User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 35

205.215.222.75

Sorry, I have no insights about 205.215.222.75 or 75.168.49.3; I'm just as baffled by their edits as you are. Trivialist (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty. I guess we will just have to keep our eyes open. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Break

Done! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 15:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I was actually hoping it would not have to come to that. This experience gives the lie to the recent claims that new editors arrive on WP, feel bullied, and leave. Many new editors have no intention of being cooperative, or get locked into a certain stance, as with this fellow, and will not budge. I hoped we could talk with him and get him to see reason, but that is not going to happen now. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

His (couldn't be a "her", surely) editing history says it all but it is a shame. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 15:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear God

Instead of removing information pertinent to an article ("A YT link is not an adequate ref") how about ADDING AN "ADEQUATE REF"?? Please help build up WP, don't tear it down.Geĸrίtzl (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it highly arrogant of you to come here and demand that I find a reference for the information you added. How about you find an adequate reference before you add the information in the first damn place? Do not bother responding, as we have nothing further to say to one another. Any further discussion should take place on the article talk page. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Aside from the rudeness displayed by shouting Gekritz you will want to read WP:BURDEN wherein it states that the person adding the information to an article needs to provide a reference. Without a ref any other editor is perfectly within their rights to remove said edit. MarnetteD | Talk 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Marnette! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Cash

Report me whenever you want. --Opus88888 (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Count on it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It was you

They say, "Great minds think alike." I found I had an (edit conflict) whilst undoing that No Country addition and was not surprised to find that it was with you. I made a minor change which improves the English to my mind. Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gareth! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

OldJacobite,

This is going back a little while but I wanted to finally get back to you about your reverting the change I made to the page about the song "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald." You changed it back to Dorian because I didn't put a reference for saying it was actually in Mixolydian. The problem is that the reference is wrong. Although the melody never uses the 3rd, which makes it indeterminate as to Dorian or Mixolydian, the song's tonic/home chord is B major, thus giving the D# and making it quite clearly Mixolydian. I'm in the finishing stages of a PhD in musicology; I know what I'm talking about here. Incornsyucopia (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2013

I really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I do not recall ever changing that information, because I have no understanding of it. Other editors have made such changes, and I respect their edits. This should be discussed on the article talk page. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

American Psycho

The personality of Patrick Bateman has been discussed by psychiatrists and psychologists and they've described him as being co-morbid borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. These two disorder have very similar traits and psychiatrists often can't tell when a patient is either BPD or NPD because they can be difficult to distinguish from each other. He clearly has a lot of emotions - rage, panic, etc - over minor, seemingly trivial things like the business cards, or returning of the videotapes. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. If what you are saying is true, there should be references in the article, no category can be added that is not supported by sources. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

American Psycho

Hello, OldJacobite. I cannot find a way to directly address you. I followed these links after you invited me to do so, because I had edited the Wikipedia page for the movie "JFK." In "real life," I am a professional movie critic for a major American newspaper--one of America's "Top Critics," according to RottenTomatoes and Metacritic. The page for "JFK" is embarrassingly one-sided, overwhelmingly reflecting negative contents instead of the critical consensus. As the page notes, the movie has a "Fresh" rating over 80 percent--yet the number of positive quotes on the Wikipedia page are very few. Can we correct that imbalance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.180.153 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 December 2013‎

Yes, the critical reception section needs a lot of work. But, I do not see how it is improved by your repeated removal of the RT reference. Improvement of that section of the article should be discussed on the article talk page. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Crimson Tide

I think it is necessary to at least include the fact that the USS Alabama was hit by a stray torpedo under Hunter's watch. This touched off the counter rebellion by the officers that sided with Ramsey and contributed significantly to the plot. Also, the struggle Weps had with unlocking the trigger, Ramsey threatening to shoot him and one of his crewmen, and Hunter re-taking the bridge and removing the missile control key just before Ramsey fired a missile are significant points. --Mynameisphil (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page so that other editors can voice their opinions. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of actors from infoboxes

We need to figure something out for this issue we've been having with each other. I have no issue with you directly, but consistently reverting my warranted edits without giving a reason, and without any consensus, is getting a bit ridiculous. I can honestly say that I agree with your edits (when consensus was reached to remove Leto and Meat Loaf from Fight Club, I respected that decision and agree with it), but the template page is clear that the actors used in the infobox should be taken from the billing block. My idea is that we put in a suggestion at the infobox film documentation talk page that the actors included in the poster design be used, and if none are included, to use the billing block. I want to keep up with the guidelines, but I actually agree with you that it should be changed. Does this seem reasonable to you? Corvoe (speak to me) 15:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to figure this out with you. I don't even get a response? Corvoe (speak to me) 14:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If you would pause in your headstrong ways, you might consider that I am under no obligation to respond to you. You might also realize that I have been less active on here since you left your message, which might indicate I have been otherwise occupied. But, I have been thinking about your statement above, and I take issue with your version of events. I have not your edits without giving a reason, in fact, I have stated my reasons over and over again. Furthermore, you are no one to talk about defying consensus when you have repeatedly expanded cast listings in infoboxes without any discussion whatsoever. Most of my edits have been restoring shorter cast lists that you expanded. Erik made it clear that the "policy" you keep citing is only a guideline and certainly never says the billing block must be used.

Clearly, we can keep going back-and-forth on this ad infinitum, but I would prefer not to. This needs a centralized discussion and your suggestion of a post at the infobox film documentation talk page makes sense. If you post there, I will respond and we can make a post at the Filmproject talk page alerting other editors to the discussion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Signature markup nesting

A minor thing, but a quirk of your signature markup is confusing the syntax highlighter that's bundled in Wikipedia's "gadget" preferences, causing your talk page messages to leak grey highlighter ink over the remainder of the conversation. It's easily fixed - you're just closing the boldface after opening the Courier font tag, when really you should be closing it before closing the Georgia font tag, as follows:

<font face="Georgia">'''[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]'''</font><font face="Courier New"><sub>''[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]''</sub></font>

--McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you understand that none of that makes any sense to me, but I will fix the signature. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas greetings

Christmas dinner

Machinima of Santa Claus's reindeer filmed in Second life

Imploring that TheOldJacobite enjoys a sumptuous Christmas holiday and a naughty New Year! First play this → → →

Now play this!
I dare you to tell me that you did not smile.

Cheers!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 01:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Gareth! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)