User talk:MarnetteD/archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Hello

Please explain why you removed the release dates for Connecting Rooms in the "Notes" box in its listing in the article for British films of the 1970s. Since it's listed under the US release year of 1970, but it's a British film, I certainly think it's important to note the UK release was not until 1973 to avoid confusion. Also, why did you create a red link for the director's name? It's my understanding that if there's little or no chance of an article for an individual of minor importance being created in the future, the name should not be red-linked. Am I wrong? Thank you for your explanation. MovieMadness (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very detailed response. I appreciate your taking the time to write. MovieMadness (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your new note

Ha! That's funny. Good to know about the Drunken Angel. I just got a couple of new books on AK, both on the AK further reading list on the article page, both Japanese. I'll let you know how they are. Waiting On the Weather looks very good. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 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 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yo Gabba Gabba!

I was trying to figure out what the deal was with all those Furby references. I've never seen the show, so I was really confused, but after some research I realized it was just vandalism. Then I went to remove it and when I clicked "edit", it was gone! So, thanks for the cleanup.  :) --Plumpy 03:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Greeks Bearing Gifts (Torchwood)

Please read Wikipedia:Television episodes. Regardless of your opinion, notability guidelines require third party coverage of the episode. I would prefer to tag the article in the hope that it can be improved by someone up to Wikipedia standards. However, if you would rather see the artcle deleted I am happy to go down that route. If the article is not re-tagged or improved I'll submit it to AfD tomorrow. Nuttah 21:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Anton Rodgers

I have just added an IBDb link for his Mr Jingle in PICKWICK which took him to New York! John Thaxter 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Boyd

I have created a new page about the life and career of Michael Boyd. the RSC artistic director who (at last) seems to be having success in bringing the company back into financial solvency and artistic excellence.

I shall probably have to do some more work on the page, drawing in material from other sources. But if you can spare a moment or two, I would be grateful if you would give it a quick look over to see whether it is up to scratch! Thanks, John Thaxter (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell (film) - Historical points

Hi, I thought perhaps we ought to come to a compromise about the Historical Points section in the Cromwell (film) article which I am constantly putting in and you are constantly taking out. What I am trying to do is raise important differences between the film and the real events. I think that this would be of interest for those who have seen the movie and thought it was accurate. I have put in references backing up the real facts, and I would hardly describe it as a Trivia section. If it was a Trivia section then we would have to take out all the analysis of almost every film article, and they would be rather dull if they just stuck to Plot Summaries and Cast Lists. Still, is there a way we can compromise on this? Thanks.--Marktreut (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the clarification and accepting my Points. I've changed the opening note that you objected to for The Damned (1963 film). Maybe the "when-rather-than-if" statement was a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but I have met other people who lived at the time and they say that the risk of nuclear war was taken seriously, hence all the nuclear bunkers and fears when the Cuban missile crisis was on. Cheers.--Marktreut (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Shakespeare Company

Can you help? I was adding a 'ref' to the current RSC Histories cycle (at Stratford and the Roundhouse), about a third of the way down the length of the Royal Shakespeare Company page. But when I saved the page the material beyond that point disappeared. It does however reappear on the Editing page, whenever one click on 'edit this page', so it is not lost. But nothing I do can make it reappear in the Saved version of the page.

No doubt it's responding to some keying error I made. But I would be glad if you could manage to put it right for me. Thanks. John Thaxter (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I have taken the precaution of copying the complete Editing version of the text, which contains much essential encyclopedic information.John Thaxter (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

PPS Thanks for saving (my face and) the page! It is one I have spent several hours creating - although not all those lists of actors. I wonder who did that?John Thaxter (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I Claudius

Hi, I noticed you've reverted my edit in the production section of I Claudius regarding BBC Television Centre. The programme was in fact recorded there in studio TC1. See: [1], [2] and [3].

The BBC White City wikilink links to a BBC building that did not exist at the time of production (it was then the site of White City Stadium). I appreciate that this article states the name: "refers both to a collection of BBC buildings at Wood Lane, White City in west London and an office building (now known as White City One)". The White City referred to on the DVD is actually TV Centre, as this is the generic term for the location of the BBC studios in Wood Lane, London.

I changed this entry on the I Claudius page to be more specific. Hope this clarifies the change. Snowy 1973 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply - no apology necessary. TV Centre was were many classic BBC dramas were recorded. I now work there myself, although sadly not on shows of this calibre. Best wishes. Snowy 1973 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oscar & Uncyclopedia

I agree that it really shouldn't be there but as you say it will always get put back, so I think it best to have a short factual and reasonably obvious note to discourage others putting more in. Dabbler (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for correcting my error on the page for The Shining (film) last month. I don't know what I was thinking!

Anton Rodgers (continued)

User peripatetic has taken over the material I photographed from Theatre Who's Who to set up the solid basis for the Theatre entry on the Anton Rodgers page, but I have also added the Theatre Record listings of his London stage appearances. Alas, although I also reviewed him in touring productions I can no longer recall the dates or titles! The curiosity is that neither Windy City nor the musical stage version of Chitty Bang Bang have wiki links. John Thaxter (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Koschei

Koschei is the original name of the Master from the Dr. Who Missing Advetures Novel The Dark Path (Doctor Who). It's canonicity is debatable. Might be worth a mention on the sound of Drums page. I'm not sure.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Just to let you know that this report [4] has been filed. I hope that it turns out okay for you and thanks for protecting the integrity this page. MarnetteD | Talk 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. I've let them know what's going on - and the context of this. I think I'm covered in the exceptions but I'm not sure. If he does it again, report it here. StuartDD contributions 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

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) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nucular

Gina_McKee's voiceover on that programme was unbearable... surely someone having watched it is verification enough? --taras (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There are chat rooms galore where you can vent your frustration over this. It is not encyclopedic. MarnetteD | Talk 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Anton Rodgers: the final chapter

Nothing having happened on the Anton Rodgers front, I took the matter in hand myself and have now listed all of Rodgers' documented theatre credits - his 1980 credit or credits (if any) are not documented. This is because the Theatre Who's Who series finally finished at 1979, while Theatre Record did not begin until 1981. The only thing now needed, I believe, is for the television credits to be dated, perhaps with the addtion of, for example, 'BBC', 'Granada' or whatever. Three of his TV credits, listed by Halliwell, are not at present included. These were: The Flaxborough Chronicles, Something in Disguise and An Actor’s Life for Me. I do not want to take this on myself, as I lack the necessary references. So I leave it to you, if you think it worthwhile! Best wishes John Thaxter (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaney, Jr. on Live TV

Why did you remove the link to Rick Jason's paragraph in his autobiography about Chaney, Jr. drunk on live television? I'm actually watching a DVD of the show right now and Jason was certainly telling the truth.Wastetimer (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it is considered a spamlink per WP:LINKS. MarnetteD | Talk 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

John Woodvine

After watching the 9 hours or so of Nicholas Nickleby on DVD I have upgraded John Woodvine's page with a complete list of his recorded theatre credits.

I note that Theatre Who's Who lists his marriage to Hazel Wright, but the wiki article only shows actress Lynn Farleigh as his wife (and whose two previous husbands are listed on her own page). Should we add the earlier marriage (which will be of interest for future obituarists) or respect his privacy? The Mary Woodvine article lists him as her father, but not Fairleigh as her mother, so maybe she is the child of Hazel.

Another curiosity is that IBDb lists a 1956-7 Old Vic season in New York with Woodvine credited with four productions. But none of these are listed in his Theatre Who's Who CV. I almost wonder if I should ask him why. The other oddity is that IBDb gets his birth date right while wrongly listing him as Irish; but Co.Durham is definitely in England.

I wonder if anyone will now get down to doing a Film and Television listing for Woodvine? Best wishes John Thaxter (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and I have cleared up the omissions mystery. There is no mystery. I tracked down the Old Vic playbills for the four productions which toured to the Winter Garden Theatre NY in December 56 and found his name in each cast list. So the omissions were almost certainly caused by careless typesetting in 1971 when his CV was first put into print, and carried over from one ediion to the next. I have now corrected that careless error 37 years since it first occurred - at least, as far as wiki is concerned. John Thaxter (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier Awards box

Actually, what I did corrected the infobox in anticipation of when the infobox template is repaired. At the present time, the infobox template data itself is incorrect and since it is a protected template, it can only be fixed by an adminstrator who has clearance to access the template data. What she put on the talk page was instructions for whoever comes to correct it. As it now stands, there are no articles in which the subject has won only the Olivier award where it shows. Oddly enough, if another award has been won, the Olivier shows up. When the template data is fixed, then the awards infobox on every article that contains only an Olivier award will work, including Alison Steadman's, so nothing else will have to be done to it. Don't fret, it will be fixed!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It doesn't look like the problem was caught before you came across it. I happened to check into other articles that duplicated Steadman's awards record which is how I figured it out. It apparently took those in the loop for Wiki code a while to figure out the correction too. Never worry about asking questions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
go here Let me know if both boxes at the top of the page are working for you? The first box uses the olivierawards, the next box uses the laurenceolivierawards and the third box is the current infobox actor template. Since someone reverted the changes I can not see what you were seeing. (note I scaled down the image size for testing.) Let me know, thanks --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
After I put in the change request, I found the other problem. But instead of requesting the change I just want to be sure that it fixes what you were asking. So the first two infobox examples are working (looking good) for you? If they are that means the new code works and I can request the change to be made. And close this problem. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

American films

Terrible idea. See this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison Steadman

Alison Steadman, template fixed. Thanks for your help. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Right Stuff (book) and The Right Stuff (film)

Being mostly a writer/editor rather than a aficionado in the black arts of the WikiWacky world, meaning I really don't know how to do a "dab" page. If you could do it, I will look over your shoulder. Thanks. FWIW I am sending the same message to another editor who also commented on the change in the Right Stuff articles. Bzuk (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

School Reunion

You're not looking at what I'm doing, either; you're only looking at numbers. What I wrote is far from a blow-by-blow account, which would be much longer; indeed, look at previous versions of that page, which are much longer. I'll assume that you've seen the episode and recognize the inaccuracies in Sceptre's version. I also believe I am well within the "MoS" with my summary. DiogenesNY (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You must not have read it because you are not within the MoS for plot summaries and TV episodes are being blanked due to summaries like yours. MarnetteD | Talk 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have read it. I specifically note that only arbitrary mention is made of length; there is no hard and fast rule. As you believe I am not following the MoS, I must ask that you specify how I am not following the MoS. DiogenesNY (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet on screen

Thanks for your message. Yes, I did get to a point where I wished I'd started the whole thing in a sandbox. Anyway, I'm still not really happy with it, but I think the table is stable enough to sit on the page now. AndyJones (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who cast lists.

The DW MoS is changing somewhat and parts are incompatible with other guidelines (i.e. every other TV show's episode pages have the guest cast in the infobox). In fact, the article for Doomsday (Doctor Who) is at FAC, and an objection was the use of a cast list outside the infobox. Will (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In the vast majority, I'm fine with cutpastes. But when the credits are ambiguous or miss out vital roles entirely, I tend to be more descriptive if I can. Will (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

America

If America was just the USA then the names "Central America" and "South America" would make no sense. In any case, if you read the article you'll see it's always referred to Canada. You've heard that Christopher Columbus discovered America - where do you think he actually landed? Not anywhere that's now or ever been part of the US. 65.95.119.217 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This article title was changed by an author who had more moxie than you. Please try calling someone from Quebec an American and let me know how it goes. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cottingley fairies

thanks for taking out the bit about my girlfriend and her great gran. much apprecitated. im sure if it was your family you wouldnt rush to edit out the information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.146.33 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not reading how to make entries at wikipedia. Verifiable sources are required even if it is about members of your familyMarnetteD | Talk 16:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who in (North) America

Please read the first line under "The beginning" and the first paragraph under "The new series". The article deals with both Canada and the US and always has. Type 40 (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 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. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

www.mcgannbrothers.org.uk

Hi, I have had the link to this website removed by yourself from all four of the McGann Brothers pages and am wondering why. I have put a message on each of the talk pages now as requested. I run this site with the full co-operation of the brothers, it is not for profit and it carries no advertising. It is purely an information site - much like Wikipedia itself. Please could you advise me as to why the links were removed when they have been there for over a year. Thanks, Micharris (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Life On Mars Doctor Who link

Hi MarnetteD, I should have probably explained why I undid your edit in more detail. I think you may be mistaken about Wikipedia's linking rules. You're right that hidden (re: external links are forbidded. But Wikipedia links can be, and often are, hidden if it improves the article. The reader can find out what is being linked to by hovering his cursor over the link - this will display the title of the article In the case of the Life On Mars article there is no reason to include the title of the episode of Doctor Who written by Matthew Graham as this is extraneous information. But the information is there via hyperlink if the reader is interested. Best wishes, A bright cold day in april (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And thanks to you in return

I wasn't aware of that and I'm a bit disappointed as I've always enjoyed "easter egg links" when I've seen them. I can understand the rationale behind it though and thanks for taking the time to point it out to me. A bright cold day in april (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

editing Doctor Who pages

A) it is not taken from a website b) I seems like it is because i am very articulate and also very good at writing things in the style of websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emoboy2 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

reply

I am gathering information from the "Dimensions in space and time" book, bu putting it into my own words. Because it is in my own words, by law i don't have to credit the author because I have made changes to it so it becomes my own work.

Notice that Im not including the audience appreciation figures?

Or that the descriptions of the archive status are different for each story

or that Im not even using the term "BBC archive", instead using "archive status?

or that Im not including the story code (e.g. Power of the Daleks has "EEE")? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emoboy2 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Quit Editing My Contributions To Fantasia

There is no mention in the article of exactly what lead to Fantasia's failure at the box office; you should take a better look at the article. Aside from that, it is improper to put the sentence about Fantasia boosting the classical music industry in the article without giving a follow-up sentence about how the film still could not profit at the box office; it confuses people about Fantasia's box office status if the profit records are not mentioned. Also, spell edit correctly the next time you type the word.Kevin j (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at the article for years. Your edit does not mention what lead to Fantasia's failure at the box office and you can't really type a sentence that makes sense and if you aren't ready to have your edits examined you should be posting at a blog and not an encyclopedia. The spelling in the edit summary seems okay compared to your grammer. PS it was nice that you finally were able to tell the difference between a talk page and a user page. MarnetteD | Talk 09:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You make me laugh. I do actually have good grammar, and was a top grammar student. Also, I thought if I typed my statements on your user page, you would be able to read them sooner. Outside of your user page, I have in fact been writing in the discussion pages whenever I have replied to other Wikipedia users. Spell edit correctly, read my sentences better-as I did not include the word "and" in my second sentence-, use a comma and quit typing the word "and" so much in your sentences, and do take a good look at the page, because no, it hasn't mentioned anything about how the film's expensive budget could not give it any profit. Also, quit acting like a pig-headed snob when you type these statements, because I can report you to the head administrators of Wikipedia as well. Yes, they can ban you from Wikipedia for these statements, and don't think otherwise. Kevin j (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you about 5 years old. Please see WP:OWN. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel the need please feel free to do so. I will be happy to stand on my record with any administrators that you choose. A look at your talk page shows that I am not the only editor who has complained about your edits. The new edits that you made today at the Fantasia make the section more readable and were all that I asked you to do in the first place. MarnetteD | Talk 22:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Patricia Hodge

The article is part of WP:EDUCATION because the article in question is in Category:English educationists. If that category is incorrect, then the article isnt part of WP:EDUCATION, as defined by the scope of the project. Thanks. Twenty Years 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading the article, it appears to be pretty clear the cat is wrong, and as such the article is not part of WP:EDUCATION. Many thanks for the note. Twenty Years 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello MarnetteD, I was wondering if you would like me to grant your account rollback rights. You revert vandalism occasionaly, but correctly, and rollback would help you revert vandalism more quickly. Acalamari 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1. No, it does not automatically leave a vandalism warning: that has to be done manually. 2. If you want to leave a longer message in the edit summary, it's best to use the undo feature instead. In the meantime, I've granted you rollback. :) You may want to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback as well. Good luck. Finally, thanks for the good wishes too. :) Acalamari 17:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I noticed your response to Betacommand that he thought have thought things through before programming the bot. In this case, I really don't think the onus is specifically on him. Individuals choose, often incorrectly, to place articles in categories. The function of those categories is to link related articles. If the article isn't necessarily relevant to the category, it shouldn't be there.

I acknowledge that there is no "easy" category for the article in question. However, it clearly does not meet the definition of reincarnation, as that term is almost always used to refer to people who literarlly die between "regenerations". You are, basically, saying that the article shouldn't have been included in that category, as the category basically deals with a religious subject. I don't really see that anyone is to be blamed here, except, perhaps, the person who miscategorized it in the first instance.

For what it's worth, it is intended to follow up on all the articles which were tagged by assessing them. It does however make it significantly easier to go through them all this way than by trying to go through manually, and it does announce the existence of the group a bit faster. It also alerts us to cases when articles are categorized, well, strangely. Trust me, there are a lot of those. In cases like that, we can see whether the article might be better placed in a more specific subcategory, or removed from that basic category completely. I am not the only one who has noted the often faulty categorization. Kirill Lokshin mentioned recently in the assessment drive for the Military history project many of the articles and subcategories there were badly placed. However, there is no way to really "know what's out there" unless we try to find out what is out there.

Personally, I think the article in question, considering it does not deal with reincarnation per se, probably doesn't belong in the category. I don't think this is the only instance of such "regeneration" of characters, however. Certainly, many soap operas face the same problem. A separate category for such articles might be in order, but probably not the "reincarnation" category. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, I think you have missed the point, and, also, seemingly, the exact nature of the tagging. Ben Kingsley is a religious convert. In all honesty, religious converts was what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group, which is the group for which the articles were tagged, was set up in the first place, because of the occasionally contentious material regarding whether they qualify as a convert or not. Regarding the "Anticatholic" material like Lillibullero, if it was anticatholic, then, presumably, it was anti-Catholic based on the actions of someone who was not a Catholic. Religious discrimination in any form, as it tends to be from outsiders of that religion, is also a rather contentious matter, and those contentious matters were the reason the work group was created in the first place. Jasb is placed in Category:Persecution of Bahá'ís, for whatever reason, and that kind of persecution, or discrimination, is the essential point of the group. Unfortuantely, there are several editors who try to "push" certain content relating to religion in these articles. The purpose of our involvement is to ensure that the articles do not become POV through either selective sourcing or WP:Undue weight regarding these matters. If you had bothered to ask, rather than demand, as you did, I would have told you this in the first place. You also have my apologies for assuming that you had actually examined the banner in question before you removed it. I was under the impression that you actually had read that the tagging was for the interfaith group. Also, I strongly suggest that you read existing policies and guidelines regarding banner placement. The group was created in the first instance by me because there was an extremely contentious discussion regarding Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity, which ultimately resulted in the provocateur being banned. Unfortunately, at the time, I didn't know how to adjust the banner to make a separate assessment. But, as the content regarding religious conversions and persecutions is often very contentious, and it does draw such heat, it made sense for there to be a link to a group which would, at least potentially, know how to deal with it. I also find your subsequent comments, and judgemental comments at that, elsewhere in very poor taste and more than a bit ill-informed. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I find your attempts to dodge paying attention to the facts to be sad. I note once again that you did not seem to notice that the banner was for the Interfaith group until after you first commented to me. Your own failure to AGF, failure to allow time to respond before posting a complaint, and clearly prejudicial comments there and elsewhere are I think in part responsible for your being treated, basically, the way you treated Betacommand and me, although I don't think quite as judgementally as you did. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The facts are that there are 100's of potential pages that have been tagged incorrectly. Also, the evidence so far would seem to indicate that I have gotten the point and that you are getting a bit WP:OWNy. No one other than yourself seems to be acting prejudicial or be making rude comments. As I said on your page

A quick look shows that I was not the first to complain to betacommandbot nor did I start the thread on the AN page. I tried, politely (and AGFing}, to point out the pitfalls of the path that you had taken. I am now trying to add to the attempts to achieve consensus with other editors. As always I will abide by that consensus. MarnetteD | Talk 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have obviously overreacted and I hope that you will learn and mature from this and move on to become a constructive editor. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)