User talk:Ribbet32/Archive 2

Smallfoot

Fine, I'll abide by it but in my opinion, I still think that some details are needed so as to complete the plot. Olivier Baghdadi (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK Review for Third Murderer

Hi Ribbet32. I've reviewed your DYK nomination and have only two minor concerns that should be easy to address. Once those are addressed, I intended to approve the hook. Lepricavark (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Third Murderer

On 6 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Third Murderer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that scholars have debated whether the mysterious Third Murderer in William Shakespeare's tragedy Macbeth was Macbeth himself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Third Murderer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Third Murderer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the great work on the article for The Salesman. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Palme d'Or Flags

Hello I see you reverted my edit of switching the flag for The Best Intentions from Sweden to Denmark. Is it true that the flags are aimed for director's nationalities and not the film's country of origin? Because I edited the page for the recent Palme d'Or winner The Square, saying it was the first film since 1951 for Sweden to win, and then someone reverted my edit claiming The Best Intentions counts in between them. - Theironminer (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Theironminer, I'm the one who also reverted The Square edit. The problem was one of precise wording- the edit to The Square claimed it was the first Swedish film to win the Palme d'Or, which I knew to be false- The Best Intentions was Swedish, even Pelle the Conqueror was a Swedish co-production. The film's country isn't necessarily the same as the direector's- a whole host of factors are counted. However, if you look at the top of the tables on the main Palme d'Or article, they focus on the nationality of the directors rather than the films. Not something I necessarily agree with, that's just the way it was before I ever edited that article, and I guess that's what other editors thought was best. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Replying to your message about tagging.

Hey, I didn't perceive it quite that way. I just assumed it was more of a general "this article has some content, but could use beefing up". Someone tagged one of my previous new articles, Small Town Crime or Permission (film) with it. I figured it was something that was attached to all stubs in order to urge expansion. But I felt like A Woman, a Part was my best new film article yet. As you said, it contained the most references with just about everything accounted for. (Quick aside: thanks for the compliment, too. I felt accomplished after writing that one.) The only thing it's really missing is a plot section (which I don't want to write myself without having seen the film, as to avoid spoiling it for myself). So thanks for the heads up! I'll remove that as it's quite unnecessary now that you mention it. I'll leave it on Letters from Baghdad. I dunno why, but I feel quite exhausted and/or apathetic about adding further references to that. So yes, laziness/fatigue from creating new movie articles in regards to that one page. But I appreciate the tip nonetheless, and won't add it to future articles unless I feel like I'm under-sourced (see: Letters from Baghdad) and need assistance in expanding it.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 08:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edits at Kagemusha

Those were nice edits you made at Kagemusha. Recently, another editor requested that a sortable list of directed films be put in at Kajirō Yamamoto and I was wondering if you could glance at that section for possible enhancement. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words JohnWickTwo. I would tend to agree a table would help that article in the very least in aesthetics. Sortable can give the reader more convenience in finding a title as well. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Day of Wrath

Hello Rib, just noticed your reversion of my edits for the film Day of Wrath and the classification as drive by tagging. I wanted to let you know that my additions were not drive by tagging as the article is incomplete and those sections (and missing information) still need to be expanded and added respectively. The Reception section is way too short and only briefly states that the film received mixed reviews on its initial release and later acclaim. The reception section, although relatively well written, doesn't address the issues the film had during its production. Other issues that are mentioned in the talk page still need to be addressed in the article as well as the fact that the article still needs work done to it. Hopefully I've clarified the reason why such additions were added to the article and the reason that they should remain in the article and this doesn't sound like me rambling like a madman.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Not every article needs a tag; this is more substantial than many articles. Every article is a work in progress; not every one needs an incomplete tag. You have a history of tag bombing articles, but I seriously doubt you have ever seen this film or have any interest in it. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with regards to "My Cousin Rachel" and such, but there are better ways to address users who have made mistakes then the way you did with me. Please be aware of that. Your message on my talk page insulted my intelligence by pointing out grammar errors and then insulted my personality by calling me whinny. I don't apprieciate that at all. Repect all users. Anyway, thank you for addressing me and helping me out by providing that template. I hope we can be friends. TheMovieGuy.

Thanks

Thanks for weighing in on ANI about that OTRS issue. I gotta say, I love your comment, "Perhaps the fucking tone in that fucking quote isn't fucking sunshine and fucking lollipops, but there's no fucking personal attack." Spot-on.

I maintain a list of notable quotes on my user page and if I didn't think it might reflect poorly on you without the context of the ANI discussion, that would be at the top of the list. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations

@Ribbet32: Hi Ribbet32, I'm MagicatthemovieS. You might remember me - you passed my nomination of "A Rape on Campus" as a good article. Since we work well together, I was wondering if you might like to check out two articles which I recently nominated to reach good article status - Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations. Let me know if you are interested in either article or both of them.

Thanks, ~ MagicatthemovieS

Hi @MagicatthemovieS:, of course I remember you; right now I have my hands full with another review, sorry. Maybe I'll take a look at Gerald Ford and see if I can give it a copyedit, but that's about all I can do for right now. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Ribbet32:; let me know if you're able to review either article when you're less busy.

ANI

I closed the ANI you started as it was going nowhere, I understand some of your concerns about Oogles, but it it verges on a personal attack to say that using "legal action" for a section header is a sign of incompetence, also try to avoid any comments that could be construed as claiming other editors have mental problems. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry ...

... for getting a little tense on the 11B-X-1371 GA review. I just had never seen anyone in a GA review insist on a particular category ordering scheme, especially the one that's less used (I think there used to be something that said editors should defer to the original editor's category ordering if there was one ... leave it alpha if they put it that way, and if not, not).

My general rule with things is that the one with entries that the subject has most in common with should go first (with the exception of birth and death years in biographies, which sort of carries over to year of creation in the case of artworks (as it did here). Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I wasn't insisting, it wasn't conditional to passing the review, but, as I noted in the GAC, we were both getting needlessly argumentative. My bad as much as yours, and certainly no hard feelings! In fact, when I saw Daniel Case posted a "Sorry" message on my talk, I said, "What does Daniel Case have to apologize for?" Ribbet32 (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your excellent expansion work on the article for Hochelaga, Land of Souls. Great work! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of City of Angels (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article City of Angels (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 97198 -- 97198 (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of City of Angels (film)

The article City of Angels (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:City of Angels (film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 97198 -- 97198 (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of City of Angels (film)

The article City of Angels (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:City of Angels (film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 97198 -- 97198 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The Royal Tenenbaums

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article The Royal Tenenbaums has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Good luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Drown Soda -- Drown Soda (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane

The article The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Drown Soda -- Drown Soda (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pocahontas

@Ribbet32: I nominated Pocahontas to be peer-reviewed; as you were interested in my (failed) GA nomination of it, might you be interested in peer-reviewing it? - MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: Not much need to ping me on my own talk page, but sure, I can review it. Can't guarantee I'll look through everything that would satisfy a future GA reviewer, but I could offer feedback. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - MagicatthemovieS

Possibility of providing your input on a Peer Review for Regine Velasquez's entry

Hi Ribbet32,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Pseud 14:, I've really only done two PRs, and never on a living person. I'm unfamiliar with this individual, but made a minor edit [1]. I'd suggest checking for WP:LQ and WP:RS. I know it's a pain to wait for a reviewer on PR, but I'm not sure what else to suggest. Ribbet32 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Ribbet32:, Appreciate your quick review! I'll have to be extra patient to wait for potential reviewers for now Pseud 14 (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ribbet32. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Persona (1966 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Persona (1966 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ManKnowsInfinity -- ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Persona (1966 film)

The article Persona (1966 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Persona (1966 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ManKnowsInfinity -- ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to pop in to say great work on your articles on Canadian cinema and classics of World cinema. I've been following your articles and am very impressed with your dedication and write-ups. :) Thanks for being a great editor on Wikipedia! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andrzejbanas, the recognition means something to me. The last GAC got a little heated, the fact that the nominator closed by firing some bewildering personal shots at me and made some (in my estimation) unwarranted accusations of OR and bias kind of diminished the sense of achievement for me. But Wikipedians, including myself, all have their strong opinions and eccentricities. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Argh. That has happened to me before as well. Predominantly in my old work on the old White Zombie film article. That was a strange one. Feel free to ping or grab me if you have questions or need a third head in to take a look at things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bit late to the party, but I hadn't clicked on the article for Persona in some time, only to see it's been overhauled some what! Excellent work on this - one of my fave films of all time. I'll make a note to have a proper read at some point this week. Belated thanks for your hard work on the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks

What exactly have I done to piss you off so much? You seem extremely angry and have bit me on several occasions. What's the reason? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I'm willing to bury the hatchet and have avoided bumping heads with you for months. However, I'm completely opposed to turning English Wikipedia into American Wikipedia (per WP:BIAS). Also, not all disagreements constitute a personal attack. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"That's some pretty ignorant and extreme systemic bias." because someone who speaks Italian and watches Italian films dared to say that a major English language film would probably make a better case for the general reader in English speaking countries? It's an opinion. We're all volunteers here. The other volunteers are allowed to have different views on things without "pretty ignorant and extreme systemic bias". Anyway, whatever. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Review Trade?

Hey, I am looking for someone to review my GAN Dunkirk (2017 film). If this appeals to you, I can review your GAN Wings of Desire. If not, please say so. Cognissonance (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cognissonance, I'd first suggest checking with Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations to ask if such an arrangement would be kosher or would raise apprehension of bias/favouritism/whatever. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I've done the same with many experienced editors (for reviews of Remember Me (video game), Watch Dogs 2, Horizon Zero Dawn, and others). If you read those reviews, there is no bias to be found. Cognissonance (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Something to ease your mind. Cognissonance (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to complete my current GAC first. Then I can take a look at Dunkirk. (Between my job and preparing to go home for Xmas, busy times) Ribbet32 (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Cognissonance (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you would want to do a peer review for me. I could review The Royal Tenenbaums for you. Cognissonance (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your efforts in bringing Persona, one of my all-time favourites, to GA. Well done!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I see you are working on Fanny and Alexander. Please do inform me when you've nominated it for GA. I would very much like to review it.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

The article 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- Gabriel Yuji (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wings of Desire

The article Wings of Desire you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wings of Desire for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

The article 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gabriel Yuji -- Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Cries and Whispers GAR

Shall I take up the article's GAR if thats alright with you?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: if you like; I don't think you need my permission Ribbet32 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Taken it up. I'll start posting my comments tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cries and Whispers

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cries and Whispers you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cries and Whispers

The article Cries and Whispers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cries and Whispers for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ssven2, what a crazy season, Persona, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, Wings of Desire and Cries and Whispers all making GA. Of course it's been in the making for over six months, but it's, well, snowballed in the snowy season. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fanny and Alexander

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fanny and Alexander you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Fanny and Alexander GAR

FYI, I have listed one more comment under source review. Do have a look and rectify it. The last four comments in the "Section-wise" portion are still unresolved. BTW, for the ISBN, copy the existing ISBN of the books and paste it in this URL. It'll give you the ISBN-13 number. Copy-paste that number instead. Do this for each book (except the ones where ISBN-13 numbers are already present). BTW, from your Google Books, I noticed you are from Canada. Parlez vous Francais?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The ISBN part still remains unresolved. I've conveterd to ISBN-13 for the first four to show you how. Please do fix the remaining as per my comment above. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've converted a few more to ISBN-13 and they all check out, the book, year and all. You can check them yourself if you like. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, you did make a fair point about not being a required fix. Also, I do sincerely apologise if I've troubled you with this. Its just that if not me, then someone else might someday ask about it. I was merely trying to help you with the GAN process, and I might have got myself quite carried away while reviewing the article. I hope this doesn't put a dent in our collaborations and relationship as fellow Wikipedian editors and friends (). Your work on Bergman's articles, in addition to Kurosawa's Mizoguchi's Ugetsu is really inspiring, and most of the times, they are interesting reads, in particluar the Themes sections.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Ssven2, no need for you to apologize. We're both excited about the subject, which is a good thing; I just had to squeeze it in with a hectic work day (that's why I left the GAC review for several hours half way through). I'm sorry if I've caused you to feel a dent. I fear the problem is me and that I'm a lousy collaborator and a poor fit for Wikipedia. Thank you for your kind words Ribbet32 (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't give yourself so much credit, Ribbet32. Even I am to blame, and I'm glad/happy you accepted my apology. Here's to a good day and weekend in advance. On a lighter note, you can give me a tit-for-tat by posting comments at my FAC.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)