User talk:Cinerama Comment

Just opened this for a single comment. Cinerama Comment (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinerama Comment, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Cinerama Comment! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The Broken Oath (1910 film), Cinerama Comment!

Wikipedia editor Barney the barney barney just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

If this is historically important, can you please add references to indicate this?

To reply, leave a comment on Barney the barney barney's talk page.

The film's believed to be the first one in which an actress received billing. All theatrical movies, however, especially very early ones, possess ample importance regarding Wikipedia by dint of their existence, of course. Cinerama Comment (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learn more about page curation.

I believe you, but you basically need to add where this claim is made in a scholarly paper or book. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the foggiest. Saw it in another youtube article, but since it's not germane to keeping the article in Wikipedia as it stands, it's unnecessary, of course. Cinerama Comment (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hallelujah Trail

That certainly is a mystery. Not only was the film shot in 70mm, there's no logical reason to understand why it would have been converted into three prints. That would have not looked good - grainy and uneven. Remember how grainy the shots are in How the West Was Won are that were shot in 70mm and optically blown up and separated for the 3-projector Cinerama prints. And yet you have this vivid memory of seeing three simultaneous projector beams. I hope you figure it out some day. My only feeble guess is that the Capitol showed a short in the three camera format on the same program. (Seems unlikely), But if the Capitol had already removed the 3-projecotr setup that would rule out that idea. It's not hard to believe the 3-projecotr setup was dismantled because the center booth would have had to be expanded and at least two projectors installed for the 70mm features. Likely one or both of the side projectors would have been moved to the center and new lenses installed. I envy your visit to the Capitol. I was never in that theatre. Best wishes to you. I hope you solve the mystery! Markhh (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Disorder in the Court may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

short to feature the more popular Curly; the other three feature [[Shemp Howard|Shemp]] instead.)<ref name="Solomon"/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of In and Out (1914 film)

The article In and Out (1914 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced and very short article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EuroCarGT 01:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

I previewed a few of your articles mostly on older "vintage" films and have seen all are unsourced and are very short. Please note every article must have a source and referennce to ensure the reliability of the article. Also the content in every article must be more longer especially films and movie related articles, they must have a brief Plot and Synopsis as well as a list of characters, production notes and other major information regarding the film and movie.

Please check WP:MOVIE for the notability guidelines on film-related articles. Please note that unreliable sources on artilces maybe challenged or removed. EuroCarGT 01:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sherlock Holmes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

.<ref>[[Nils Nordberg|Nordberg, Nils]]: Døden i kiosken. Knut Gribb og andre heftedetektiver.</ref>[[
[[File:The Mystery of the Leaping Fish.jpg|thumb|right[150px|Reissue poster for ''The Mystery of the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tillie Wakes Up

Don't worry about it - no trouble at all. (I didn't create the original article - I edited it a bit right after it was created, though.) You've already taken the first, best step towards rectifying things, and that's merging the information on the two pages. The only question now is which version to keep, and what to do about the other. Doing a little Google search suggests that there was only the one film titled Tillie Wakes Up; consequently, I don't see that keeping the article with the year in the title would serve much purpose. What do you think? Should Tillie Wakes Up (1917 film) be turned into a redirect, or deleted entirely? Or kept, and Tillie Wakes Up be made a redirect?

Thanks for the compliment, by the way - though it indicates mainly that I put up a good front. :-) I know very little about old films, and most of what I do know regarding categorization has been long trial-and-error. Your film articles are of a much higher quality than I could ever hope to create on my own. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ordinarily defer to the original article creator, too, but he appears not to have edited since the first of this month. Consequently, I'll blank the original article and mark it for speedy deletion. That should take care of it - it can always be recreated if someone sees fit.

Wikipedia can feel thankless, yes, but it really isn't always that way. Just keep your head down and keep editing, and don't let it get to you. That's how I've managed to last seven-plus years here. :-) You're doing fine. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article blanked. An admin may deny it and request a merge, to preserve the history of the original, but I decided to take a chance. WP:BOLD, and all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in cases where there are two articles dealing with identical subjects, one should be gotten rid of somehow, either as a redirect or as a page deletion. Depends on the circumstances. In this case, I don't see any need for a redirect, given the unique nature of the title. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Film

Hello, I just noticed your addition of Lenny Bruce's photo on the "Film Lenny" article. I have been pondering deleting it, because Mr. Bruce has his own article, and this photo is already on it. This article is about the "film", and I am having trouble making the logical connection to having a real photo of Bruce on the page. Give me a logical reason not to remove it, and I won't. You can reply here, and I'll put this page on my watch list to see your reply. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph itself is so perfectly dramatic, and Bruce looks so dramatic in it, that I thought it would help cement in readers' minds that this movie's about an actual person who made a real difference. The photo encapsulates what the movie's all about with more impact than any still from the film itself, including the similar one under it in the next section of the article (as an aside, I wonder if the cops in both shots are actually the same guy since they did use an officer who was there during the arrest to play the part in the movie). There are at least a couple of whole generations of people out there who have no idea what Bruce looked like and I thought the photo would deepen peoples' appreciation of the movie as well as stimulate curiosity about Bruce himself, which is interest well placed to put it mildly. Cinerama Comment (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've made a good case..I'll let it be. P.S. If you're referring to the bailiff in the photo under yours, no he wasn't the actual guy involved in the arrest. He is wearing a 1960s Miami Bailiff's costume, but was actually, a 1970s thru 90s Broward County Bailiff. I am 100% positive of that, because he was my Father....now deceased. Thanks....happy editing. Pocketthis (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, that's what I call a definite source, the most definite one imaginable! He was your father!! I'm so glad I just happened to mention him in my little miniature peroration, what a superb coincidence. This absolutely makes my day, Pocketthis! Cinerama Comment (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Catch a Thief

Thanks for your attention to the article. I don't quite agree with you on the top section, but I don't want it to detract. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Perry Como may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

<!-- Comment Como sometimes expressed amazement and dismay at the younger generation of musical

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]