User talk:WikiTracker

Stinger vs. Tag?

I must say first that you do indeed have a good point about the actual meanings of these terms. However, if you had seen this series in its original form on commercial television (nothing wrong in not having done so, certainly), you'd know that a commercial break was placed between the gates-slamming-in-front-of-the-face piece and the actual end credits sequence, so no, I can't agree with your suggestion to fold the two together. BTW, this also happened in the opening sequence, after The Prisoner collapsed unconscious on the couch in his flat and before he woke up in Residence #6 of The Village (there was no commercial break between the end of the Prisoner/#2 dialogue and the start of the story proper). This was a boundary between the overall series standard opening titles and those peculiar to the specific episode being screened, not a precedent against me. Ted Watson 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up with many presentations of The Prisoner, and though the Prisoner replaced the Jackie Gleason show mid-season, it was before that for the BBC, and had no commercial breaks whatsoever. This run was not dissimilar to the PBS rebroadcasts in the late 70's.WikiTracker 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal analyses and original research

Please do not add personal analyses, unsourced content, or original content, as you did to Pulp Fiction (film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy and prohibition of original research. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Ward3001 17:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf

Why did you make this edit? It doesn't warrant the removal of valid content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to paid subscription sites that require payment for articles don't make for suitable references, nor are they in the spirit or keeping of Wikipedia. WikiTracker (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we cite books and journals and DVDs which require a payment to view. What's the difference? Although free is certainly better than non-free, the first objective should be to direct the reader to the relevant material. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there's a number of other free sources saying the same thing in this already overlong article. Secondly, referencing a book or a dvd isn't the same as leading someone toward a subscription fee-based site. Books and dvds are tangible assets, and this reference site is not. It is against the spirit of Wikipedia to use them as reference points. As it is, I have no idea if the quote in question is correct or not, and I won't be able to since I have no intention of paying to find out. Since the quote is a reiteration of data already on the page, it is appropriate to remove it -- which I will now do. Why don't we move the conversation into the Beowulf:Talk page and open it up for further debate? WikiTracker (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the hardcopy link, which is acceptible, though I still feel that it's redundant information and should be removed.WikiTracker (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those essays in the adaptation section discusses the thematic differences of the film. Often filmmakers talk about changes for the sakes of logic, time or suspension of disbelief. Critcism can be both positive or negative too. What's so negative about an academic explaining "the film humanizes its monsters, and makes Beowulf into a idiot who must redeem himself?" Alientraveller (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe for a second any academic that uses the sentence you quote is even worth referencing? Or are you making a joke -- because I can't tell. The point is that critical judgements should be placed in the criticism section, and citations of difference shouldn't contain an opinion. Nevermind the fact that the so-called "academics" whose opinions are haphazardly splashed about the page have as much legitimacy as my daughter's kindergarden teacher (if that much). The article is in dire need of pruning.WikiTracker (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello WikiTracker! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Harry Ralston - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2010 (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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]