• 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]

You have a history of valued contributions, but I disagree with you on the spacing issue, as did others in your talk archive. Until you show the specific browser issue you are trying to correct, there is no apparent value in the non-standard spacing that you insert into articles and I will correct it as I come across it. davewho2 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2009 (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]

File:Palm Beach Story McCrea Colbert.jpg listed for deletion

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]

You might want to check the source here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that when I uploaded it, and couldn't figure out why it was happening. I tried a few things to fix it, but struck out, then was distracted and had to leave for some hours. On top of that I compounded the problem by uploading the wrong image. Instead of putting up the one I had taken from the trailer at Spout and cleaned up a bit, I uploaded the very similar image (for the same scene) that had previously been deleted from WP. So I've now tried to cut through the b.s. by re-uploading the correct image, and nominating the previous upload for deletion. What a mess. It's too bad that the old shot couldn't have been used, since it's cleaner than what I ended up with. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welllll, in my mind it was a bad faith deletion nomination to start. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so, but I could kick myself for making it easier by uploading the wrong image. In any case, I just uploaded another, which I think might be a bit better, and have inserted it into the article, replacing the previous one. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, I've had a look at the tomfoolery. They spring up like weeds don't they? Were there several versions made of the trailer? I know this could be the case, but I don't specifically know about this film. The trailer looks vintage but the voice-over and text appear more recent. I'll give it some thought, and wait for your clarification. I may not be here much over the next few days, but I'll try to check in and see how things are going. I don't know if you observe Christmas but if you do, I wish you a merry one. If you don't - I wish you a happy holiday. Rossrs (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Merry Christmas!
		Wildhartlivie wishes you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Thanks for being my Wiki-buddy! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My best wishes.....it's me Lou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.160.121 (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My best to you for the holidays as well. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be so kind, would you please revert the recent anonymous edit to this article? I would do it myself, but a condition of 1RR is in place, and I would be in violation. As the user has violated said condition, and has promised to continue to do so, I am going to request he be blocked (again), and the page protected. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed! I am supposed to be on Wikibreak right now, preparing to travel down to New Orleans. But, as the man said, just when I think I am out, they drag me back in! Cheers to you for the New Year! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Could you explain me why there is a space needed there and nowhere else on the film articles?... Klow (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spacing is needed between the lede section and the table of contents (or between the external links and the navboxes at the bottom) because of a rendering problem with Internet Explorer that butts these items up against each other if there isn't a space there. The problem is not seen with Firefox or Safari. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Gee, Ed, are you a girl? That would be the only explanation I could come up with for having gay love for ya!! Surely they will do something? Resolve it with the editor?? Puh-leeze! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you two crazy, gay, transsexual, highschool, teenaged film fans!!! I'm interested to see what more you could possibly do to try to resolve this. Short of juggling and riding a unicycle, I can't think of anything you haven't tried. Once we get past this busy time of year, we really need to look at that check user option. Rossrs (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly explain your reasoning for undoing my edit to Twentieth Century (film) wherein I added credits for the writers (Ager & Yellen) of the song Happy Days Are Here Again which was featured in the film (source IMDB)? BuffaloBob (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the song is sung a capella by one of the characters, and is not a major element in the film, so mention of the song's writers in the infobox is not warranted. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Casablanca (film). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. B (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(My unblock request) Hello, I would appreciate a review the circumstances of this block, please.

Although I do not deny that 3RR was breached, I would point out that, as shown by both my edit summaries and my comments on Talk:Casablanca (film), I continually attempted to get the other editors involved – User:2005 and User:DreamGuy – to discuss the disputed material, which had been in the article since August without controversy – but instead they continued to delete it without any discussion. My reverts were made in the course of attempting to return the article to the existing status quo while awaiting a discussion to determine consensus, the results of which (as, again, I pointed out on the talk page) I would happily follow.

I regret having breached the bright-line rule against edit-warring, but plead exigent circumstances for doing so. I would like to be unblocked, if possible, so that I can continue the work I was just engaged in, creating articles for films included in the National Film Registry which do not currently have them, but if the reviewing admin does not feel that the block should be overturned, I'll wait the 24 hours and pick up the work again then -- I have no desire to create a fuss.

My thanks for your time and consideration.

There is no deadline for Wikipedia to be correct. You don't have to keep reverting in order to facilitate a discussion - you can have a discussion while the page is on the "wrong version". The case you describe is exactly what the 3RR is designed to stop. --B (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never quite understood the theoretical distinction between "preventative" and "punitive" blocks, which I think comes into play here. A simple friendly notice to me from an uninvolved party that I was in serious danger of being blocked would almost certainly have resulted in my backing off from the dispute, so being blocked certainly seems punitive to me, as blocking to prevent me from continuing (while, ironically, allowing the other parties in the dispute, who provoked the circumstance, to continue) amounts (at least from my personal point of view) to preventation overkill.

In any case, so be it -- I've fallen afoul of the system, and the system has responded by forcing me not to edit Wikipedia until an hour into the New Year here on the East Coast of America. I'll just have to find something else to do for those hours...

Happy New Year to all! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I wish you to keep in good spirits. Often when defending articles one loses count of the clock. And so loses count of the count. Keep the faith and keep up the good works. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your continuing efforts to strengthen the content and character of Wikipedia. Your work is deeply appreciated. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...to Michael Q. Schmidt and Ecoleetage for their kind thoughts - they are much appreciated. Happy New Year to both of you! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting this to both of your pages. I am a film lover and participant in many film discussions online, in chatrooms, and in real life, over the years. I recently stumbled upon the contretemps you two seemed to be having with some editors, most notably a fellow named 2005.

I am not a Wiki editor. This is my first foray, and likely my last. I just wanted to say bravo for standing up to what I see as bad policies regarding what constitutes "expertise" in certain fields. Most notably, in this argument, it regards Umberto Eco. While a noted novelist, he has done some film writing. Yet, the opposing editors seem to discredit his POV vis-a-vis whoever it is they deem experts.

As someone who basically has used Wiki as a resource to fuel my arguments pro or con about an actor or director or film, I have found the linkage, in articles, and in the links sections, most helpful. I have found many interesting articles, writers, and websites that were linked to a film or director page. And many of these were small sites, personal blogs, or things unassociated with Hollywood.

Perhaps either of you can tell me what it is with this obsession Wikipedia editors (present company excepted) has with denigrating those critics from small media outlets or blogs? After all, this seems to be the same bias Wikipedia faces vs. Britannica. The fact is that there are more credible opinions online than just in the Pauline Kael/Roger Ebert/Washington Post/New Yorker coterie of critics. I fail to see what makes Kenneth Turan, of the L.A. Times, more "authoritative" (according to 2005), than Joe Blow of the ____ film blog. Is it the fact that Turan cashes a paycheck? If so, what happens in a few years when all the newspapers cannot make a profit? Will Turan then just be another blogger? Is it becaus ehe, or others, belongs to some big city film critics circle?

As I said, I have discovered many wee written and thought provoking articles, writers and websites via articles on Wikipedia, yet often find the links missing if I go back a week or so later, for more info. Even someone as well known as Eco, apparently, is not "authoritative" enough to speak on this film. It's silly. This is just my opinion, but of Blogger X says something that gets to the very nub of a film or actor or scene, and Roger Ebert does not, in his review, then that makes Blogger X more "authoritative" than Ebert or Turan or Kael.

Anyway, just wanted to write and say I appreciate your standing up against this insanity. It's one thing to delink obvious spam or blatantly commercial ads, but to blanket state that a blogger or person from another field has an opinion not worth being mentioned, simply because of who they are, not what they actually state, seems to defeat the very purpose of Wikipedia, which I've always taken as getting as much relevant and "good" information to the public, regardless of where or who it comes from. Tally ho!Tankerzea (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]