but a lovely unfree image which you later uploaded. In that case, I think the unfree image wins hands down, and I wouldn't try to remove it. The free image, in all its awfulness is sitting in the middle of the article where it is not really hurting anyone. In the case of the other two ladies, I see it differently. I think choosing free images over unfree is an important aim, although I don't always agree with the narrow-minded viewpoint in some discussions. To put my opinion simply, if there are two images, one free and one unfree that both fall broadly within the category of "satisfactory", I would choose a low-quality-satisfactory image over a better-quality-satisfactory image. That's what I think we have here. Yes, one of them is crappy, to use your own description, but it does the job. It doesn't do the job as well, but it does it just the same. So I'm conflicted, because I think the main reason they've been listed is because you uploaded them, and that's not acceptable. I won't participate in the deletion discussion, as I think it was a bad faith nomination. Much rather keep it to a friendly chat between two (well three here) mostly-like-minded editors. Rossrs (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect anything less from you than an honest evaluation, and I knew that we had somewhat different perspectives on the Lupino and Hopkins pics -- but honest disagreement, along with collegial working compromises among good-faith editors, are something I have absolutely no problem with, being the grease that makes Wikipedia work. That's clearly not the case with these nominations, though, as you say. As far as I can tell, images are being nominated simply because I uploaded them, or am involved in the editing of the article involved (this is the case with the Louise Brooks image). I haven't been making a case of this to date, preferring to deal with each image as if the nomination was in good faith, but I shall do so before long, when the evidence will, I think, be quite clear, and damning. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... looking through BS's edit history you have to go back to December 2 to find an article (I'm Not So Tough) that you are not involved in. I'd love to say "take it as a compliment" but you ain't gonna buy that, are you? Rossrs (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah...probably not. What about the wooly footwear issue? The editing pattern looks to me like someone who's switched over to another identity in the middle of an editing session -- is there any way you can think of to identify who this could possibly be? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a similarity in style, content and attitude with this editor and several others that I believe to be the same user. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser perhaps? Rossrs (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be game for that, if you're willing to hold off until next week - I finish my current gig shortly, and will have a bit more time available. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That suits me. I'm happy to potter about here doing bits and pieces, as time allows, but to embark on something like that I'd prefer to be fully available. Until the New Year, I'm not sure if I'll be here a little or a lot. Rossrs (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted a bit of an agenda here myself. BUT I am so very pleased to see that someone managed to pare away bits and pieces of Angela Lansbury. I keep saying it - people have been trying to do that for years!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another go at Polly Bergen, sans Angela Lansbury. Just for fun, I'm now thinking of adding Angela Lansbury to a few images. Opinions welcome, of course. Rossrs (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, hair less spotty than mine, and the guy on the left out. Still looks like a deer who's seen better days caught in the headlights, but until she passes on or someone takes another shot of her... (You'd think some of these celebs and ex-celebs would make pictures available so they weren't badly represented on Wikipedia.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the comments, though I only chose to format the infoboxes in that way, based on other film pages I had seen. So it wasn't personal preference, rather, I thought most infoboxes were preferred to be edited that way. I don't know whether I can change all of them again, but I'll try. Blackjanedavey (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted my edits to Powell and Pressburger and A Matter of Life and Death (film), where I removed blank space after the first paragraphs (as well as a comment asking that I leave that blank space). Leaving a line after the first paragraph isn't standard practice on this wiki (for example, the major pages United States, Water and Central processing unit do not have them), so I was wondering why this was. It's probably just a matter of personal preference, and it doesn't affect the quality of the article either way, but I'd like an explanation. LiamUK (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]