Talk:The Mackintosh Man

Correct title MacKintosh

Just saw the movie and recognized that the original title on the screen is spelled "THE MacKINTOSH MAN", thus the correct title is "The MacKintosh Man", not Mackintosh... VINCENZO1492 14:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

US movie trailer has only CAPITALS as the posters, too. But IMDb spelling is "The MacKintosh Man" as per original screen title, too. VINCENZO1492 15:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Admin Shirt58 is reverting or editing regularly my edits about the movie title The MacKintosh Man or The Mackintosh Man. First with non-reliable reasons (raincoat trademarks), second with weaker sources (movie reviews) than the original movie. He is not taking part in the discussion about the movie title (even not after I invited him into the discussion about this matter on his personal talk page) but is still editing the content. In between standard users this is called vandalism. But he is using his admin rights to re-edit or revert my edits. Overruling with admin right my contents to make his contents the one that are used in WP. Thus it is an abuse of admin rights. I put a notice of this onto [noticeboard for incidents] VINCENZO1492 05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• OK, stepping in here... first off, I need to note that your post on his talk page was rather negative in tone and didn't really come across like you were open to discussion in the slightest and only wanted him to agree with you. Your comments here back this up, especially since your next move was to accuse Shirt58 of abusing his powers because he wanted this to go through a discussion first. Despite your posting, I don't really see where you're actually open to discussion at all and your next move was to escalate this to ANI. Secondly, it was well within Shirt58's right to decline the move request. There are a lot of sources out there that use both versions of the title, so it stands to reason that this will be something that will need to be better investigated. I also think that the reason that Shirt58 was arguing the trademark angle is because the movie's title references the aforementioned garment, that it's very likely that the intended spelling of the film would be Mackintosh in keeping with the trademarked garment. That there are several sources that spell the title with a lowercase k ([1], [2], [3]) and that it is sold/referenced on several merchant sites with a lowercase k are both good rationales to opposing the name change, since it means that this needs to be better scrutinized. The film's title card does use a different spelling, but I also need to note that the film's official posters do not, so it's could be argued that the title could be spelled either way. However the main point is that since the title change was contested, that means that it cannot be moved by any other way other than a move request. Replacing the speedy and going "but I'M right" is not permitted and can be seen as you being disruptive. I'm not endorsing either spelling and I can see the rationales for both. Now going back to the way you've phrased everything in various areas, I'd like to ask that you try to assume good faith from other editors. Not only can your past posts be seen as assuming bad faith, but they can also be seen as WP:ADHOMINEM attacks - both of which are things that will not endear you to many people on Wikipedia since it will automatically put incoming editors on the defensive since they will have to assume that you will make similar attacks against them if they do not agree with you. Now again, I'm not endorsing either spelling. Mostly I just wanted to give an explanation for Shirt58's actions (as I saw them) and give you a bit of a warning about your tone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also, as far as IMDb goes, the reason that's not used as a RS for film information is because the page is relatively easily edited by random editors. It's happened in the past where people have managed to edit film articles to insert blatantly false data and in one case, a girl managed to create a profile that said that she was going to be She-Hulk in one of the Avengers or Captain America movies. That's kind of the reason why IMDb is unusable as a source to back up claims. Wikipedia does use it as an external link, but that's just about the only thing it can truly be used for. Basically your best bet here is to show how the capital K spelling of the name is the most common spelling, since official sources spell the film in both formats. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I explained clearly and with facts why I can't accept Shirt58 behaviour. If clear facts are not hitting the tone Shirt58 likes - then I'm getting a warning? With your long statements you don't gave me any proper reason why I should accept his disrespectful behaviour towards me. I only understand that your intention seems to support him. What you call "stepping in here" is simply taking sides of Shirt58. Your statement "give you a bit of a warning about your tone" is more than clear (and offending). Did you ever think about give him a warning about his behaviour? Apparently not... And you have another hint for me: I'd like to ask that you try to assume good faith from other editors.... Well, did Shirt58 assume good faith from me as an editor? By reverting withpreferring secondary sources instead of the original? Additionally ignoring an invitation to be part of a discussion? As an admin, who should know about basic WP rules + behaviour? And you are asking me to be satisfied with his disrespect (or ignorance or arrogance or whatever is the right word for it...). Sorry, your unbalanced, one-sided, NPOV-pretending but NPOV-ignoring statements nor let me understand Shirt58's behaviour neither I can accept a warning about my tone with the reasons you gave me. I assume good faith from you, but obviously this went totally wrong as you simply took Shirt58's POV. At least thank you for trying a mediation even when you missed the intuition in this case. (PS. I did not name IMDb as a reliable source but I was surprised that in this case IMDb has more reliable edits than WP.) VINCENZO1492 19:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• If your move was contested (which it was) then what you need to do is discuss the move. If Shirt58 agrees to the move, then you could request the move as uncontroversial. However in this situation he did not agree, which makes it a controversial move. Now after that happens, the only thing you can do is continue to discuss the move or open up a move discussion. You did not do that and you tried to request a page move two times and accused Shirt of abusing his admin rights. This is what I meant by an attack and not assuming good faith. Shirt was well within his rights to refuse the move if he thought that there was a valid reason and he was also well within his rights to remove the tags. If at any point ANYONE has a good rationale for refusing a move, the move is no longer controversial. Now if his rationale was "because it's raining" then that would be an invalid rationale, however he had a decent point to contest the move. I'm not agreeing with either of you on what it should be moved to, I'm just saying that there was no abuse of power here and I don't think that any other editor would say otherwise in this particular circumstance. Now all you can do at this point is open up a move discussion and talk it out while providing RS to back up your point. Accusing Shirt or myself as behaving badly will not accomplish a thing. I've also reverted your changes to Talk:The MacKintosh Man. While I really do not like The Dissident Aggressor swearing (note: TDA, this isn't helping the situation), Wikipedia is not censored and you should not remove anyone else's comments on a talk page - ESPECIALLY when it is a potentially contentious edit. Now you can either let this go and move on to edit other topics or you can open up a move discussion per WP:RM#CM. However sitting here and accusing an admin that has been here for years of acting improperly in a situation where he has not is not going to accomplish a single thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's sort this out

Here's a brief list of how some reliable sources write the title of this movie:

• Roger Ebert calls it "The Mackintosh Man"
• The New York Times calls it "The Mackintosh Man"
• The Montreal Gazette calls it "The Mackintosh Man"
• Time Out calls it "The Mackintosh Man"
  

There are many more. Even Walmart sells a DVD under the title "Paul Newman: The Mackintosh Man / Somebody Up There Likes Me / Cool Hand Luke / Harper"
@Vincenzo1492: - if you can find anything resembling a reliable reference to change "The Mackintosh Man" to "The MacKintosh Man", I will do it straight away, as soon as you let me know.
Don't let it be said that I haven't given you a chance. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I never got a notification that you posted something here. Thus I was not ignoring it but it never got to my attention before. But apart from that I do not guess that it would make sense to discuss this matter as you are preferring secondary sources to the original movie title. And you even put a retail corp. advertising under the headline "reliable source" - at least more reliable for you than an original movie title? I can't find your basis to discuss and what to discuss. There's is nothing to sort out as I am under the impression that you don't want to sort out and that you rather prefer a wrong information than accepting the original movie title. From this basis it e.g. would be o.k. to put a completely wrong plot on Wikipedia if a reliable source describes a totally wrong plot even when you know the movie and you know that it is totally wrong described. Ignoring errors from the beginning is ignorance. And how to discuss or sort out if someone states from the beginning and insists that the most reliable source will be ignored? I have no idea, with best wishes from VINCENZO1492 11:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)