User talk:Hal Raglan

This user may have left Wikipedia. Hal Raglan has not edited Wikipedia since October 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Cmoti 11:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper explanation for the deletion of your edits has been repeatedly provided in the edit summaries. As the title clearly shows, the Al Gore controversies article exists to detail known controversies surrounding Al Gore. Any information added to this article should be NPOV, properly sourced to a reliable source, and definitively shown to have been a controversy. Your edit was POV-riddled and sourced only to a YouTube video. Most importantly, one complaint from one Fox "News" reporter does not equal a controversy. On my talk page, you demanded that Hume's whining should be included here because it should be left up for "the reader to decide" whether its a controversy or not. It doesn't work that way. To avoid NPOV problems, among other issues, any new topics/information written to this article should be proven to have caused controversy. Otherwise this will simply devolve into a litany of complaints. Also, you need to stop threatening other editors. Familiarize yourself with wikipedia's civility and good faith policies. Instead of throwing out accusations, you need to read exactly what wikipedia defines as vandalism. And try to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's NPOV policy.-Hal Raglan 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the sock puppet deleting my stuff then. Cmoti 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 22:07, 17 October 2007 1of3 (Talk | contribs) m (21,714 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Cmoti; One obviously adjendized news story is not a controversy. using TW) (undo)

Hi, why do you keep deleting this info? The news source is real, irregardless of whether or not the news is partisan. This is a news fact caught on video which shows that Al Gore may not be practicing what he preaches, hence the "controversy". Leave the info in so that future readers can decide for themselves. Cmoti 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a quick note to say I've seen your update regarding the Peace in our Time album and think that it is reasonable. The reason I saw fit to alter it was because I felt the description of 'Stadium Rock' was not accurate and represented an opinion, possibly, of someone who'd only heard the track King of Emotion rather than the whole album. Your present update removes most opinion and concentrates more on facts, so it's fine by me.

All the best.

Has this been confirmed? The last I heard Franken was merely "seriously considering", but the article makes it seem like a given. Could someone provide a link to a source?Hal Raglan 00:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to oblige. See this USA Today article. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to that 2004 article. But it clearly says that Franken is only 50/50 about running, and that he won't make a firm decision until "next year" (2005). I haven't read or seen anything recently that confirms he has made up his mind. I really don't think he should be referenced as a candidate in the 1st paragraph of the article until he has indicated he definitely will run. What do you think?Hal Raglan 07:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to an editorial in the Dec 6, 2005 Madison Capitol Times [1], Al Franken is still only considering making a run. Thats the most recent article I could find via Google. I found nothing stating that he was going to definitely run. Based on this, I think the sentence in the first paragraph proclaiming him a candidate should be removed. If anyone wants to reinstate the sentence, please provide a source of information. ThanksHal Raglan 00:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In know an Al Frankin junkie like yourself might not get this upfront, but wikipedia has an NPOV policy, so you might want to look into that before you go around editing articles--IworkforNASA 03:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your poorly written, bizarre comment makes no sense, since all of my edits in the Al Franken article conform to wikipedia's NPOV policy. What are you talking about?Hal Raglan 03:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Addressed to IworkforNASA, see section above):

Because you put your rant under the Al Franken subheading of my talk page, I understandably had no clue what you were squealing about. Now that I've figured out that you were actually referring to the Media bias in the United States article, I still have no idea how you think I was violating wikipedia's NPOV policy. In case you're still confused by my edit, here's what I added to the discussion page of the Media bias article:

IworkforNASA jumped on my talk page and accused me of violating wikipedia's NPOV policy simply because I want a verifiable citation, whether to the FAIR website or anywhere else, that shows that FAIR is a "liberal organization." My whole point is if you're going to provide a link, make sure it goes somewhere that verifies what you've written. The page that was linked did NOT say anything of the kind. For the record, I believe that FAIR is inarguably liberal in their viewpoint, although they describe themselves somewhere on their website as "progressive" (and, yes, I agree that's the same thing). Hal Raglan 03:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tried a compromise, with my new edit noting that FAIR is a "self described 'progressive' media watch group", followed by an actual link to a page on the FAIR website that shows they really do describe themselves in this matter. Is this satisfactory?Hal Raglan 03:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, nice work on the argento/bava films! Tenebrae (film) article is great. any plans on doing Deep Red, Lisa and the Devil or Bay of Blood at some point? Zzzzz 19:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If I find the time, I will try my best to write articles regarding those titles you mentioned. I'm amazed nobody has done them yet. Eventually, I also hope to greatly expand the Mario Bava main article...its incredibly skimpy as is.Hal Raglan 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding tenebrae fair use images, have a look here: Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale - basically some text needs to be put on the image pages as described there. Zzzzz 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, yes i saw its now featured, congrats. i also requested it to go on the Main_Page on 3 may here, lets see if it gets picked up. if you want to collaborate on any other articles, italian-horror related or not, let me know! (p.s. could you do me favour - i have another article on FAC: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Halloween_(film), is it possible you could vote "support" or "object" with your comments at some stage? cheers. Zzzzz 20:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Al Gore controversies. They have been needed. --Allen 20:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They they were needed, many of the articles, while factual, were bias and Wikipedia has no place for bias or pages that show any hint of a storm of controversy.--63.167.255.206 (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think what he has said constitutes "attacks" c'mon now..read the sources, these are not crtiscisms at all--Bairdso66 05:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't agree with me, but his comments are criticisms, not attacks. I think your most recent edit (changing "attacks" to "strongly criticized") is far more acceptable than the way you originally had it worded. Thanks. Hal Raglan 05:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you response, but I am confused as to what constitutes an "attack" if these don't -"lying theiving oil whore" -"murderer of the U.S. Constitution" -"trust fund puppet" -"constitution hating sociopath" -"hate filled maniac" i would say "so and so has not done a good job" would be a critiscism Thanks...--Bairdso66 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but if you read other wikipedia articles devoted to famous individuals who repeatedly make similarly heated comments, such as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh (to choose only two), you'll note that the editors of the articles go out of their way to describe their statements as "opinions", "commentary", "remarks", "criticisms", etc. This is an attempt to conform to wikipedia's NPOV policy. I think we should attempt to do so in the Baldwin article, also. Even if you personally believe his admittedly emotion-filled, hyperbolic responses are simply "attacks", to note that in a wikipedia article would be editorializing, i.e., inserting your POV into the text. We should simply leave the controversial quotes in the article and allow the reader to determine if Baldwin's comments are legitimate criticisms or simply "attacks".Hal Raglan 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the response--Bairdso66 17:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the article Halloween (film) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halloween (film). I think I have addressed all of your concerns now. Dmoon1 05:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have gone through this process before, how do you know when an article has been promoted to Featured Article status? I can't find any suggestion as to how long it stays or howy many "votes" it must receive. So far, the Halloween (film) article has been on the nominations list since April 23 and the comments are supportive. There has not been any additional change to the nomination since April 25. Thanks. Dmoon1 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween (film) was promoted to featured article status today. Thanks again for your comments and support. Dmoon1 19:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the passage of Olbermann reminding viewers of "mission accomplished" the source was included?? I also feel that your Olbermann additions may have a slight bias toward him --Bairdso66 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your attempts to conform to the NPOVpolicies of Wikipedia, it does seem that you tend to frame your contributions to make "Liberals" always look like the innocent party. For instance, the Baldwin/Olbermann edits seem to have a little bent.You also seem to reference Limbaugh and Coulter to prove points about their bias, but are eager to defend Olbermann and Baldwin about their similar bias.Are you practicing what you preach?? --Bairdso66 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edit/add/delete/rephrase potential POV problem material when I see it. I don't go looking for it, but when it jumps out at me I try to correct it if I can. I think you're right that most of the time I do make attempts to reduce hostile editorial comments from articles on liberals/moderates. In the Baldwin article, the section on the radio show incident was originally ridiculously biased against the actor; it didn't even relate at all to the available transcript. I added direct quotes and made it as neutral as possible while still maintaining factual and sourced details. The overall article as it stands clearly shows that Baldwin has liberal views and is deeply critical of the Bush Administration. I don't think the article makes him look "innocent" or "guilty" of anything. As far as Olbermann is concerned, I've never seen his show but I have read his blog from time to time, and from what I did read I never picked up on any "liberal agenda" he was pushing. The section in his wikipedia article that claims he has been accused of having a liberal bias -- which could very well be true -- simply needs to exhibit actual cited cases of those accusations. If he really is commonly thought of as being a liberal, then examples should be all over the internet. As far as practicing what I preach, if you truly care, I have made repeated attempts to help reduce overly negative unsourced commentary, or simply spurious information, from the Bill O'Reilly article. POV nonsense in any article has no place in wikipedia and should be removed, or modified and replaced if possible with actual facts/sourced details. Hal Raglan 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the response..--Bairdso66 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a link to "Olbermann Watch" for readers to see for themselves how the website is set up.--Bairdso66 22:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your edits, it seems that you might be interested in a Horror WikiProject (temporary page: User:Myleslong/WikiProject Horror) that Dmoon1 and I are thinking of starting. If you're interested, please visit that temporary page and/or leave comments on my or Dmoon1's talk page. Thanks. --Myles Long 19:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hal. I was just wondering why you removed the line in the Glick section about Glick continuously interupting O'Reilly--I saw the interview, and believe me it happened. Not having that line makes it look as though O'Reilly cut his mic because of disagreement in opinion, which is misleading. Stanley011 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello! In response to your question about why I removed the line about "Glick continuously interupting O'Reilly": Frankly, from the available transcripts, it seems like the conversation quickly broke down to the point where both participants simply wouldn't let each other talk. To me, it definitely seems like O'Reilly did most of the interrupting, but thats my admittedly POV interpretation. I think its best to conform to the way the O'Reilly/Franken dispute section has been recently edited...don't pass blame on either participant, simply present the basic facts and let the reader follow the provided links for more info/details. Not sure if you'll agree with me but thats why I made the change.Hal Raglan 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn´t think that I needed to provide a reference for something when one only has to watch and listen. You are right though, because it was an article in The Sunday Times, which I will try to find. andreasegde 10:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hal, I'm not sure if we need to add the fact that this is Olbermann's "alleged bias" because, after all that is the title of the section. I'm not sure that is a POV problem. Thanks--Bairdso66 16:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It might seem redundant to you (although the title of the section is "Accusations of Bias", not "Alleged Bias") but I think it is important to specify that the bias is strictly alleged, especially when the article mentions that there is a website that exists to "document examples of Olbermann's bias." That makes it seem like there really is bias to document. By the way, one of the things that concerns me about this section, as its currently written, is that it is giving way too much credence and space to a conservative blogger who clearly is obsessed with Olbermann. One mention of this guy would be okay, but two? Its already noted that he has an anti-Olbermann website so who cares if he also (predictably) is salivating with hatred regarding the new book? Isn't there someone else a little more notable who can be quoted regarding Olbermann's liberal bias? If its only this blogger and an editorial in The Cornell Review making such allegations, I fail to see a controversy. I'm not saying the Cornell Review isn't notable, but there must be some damning quotes from other sources available all over the internet if, in fact, Olbermann is widely considered to be a "controversial" pundit relentlessly pushing a liberal agenda.--Hal Raglan 17:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hal, I agree for the most part. I guess I would just encourage yourself and others to watch Countdown and report any objectivity you may see. Naturally you wouldn't find any Democrat who would cry wolf at Olbermann's "alleged" bias no more than you find republicans bashing Rush etc..I myself don't even think he is subtle in his "left wing" ways. Thanks again--Bairdso66 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Where is the source claiming that that Kith treats his (extremely compliant) guests courteously? Wouldn't that also be a point of view? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, what is the point of recapitulating almost every snippet of information ever presented on Olbermann's show in this absurdly detailed article? However, if the article is so detailed , then why not? The factual information about Tony Snow gives the reader a valuable insight about Olbermann's mentality. I have no doubt that you would have no objection if similar information were presented about some public figure, say Elizabeth Edwards, that Limbaugh or Coulter might be stupid enough to attack. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the "editor" who admits that he is in love with Keith. Fact: Olbermann has "honored" Tony Snow as the "worst person in the world." Fact: Olbermann knew that Snow was fighting a serious battle with cancer at the time. Why not get out of the tank and let the reader draw his/her own conclusion? Badmintonhist (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Regarding your "tweaking" of the Byrd/Lott comments, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the time you took to clarify the nature of the Lott quote while still including the nature of the controversy (which revolved around a perceived pro-segregation tone of the comment(s)). As originally written, the section had no indication whatsoever of what Lott's comment actually was, and I thought it was important to mention that.--Hal Raglan 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I thought I was done with it, until I realized that if one didn't know better, they'd wonder what the big deal was. So I had to make sure that Thurmond's segregationist views were put back in. Sorry for the over-zealous editing! Dubc0724 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed you removed my comment on Sidney Blumenthal's page that he is associated with "liberal" (the word I used) American Politics. Maybe left-leaning would be more appropriate? Democrat-aligned? Just simply reading over his salon page (http://dir.salon.com/topics/sidney_blumenthal/) I find it hard, personally, to characterize his writings as anything but, he's hardly center and definitely not right (coming from an objective standpoint here). If you were to place his viewpoints into a camp of political thought, what would you pick? (By the way, I hardly think my addition of the word liberal was "grotesque", as you put it, but that's besides the point. FYI, I'm not right-wing whatsoever.) Let me know what you think. Best, --Dgsaunders 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! While I don't believe Blumenthal should be categorized in the article as a journalist of "liberal American politics", it wasn't your edit that I was referring to as being grotesque POV. I was referring to the following, all placed in the article w/out sources: "During Clinton's impeachment trial Blumenthal was deposed by the Senate about his attempts to smear Monica Lewinsky. Christopher Hitchens later accused him of lying during that testimony." "He once sued Matt Drudge for $30 million for claiming that he beat his wife. After nearly four years of litigation, Blumenthal rushed to settle the case when Drudge filed a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of merit and to recover attorneys' fees." The Drudge stuff was strictly POV and in my edit I kept the basic facts of the matter while remaining as neutral as possible. The "smearing" of Monica Lewinsky and Hitchens accusations I completely removed but they can certainly be placed back into the article if properly sourced and written with a NPOV tone.

As far as the "liberal American politics" description, Blumenthal may in fact be a liberal but as a journalist his area of writing expertise is American Politics in general. Looking at most of the titles in his bibliography seems to confirm this. However, if you feel it important to tag Blumenthal as a liberal, it could possibly be done later in the article.--Hal Raglan 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure I'll look at it sometime soon. BTW, you can nominate the article as a Good Article yourself, you just can't promote it. In my opinion, it is at Good Article level and after a peer review will be ready to be listed at FAC. Good work!! Dmoon1 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, glad I could help. Dmoon1 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to read the instructions fully when using project pages; for example the GA nomination process states repeatedly (and in a big red box no less) that you should provide a helpful edit summary when changing the nomination list.  -- Run!  08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements, speeches, etc. The center theme was "I was in Vietnam", therefore I will be a strong wartime leader. If you notice I framed it to read as though conservatives were the one who made the argument. This is not an allegation, it is a fact. Vietnam/combat experience became an issue at the behest of the Kerry campaign. Please! lets keep it as neutral as we can and not deny obvious facts.--Bairdso66 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that Kerry used his military career as a "campaign issue" was unsupported. I'm assuming the fact that you have changed this to now read "campaign theme" means you agree with me. There is a big difference in meaning. Thanks for taking the time to reconsider your choice of words. Now, I don't agree with you that it was Kerry who made his war experience a crucial issue of the campaign; in fact I think its amazing that anyone could possibly think this when its clearly obvious that it was Kerry's opposition that did so. At any rate, we clearly have different opinions on the matter and there is no point in arguing about it. I will accept your change as a compromise and leave it at that. This section still needs to have some sources added where I've indicated. In the first sentence, please provide a reliable source citation indicating at least one or two prominent conservative critics who made the "hypocrisy" claim. This should be easy. Also, the final sentence claims that Kerry made his service "a crucial part" of the campaign; this needs to be sourced.--Hal Raglan 03:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hal, I guess I appreciate your attempts here and like you said it doesn't make sense arguing about it. However, I believed you are extremely misinformed if you don't beleive Kerry brought the issue up. True, conservatives added fuel to the fire, but you cannot honestly tell me he DIDN'T bring it up, that claim is ludicris.Several ads and speeches are available on JohnKerry.com, if they still exist, which show him on a boat in Vietnam and talking about the experience. The opposition came out later on to disagree with accounts of his combat experience. That claim that the oppostion brought it up dosn't hold any water in my book, I lived through that 2004 campaign, did you?--Bairdso66 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never wrote that he didn't mention his military service. He talked about it in his speeches and in interviews. Why would he keep it a secret? But there is a big difference between mentioning something and turning it into a "crucial issue" of a political campaign. It was the Republicans who did that, in my opinion. (Hint, hint: Swift Bloated Liars) But you disagree with me. Fair enough. I would suggest you try to calm down before writing any more of your responses, as your final comment comes close to being insulting in tone. Thats not much appreciated around here (please see Wikipedia:Civility).--Hal Raglan 03:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way Hal, but I am getting tired of having to deal with the reverting by one user(i.e. you) on most of my contributions. I have tried to be balanced and do not feel as your responses indicate that you have tried to do the same. Any way, the show goes on. --Bairdso66 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted most of your edits. Glancing at your user contribution page I noted that you have made hundreds of contributions. I've seen and responded to a very small handful of them. You say you're "tired of having to deal with" these reverts. Sorry to tell you, in case you hadn't noticed it already, but that is the very nature of wikipedia; nobody's edits are set in stone and in fact all of us run the risk of having our contributions always being questioned and possibly changed/deleted/tweaked by other editors. You seem to be taking this very personally, when in fact all I've asked of you is to remember to always consider wikpedia's NPOV and verifiability policies. I'm hoping that you really have read and understood these by now. The verifiability policy requires that everything we add to wikipedia be verified by reliable sources. There are many rules and suggestions on wikipedia but to me those are the most important. Most of your edits seem to be good faith edits but the ones I've questioned are easily fixed simply by reducing the POV tone and adding sources. The Kerry section is fine now (or at least it was last night) as written except for the fact that it has uncited assertions. Also, please let me add if you have any real problems with my editing of your contributions, to take your concerns to the respective article's talk page. That's usually the best way to resolve any concerns. Immediately jumping on another editor's talk page in response and questioning them seems a little antagonistic to me.--Hal Raglan 13:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the new additions to the vietnam campaign article, I added two conservative critics. --Bairdso66 23:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the accessdate links back to being like July 7, 2006? If they're like that, they look like [[July 7, 2006]] with the brackets included in the ref display's output. If they're changed to being the YYYY-MM-DD format, they'll look correct in all date preferences. Also, its the format used by the other refs, and is recommended by the {{cite news}} template. Kevin_b_er 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do apologize: I meant to make one modest change in the introductory paragraph and somehow stupidly ended up reverting to an entire earlier version, complete with a multitude of differences I didn't mean to include. Sorry for the confusion.Hal Raglan 21:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure why you wish to insist that there's only been one design of Wonka related satire on the Ray Nagin article. I put in a link to a Times-Picayune article mentioning two others, and reference to several more (including a couple of pix I took around town with such shirts visibile) on the article talk page. Should you wish to find more, a few minutes of google search for variations on combinations of "Nagin" "Ray" "Chocolate" "Willy" "Wonka" "Mayor" should turn such up. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There seems to be some confusion on your part as to what issue I was addressing. Any/all claims should be verifiable by a reliable source, and that source should be clearly cited/referenced in the article. This is basic wikipedia policy. The citation that was originally included only mentioned ONE online store that sold the referenced T-Shirts. I never wrote anything about T-Shirt designs; your claim was that several sources were selling shirts, while the cited article only mentioned one store. Now that you've added the link to the Times-Picayune article that clearly indicates other vendors, my concerns have been addressed. This link was not included in the article previously. Thanks.Hal Raglan 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see we were editing somewhat at cross purposes. I was trying to correct what I knew to be an inaccurate description of the situation in the article text, whereas you were editing to put the article in accordance with what was in that single link. I'm glad we seem to have resolved this detail. Thanks for your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies (second nomination). --Blue Tie 02:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking great. A few minor notes. I noticed in quite a few uses of the word relatively, as in "relatively smooth", "relatively small budget." Consider removing or replacing with content. As to comprehensiveness, I was comparing it to a few other film FAs--is there material for sections on writing, direction, music and casting? I am not saying you need all of these, just that these sections have been addressed in other FA movie articles, and past examples can be the best teachers. Oh, I added one fact template--that section contains a very specific list of movies that were influenced by this movie; screams for a citation.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the FA!--Fuhghettaboutit 18:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hal. How's everyhting? Noticed your edit on my watchlist, thought commenting it out might help. Feel free to revert.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't beleive Olbermann's hate-filled commentary belong on the wallace page??--Bairdso66 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking out the POV on the Crist, Judith page. What I meant when I wrote "accomplished" was "prolific." My bad :) SaraK

I noticed that you just removed all references to Pauline Kael's being a Jew. Are you particularly opposed to having this publicly displayed? She was Jewish. I see no reason why it should not be included. - Abscissa 04:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"All references", you say. There was one reference in the article, in the lead paragraph, which I removed. I removed it because the lead paragraph should concisely detail the subject's defining characteristics. Take a look at the following wikipedia articles devoted to other film critics: Judith Crist, Jay Cocks, Vincent Canby, Andrew Sarris, Roger Ebert, Armond White, James Agee, etc. You will notice that they are simply defined as being film critics. If you believe it is very important to anyone remotely interested in Ms. Kael that she be identified as being a Jew, please add it in the biographical details of the article. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I just took another look at the article and in the "Biography" section she is already described as having been born to Jewish immigrants. Why do you believe it so important to mention this fact in the lead paragraph? I honestly don't think most people would describe her as a "Jewish film critic".—Hal Raglan 04:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people that you mentioned are Jewish (that I am aware). A couple of the articles (I looked at two or three) are a couple of sentences long. You say: "concisely detail the subject's defining characteristics" and being Jewish is obviously a defining characterisitic as it only describes about 1% of the population. Thus, being white, Christian, Chinese, male, etc. would not be defining characteristics? - Abscissa 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, being an "American film critic" is her defining characteristic, at least in terms of an encyclopedic entry. If she had repeatedly proclaimed her Jewishness in her reviews, and had become famous as being a "Jewish American film critic", then that would be important to note in the opening paragraph. My point about the other critics was not that they are Jewish, but that whether or not they are Christian, Jewish, or otherwise is not even mentioned in the lead paragraphs of their articles. Why should the Kael entry be any different? Again, it is already mentioned in the article that her parents were Jewish, so its not like I'm attempting to keep something important from "public display".-Hal Raglan 04:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of what relevance, is it then, that she is an "American film critic"? Since she doesn't deal only with American filims. This refers to her being an American. Why is that there? The plain and simple fact is that she is a Jew, religiously and ethnically. If it is so important that she not be labelled as such then we can just leave it out but let's make your rationale quite clear. - Abscissa 05:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the relevance of Kael being described as an "American film critic" is because that is exactly why she is/was famous. It is standard to discuss somebody's nationality in the lead paragraph of an encyclopedic entry, not their religious beliefs unless that was one of the defining characteristics of their fame. And Kael was NOT famous for being a Jew, she was famous for being a film critic. If she was a practicing Jew (and I have no idea if she was or not), she never discussed it in print (as far as I can recall) or in any interviews, and it didn't seem to be reflected in her critical POV. Now, if she had repeatedly brought up her ethnicity/religion in her reviews as some kind of critical barometer, I could easily understand why somebody would feel compelled to describe Kael as a "Jewish film critic". But she didn't do that. And again I direct your attention to any of the other film critic articles on wikipedia. Is Roger Ebert a "Christian film critic"? Andrew Sarris an "atheist film critic"? Not according to wikipedia they're not. (I'm using those two as examples...I don't know or care what, if any, religious background they may have). And as I've previously pointed out, it is already noted in the "Biography" section of the article that her parents were Jewish. Removing this from the lead paragraph will not be "leaving it out" of the article at all.-Hal Raglan 06:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be unaware but "Jew" is also an ethnicity -- and many "Jews" are "Jews" only by ethnicity, so it is no different from saying someone is "American". Again, there is no need to describe majorities using adjectives to describe their majority status, since, in your own words, this includes "defining characteristics" -- for majorities this might be male, white, anglosaxon, catholic, American, Chinese, etc. - Abscissa 19:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am not unaware of that. I have no problem with your most recent edit to the article, but be aware that since referencing a subject's nationality is pretty much SOP for the lead paragraph in a biographical wikipedia entry, someone else will probably eventually add "American" back.-Hal Raglan 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have done some very good and thoughtful work in POV and controversy issues. I thought that you may add to this [2] discussion with your knowledge, thank you. I don't believe that someone perceived sexuality constitutes as a controversy and was hoping that you could take a look and give you opinion perhaps? Thank you

In the Media Bias article, I added Fox and Fox News. We need to do this all or nothing, have citations for all, or remove all citations. I say no citations because it would clutter the article. Your thoughts?

Hi, I notice that you have unpicked nearly all of the additions I made to this article. I was just curious as to your reason? All of it is verifiable. Mallanox 19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so noted. Obviously the information I found didn't just fall off a truck, it took me a while to add it all in (especially as I had an update error and had to do it from scratch twice). It is, I'm sure you know, frustrating when people revert a load of stuff that was researched. I realise I'm not "owed" anything but a short note to explain your reasoning would have saved bad feeling.

I do not think that removal of the English-language category would be justified, adding the Italian-language category would be more approriate. As you say, it is explained in the body text about the languages spoken on-set. Mallanox 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking at Reggie Oliver again? Nareek 16:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon.com link I provided was not for the customer reviews but for respected long-time professional critic Marshall Fine's review which is listed as "Amazon.com's review". MrBlondNYC 12:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've written several FA film articles. Pulp Fiction has been collaberating for awhile now and I've done basically all I can. If you could put a fresh set of eyes on the article it would be appreciated. Andman8 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hal, how's it going? I was wondering if you could take a look at this. I created the stub in June and finally completed a "good" draft. While researching this article, I noticed a lack of sources that discuss this film. Most books only mention it in passing. I thought you might know of anything that could possibly added to this article. Thanks. Dmoon1 09:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this and other horror-related articles. I don't know if you're into barnstars, but here's one for you anyway as a sign of appreciation. Dmoon1 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) I had a skim through your other film FAs and they're great work - keep it up. Trebor 22:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your query on the peer review. Please reply. Wiki-newbie 18:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your response in the peer review for Jurassic Park. You said Production should follow the Synopsis. Is this a guideline from somewhere, or just a personal preference? Some FA-class film articles like the Star Wars ones lead with the Production section. — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erikster (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Appreciate the feedback. Since you've gotten some film articles to FA status, can you take a look at The Fountain and tell me if there's any glaring omissions or errors that need to be accounted for? What would it take to get the article to FA status, basically? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tips. I'm used to writing descriptive information, so it's weird trying to get my head around being objective in writing these opinionated reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it coming along with your old magazine specials on the film? Wiki-newbie 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I presume real life has caught up? Wiki-newbie 18:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra information. Do you think you can add double references to some stuff too, to increase the article's verifiability? Wiki-newbie 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have self-nominated the Aaron Sorkin article over at FAC and was wondering if you could review the article? It chronicles the rise of a Screenwriter, and the collaboration of Screenwriters and filmmakers, and it's about one of the more popular Screenwriters of our day: Aaron Sorkin. Let me know what you think. I would appreciate it.-BiancaOfHell 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you profess in quality film articles, I was wondering if you could share your opinion over a disagreement at Children of Men. There is a mild conflict between a couple of editors regarding a phrase that appears at the end of the film after credits have rolled. Its thematic importance is pointed out later in the Themes section, but one editor believes that it doesn't belong in the plot, while the other editor believes it to be part of the overall package being delivered by the director to the audience. You can read discussion beginning here, going... a bit of ways down. :) Personally, I'm conflicted, as I originally tried to insert it in an objective light (merely saying that the phrase appeared), and leaving the interpretation for the Themes section. If you have the time, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was hoping to enlist your assistance in resolving a difference in edits for the article for the movie, Children_of_Men. The differences in edits is relatively minor but contentious, with low-level edit-warring back and forth replacing one version, then the other. It has even resulted in one of the parties being reported for 3RR violations. And of course, it has strained civility to the breaking point. A third voice (preferably someone who has seen the movie, but not vital) is needed. A request for editor review was requested before from two other editors, without response. I would suggest taking a look at the key points as they have been debated on the discussion page, but the debate has gone on for...quite a bit. If you will permit me, the two edits take place in the synopsis, viewed by their diff here.

• One side of the debate (indicated by the linked edit on the left) argues that statements and sounds heard at the end of the film (the sounds of children laughing and playing and the words Shantih, Shantih, Shantih appearing on the screen at the very end) were not specifically part of the synopsis as it was no more a part of the "storyworld" than the credits or specifcally thematic components. This pov statees that the components are solely thematic, and should be only be mentioned in the Themes header of the article.

• The other side of the debate (indicated by the linked edit on the right) argues that these same statements, by the very fact that they were observable portions of the film should be a part of the synopsis, in keeping with the definition of the word, further reasoning that casual visitors want an accurate depiction of what was on the screen for the film's duration, allowing for any thematic discussion of the synopsis to take place in the Themes section, either in brief or in depth.

I thank you for taking the time to read this request, and I hope you can assist us in finding a compromise.Arcayne 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Was a nice article :) DoomsDay349 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend adding a cast section to each article and then reassessing it to B class yourself once you're done. Remember that any WP:Films member can assess article, just use your best judgment. I helped to assess thousands of films, but it is likely that I was too harsh or too lenient. Good job on the articles and keep adding sections of information that is sourced. Then take it to GA like you did with The Pit and the Pendulum. Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hal, you are doing a great job of writing articles about films. I enjoy reading them. Regarding the cast section, I guess there is no consensus as to how to write it. In most of the film articles, cast sections are using a ==Level 2 heading== (examples: Blade Runner and V for Vendetta). The examples you gave were the first ones I have seen that use a ===Level 3 heading===. Also, the style guidelines imply (to me at least :) ) that cast sections have the same level headings as plot, production, and references.--Crzycheetah 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for that well-written edit to the Olbermann article. As I am sure you are aware, the article has been a consistent target for the O'Reillyites. Facts speak for themselves, without need of commentary. Well done, sir. ---Cathal 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I noticed quite a while ago that the Olbermann article was/is routinely assaulted by editors (usually anonymous ones) with a conservative bias. I like to jump in and make attempts at reducing the POV whenever I can.-Hal Raglan 02:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to express a deep deception concerning your attitude. I added the trivia part and, afterwards, read the "anti-trivia" page. However, I believe this is no reason to purely delete information from Wikipedia. If you feel that this text needs to be rewritten then rewrite it (can't say it's too long) and you see somewhere else too put it, be my guest! Deleting without warning prevents the author from knowing that his text has been removed, unless he comes back and check. I'd really like some kind of explanation. [email protected]

You've asked for "some kind" of explanation regarding my removal of your insertion of trivial information into the 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). As you indicated, you seem to now understand that wikipedia guidelines indicate that "Trivia" sections are not considered encyclopedic in nature. Any information intended for such sections should instead by incorporated into the article proper. I believe I mentioned this in my edit summary. Also, the information was completely unsourced, which smacks of Original Research, another major wikipedia no-no. To be fair, I believe the IBM/HAL thing has been noted in the past, possibly somewhere in Jerome Agel's 2001 book, so if you want you can re-add the info in a more logical place within the article, utilizing a less informal tone, and with the detail properly sourced. Since you're the one who wants the info in the article, it is up to you to make sure its included properly.-Hal Raglan 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since writing my response, I note that someone else has addressed the issue. Apparently this trivia has been definitively debunked by Arthur C. Clarke himself, as noted in the Hal 9000 article.-Hal Raglan 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:PitCapPro1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The below exchanges took place regarding an edit by Scottandrewhutchins, in which he simply moved/renamed the above noted article w/out any discussion. My first response was to write the following on the user's talk page:

I strongly disagree with your moving/renaming the article to "Pit and the Pendulum" without first discussing the issue on the article's talk page. While I can probably guess that your reasoning is the fact the IMDB, All Movie Guide, and MRQE list the movie without the first "The", the vast majority of all reviews/sources/online movie sites/reference materials that I've seen refer to the film as "The Pit and the Pendulum". In all interviews that I've read, Roger Corman, Richard Matheson, and Vincent Price referred to the film as "The Pit and the Pendulum". It is always advertised in that manner. I believe English language Wikipedia articles should utilize a film's most commonly known English-language title. Perhaps adding (AKA Pit and the Pendulum) after the bolded title at the beginning of the article would have been more appropriate. If your argument is that the onscreen title should have precedent over all other sources, I believe you are incorrect. "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein"'s onscreen title is "Meet Frankenstein", yet almost nobody refers to the film in that manner. "Witchfinder General"'s onscreen title is "Matthew Hopkins - Witchfinder General", but only a fraction of reliable sources use that particular title. I am considering reverting your edit but I would like to be made aware of what your reasons for making the change in the first place were.-Hal Raglan 18:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On-screen titles take precedence over advertising titles, as they are the most verifiable and consistent. I think Bud Abbot Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein is an inappropriate example, especially considering that arguable nature of what the on-screen title actually is. The link works with either title, regardless. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you direct me to the guidelines where it says onscreen titles have precedence over more commonly documented titles for a film? I can't find this. Guidelines do state (admittedly about foreign language films, but I think this still applies): "Names of articles should be the most commonly used title for the following reasons: We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia." I've just checked all of my Roger Corman books and none of them refer to the title as "Pit and the Pendulum". Not sure why you claim "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" is not a good example. The actual credits read Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein. By your logic, that should be the film's "verifiable and consistent" title. The same with "Matthew Hopkins - Witchfinder General" -- the film's onscreen credit. I understand what you are saying about all the links working, but I still believe you should have discussed the move/retitling instead of just making the move. Also, why did you retain (1961 film) to the title? As far as I can tell, no other film has ever been titled "Pit and the Pendulum". The (1961 film) qualifier is not needed.-Hal Raglan 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the "and" on the title screen of Abbott and and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Before, you claimed that the onscreen title was simply Meet Frankenstein, so you are still not being consistent. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I've never referred to the film as Abbott and and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Second, I am unsure of why you are so confused by such a simple matter. In many opening film credits, actors routinely have their names "above the title". In the case of the Abbott and Costello film, Bud Abbot and Lou Costello (the stars) have their name "above the title", which in this case is "Meet Frankenstein" (the onscreen title below the names of the actors). By your logic, the title of the movie is "Meet Frankenstein". Writer Stephen Jones agrees with you and lists the film as such in one of his horror film guides. My other example was "Witchfinder General". The onscreen title is "Matthew Hopkins - Witchfinder General". In his book, Nightmare Movies, Kim Newman refers to the movie as "Matthew Hopkins - Witchfinder General". Yet only these two writers and a few others refer to these movies by their onscreen titles. Most reference publications refer to Roger Corman's film as "The Pit and the Pendulum". Yes, some do drop the first "The" but the film's most common title is "The Pit and the Pendulum". I see no inconsistency in my examples or my reasoning. I've opened the subject up for debate on the talk page of the article. Please do not make another drastic change w/out discussing the issue and waiting for consensus. Thank you.-Hal Raglan 21:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

The actual credits read Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein.

This is not an accurate statement. Simple as that. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately ignoring my point? Stephen Jones claims that the name of the movie is Meet Frankenstein when no other writer (to my knowledge) refers to the film in that way. Kim Newman (and a few others) refer to "Witchfinder General" as "Matthew Hopkins - Witchfinder General". Simply because they argue that those are the onscreen titles does not magically make those the actual titles of the films. The same is true of Corman's film...the most common title is "The Pit and the Pendulum". Just because some people, including you, argue otherwise does not make it so. Why are you having such difficulty with this?-Hal Raglan 21:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most common" and "correct" are two different things. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the wikipedia film guidelines: "Names of articles should be the most commonly used title for the following reasons: We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia."-Hal Raglan 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations on getting The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) to featured article status! It looks great! From one Roger Corman fan to another, I award you this barnstar. --Midnightdreary 02:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Baker (writer), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Tom Baker (writer) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Baker (writer) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Tom Baker (writer) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eliz81 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats pretty facist, regarding im TRYING to IMPROVE the article. THIS COMMENT: Thats pretty facist WAS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU...... see also No offense.

Hello! Anonymous editor 172.190.32.51 has reverted back to a several months-old version of the 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) synopsis which is full of irrelevant detail, Original Research, and editorial interpretation. I have reverted his/her changes twice, and in response the editor has now violated the 3RR policy (and attacked me on my talk page as being "facist"). I myself don't wish to violate the policy, but his/her changes are so damaging to the overall quality of the article that I think a full-scale revert should be done. I have addressed the issue on the talk page. Since your recent edit summaries indicate that you may agree the section needs to be reduced in size, I would like to invite you to help us discuss/resolve the problem before it gets out of hand. If you have the time, please provide your two-cents worth. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 02:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing me in on this. I've warned the anon editor about WP:3RR, so if he reverts again we can report him and have him blocked. – Dreadstar † 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think 172.'s edits to 2001 were definitely in good faith, but 172. can't be edit warring or vandalizing pages like he has yours. I've warned him on both counts. I think 172. has a lot to offer the article...but not the way it's being currently undertaken. – Dreadstar † 02:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with what seems to me like intentional ignorance and again NO OFFENSE... 172.190.32.51 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of this latest issue. – Dreadstar † 02:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we wait. [3]. – Dreadstar † 03:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apparently 172 has self reverted. – Dreadstar † 03:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing surreptitious about accessing the journals. It just depends on what kind of subscription access you may have. For example, to get access to the journals I mentioned, I used my university account to track them down. I basically went to my university's library website, typed in the name of the journal in which the paper was published, then used the dating and cataloging (volume/number) information to specifically find the paper in the journal archives. I don't know the extent of your access, but I can see about retrieving journal entries for you and sending them to you in ZIP format via e-mail or something. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The access that I described above should also apply to major public libraries. I haven't researched at any of these locations firsthand since my university account suffices, but I would suggest seeing if there are any major libraries near you and checking their websites to see what subscription-only databases could be made available to you. But yeah, let me know what course of action you'd like to pursue, and I'd be happy to help. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tracked down and saved five PDFs, all of which seem to be pretty beneficial reading. I can send them to you in a ZIP file in a throw-away e-mail or something. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hope you find them useful! (My suggestion is to print them if you can; it's not very comfortable to read these documents on the screen.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of original release as indicated by IMDb.

I moved the article because there is no other film of the same name, at least not disambiguated at The Pit and the Pendulum. I don't even need to explain myself, it superfluous to have the year when there is no other film. That is why it should stay as it is now. Reginmund 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was another film that had the same title and wasn't disambiguated on the 1961 film's page or the short story's page, then I cannot be held responsible. How was I to know that there was another film? Reginmund 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I moved it. Because there was the '61 film at the top, but not the '91 film. That was all I needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginmund (talk • contribs) 00:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed this from the page? It was clearly cited, and yes, didn't relate to Bill O'Reilly, but related to the organization taking material out of context. Carbon Monoxide 02:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question, it had no place in that paragraph. That particular paragraph discusses Bill O'Reilly's perceived racist comments, MM's reporting on same, O'Reilly's "I've been quoted out of context" response, MM's response to that, followed by Williams's defense of O'Reilly. Why has Glenn Beck's opinion been jammed into there?-Hal Raglan 02:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the specific reference now, citing a 1987 issue of Variety that listed every single theatrical release of 1986 (it mentions that Variety reviewed the film on April 2, 1980, which is probably why the IMDB has the film's release date incorrectly listed as that). I should've probably just added it before, but I saw that the article already mentioned it was released on August 15th, citing a New York Times Review. Regards, All Hallow's Wraith 21:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy article. However, in your hastiness with this edit, you re-inserted multiple grammatical and punctuation errors. I just thought I'd shoot you a note reminding you to be careful not to override constructive edits where possible. I know you didn't do it on purpose, nor probably knew you had even done so... but I just thought I'd remind you. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted your interpretation on something. You wrote on my talk page a while back about what vandalism is or is not. To my understanding, if a person makes a POV statement but does so without the intent to it is NOT vandalism correct? Also, it seems if someone wants to address a point and makes a good faith effort to make it less POV worded, that should not be considered vandalism correct? Should the person get a warning for offerring personal analysis when the effort was in good faith to make it less POV? Furthermore, if someone keeps hurling accusations of someone pushing a POV, yet does not engage in a civil discussion about the alleged abuse when the accused wishes to defend him or herself, does that count as abuse? Arnabdas (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. Blaxthos had given me two warnings but refused to address the issue of the arguments I made. When he objected to my characterization of Media Matters being liberal, I changed the statement to say that they usually did not criticize conservatives or independents to sound more NPOV. He then issued a warning to me saying that I was in violation of NPOV, despite my good faith effort. I asked for a response but never got one. Then he reverted another statement of mine on another article over the same issue...giving me a warning again without response to what I said. From what I can tell, you may personally have a POV on an issue that seems to agree with him, but looking at the facts of it do you feel his warnings to me were justified? Thanks again for the civil discussion. Arnabdas (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hal, thanks again for your words. I do want to point out that I am committed to putting forth a good article that doesnt have POV wording in it. However, I also feel that POV shouldn't be expected by others as well. I just wanted a discussion of the topic, that's all. Blaxthos just edited the page and did not acknowledge my counter-argument for wording it the way I did. In the end, I want an honest depiction of it all...whether it goes for or against my own POV. I take this editing seriously; it is our duty to provide accurate and impartial information. However, I did write on the talk page why I felt the way I did and why his edit was pushing a POV on his part. I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone...I honestly felt he has been trying to pick a fight with me for some reason though...simply because he hasnt engaged in a discussion with me yet has just been warning happy. Arnabdas (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:DIGoPop.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[4]] Jmegill (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2007 issue 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, congratulations on your excellent work so far on the article. I'm rather impressed. I was wondering if you think that it might be time to give it the FAC push? If not, is there anything resource or assistance-wise that WP:FILMS can do to be of additional help? Many thanks and keep up the good work, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to find much usage for the sources I provided a while back? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was a quick fix of Badminton's previous edit, I'm sorry about the clumsy phrasing. There seems to be some serious POV pushing going on with this article (in both directions) and I tried to fix a couple of the most obvious (Tony Snow cancer sufferer and the Murrow comparrison). Good faith edits, but I apologize if I stepped on toes in process. Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the use of fair use images for depiction only of living people is strictly proscribed, per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. The Foundation has taken a very strong stance against such. While the person is alive, it is possible to obtain a free license image of them. That's the line in the sand. If you disagree with this, please take it up at WT:NFC. Thanks --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Humanoids from the Deep, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own the List of Roger Corman films, and I think its silly to refuse to include the films he produced. You haven't given any valid reason for continuing to block such additions, and from the article history I see you've been doing this for awhile. The list is not a list of films Roger Corman directed, it is a list of Roger Corman films period. Adding those he produced is certainly relevant and appropriate content for the list. If you don't want to have anything but films he directed, rename the list and give it a lead to limit it just to that. Otherwise, stop blocking valid content. I've also posted to the Film project to get some feedback on this, as I believe your attempts to limit this list are inappropriate and not in keeping with the project standards. Collectonian (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Lists of films, consensus shows that the list should be renamed to Roger Corman filmography and that it should be expanded to include his entire filmography. Several options for reformatting the list have also been suggested. I myself am partial to the sortable table idea. Before doing the rename, I'd like to know you won't revert and that you will go with consensus and, if not aid in expanding it, at least stop blocking it? Collectonian (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That someone with three film FAs should not have already been given one of these! Well, time to amend sins of omission... :)

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Girolamo Savonarola (talk), hereby award Hal Raglan the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. With the greatest of respect, for uncommonly distinguished editing which resulted in three featured articles (so far). Awarded 04:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems someone is trying to do a piece on Porter Barry, producer of The O'Reilly Factor of FOX news. Please look at the Porter Barry Wikipedia article. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hal,

I'm simultaneously reverting your changes, but inviting you to try again.

Your edits to my shortened version of the 2001 synopsis (I shortened it from 1410 words to just under 1000) are well-intentioned but leave some dangling threads, so there is now a reference without a precedent. If you change "A tribe of apes that has been attempting to gain control of a water-hole sees..." to "A tribe of prehistoric ape-men is struggling to survive in the dry desert." as you did then the third following sentence "With this knowledge, this ape-tribe is now able to wrest the water-hole away from the other tribe." makes no sense. WHAT water-hole? Of all your changes, this is the one that is clearly ill-advised.

Furthermore, some sort of link between apes viewing the monolith and the discovery of the tool has to be established!! I may have done it a bit clumsily or with too much POV (it's hard to avoid POV on Kubrick films) with my rather subjective "As they examine it, the audience senses they are being mentally stimulated and transformed." but somehow the link between monolith and tool has to be established. The alternative would be to say, the ape has flashbacks to the vision of the monolith as he picks up the tool. This strikes me as a bit too wordy, but might be better.

The orbiting nuclear weapon bit has been discussed a bit on the talk pages, and I may have erred in referring to early drafts of the screenplay, as I now realize this is widely viewed as a hoax (I had not found this on the 2001 talk-page yet when I wrote it), but they orbiting satellites have cannons, nuclear logos, and multiple country's flags on them. I will change my reference to the DVD commentary, but I really think that it is important to note that this is a weapon-to-weapon match cut. I suspect here Kubrick was over-estimating his audience's intelligence.

The presence of the music is iffy, but Kubrick's use of music is so central to his films and to their impact I thought it worth mentioning briefly. Zarathustra is thematically important as it comes from a piece of music in turn based an a book that talks about the transition from ape to man and to "Superman". I want to convey some sense of the filmic experience as well as the plot (and I'm not sure the music section does that- it talks about the music used but not how it is used.)

At any rate, I'm reverting your changes, will amend the reference to the screenplay, try to improve on the monolith-tool connection, but invite you to try again.

Regards,

WickerGuy (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal,

As you can see, I have reworked the 3rd (or 4th?) paragraph of the music section to be more specific about the use of the music in the movie. Furthermore, since the plot synopsis still mentions Zarathustra's use in the opening credits in sentence 1, I have added a footnote jump to the music section of the same article. (Nice how you can have an internal link not only to another wikipedia article but to another section of the same article.

Regards,

WickerGuy (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2008 issue 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated here Talk:Keith_Olbermann#The_Consensus_That_Olbermann_Is_a_News_Anchor. Switzpaw (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard-- someone else answered my question. Switzpaw (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aguirre,_the_Wrath_of_God#Recent_edits

I posted my comments here. Can we compromise? Best, Puppette (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TenebraeCap.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a major contributor to Aguirre, the Wrath of God‎, I thought you'd want to know that that article is currently under going a Good Article Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps. The article currently fails the good article criteria, as detailed at Talk:Aguirre, the Wrath of God‎/GA1. Its reassessment is on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues to be addressed. Thanks. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DiscoInferno.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WilliamCampbell.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AguirrePoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LucyShowManiaNew.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HiredHandCap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film). There was really no need for my revisions. Mjpresson (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PitCap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your reference to the FAQ in your recent revert [5]. When/if you have the time could you please review my request for editor assistance at WP:EAR and provide a bit of feedback here or at my talkpage? I'm particularly interested in how to proceed. Thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:OgilvyDwyer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BloodandBlackLaceCap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]