User talk:Mockingbus

Tilman?

Hi....you carried on a conversation that made it seem like you might be related or involved with user:Tilman. It's not really my place but if you do have access to two accounts please be careful how you use them given all the concern over sockpuppet accounts, etc. Thx. Wikidemo 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Oh... hopping in on your conversation there over about Aleksy. No, I'm not related to him at all. I woke up this morning and noticed the Vayner article's destruction. I did a middling amount of work on it and hate to see it go to waste, so when I saw Tilman post a link to the Answers.com version I thought it would be helpful to at least have it preserved in case we need it for later reference. Mockingbus 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the chicken and rice disambiguation page

Hi,

I noticed that you were removing a template on arroz con pollo and Hainanese Chicken Rice. The halal guys, arroz con pollo, and hainanese chicken rice are all commonly refered to as chicken and rice. A google search will confirm it. Prior to me making a disambiguation for chicken and rice it redirected to arroz con pollo so there was reason for me to add the double redirect to the halal guys and the other chicken dish on top. Now that the disambiguation page has been made I have no problem removing halal guys and the other chicken and rice from both pages. However, because all three are still commonly referred to as chicken and rice a template link on top to the disambiguation page is appropriate. I hoped to have cleared things up. Cheers! Valoem ^talk 01:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left my thoughts in the Talk sections on those pages (reverting Hainanese Chicken Rice, but noticing your comment to avoid edit warring on Arroz con pollo). I'd appreciate a response, but my position is still that the "About" backlink is excessive and should be moved down to "See also". 04:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

December 2019

Your addition to Ektachrome has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you left this for me; I revised a previous edit from another user. In your... zealous removal, you took out some relevant information as collateral damage; I'll put it back.

Mockingbus (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I thought you added it, rather than just reformatted it. But don't put it back. It's a copyright violation. The words all come from https://www.kodakalaris.com/pressroom/news/2017/kodak-alaris-reintroduces-iconic-ektachrome-still- It says "© 2017 Kodak Alaris Inc." And regardless of the copyright, it's certainly not freely licensed, or objective encyclopedic content. To put anything back it needs to be rewritten in original prose, not a close paraphrase or copy. Preferably from a third party source rather than a press release. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current phrasing is a pretty simple, factual declaration of the formats available and the package sizes; I'm not sure how much more of a rewrite you're looking for. (more to the point, I think the company is a reasonable source for "hey, we're shipping this new product now" information) Mockingbus (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks fine. Sorry for the mix up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, everyone goes quick on the draw once in a while. ( Also, hi from another PacNW person, judging from your edits and commons contributions! Small world. ) Mockingbus (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Francis Barker & Son, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clapton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello M. You've already seen my ping thanks. I wanted to follow up and mention that sometime in my early days of editing (a long long time ago now) I added the filmography based on the info in Galbraith's book The Emperor and the Wolf. The list went through many changes since then so I don't know if any of my efforts were still there. I do appreciate all the work and research that you are putting into this. Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 17:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD - No worries! There are a lot of idiosyncrasies and disagreements with these things and I'm happy for the excuse to go launch miniature research projects. Maybe Galbraith found more comprehensive sources between 2002 and 2008, but I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between the books came from something as small as like 'the studio decided that they liked the other title better in the meantime'. You have a great weekend too! Mockingbus (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD - Actually... here's an interesting question, and since you've also done some work here I'd be interested in your opinion before I start doing more edits. It looks like the Sunflower Girl/Love in a Teacup was originally released with an English title of Love in a Teacup, but Sunflower Girl is now the preferred translation. Do you think it's better to list the current version as "primary", or the original? Mockingbus (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting M. My inclination is to use SG as the title since it is the preferred translation and then add a footnote or a parenthetical to explain that the LiaT was used originally. If there is any info available describing the wheres and whys of the title changes then I would opt for the footnote. The translation journey that a title goes through can be interesting - to me anyway maybe not the general reader. I Live in Fear is a good example of a "where did they come up with that and why" situation. Especially since the three titles are so different from one another. Of course this is just my suggestion and if you have something else that you'd prefer to chose that is fine by me. MarnetteD|Talk 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD - I wish I could say why; it'd be very interesting to walk through the transition if I could find good documentation. I want to say that there's a general trend away from the older fanciful retitlings (often done by importers with little input from writers or directors) and towards more cultural and linguistic sensitivity, but that's a general observation and not something I could really source (yet - maybe I'll find something). I've expanded the note a little bit; it's lovely talking with you as always! Mockingbus (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is very true for subtitles as well. Classic example is Seven Samurai. When I first saw it (50 years ago last month in fact) through the mid 90s the subtitles were cursory and obviously missing the point at times. This improved a bit with early VHS and DVD releases. Then the Criterion Collection special edition from several years ago contained all new subtitles that more than one scholar had worked on and it opened up several sections of the film for me. It was as though something I thought I knew pretty well was brand new :-) The same thing happened with Beauty and the Beast (1946 film) and I really enjoyed learning what I had missed over the years. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]