User talk:MarnetteD/archive22

270:

commentaries and "making of" segments as J-NT's showmanship over content proclivities - but I do remember how exciting it was to see it at the time AND to be seeing it before it was aired in the UK. Remembrance... was fun and I liked it better that the "official" 25th anniversary story Silver Nemesis which suffered from having too many plot beats that were just like Remembrance... You are right about leap years being the determining factor in day/date matchups. The quickest they can happen is 5 yrs and the longest is 11 - which we are currently in BTW. I too gave up on editing the new series articles. Ownership issues are always a problem with them. I stopped several years ago after trying to cut back on an absurd amount of repeat info in Partners in Crime (some of it is gone now so you'd have to dig back to find what I am talking about) and then I was told that - because it was a GA or FA it couldn't be edited. It read like a 6th grader who has to write a report of 1000 words repeating the same thing paragraph after paragraph - I would know because I probably did that all those years ago. The promotion to GA or FA status was closed after about 5 or 6 editors had commented and the ep hadn't even aired in the US yet. You are right about the problematic nature of the trainspotting (another editor coined the term but I can't remember who at the moment) being added at the moment. The editor does seem to be sourcing some of it but the rest is mostly OR and Synthesis. I was thinking of letting it be for small period of time and then going back through it but don't wait on me if you don't want to. One last note - did you get to see this edit summary

165:

plot section below that. That disappeared somewhere along the line. I think my next mini project might be to go through and try and make them consistent. On another note sometime in the last two or three years someone seems to have started a restructuring of the format of the classic series articles but they ran out of steam somewhere around the end of the 2nd Dr's - or start of the 3rd's - era. On another another note I am a bit concerned about this "we've renewed the series for 14 episodes" "we aren't going to have any new episodes in '12 and we might not have any til the 50th anniversary in '13" I wonder if there is something going on internally at the Beeb that we don't know anything about. Yet one more item - it is a nice coincidence of the calendar that the 50th is on a Saturday! Wonder how they are gonna do that

2418:

Star Wars and not just for the last and next film made by actors, directors etc but it got even more confusing when people started entering books or TV series into the fields. One reason I am removing them is so that new editors who cut and paste an infobox from an article (rather than coping the template) don't wind up trying to use them and then get frustrated when they can't see the information. I think I understand where you are coming from (and please forgive me if I am wrong) in that you liked having the info at the top of the article. But at least the {{Laurel and Hardy}} template at the bottom of the articles still allows access to their filmographies (together and separate) where readers and editors can see the order that the films were released in.

1058:

though that character fired off a shot in the air, he fell down unconscious and seemed like he bought it too...and died. That's why I was wondering why the article said that only two died, instead of all three. Because it really seemed that that third one got killed also. And again, he didn't look totally the same in that later scene, where he was talking about "learning to shoot with his left hand". lol.... Do you believe that after all these years of knowing about this movie...and seeing it, that just now because of your revert, did I finally figure that out? That guy about to shoot Tuco in the bath was that bounty hunter from the opening. Oh well.... Now I got it. thanks.

601:. I didn't necessarily know that, but it makes sense. I just lately started editing films and filmmakers articles that have, like I said, aesthetic sensibilities, but I find it dumbfounding how they have no such indication on there. I mean, isn't Quentin Tarantino known for that? You wouldn't know it looking at his article. But anyway, I think eventually I'm going to have to start my own wikiproject relating to independent/avant-garde/experimental films. I can't do all this myself. But thanks for the tip. 273:? During one of my repeat viewings of Hands of Fear years ago I noticed that the 4th Dr says "In here you can't hurt us and we can't harm you" (not exact but I am too lazy to grab the DVD at the moment) there is no further line stating whether the "in here" means the entire TARDIS or just that control room so I thought that my idea was a more elegant answer to the conundrum than the one given to Nyssa. Ah well I've taken up too much of your time so back to editing and have a great weekend. 31: 926:, I'm starting a camping trip 2morrow morning, and with the possible exception of 2morrow's 1 PM stopover, I will be without Net access (or phone for that matter) for one week, and unable to respond to Wiki-messages, or whatever. I won't be able to participate in any debates or lend any helping hands over here at WP. (My super-slow net-accessible cell phone works right on the edge of camp, but as the kids staying are not allowed electronic devices, I, as staff, won't break the rules.) 1784: 361:

of ever speaking to him again after my recently reversed block. I pointed out to him repeatedly that the rationale was fine, and he simply insisted it wasn't. I asked him point-blank to help me out by telling me what was wrong with it, and he refused. Because not collaborating or discussing conflicts with the other party is part of edit warring, I reported him to 3RR, the other editor gave him a free pass, despite his uncivil behavior.

402:

is something simple then the picture can be saved. If it can't be saved the best thing might be to move on to the next bit of editing - I have had hours and days worth of work that has been deleted for various reasons. It is always a total drag on the other hand there is always vandalism to fight and the occasional thing to add to an article that might enhance it. Have a better week in this upcoming one and cheers.

887:. So Ponyo is keeping an eye on this IP but if any new ones pop up today please feel free to let this admin know about your suspicions. There is also a thread at the top of Ponyo's talk page from last month about this same editor if you are interested. Thanks for your vigilance - it is much appreciated. Cheers. 2315:

wedlock to a father who may have been called Goodman. Since Kingsley's maternal grandparents never married, for the initial statement to be true it would mean that both of them were born as Goodman, which I find highly improbable. Unless you can find a source to corroborate this, I would suggest removing it.

2318:

My second objection concerns the allegation that Kingsley's grandfather may have been Jewish. This is unreliable conjecture, not fact, regardless of who said it, and therefore not particularly relevant to an encyclopaedic bio. Perhaps you should consider moving it to a trivia section, should you feel

2314:

Hello. I see that you reverted my edits re Kingsley's early life, citing "blanking vandalism". I have two issues with that section as it currently stands. Firstly, it states that his maternal grandmother's maiden name was Goodman, yet one of the citations claims that Kingsley's mother was born out of

1513:

This is the English language Knowledge. Unless you can provide translations of sources that you cite they cannot be verified and, therefore, cannot be used. Neither Scott-Stokes nor John Nathan make mention of Eto having any effect on Mishima. BTW, the sentence you are trying to insert makes no sense

1178:

of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please

833:

401:

It is no bother at all. I am not sure that I have any solutions. My understanding of NFCC is less that nil. My one suggestion is that if future pics come under question that you get other eyes on the situation by going to whatever wikiproject that might be involved with the article in question. If it

164:

Hi again R. Thanks for acknowledging my edit summary. As I went through the classic series articles I kept finding the two terms used inconsistently. Some articles have only one or the other of the headers and some have both. When I started here 6+ years ago we had a synopsis in the lead and then the

2417:

I posted a longer answer on this editors talk page but here is the pertinent info for any talk page watchers. In answer to your question those fields were deactivated by consensus eight or nine months ago so they no longer are visible in the infoboxes. They were originally meant for film series like

1981:

I think that's a good theory, at least, it makes sense at the "gut level." I do not know if I want to be more vigilant, actually, I know I do not want to be, but something prevents me from leaving this place for very long. And it is not some romantic/naive "belief in the project." Indeed, I think

1884:

Hello RJ. My apologies for not responding sooner. My weekend was very hectic and disjointed and that led to limited editing here at WikiP. It looks like you have things in hand at the moment so I may wait to see if there is any more response to your post before adding my two cents. FWIW I kinda find

951:

Hi MarnetteD! From the current entry - "Shortly before the war, Rattigan had written (together with Anthony Maurice) a satire about Nazi Germany, Follow My Leader; the Lord Chamberlain refused to license it on grounds of offence to a foreign country, but it was performed from January 1940" However,

532:

At risk of sounding argumentative, have you ever seen this movie? And lets forget about that for a moment; the majority of directors involved are independent film directors. If it doesn't say that in the article, well that's not my fault. But it is at the very least an independent film, and there is

360:

to tell me specifically what was wrong with its rationale. In looking over the image, it appeared the the rationale was in order, so I reverted it. After two of my reverts, he reverted again, and placed a 3RR warning on my page, and claimed that I was nursing a grudge, even though I had no intention

2011:

I read somewhere, though I remember not where, that those three films formed a loose trilogy. But, they have no common characters, or even themes, really. If it is true, it is the loosest of loose trilogies I have ever heard of. It certainly does not belong in the lede of that article when it is

1331:

to replace the deadlink. Which is fine, but the fact of non-notablity remains. To my knowledge James is not an LGBT advocate in any way. He had a few flings with some blokes and it made the news because he fronted a boy band and the tabloids were titillated. It maybe that the LGBT status is fine, I

1075:

You are welcome. It also took me several viewings over the years to figure out that it was the same actor. I think one of the extras on the Deluxe DVD version points this out as well but I can't remember if it is the commentary or in one of the "making" of documentaries. I know exactly what you are

510:

Hi again. Thanks for the update. If you've seen the top of my talk page I have a note from a few years ago about HC who was a true pest. It is old so I'm sure that you are right but that is where I start from. I am always happy to have a tag that I add changed to the correct info and I see that you

1961:

Thanks for your message. I have been conflicted about whether I wanted to see the film in light of how good the series with Alec Guinness is. If they are making major changes like the ones you are describing then I am more likely to keep my money in my pocket :-) I know that remakes are inevitable

1945:

Just as a by-the-by; I saw your comment on the revert. The edit was presumably some eejit who has seen the film and taken it upon himself to correct an article about the book. I'm not sure why, but for the film they changed the setting of Prideaux's shooting (etc) to Budapest and Tarr's mission to

2437:

It's every frame of their Roach talkie output, all 40 talkie shorts, and all of the Roach features. All-new HD transfers, from Roach vault and Library of Congress prints, all original Roach title cards; some of those titles have been "slumbering" since 1930! Best of all: it's only $ 67 at Amazon.

1057:

In other words, the one eyed guy with one arm. That came to kill Tuco in his bathwater? I figured it out. THAT was one of the bounty hunters in the opening scene. What threw me is that he really didn't look much the same in that later scene. And also, to be honest, in the opening scene, even

973:. This might not be who you are talking about but if it is then the answer to your question might be that he didn't use his last name - and since it might be to germanic for a country at war there might have been a good reason not to use it - for a period of his life. I can recommend that you ask 373:

that the wikilink was wrong, he engages in this habit of self-righteous deletionism, with no attempt made to work with others and preserve images, or even answer questions when asked. Does this seem like someone who understands collaboration? He could've avoided all of this by simply saying, "The

368:

out Δ's inappropriate adherence to letter-of-the-law and lack of clarity. Someone eventually pointed out that the link to the Breen article on the image page's rationale went to a dab page, as the article in question had been moved some time ago. So rather than simply fix the wikilink himself, or

296:

My apologies for not looking more carefully at the edit history. In fact, I had considered reverting the replacement myself. A glance at that editor’s Talk indicates a pattern of serious problems in following WP policy and plain common courtesy; I’ve added a comment to his Talk agreeing with your

1382:

Thank you very much for your thoughts. I rarely have been involved in long ranging disputes, so no, this is all useful info. I did post it on the BLP noticeboard, but there have been no replies. I have found this editor to be an uncivil grump with everyone. It doesn't seem worth pursuing. 'Third

2074:

I figured that the problem with a disambiguation page is that people are much less likely to refer to it than glancing up at the hatnote (unfamiliar with that word but I like it), especially in this case, when the '39 Dietrich-Stewart movie is so infinitely more famous than the Tom Mix or later

1894:

since it is only being sourced to FFC. If there were secondary sources discussing plans for a fourth film then the question of inclusion becomes stickier. I apologize if I am letting you down. You might also post your question at the film projects talk page if you feel like it. Otherwise have a

1030:

somehow, but my only concern is that this page would get really long really fast. Perhaps a discussion the talk page, we could find the way to clean up the page to list specifically the numbered criterion films, and maybe move the other releases (the Merchant Ivory Collection for example) to a

708:

and start a thread there just like you did when you started this conversation. I'm afraid that I can't be of much help as I edit is short bursts and I an involved in a major cleanup project at the the moment. But, as I say, there may be editors at that talk page who will be willing to assist.

269:

Thanks for your note. I'll try to respond in order. I still like 3 Drs (though I am not complaining about your characterization of it) as it was the first time they attempted to bring the shows history together. 5 Drs has its problems - most due to what has come to be described on the DVD

2344:

You need to post these on the talk page for the Kingsley article. Be aware that we do not edit based on your feelings or conjecture. We only use reliable sources and you will need to bring new one forward to refute those already used in the article. You can also post questions at the

72:

was already created. My talk page archive now points to 'Archive 01' so I don't know if my archiving is correct or not. Bit of a technical question that I can't really work out currently, does it look correct to you? Again, sorry to hassle you but I'm a bit of a newbie with archiving.

2180:

so that editors don't keep making the same mistake. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. As an aside to this Richard's opening speech was one of the ones I learned in my theater classes in High School and I can still recite most of it today :-) Cheers and happy editing.

596:

I saw your edit summary; I didn't categorize it that way because of its vignette format. And when I say independent, I'm referring to the style marked by mostly aesthetic (as opposed to commercial box office success) sensibilities. But that is interesting what you said about

977:

about this. He is a long time theatre critic from England and he has given me a wealth of info over the years. I don't know if he edits as often as he used to so you might have to wait a few days to get your question answered. Hope this was of some help and cheers.

2160:

You're right, MarnetteD. I myself have already reverted this same mistake on the Guinness page on a number of occasions. It's amazing - and frustrating - how some editors insist on this error without even bothering to check the play's original text. Best regards,

1889:

were fascinating - though I am also glad they never filmed it as that bus in a literal cliffhanger is one of my favorite film endings ever. However that does not mean that they should be added to an encyclopedia's articles. In this case there is the problem of

2438:

There's also a big restoration project of the original camera negs underway at UCLA, but that's five or six years before completion. It's important this new set sells well, because if it doesn't it will certainly be the last gasp of L&H editions, so you

2176:

Thanks for your note MUSIKVEREIN. Yes it is frustrating, although to be honest I have reverted things a time or two without looking closely enough at what I was doing. If it keeps happening we might try adding a hidden note explaining things like I did here

1962:

but when they try to jam storytelling that occurred over several hours on television into a couple of hours in a theatre the result can be so unsatisfactory. I haven't been able to look at the remake of Brideshead Revisited for much the same reason. Cheers.

146:. To my mind, the "Synopsis" is a summary, what you might get in the blurb on the back of the DVD; the "Plot" has much more detail including stuff you won't want to know before watching it. Plot often has spoilers: synopsis shouldn't have many, if at all. -- 1361:. You probably already know all this but I thought I'd leave you the links anyway. What is wrong is the accusations of vandalism. Not a single one of your edits constitutes vandalism and if E continues to accuse you of that you could seek redress at 1810:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

1121:. I have not reverted the edit, but I do think it should be put back in, maybe worded a little differently to stress the importance of the above point. Also, draws, while certainly a blemish, are not losses statistically. What do you think? 882:

Hello Spanglej and thanks for your message. I let the admin that I have worked with over the last couple of months in this situation know about this new IP just before I logged off last night. You can see the thread and their response here

511:

have already done so. I remember seeing that name in the last few days so I will add it to the memory banks (although those chips are getting older and eroded) and keep it in mind. I'm sorry that you are under siege by this person. Cheers.

385:

Do you think he's going to stop this behavior? Because his most recent message to me (in which he falsely claims that he linked to page indicating the specific problem with the image's rationale) makes no indication that he's going to.

1087:. I told friends and classmates that. Then when it finally came out on VHS in the late 90s or early 00s it turned out that he was played by a Russian actor who I had never seen before. Ah well - thanks for your note and happy editing. 1946:

Istanbul. I'm guessing they were shooting in Hungary so it was easier to use location footage for both than find a bit of wherever in Hungary which looked like Hong Kong. Just for your information - feel free to delete this message.

2206:

of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

1652:

Forget it. I don't care enough. The least you could've done was commented it out, rather than deleting it. Every tent has an entry among the short subject articles, so you better get deleting. You have a lot of them to do. —

1150:

The rewording is fine and good job. I was tracking an IP whose edits were problematic at best and who was just messing with articles by adding unsourced factoids. I glad that you fixed anything that I left behind and cheers.

794:

I have this article on my watchlist, so I will be keeping an eye on the situation. A discussion about the length of plot is a good idea. Unnecessary details, like how many times the Don was shot, lead to unnecessary bloat.

1252:, and the obsession with religious and political minutiae of screen stars (this time concentrating on the infobox instead of categories), there may be a case for a block on behaviour alone if the checkuser data is stale. -- 2401:

Why are you deleting the "Preceded by" and "Followed by" fields from the Laurel and Hardy infoboxes? They were not my additions, but I've found them a really handy way to get around the L&H short subject articles. —

574:

Followup. Both of those terms have the problem of subjectivity. Also just because a director is "Independent" (not sure what directors aren't) that does not mean that the films the make are avant garde or experimental.

1814:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

1912:

You have no reason to apologize, neither for the delay nor for expressing your opinion. I had no presumption when asking that you would necessarily agree with me, I simply wanted to hear your perspective. Cheers!

1082:

once or twice when it came out and then once on TV. It did not show again for at least a couple of decades after the mid 1970's. For years my memory was that Richard Harris had played the doomed Swedish explorer

1108:

Regarding your recent edit to the Rocky Marciano page, where you removed Gene Tunney as being an undefeated heavyweight boxing champion along with RM, I would argue that point. GT's only official loss came in a

111:

If I can ask a favor, would you mind keeping an eye on the Goodfellas article? An anonymous user, who does not use edit summaries, is having his way with it. I look forward to working with you again. Cheers!

2114:

was enjoying an affair. Very well-made movie with music from the period, which makes it quite strange and unique but might be the reason it sank at the box office (I saw it twice during its first release).

2037:

James Coburn was great. I am not familiar with the film you mentioned, though, so I am going to have to look for it. I was watching the documentary about Sam Peckinpah that was included in the extras on

557:

there is supposed to be sourced info in the article to support the categories that are added to it. If you can find any critics/scholars that mention either of those terms then the cat can be readded.

533:

no category for independent films here. If you want to leave it like that, fine; I'm not gonna fight you over it (I'm sick and tired of doing that at this point). But just consider what I've said.

1620:

because the Sons really is the core of L&H interest and scholarship in these latter days, and being the namesake of a "tent" is a point of notability for an L&H two-reeler short. Cheers —

238:

So, with my stack of books by Dicks/Haining/Cornell/Day/Topping/Howe/Stammers/Walker/etc. I can try to keep a lid on the "classic" stories. Which brings me to my main worry. Are the activities of

1586:

As it happens, I carried a "flagon of whiskey" with me on my train ride to L.A. I decided not to bother with the snake, though I am sure there were plenty in New Mexico and Arizona. Cheers! ---

2433:

Well, that certainly makes sense. Thanks for the speedy answer. I know you've already invested once in a L&H collection, but there's a new one — a Region 1 one — coming out on October 26th.

1982:

the project's concept has some obvious flaws. End IP editing right now and a lot of our problems would disappear. I fail to understand the arguments against it. Alas... Have a good week! ---

1369:

is an option. This kind of thing can be such a drag and I don't know if anything I've said is of any help. In any event I'll wish you a happy weekend and happy editing away from this situation.

1349:

I took a look. IMO the mention is of dubious notability but when another editor is so insistent you have to decide how far you want to go. You might post a thread expressing your concerns at

198:

was pretty darn good. Curiously, the 100th anniv. will be on a Friday - I think it's because there are one fewer leap years in the interval 2013-2063 than there are in the interval 1963-2013.

1698:

Hi Marnette. Yes, the film country template forces the category. This is also the case for the film date and language templates, but it's considered best to include the category as well.

374:

wikilink is wrong", which would've prompted me to fix it. But he instead made no effort at this, and no effort to avoid another conflict, which has the temerity to blame on a grudge on

2446:

yet, but it's a must-go if you're a fan. All the top L&H scholars — Skretvedt, Bann, McGillivray — are active there and it's an incredible resource. Now order that set! :) —

952:

the recent BBC Radio 4 serialisation of Anthony Darlow's "Life" gives Anthony Maurice as Anthony Goldschmidt. Is 'Maurice' a pseudonym or should the article be revised? Regards,

2202: 108:

Just a quick note to say that I am back. My retirement was short-lived, and actually would have been even shorter were it not for some personal and family interruptions.

1455:

Thanks for your note. Yeah it kinda looks like or serial "add unecessary items" has returned under a new IP. Oh well the editing never stops. Cheers to you at any rate.

992: 1006: 64:

Hi Marnette, I'm really sorry to bother you but I don't know many people here on WP and could do with a bit of help on talk page archiving. I moved my talk page to

1174: 829: 2063: 1773: 1605: 2075:

versions. But it probably wouldn't be a bad idea based on the length of it. Hey, Stewart got Dietrich pregnant in '39 then she aborted the baby, according to

2079:, who heard the story from Dietrich decades later on a plane (I heard this story directly from Bogdanovich in person). What would that kid have been like? 2001: 1117:), not a heavyweight bout, so it would seem to me that he did in fact retire as an undefeated HEAVYWEIGHT champion, even though he did not retire undefeated 1629: 663:

That'd be great. I was going to do it myself, but if you want to help me out. What do you mean posting? I'm not up on all that lingo. Plain english please.

2291: 1807: 2346: 1407:

Hey! Was going through my Talkpage archives and saw your comment about how you loved the old COSMOS series with Carl Sagan. If you hadn't heard already,

1350: 423: 1932: 1903: 1885:

those "these were my thoughts about a sequel" items in a DVD commentary interesting. For instance the plans they had for a followup to Michael Caine's

1824: 1308:. There was a paragraph on James' bisexuality. It was sourced by a deadlink and the fact of his bisexuality appears be non-notable to his public life. 239: 2137:

Ah, sorry about that. I had checked a few other pages first to see if it was the right way, but I must've checked all non-british pages, lol. Brandov

2031: 1635:

Thanks. While I take your point the section is unsourced. If it is still the name for this chapter then it should be fairly easy for you to provide a

1548: 2455: 2426: 1763: 1662: 1647: 1611: 1970: 1522: 1095: 206: 356:

the one engaging in a personal grudge. Specifically, he kept removing a free-use image from an article claiming problems with its rationale, but '

2272: 2189: 1976: 1408: 410: 365: 2387: 2361: 2141:

No problem. With continued editing you will get the hang of the difference in dating and spelling differences between the UK and the US. Cheers

758: 717: 675: 642: 613: 583: 565: 519: 281: 264: 177: 1479: 1463: 1394: 1377: 1159: 895: 306: 2411: 2124: 1243: 1145: 986: 316:

Thanks for the greeting. I doubt I will be as active as I used to be, but I will be around. Let me know if you need help with anything. ---

97: 1878: 2303: 2234:. But, even with the original title, there is little to support the notion of the three films as a trilogy, certainly not in the sense of 1729: 1711: 1196: 851: 1265: 2220: 488:- I don't think that your suspected sock is correct - the most recent actions of mine that might enrage another user concern my posts at 1206:

Ta for the info. Certainly a strange bunny taking up a lot of other people's time whatever it's about. Mental health stuff? Best wishes

2088: 1332:

don't have an axe to grind here. You may have encountered the editor via catholic cat adds. Your thoughts are appreciated. Best wishes

1287: 1955: 1580: 1309: 634:. We have a number of experienced and helpful editors in this project and I think that they would be able to give you tips and ideas. 2195: 1859:

and adding your two cents worth? I was really hoping other editors would have gotten involved in the discussion by now. Cheers! ---

1796: 440: 379: 1507: 2006: 1180: 835: 817: 291: 1754:

and is useful to readers, and as the two films are so similar, I'd like to ask that you allow me to restore that section. thanks,

1424: 395: 2261: 1528: 378:

part. This is in addition to his history of this behavior (as seen by numerous complaints on his talk page), and his having had

335: 158: 82: 1411:. Apparently, Sagan's wife (who helped write the original series) is going to be a writer for the new one, and it's hosted by 1067: 504: 1047: 784: 543: 1248:

I think it may be time for an SPI to be sure. Given IP 99.'s use of the Disney name in the past, noted by Span above and at

131: 1167: 961: 912: 876: 822: 352:

has not let go of that matter, and is engaging in tendentious editing, either to harass or provoke me, while claiming that

2337: 2284: 2149: 2069: 1947: 938: 458: 2322:

If you choose not to address these concerns in good time, I'll be happy to make the necessary changes for you. Cheers.

2178: 2396: 1692: 1343: 434: 2170: 1843: 1531:

on Watson system's page. In this case the bigger problem is that it's Mishima's own writings being used as a source (

1192: 847: 249: 1130: 88:

I really appreciate your help with that, nice to know there are some good people on WP willing to help out. Thanks!

2379: 2329: 1217: 271: 225: 219: 142: 1747: 1675:

Hi. Please avoid removing the top level country cats (Category:American films, Category:British films, etc), per

1449: 705: 631: 540: 1016:

Yes! That's a good idea. I was thinking that as a lot of features contain notable bonus films (such as Franju's

1848: 1358: 187: 1324: 1940: 1136:

I have gone back and reworded it to better fit the facts, but would still like your thoughts on the wording.

971: 231: 65: 1856: 1076:

talking about when thinking some part of a film is one thing and it turns out to be another. I saw the film

482: 2253: 2055: 2023: 1993: 1924: 1870: 1597: 1572: 884: 809: 327: 123: 69: 1561:

I see our old friend was back during my absence. I promise to carry my share of the weight in future. ---

446: 1759: 1487: 630:

Thanks for the followup. If you want any input on getting a wikiproject going I can recommend posting at

340: 59: 525: 2216: 1544: 1002: 476: 136: 38: 1740:. I do however disagree with your deletion of the See also section, which had a link to a film called 2451: 2407: 1800: 1658: 1625: 1402: 1274:. Disney adds the usual infobox detritus, then IP 99.59.87.62 adds the flagicon immediately after. -- 416: 195: 1249: 1556: 946: 798:

If you care for a laugh, you can look at the messages I just deleted from my talkpage. Cheers! ---

2370: 1011: 2266: 2245: 2103: 2047: 2044:

recently, and it included comments from Coburn about working with Sam. Great stuff. Cheers! ---

2015: 1985: 1951: 1916: 1862: 1589: 1564: 1503: 1354: 1063: 856: 801: 319: 115: 1849: 1839: 1755: 1270:

OK, I'm absolutely convinced that DisneyChicago is the IP 99 editor - check out the history at

1043: 428: 210: 704:

is what you do every time you hit the "save page" button. So just click on the link this link

452: 2166: 2132: 1540: 1188: 1052: 998: 970:

goes to a website that you might already know about. Playing with google I came up with this

843: 789: 391: 243: 2447: 2403: 2383: 2375: 2333: 2325: 2309: 2120: 1791: 1775: 1670: 1654: 1621: 917: 302: 345:

Hi, Marnette. Thanks for the block review, and for your attempts to be objective therein.

205:

onwards as they attract too many WP:OR edits which I can't check; even the ongoing debate

8: 2423: 2358: 2350: 2225: 2186: 2146: 1967: 1900: 1644: 1519: 1460: 1412: 1374: 1299: 1156: 1092: 1078: 1018: 983: 934: 892: 781: 756: 714: 673: 639: 611: 580: 562: 537: 516: 500: 407: 278: 260: 174: 154: 47: 17: 2084: 1499: 1474: 1444: 1417: 1389: 1338: 1238: 1212: 1141: 1126: 1059: 907: 871: 489: 311: 93: 78: 464: 2299: 2280: 2076: 1891: 1835: 1751: 1725: 1707: 1688: 1676: 1532: 1305: 1039: 1034:

Also, I wish I could get myself the Killing, but i'm so broke that I can only afford

974: 957: 526: 217:

references, please note, as opposed to the previous unrefd text) was twice reverted (

202: 186:

an "Eleven Doctors", I hope that it's better than the somewhat contrived stories for

746:

No, you didn't have to help! I just didn't know what you meant posting. But thanks.

2162: 1536: 1317: 1184: 1103: 968: 839: 550: 549:

I have seen it and own the deluxe DVD set. This kind of film has been done before.

387: 191: 2155: 2107: 2098: 1495: 1494:

Did you make sure the definition of「若きサムラヒのための精神講話」三島由紀夫2000 in『決定版三島由紀夫全集〈35〉』(

1285: 1263: 923: 298: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2434: 2419: 2354: 2212: 2182: 2142: 2040: 1963: 1896: 1829: 1820: 1640: 1617: 1515: 1456: 1370: 1313: 1201: 1152: 1088: 979: 930: 888: 777: 747: 710: 664: 635: 602: 576: 558: 534: 512: 493: 403: 274: 253: 252:) re-adding the stuff that you're removing as unsourced trainspotting, etc.? -- 170: 147: 103: 2096:

Actually, for a fairly recent Bogdanovich film that I really loved, check out

2116: 2111: 2102:

from a few years back, a more or less true story involving the murder aboard

2080: 1736: 1535:

applies). For Watson system: the policy on use of non-English sources is at

1470: 1440: 1429: 1385: 1366: 1362: 1334: 1321: 1234: 1208: 1137: 1122: 1084: 997:

Sorry for placing the tag in the wrong place. Thanks for the rectification.

967:

Hello J. I found a couple items that might help with you question. This link

903: 867: 701: 598: 554: 89: 74: 862: 2295: 2276: 2242:

trilogies, i.e., there are no common characters or storylines. Cheers! ---

1855:

If you have a moment, and the inclination, would you mind taking a look at

1718: 1700: 1681: 1636: 1616:

Hi MarnetteD, I restored the "Sons of the Desert" section you deleted from

1435: 1271: 953: 1114: 492:

and the follow up to that; note that F was named in the attacks on me. --

1383:

opinion' is a good idea. Thanks for all your work. Have a good weekend.

1225: 2230:

I guess I was unclear before. I was aware of the alternative title of

1742: 1275: 1253: 929:

Don't let anyone add any wooden nickels to Space Odyssey or whatever.--

2443: 2442:

scrape up the $ 67 and order a set. I don't know if you've discovered

2208: 1816: 1229: 349: 1353:

and see what other editors who work with BLPs think. After that is

348:

I apologize for having to contacting you, but it seems to me that

1746:, also about the impact of oil and gas development in the 213:, my attempt to make that consistent with earlier stuff ( 922:

Hi, there, MD. Just to let you know (as I just did with

2271:

A discussion you previously took part in regarding the

1789:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

1228:

seems to be making much the same adds - Catholic cats.

470: 1895:

superb week and it is always great to hear from you.

2347:

Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎

1808:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Hugh Walters (actor)

1795:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

1351:

Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

1312:with statement, the deadlink and LGBT cats, citing 993:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Sounak Mukhopadhyay

1639:and then the section should be fine. Cheers. 2106:'s yacht when Hearst mistook a producer for 2435:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005BYBZKY 2294:has been created regarding the same topic. 2353:for your changes before reinserting them. 2319:that the world needs to know this titbit. 1612:Laurel & Hardy short subject articles 885:User talk:Ponyo#The Bio IP editor returns 1304:Hi, I wonder if you could have a neb at 1527:I've started a conversation about this 1327:and reverted, adding a new link to the 201:I'm staying away from most things from 14: 1716:Fine with me - keep up the good work! 1113:bout (as can be seen if you go to his 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2275:page has been relisted for deletion. 553:comes to mind. All of that aside per 1750:. This sort of link is permitted by 1232:also, but with a different pattern. 25: 2444:http://www.laurelandhardyforum.com/ 1797:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 776:You are welcome and happy editing. 23: 1734:Thanks for your clean up work on 1250:User talk:Ponyo#The Birdges family 861:It seems like a block is in order 24: 2471: 2196:WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter 1806:The article will be discussed at 2007:Once Upon a Time in Knowledge... 1782: 292:Depth of field: new image of cat 29: 1748:Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1181:Outreach department's talk page 836:Outreach department's talk page 706:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Film 632:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Film 2221:16:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC) 2190:18:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC) 2171:18:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC) 2150:00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC) 2125:05:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC) 2110:, with whom Hearst's mistress 2089:17:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC) 2064:03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC) 2032:01:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC) 2012:speculative and unsourced. --- 2002:03:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC) 1971:19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 1956:12:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 1933:01:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 1904:20:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 1879:02:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC) 1844:21:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 1825:08:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC) 1468:Yes, seems like the same guy. 1365:, at the very least, and even 1359:Knowledge:Requests for comment 865:Would you investigate? Thanks 13: 1: 2349:. You will also need to gain 1977:Regarding your "bit of WP:OR" 1764:21:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 1730:18:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 1712:18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 1693:18:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 1663:00:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 1648:00:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 1630:00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 66:User talk:Zarcadia/Archive 01 2456:21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 2427:20:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 2412:17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 1834:All the best, mate! Cheers 1168:WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter 823:WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter 380:editing restrictions at NFCC 70:User talk:Zarcadia/Archive 1 7: 2388:00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 2362:23:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 2338:21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 2304:20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 2285:02:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 2262:15:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC) 2070:Destry Rides the First Time 1606:19:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 1581:16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 1549:03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 1523:02:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 1508:23:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 1480:00:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 1464:00:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 1450:00:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 1409:there's a new series coming 1325:maintains this is vandalism 1038:through the sale. Ah well! 10: 2476: 2397:Laurel and Hardy infoboxes 1425:19:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 1395:21:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC) 1378:20:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC) 1344:19:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC) 1288:13:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1266:13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1244:08:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1218:07:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1197:04:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 1160:01:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 1146:22:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 1131:22:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 1096:19:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 1068:18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 1048:20:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 1026:DVD. I'd like to include 1007:18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 987:23:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC) 962:22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC) 863:following final warnings. 785:00:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 718:23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 676:23:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 643:23:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 614:22:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 584:21:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 566:21:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 544:21:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 520:21:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC) 505:21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC) 411:01:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 396:23:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC) 336:17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC) 307:05:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 282:16:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 265:15:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 178:15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 159:14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC) 132:01:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC) 98:20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 83:17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC) 1799:or whether it should be 939:16:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 913:14:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 896:14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 877:14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 852:04:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 818:17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 759:00:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) 2104:William Randolph Hearst 1419:The Hand That Feeds You 1355:Knowledge:Third opinion 209:is annoying me. As for 1850:The Godfather Part III 1941:Edit to Tinker Tailor 42:of past discussions. 2203:September 2011 issue 1792:Hugh Walters (actor) 1776:Hugh Walters (actor) 1498:) in the original?-- 1179:leave a note on the 834:leave a note on the 194:. The story for the 1488:about Yukio Mishima 1436:many weeks of bloat 1413:Neil deGrasse Tyson 1183:. --Happy editing! 1079:The Red Tent (film) 1036:Night of the Hunter 1024:Eyes Without a Face 1019:Blood of the Beasts 838:. --Happy editing! 341:Sorry to bother you 60:Talk page archiving 18:User talk:MarnetteD 2247:RepublicanJacobite 2049:RepublicanJacobite 2017:RepublicanJacobite 1987:RepublicanJacobite 1918:RepublicanJacobite 1864:RepublicanJacobite 1591:RepublicanJacobite 1566:RepublicanJacobite 901:Thanks very much. 803:RepublicanJacobite 490:User talk:Favonian 366:J Greb has pointed 321:RepublicanJacobite 235:which was ignored. 167:The Eleven Doctors 137:Plot inconsistency 117:RepublicanJacobite 2378:comment added by 2328:comment added by 2077:Peter Bogdanovich 1756:Shawn in Montreal 1403:New COSMOS series 1306:Talk:Duncan James 1111:light heavyweight 1031:different page. 975:User:John Thaxter 417:User 92.40.54.198 182:Ahhh... if there 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2467: 2390: 2340: 2260: 2256: 2248: 2232:Duck, You Sucker 2062: 2058: 2050: 2030: 2026: 2018: 2000: 1996: 1988: 1931: 1927: 1919: 1877: 1873: 1865: 1786: 1785: 1721: 1703: 1684: 1604: 1600: 1592: 1579: 1575: 1567: 1557:Brazilian vandal 1541:VsevolodKrolikov 1478: 1448: 1434:We seem to have 1420: 1393: 1342: 1283: 1261: 1242: 1216: 999:Wikiglobaleditor 947:Terence Rattigan 911: 875: 816: 812: 804: 753: 670: 608: 551:New York Stories 527:Paris, je t'aime 496: 487: 486: 441:deleted contribs 334: 330: 322: 256: 234: 228: 222: 150: 145: 130: 126: 118: 33: 32: 26: 2475: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2448:HarringtonSmith 2404:HarringtonSmith 2399: 2373: 2323: 2312: 2292:deletion review 2273:Equestria Daily 2269: 2267:Equestria Daily 2259: 2254: 2246: 2243: 2228: 2198: 2158: 2135: 2108:Charles Chaplin 2072: 2061: 2056: 2048: 2045: 2029: 2024: 2016: 2013: 2009: 1999: 1994: 1986: 1983: 1979: 1943: 1930: 1925: 1917: 1914: 1887:The Italian Job 1876: 1871: 1863: 1860: 1853: 1832: 1787: 1783: 1780: 1719: 1701: 1682: 1673: 1655:HarringtonSmith 1622:HarringtonSmith 1614: 1603: 1598: 1590: 1587: 1578: 1573: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1490: 1469: 1439: 1432: 1418: 1405: 1384: 1333: 1302: 1281: 1259: 1233: 1207: 1204: 1175:July 2011 issue 1170: 1106: 1055: 1014: 995: 949: 924:User:Shirtwaist 920: 902: 866: 859: 857:IP 99.35.43.199 830:June 2011 issue 825: 815: 810: 802: 799: 792: 749: 666: 604: 530: 494: 426: 422: 419: 343: 333: 328: 320: 317: 314: 294: 254: 230: 224: 218: 148: 141: 139: 129: 124: 116: 113: 106: 62: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2473: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2398: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2365: 2364: 2311: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2268: 2265: 2251: 2227: 2224: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2157: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2099:The Cat's Meow 2071: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2053: 2041:The Wild Bunch 2021: 2008: 2005: 1991: 1978: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1942: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1922: 1907: 1906: 1868: 1852: 1847: 1831: 1828: 1781: 1779: 1774:Nomination of 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1672: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1618:Bacon Grabbers 1613: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1595: 1570: 1558: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1493: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1431: 1428: 1404: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1203: 1200: 1169: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1105: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1054: 1051: 1013: 1010: 994: 991: 990: 989: 948: 945: 943: 919: 916: 899: 898: 858: 855: 824: 821: 807: 791: 788: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 589: 588: 587: 586: 569: 568: 529: 524: 523: 522: 418: 415: 414: 413: 342: 339: 325: 313: 310: 293: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 236: 199: 138: 135: 121: 105: 102: 101: 100: 68:as apparently 61: 58: 56: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2472: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2425: 2421: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2372: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2363: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2320: 2316: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2264: 2263: 2258: 2257: 2250: 2249: 2241: 2237: 2236:The Godfather 2233: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2205: 2204: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2179: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2133:Dating styles 2126: 2122: 2118: 2113: 2112:Marion Davies 2109: 2105: 2101: 2100: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2065: 2060: 2059: 2052: 2051: 2043: 2042: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2028: 2027: 2020: 2019: 2004: 2003: 1998: 1997: 1990: 1989: 1972: 1969: 1965: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1948:94.193.220.27 1934: 1929: 1928: 1921: 1920: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1905: 1902: 1898: 1893: 1888: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1875: 1874: 1867: 1866: 1858: 1851: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1812: 1809: 1804: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1793: 1777: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1739: 1738: 1737:Being Caribou 1733: 1732: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1704: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1685: 1678: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1607: 1602: 1601: 1594: 1593: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1577: 1576: 1569: 1568: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500:Watson system 1497: 1492:Hi MarnetteD! 1481: 1476: 1472: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1427: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1414: 1410: 1396: 1391: 1387: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1340: 1336: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1289: 1286: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1199: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1176: 1161: 1158: 1154: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1097: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1085:Finn Malmgren 1081: 1080: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1060:Hashem sfarim 1053:My mistake... 1050: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1029: 1028:Killer's Kiss 1025: 1021: 1020: 1012:Killer's Kiss 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 988: 985: 981: 976: 972: 969: 966: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 944: 941: 940: 936: 932: 927: 925: 915: 914: 909: 905: 897: 894: 890: 886: 881: 880: 879: 878: 873: 869: 864: 854: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 832: 831: 820: 819: 814: 813: 806: 805: 796: 790:The Godfather 787: 786: 783: 779: 760: 757: 755: 754: 752: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 719: 716: 712: 707: 703: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 677: 674: 672: 671: 669: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 644: 641: 637: 633: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 615: 612: 610: 609: 607: 600: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 585: 582: 578: 573: 572: 571: 570: 567: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 547: 546: 545: 542: 539: 536: 528: 521: 518: 514: 509: 508: 507: 506: 502: 498: 491: 484: 481: 478: 475: 472: 469: 466: 463: 460: 457: 454: 451: 448: 445: 442: 439: 436: 433: 430: 425: 412: 409: 405: 400: 399: 398: 397: 393: 389: 383: 381: 377: 372: 367: 362: 359: 355: 351: 346: 338: 337: 332: 331: 324: 323: 309: 308: 304: 300: 283: 280: 276: 272: 268: 267: 266: 262: 258: 251: 248: 245: 241: 237: 233: 227: 221: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 180: 179: 176: 172: 168: 163: 162: 161: 160: 156: 152: 144: 143:Yes, they are 134: 133: 128: 127: 120: 119: 109: 99: 95: 91: 87: 86: 85: 84: 80: 76: 71: 67: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2439: 2400: 2374:— Preceding 2351:WP:CONSENSUS 2324:— Preceding 2321: 2317: 2313: 2310:Ben Kingsley 2270: 2255:TheFortyFive 2252: 2244: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2229: 2201: 2199: 2159: 2136: 2097: 2073: 2057:TheFortyFive 2054: 2046: 2039: 2025:TheFortyFive 2022: 2014: 2010: 1995:TheFortyFive 1992: 1984: 1980: 1944: 1926:TheFortyFive 1923: 1915: 1886: 1872:TheFortyFive 1869: 1861: 1854: 1836:Daisyabigael 1833: 1813: 1805: 1790: 1788: 1778:for deletion 1741: 1735: 1717: 1699: 1680: 1674: 1671:Film cleanup 1615: 1599:TheFortyFive 1596: 1588: 1574:TheFortyFive 1571: 1563: 1560: 1514:whatsoever. 1491: 1433: 1416: 1406: 1328: 1303: 1277: 1276: 1272:James Coburn 1255: 1254: 1205: 1173: 1171: 1118: 1110: 1107: 1077: 1056: 1040:Andrzejbanas 1035: 1033: 1027: 1023: 1017: 1015: 996: 950: 942: 928: 921: 918:Gone camping 900: 860: 828: 826: 811:TheFortyFive 808: 800: 797: 793: 775: 750: 748: 667: 665: 605: 603: 531: 479: 473: 467: 461: 455: 449: 443: 437: 431: 424:92.40.54.198 420: 384: 375: 370: 363: 357: 353: 347: 344: 329:TheFortyFive 326: 318: 315: 295: 246: 229:). I left a 214: 183: 169:episode :-) 166: 140: 125:TheFortyFive 122: 114: 110: 107: 63: 55: 43: 37: 2226:Re: Trilogy 2163:MUSIKVEREIN 1300:EGRS/BLPCAT 1185:Nehrams2020 840:Nehrams2020 388:Nightscream 240:MileyDavidA 36:This is an 2380:82.46.0.36 2330:82.46.0.36 1892:WP:PRIMARY 1752:WP:SEEALSO 1743:Oil on Ice 1679:. Thanks. 1677:WP:FILMCAT 1533:WP:Primary 1438:going on. 1329:Daily Mail 700:Basically 477:block user 447:filter log 312:Thank you! 299:JeffConrad 2420:MarnetteD 2355:MarnetteD 2240:Star Wars 2183:MarnetteD 2143:MarnetteD 1964:MarnetteD 1897:MarnetteD 1641:MarnetteD 1537:WP:NONENG 1516:MarnetteD 1457:MarnetteD 1371:MarnetteD 1318:WP:BLPCAT 1310:I removed 1278:Jezebel's 1256:Jezebel's 1153:MarnetteD 1089:MarnetteD 980:MarnetteD 931:WickerGuy 889:MarnetteD 778:MarnetteD 751:Lighthead 711:MarnetteD 668:Lighthead 636:MarnetteD 606:Lighthead 577:MarnetteD 559:MarnetteD 513:MarnetteD 483:block log 404:MarnetteD 275:MarnetteD 211:The Movie 171:MarnetteD 2376:unsigned 2326:unsigned 2217:contribs 2117:Upsmiler 2081:Upsmiler 1322:Eversman 1226:Disney22 1138:Vyselink 1123:Vyselink 1104:Marciano 435:contribs 297:revert. 250:contribs 90:Zarcadia 75:Zarcadia 2296:Dr. WTF 2277:Dr. WTF 2156:Sun/Son 1801:deleted 1720:Lugnuts 1702:Lugnuts 1683:Lugnuts 1314:WP:EGRS 1193:contrib 1119:overall 1022:on the 954:Jatrius 848:contrib 702:posting 421:Hi, re 371:tell me 358:refused 232:message 39:archive 2290:A new 1830:Thanks 1367:WP:ANI 1363:WP:WQA 1202:Disney 599:WP:CAT 555:WP:CAT 535:Bravo! 497:rose64 350:User:Δ 257:rose64 151:rose64 104:Hello! 2371:Done. 1637:WP:RS 1430:Bloat 1282:Ponyo 1260:Ponyo 1230:Xzalt 541:Papa! 538:Alfa! 453:WHOIS 364:Even 16:< 2452:talk 2440:must 2424:Talk 2408:talk 2384:talk 2359:Talk 2334:talk 2300:talk 2281:talk 2213:talk 2209:Erik 2200:The 2187:Talk 2167:talk 2147:Talk 2121:talk 2085:talk 1968:Talk 1952:talk 1901:Talk 1857:this 1840:talk 1821:talk 1817:Gh87 1760:talk 1726:talk 1708:talk 1689:talk 1659:talk 1645:Talk 1626:talk 1545:talk 1529:here 1520:Talk 1504:talk 1475:talk 1471:Span 1461:Talk 1445:talk 1441:Span 1415:! — 1390:talk 1386:Span 1375:Talk 1357:and 1339:talk 1335:Span 1316:and 1239:talk 1235:Span 1213:talk 1209:Span 1189:talk 1172:The 1157:Talk 1142:talk 1127:talk 1115:page 1093:Talk 1064:talk 1044:talk 1003:talk 984:Talk 958:talk 935:talk 908:talk 904:Span 893:Talk 872:talk 868:Span 844:talk 827:The 782:Talk 715:Talk 640:Talk 581:Talk 563:Talk 517:Talk 501:talk 471:http 465:RBLs 459:RDNS 429:talk 408:Talk 392:talk 303:talk 279:Talk 261:talk 244:talk 215:with 207:here 203:Rose 196:25th 192:20th 190:and 188:10th 175:Talk 155:talk 94:talk 79:talk 2238:or 1913:--- 1496:新潮社 495:Red 382:. 354:I'm 255:Red 149:Red 112:--- 2454:) 2422:| 2410:) 2386:) 2357:| 2336:) 2302:) 2283:) 2219:) 2215:| 2185:| 2169:) 2145:| 2123:) 2087:) 1966:| 1954:) 1899:| 1842:) 1823:) 1815:-- 1803:. 1762:) 1728:) 1710:) 1691:) 1661:) 1643:| 1628:) 1547:) 1518:| 1506:) 1459:| 1373:| 1320:. 1195:) 1191:• 1155:| 1144:) 1129:) 1091:| 1066:) 1046:) 1005:) 982:| 960:) 937:) 891:| 850:) 846:• 780:| 713:| 638:| 579:| 561:| 515:| 503:) 406:| 394:) 376:my 305:) 277:| 263:) 223:, 184:is 173:| 157:) 96:) 81:) 2450:( 2406:( 2382:( 2332:( 2298:( 2279:( 2211:( 2207:— 2165:( 2119:( 2083:( 1950:( 1838:( 1819:( 1758:( 1724:( 1706:( 1687:( 1657:( 1624:( 1543:( 1539:. 1502:( 1477:) 1473:( 1447:) 1443:( 1422:: 1392:) 1388:( 1341:) 1337:( 1241:) 1237:( 1215:) 1211:( 1187:( 1140:( 1125:( 1062:( 1042:( 1001:( 956:( 933:( 910:) 906:( 874:) 870:( 842:( 499:( 485:) 480:· 474:· 468:· 462:· 456:· 450:· 444:· 438:· 432:· 427:( 390:( 301:( 259:( 247:· 242:( 226:2 220:1 153:( 92:( 77:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index