User talk:Laurencebeck

Your edits to Norman Lebrecht

Your recent editing history at Norman Lebrecht shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Voceditenore (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Account unvanished

As you have decided to continue editing and have thus violated the terms of WP:COURTESYVANISHING, all of your edits to this page have been unvanished. While the edits from your previous account are still linked with the vanished username, this notice is to serve as a pointer to those edits in case they are needed. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

tyvm (thank you very much). I was not aware of these terms — WP:COURTESYVANISHING — I was not given them. I was given a very nice - in its completness - the simple word, "done."

There was no decision involved in breaching the laws of allowed knowledge according to what we have here within Wikipedia. The opportunity for me, as i could perceive it to be, as it was presented to me, was the opening to recommence on a what would be a clean slate of wiki contributions. regards. --Laurencebeck (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thrilla in Manila

Hi. Please do not add or restore unsourced material to articles, as you did with these edits to Thrilla in Manila, as this violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. That material was moved to the talk page for a valid reason: Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. The fact that you think such material is "the requirement of this encyclopedia" does not mitigate the need to adhere to those policies.

In addition, please do not add notes to the reader or arbitrary indentations in the body of articles, as you did with the above edits.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

---

thank you very much, Nightscream.

I placed the added information on rounds 9 – 14 because there was no description of them in the article which led to the last round, round 14, and particularly round 14. I am by no means a fight follower but a general reader and on behalf of other general readers I took what was on the talk page to the article page.

Presently there is no description of those rounds and a paragreaph begins as it had before

Seeing the results of round 14, Eddie Futch decided to stop the fight

Well, thanks very much, I said to myself, what happened in round 14?

So that the reader of the article would know what the quality of the new information was from the talk page there was added by me the information to keep the reader alert and the indentation was intended to give further clarity to the, by Wikipedia standards, second grade information. ( which information gave the reason for the Frazier trainer Eddie Futch to call the end to the bout.) --Laurencebeck (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

". . . but a general reader and on behalf of other general readers I took what was on the talk page to the article page."

Thus undoing what I did back in January when I moved that material from the article to the talk page in the first place. Again, did it not occur to you that it was moved here for a reason? Did you not read what that reason was at the top of the section I began for it above?

Seeing yourself as acting "on behalf of other general readers" does not allow us to violate Wikipedia policies, including the Verifiability, Citation and Reliable Sources policies, which require that material in Wikipedia articles be accompanied by citations of reliable, verifiable sources. Nor does it justify bad formatting or addition of notes to the reader. The information in question was not "new", as it had been removed from the article almost a year earlier, and your note had no bearing on its "quality". The quality of material included in articles is predicated on its verifiability, its support by inline citations, its proper weight, and the quality of its writing and its presentation/composition. Indenting a chunk of the article and placing a note above it stating that it was previously on the talk page does not ensure its quality; it lowers the quality of the article.

If you find sources for that material, please feel free to re-add it, with citations of those policies. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Verify that now is added: Not exactly bridge work from rounds 8,9 to 13,14 but rounds 13,14 given description from the Daily Mirror sports writer of the day. --Laurencebeck (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-free image of Medesa book cover File:Medea_Diana_Rigg_programme_lo_res.jpg on Diana Rigg

Hello Laurencebeck, that non-free image of the cover of Medea booklet is not permitted in the article about Diana Rigg because it violates copyright. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images policy which states:

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

So it's ok on the Medea (play) page itself, but not on the Diana Rigg page.

Thanks, Optimale ^Gu 14:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The photographic representation of the Medea programme for the 1992 production at the Wyndham's Theatre is placed adjacent to the paragraphs and within the section which is given to that part of Diana Rigg's career devoted to her life as a theatre actor.

It is commentary on the whole aspect of theatre and theatre going, and that is the theatre going experience of all those from the Upper Balcony to the Dress Circe to the Stalls.

I will give consideration to this later. --Laurencebeck (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page George Cole (actor) because it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fleming

Don't edit war. If you want to add an Idiotbox, go to the talk page and DISCUSS, rather than edit warring. There is a consensus not to have the box there, so edit warring to add one in is inadvisable. - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Diana Rigg, Alec MaCowen, Pygmalion, Albury Theatre, London 1974.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Diana Rigg, Alec MaCowen, Pygmalion, Albury Theatre, London 1974.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. January (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Diana Rigg photographed by Patrick Lichfield, 1981.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Diana Rigg photographed by Patrick Lichfield, 1981.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. January (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Edie Sedgwick

Please look carefully at what you did in this revert. Just as with this edit, the reference is so badly formed that the link appears jumbled with the other refs, and part of it extends out of the right-hand margin of the page. See WP:CITE for information on how to add references. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see what u mean . . . I do not recall it being like that in my first edit Sept 23 . . . . Even so, the link can be clicked, . .and take you to the full text of the Stein-Plimpton book on the Google Books extract.

Yes, it is "unsightful" as you might say, so I agree w u.

Mailer, a little patronizing to say the least, was not fully given his sentiment in the previous edit. (When I first read it in the published book I could have grabbed his nose and twisted it ( no kidding )! )

Wikipedia will not accept a "TunyUrl" – TinyURL – reduction of a link so the full Google Books URL had to be entered.

What to do? I will see if I can tidy the mile long URL so that it is more compact.

Nevertheless, clicking the URL as it is there will take a WIkireader to the Stein-Plimpton book extract (where you can enjoy reading a great deal additionally). --Laurencebeck (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is your previous edit; it has the same problem. URLs shouldn't be left bare, especially when they are longer than the column width; when a ref uses a cite template (in this case {{cite book}}) the URL should be put in the |url= parameter of that template, like this - notice that I've also removed the || text/citation > which as far as Wiki markup is concerned, is meaningless. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Amazing! I hope to follow the way you did it . . ! heh  :)

I was at time of receiving this message working on the edit through this page . .

http://reftag.appspot.com/

Which I found in ref 4 in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Programming_tools of WP:CITE

Your wiki-skill is very much appreciated . .and will be by all wiki-readers of the Edie Sedgwick page ( and other pages you have attended). --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Faye Dunaway

I just wanted to mention that edits such as this fall into the realm of original research and therefore should not be added to the article. Saying that her rise to prominence was "meteoric" is not neutral in tone and of questionable accuracy, as she had done quite a bit of stage work beforehand. A great deal of edits of a similar character were added recently by an IP user, and what we need to do now is reduce the volume of such edits, not add to them. Any additional text in the article requires proper sourcing in accordance with WP:V. Please do not add any further text to the article without sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The stage work was the launching pad . . .

"the meteoric launch of her film career in the 1967 ``Bonnie and Clyde.``"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-11-01/entertainment/8703220767_1_film-and-stage-projects-deglamorized-role-film-career . . . about 12th paragraph.

But, dear fellow, "Bonnie and Clyde" was like an EXPLOSION of meteorites! And it was Miss Dunaway's extraordinary abilities and attractions that sky-rocketed it!

If Wikipedia has decided to wish to be neutral about the phenomenon of the necessity of publicity extravagance, please, I am honored too be Wikipedia's brief guest. --Laurencebeck (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

See my response on the article talk page. WP:OR has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, and your continued ignoring of it in a BLP is beginning to cross over the border into tendentious editing. Please stop.

By the way I don't know (and I don't want to know) if you were the IP editor who added so much material to the article, but it's usually better to edit when logged-in, so that editors are not confused as to how to communicate with editors. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No,Coretheapple, I was not the IP editor you refer to as adding so much material. I AM responsible for this and this which were edits executed inadvertantly non logged-in. I wished to have your personal phraseology as part of the greater Wikipedia references on the subject.

I will add information which I believe to be interesting not loads of gay-based natter or informational rubble.

It will be up to you to decide upon the point of that information. --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If the information you add isn't supported by a citation from a reliable source it will probably be deleted. If the information you add carries a point of view without being ascribed to someone with the proper expertise or credentials, it will probably be deleted. If the information you add is about a living person and is potentially libelous, it will probably be deleted. We're not a dumping ground for information simply because you consider it to be "interesting," information must be sourced, it must be neutral and it must not libel or damage a living person. Them's the rules. BMK (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Also you can't just throw in any random tidbit of information that tickles your fancy, as you did here, when you yanked out of a Youtube video a snippet from an interview at a film festival. It's also not accurate to call "divine" her "one word to describe working with Brando". She made other comments about him that, if usable at all, belong in Marlon Brando not the article about her. You've been editing Wikipedia since 2013 and you ought to know that if you care, which you obviously don't. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will agree with you. But if I might place you where I was when saying that . . .

The question was to the actress' sense of her craft as she responded to her opposite actor's craft. That is to say when working, getting at a scene, an exchange, what was it like for Faye Dunaway, the actress? One word, "Divine..!" Oh yes, there was then added how grand he was arriving at the studio in a limo and a few other fillers.

But she put it in one word, the leading American actor of the second part of the twentieth century from one of the great iconic actresses of the same period. Craft for craft, she managed to put it in one word, "What was he like when the lights were on, when the camera was in close, when you and he had to get the right moment, get the right timing for each take?" In the context of that interview, she understood she was historically choosing one word.

But I think I will terminate here, "Yes, I will agree with you." --Laurencebeck (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. regards . .  :–)   --Laurencebeck (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I get your point, but our job is to reflect what's in the sources and not function as if we're Rex Reed. She gave a brief answer to a casual question in a two-minute interview excerpt, at 1:09 here[2]. Q. "Getting back to the romantic film that you played with Marlon Brando, how was it to play with him." A. "Divine. He was a sweetheart. You haven't lived until you've watched Marlon get out of a limo, in his robe, having just got out of bed, he was so funny. He was unusual and unique. He was a lovely man, a lovely man." That was it. The interview was over. Unfortunately the article is overloaded with this kind of thing and it has been a chore to sort through and remove, especially since this is a BLP and it is necessary to be careful. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Inserting line breaks

Please do not insert line breaks in article text. Wikipedia formats the text properly for each readers particular system. Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia really thinks a line break is Wiki-mandatory where half the piece of info is at end of line: Faye
Dunaway and the other half is completed on the next ? --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now I verify, it depends upon the browser.
With Mozilla Firefox there is the line break in the name Faye
Dunaway . . and in the Google Chrome browser the line break is in the name Shirley
Knight. . .And Internet Explorer has the information all complete on one line.

That information is an advantage to know . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

As they say on the Geicko commercials: "Everybody knows that." BMK (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I was telling you that that was something I found out due to your message. I have to say it was my "original research" but was from your message that I proceded. So thanks. :-) --Laurencebeck (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In which may be the most revolutionary development in World Health at the present moment there has been some attempted additions to what is most recent on the subject. Thank you~--Laurencebeck (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you added some content to Pearl Harbor advanced-knowledge conspiracy theory that appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint. Unfortunately, this edit appears to give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Yaush (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Laurencebeck. You have new messages at Talk:Dorothy Dandridge.
Message added 05:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well...I accept you meant well BUT

You really shouldn't ever change another editor's talk page posts, reverting or correcting someone else's talk page comments is considered to be against Wikipedia guidelines, take a look at talk page guidelines - editing other editors' comments. If you think another editor's comments are somehow incorrect, then mention it to them and leave it to them to fix it if they want. If the comments are vandalism, then of course (per "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" at WP:TPOC) reverting the objectionable content is acceptable. Shearonink (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much, but I was giving a capital letter to "Tremelo", a city and adding its Wikipedia page with the double brackets. And with "tremolo", the double brackets for the link to the Wikipedia article.

The edit revision page, so that your message and this exchange, may have proper relevance to a casual reader, is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Dandridge&diff=prev&oldid=651394860 Regards, thank you . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge your correct notation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Dandridge&diff=651400839&oldid=651399911 --Laurencebeck (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I add the capital letter to the municipality of Tremelo to my observation and edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dorothy_Dandridge&diff=654424638&oldid=651400839 --Laurencebeck (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Live and Let Die

Will you please be careful when editing the Live and Let Die article. This is about to go to FAC and your edits will ensure that it is opposed, which is not a desirible outcome. Your latest addition is a bloating of the plot, and is (as many of your previous edits are) poorly phrased, and not written in an encyclopaedic tone. In other edits you have introduced tangential and unsourced information, or information that has minimal connection to the subject, and no connection to the book. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mr SchroCat.

I can confirm my understanding to you that your use of FAC means that the article was under this consideration: FAC – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates --Laurencebeck (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The voyage by Bond and Solitaire by rail down the eastern seaboard is one of the Fleming's set pieces in LALD.
It is notable for the bombing and tommy-gunning of the no-longer occupied compartment on the train Fleming names the Silver Phantom while the couple have continued their journey on the Silver Meteor with the change at Jacksonville.
I do not believe the brief description I have added interrupts the flow of the article towards FAC status. Indeed the absence of the voyage might. Regards --Laurencebeck (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was poorly written and it bloated an already full plot section, which is why it was removed. While it is one of the "set pieces", it does not affect the remainder of the plot in any way, and is, therefore, superfluous in this 'summary of the storyline. One of the reviewers at the recent PR commented that the plot section "tries to convey too much in too little space. May want to streamline a bit": adding yet more superfluous detail is not the way to achieve a better understanding of a plot. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two things that you, (User:Laurencebeck), need to consider: one is WP:WIAFA criterion 1e; the other is WP:PLOTSUM, regarding which, I have previously noticed that you are in the habit of expanding the plot section of articles that other users had previously trimmed down. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Redrose64.

re
"The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida"
in the status of the article by SchroCat (talk) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Live_and_Let_Die_%28novel%29&direction=prev&oldid=654301008

I read that you are very interested in the British Rail system. I ask you to consider that Fleming had set a great three Chapters in some novel (In Live and Let Die Chapters 10 to 12 –the greater part of– inclusive can be referred to) on the Flying Scotsman, from Euston to Edinburgh and that at York Bond and companion got off and waited for a following edition of another express and boarded that. Arriving later at their destination they learn that their compartment on the great British train, The Flying Scotsman, had been bombed and strafed with machine-gun fire. Fleming would have taken nigh on three chapters to describe this journey (another train set-piece written by Fleming is the journey from Istanbul to Paris on the Orient Express.)

When a Wikipedia editor writes, "The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida" he is reducing three chapters to four words and the name of a town and its state. Leave out the fact that a train has been halted, half a carriage bombed and the interior given a succession of tommy-gun blasts.

Here is the description of the train journey from Istanbul to Paris on the Wikipedia page of From Russia, with Love (novel)

(Romanova), Bond and Kerim board the Orient Express with the Spektor. Bond and Kerim quickly discover three MGB agents on board travelling incognito. Kerim uses bribes and trickery to have the two taken off the train, but he is later found dead in his compartment with the body of the third agent, both having been killed by Grant. At Trieste a fellow MI6 agent, "Captain Nash", arrives on the train and Bond presumes he has been sent by M as added protection for the rest of the trip. Tatiana is suspicious of Nash, but Bond reassures her that Nash is from his own service. After dinner, at which Nash has drugged Romanova, Bond wakes up to find a gun pointing at him and Nash reveals himself to be the killer, Grant. Instead of killing Bond immediately, Grant reveals SMERSH's plan, including the detail that he is to shoot Bond through the heart and that the Spektor is booby-trapped to explode when examined. As Grant talks, Bond slips his metal cigarette case between the pages of a magazine he is holding in front of him and positions it in front of his heart to stop the bullet. After Grant fires, Bond pretends to be mortally wounded and when Grant steps over him, Bond attacks him: Grant is killed, whilst Bond and Romanova subsequently escape. Later, (they arrive) in Paris_

The reduction, from Istanbul, to "The couple travel to Paris, France" is true but would leave out the stopping of a train, a bombing of a carriage and the strafing of its interior by tommy-gun fire were it in the USA.

—"The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida"

I trust you will see that brevity is brevity but to exclude major set pieces by one of the twentieth century's greatest descriptive writers because an editor is defeated in his capacity or careless or absent-mindedly negligent should properly leave a sense of responsibility to an independent yet diligent Wikipedia reader.

What you have noted elsewhere of my revisions to Wikipedia articles please give balanced regard to, and if you cannot, and would you wish further understanding, the wikipages are here to provide that. Regards, --Laurencebeck (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

If I see you undertaking further disruptive and WP:POINTy edits as this and this again, I will not hesitate to file a report in the appropriate administrators' forum. - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is on an open Wikipedia page and may be found and read by any casual browsing reader of Wikipedia.

I therefore feel that for an appropriate understanding by that reader of what has been said above I should add my part.

I direct the reader to WP:NOTPOINTy.

My edit which illustrated what I believed to be liberty of casualness to use the phrase "a/b travel to z" to formulate an abbreviation of three Chapters ( 10 to 12 ) of Live and Let Die (novel) lasted for less than sixty seconds from this, at 07:06, UTC 1 April 2015‎, to this at 07:07, UTC 1 April 2015.‎

I used the same formulation, "a/b travel to z",— "The couple travel to St Petersburg, Florida", to describe the rail travel aboard the Orient Express from Istanbul to Paris.— "The couple travel to Paris, France."

I have received this communication from the editor explaining the position

It's an utter straw man argument to refer to FRWL. The events on that train are the climax of the book and tie up all the threads of the conspiracy against Bond, thus we describe it accordingly. The events on the train in LALD are minor. They add to the feel of tension within the book, but nothing happens that affects the progression of the plot. This is a plot summary and we cannot include every tiny event in the story just because we want to. As I have already mentioned to you, one of the reviewers at the recent PR commented that the plot section "tries to convey too much in too little space. May want to streamline a bit" - and that was without reference to the minor events of the train. If we overbloat with the inclusion of superfluous detail, we do not aid the reader in their understanding of either the plot, or the book as a whole. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

and it does seem those responsible for the article, Live and Let Die (novel) have been cast between a rather hard diamond and an intensely sharp Beretta.--Laurencebeck (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

---

. . . a memorable event regarded as minor not included in the Wikipedia article, Live and Let Die (novel)

Note

"Your compartment was tommy gunned and bombed. Blown to bits. Killed the Pullman porter who was in the corridor at the time. No other casualties. Bloody uproar going on."

Chapter XII : Location now — St Petersburg, Florida     [ Bond and Solitaire travelled as Mr. and Mrs. Bryce. ]

        Leiter wiped the sweat off his forehead and sat down opposite Bond.

        Suddenly he looked at Solitaire and grinned apologetically. ‘I guess you’re Solitaire,’ he said. ‘Sorry for the rough welcome. It’s been quite a day. For the second time in around twenty-four hours I didn’t expect to see this guy again.’ He turned back to Bond. ‘Okay to go ahead?’ he asked.

        ‘Yes,’ said Bond. ‘Solitaire’s on our side now.’

        ‘That’s a break,’ said Leiter. ‘Well, you won’t have seen the papers or heard the radio, so I’ll give you the headlines first. The Phantom [the train, *the Silver Phantom] was stopped soon after Jacksonville. Between Waldo and Ocala. Your compartment was tommy gunned and bombed. Blown to bits. Killed the Pullman porter who was in the corridor at the time. No other casualties. Bloody uproar going on. Who did it? Who’s Mr. Bryce and who’s Mrs. Bryce? Where are they? Of course we were sure you’d been snatched. The police at Orlando are in charge. Traced the bookings back to New York. Found the FBI had made them. Everyone comes down on me like a load of bricks. Then you walk in with a pretty girl on your arm looking as happy as a clam.’

        Leiter burst out laughing. ‘Boy! You should have heard Washington a while back. Anybody would have thought it was me that bombed the goddam train.’

        He reached for one of Bond’s cigarettes and lit it.

        ‘Well,’ he said. ‘That’s the synopsis. I’ll hand over the shooting script when I’ve heard your end. Give.’

        Bond described in detail what had happened since he had spoken to Leiter from the St. Regis. When he came to the night on the train he took the piece of paper out of his pocket-book and pushed it across the table.

        Leiter whistled. ‘Voodoo,’ he said. ‘This was meant to be found on the corpse, I guess. Ritual murder by friends of the men you bumped in Harlem. That’s how it was supposed to look. Take the heat right away from The Big Man. They certainly think out all the angles. We’ll get after that thug they had on the train. Probably one of the help in the diner. He must have been the man who put the finger on your compartment. You finish. Then I’ll tell you how he did it.’

        ‘Let me see,’ said Solitaire. She reached across for the paper.

        ‘Yes,’ she said quietly. ‘It’s an ouanga, a Voodoo fetish. It’s the invocation to the Drum Witch. It’s used by the Ashanti tribe in Africa when they want to kill someone. They use something like it in Haiti.’ She handed it back to Bond. ‘It was lucky you didn’t tell me about it,’ she said seriously. ‘I would still be having hysterics.’

        ‘I didn’t care for it myself,’ said Bond. ‘I felt it was bad news. Lucky we got off at Jacksonville. Poor Baldwin. We owe him a lot.’

        He finished the story of the rest of their trip.

        ‘Anyone spot you when you left the train?’ asked Leiter.

        ‘Shouldn’t think so,’ said Bond. ‘But we’d better keep Solitaire under cover until we can get her out. Thought we ought to fly her over to Jamaica tomorrow. I can get her looked after there till we come on.’

        ‘Sure,’ agreed Leiter.

--Laurencebeck (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

---

— Leiter describes to Bond the assault on the Silver Phantom

Chapter XIII

        ‘Let’s have the details,’ said Bond, sitting back. ‘Must have been the hell of a fine job.’

        ‘Sure was,’ agreed Leiter, ‘except for the shortage of corpses.’

        He put his feet on the table and lit a cigarette.

        ‘Phantom left Jacksonville around five,’ he began. ‘Got to Waldo around six. Just after leaving Waldo - and here I’m guessing - Mr. Big’s man comes along to your car, gets into the next compartment to yours and hangs a towel between the drawn blind and the window, meaning – and he must have done a good deal of telephoning at stations on the way down - meaning “the window to the right of this towel is it”.

        ‘There’s a long stretch of straight track between Waldo and Ocala,’ continued Leiter, ‘running through forest and swamp land. State highway right alongside the track. About twenty minutes outside Waldo, Wham ! goes a dynamite emergency signal under the leading Diesel. Driver comes down to forty. Wham ! And another Wham ! Three in line ! Emergency ! Halt at once ! He halts the train wondering what the hell. Straight track. Last signal green over green. Nothing in sight. It’s around quarter after six and just getting light. There’s a sedan, clouted heap I expect [Bond raised an eyebrow. ‘Stolen car,’ explained Leiter], grey, thought to have been a Buick, no lights, engine running, waiting on the highway opposite the centre of the train. Three men get out. Coloured. Probably negro. They walk slowly in line abreast along the grass verge between the road and the track. Two on the outside carry rippers - tommy-guns. Man in the centre has something in his hand. Twenty yards and they stop outside Car 245. Men with the rippers give a double squirt at your window. Open it up for the pineapple. Centre man tosses in the pineapple and all three run back to the car. Two seconds fuse. As they reach the car, BOOM ! Fricassee of Compartment H. Fricassee, presumably, of Mr. and Mrs. Bryce. In fact fricassee of your Baldwin who runs out and crouches in corridor directly he sees men approaching his car. No other casualties except multiple shock and hysterics throughout train. Car drives away very fast towards limbo where it still is and will probably remain. Silence, mingled with screams, falls. People run to and fro. Train limps gingerly into Ocala. Drops Car 245. Is allowed to proceed three hours later. Scene I I. Leiter sits alone in cottage, hoping he has never said an unkind word to his friend James, and wondering how Mr. Hoover will have Mr. Leiter served for his dinner tonight. That’s all, folks.’

        Bond laughed. ‘What an organization!’ he said. ‘I’m sure it’s all beautifully covered up and alibied. What a man! He certainly seems to have the run of this country. Just shows how one can push a democracy around, what with habeas corpus and human rights and all the rest. Glad we haven’t got him on our hands in England. Wooden truncheons wouldn’t make much of a dent in him. Well,’ he concluded, ’that’s three times I’ve managed to get away with it. The pace is beginning to get a bit hot.’

--Laurencebeck (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Live and Let Die

Could you please stop editing the article while it is at FAC. Your additions have, with one or two minor exceptions, been rather poor, even if they have been in good faith. As such there is a chance that they will negatively affect the course of the FAC, which is something to be avoided. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There are Chapters 10, 11, and 12 plus four pages of Chapter 13 which I have put in précis of 60 words and which contains everything that occurred. The fact of the three close encounters with Bond's mortality is dependent that the previous two are mentioned. [*Bond experiences the first threat upon his life on this mission – a small time-bomb delivered to his suite during breakfast but with apparent deliberation was not intended to kill – found in the debris was a note with a bogeyman message, "The beats of your heart are numbered." ] , [ *Mr Big decides to release Bond and Leiter, and has one of Bond's fingers broken. Bond escapes, his second escape from death for the day, . . . ]

—— on the following day . . . . . . Chapters 10, 11, and 12 plus four pages of Chapter 13

... ;the couple travel by train to St. Petersburg, Florida, where they meet Leiter. Leiter informs them of a tommy-gun and grenade attack on their compartment on the train they had boarded but Bond and Solitaire had changed trains at an intermediate station. Bond counts this three times from Mr Big that he's managed to get away with his life . . . 60 words

I don't see how any appreciation of Chapters 10, 11, and 12 plus four pages of Chapter 13 can be experienced as adequate when all is said is,

... ; the couple travel to St. Petersburg, Florida (where they meet Leiter).

[The mode of travel, "train", was not included in your original summary as I first read it when within the submission for FAC – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates ]

Heaven should protect clear transmission of the least requirements of a narrative of what happened anywhere. . . ! --Laurencebeck (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If I may add an impartial voice here, I recommend that Laurencebeck should take the matter to the article talk page if he/she wishes it to be considered and gain a consensus, or not, there. Tim riley talk 14:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. It's disruptive to edit in this way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It is he.

The article is seeking to truncate the story to its minimal degree. It does get away with it.

But a reading of the book leaves several strong impressions. One is the odd harmless explosion of a time-bomb with its bogeyman message at Bond's first breakfast in his suite at the St Regis. Another is that it is Bond's little finger, left hand that is bent back till the knuckle cracks. Another is the manner of bombing of the compartment on the Silver Phantom (actually a fictitious name – the trains are the Silver Star, inaugurated in December 12, 1947 and the Silver Meteor, introduced in February 2, 1939.). And many other indelible impressions within the book inevitably follow.

Fleming may have been drawing an allusion to the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost, production 1906–, then its next model in line, the Rolls-Royce Phantom I, introduced in 1925. Indeed which qualitive name, Silver, may have traversed the Atlantic by the winds to find itself on the name of trains on the Eastern Seaboard of the USA. So now we might know, says Fleming . . .--Laurencebeck (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a strange broadsheet and its players have their own means of communicating.

Wikipedia is a public noticeboard of information much like something taking up 100 yards of the grill outside Buckingham Palace. Things can be pinned up and taken down and replaced throughout the year in sun, hail, wind, snow and sleet or calm.

It is at its very, very best with chemistry. Chemistry is completely, totally exact. | thanks for your addition, & regards--Laurencebeck (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you stopped editing the LALD article. I appreciate that your additions are in good faith, but they are poor, not up to GA standards, let alone FA. Your additions are too poor for inclusion, which means they have to be deleted: this jeopardises the progress of the article to FA standard because you are making the article unstable with your , frankly, awful additions. Please stop and move on to a different article. – SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Sound Barrier

I appreciate your enthusiastic efforts on behalf of the film, but you have to be careful to find authoritative, corroborating references. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Donald Bogle. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that other editors have already warned you that your behavior is POINTy, so I won't bother. Keep it up and you will be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz places a message with a force of authority that holds Wikipedia together rather than it run into a blather of information which any Tom, Dick or Harry might have this informational site run to.

There can be found no information on Malik Shabazz that any edits are other than those of another reader of Wikipedia who has revised an article.

Here-above the authority is established. It is not I, a Wikipedia reader and one of the countless millions who are such, who could summon such a directive of force.

Now that it is plain that Malik Shabazz is an authoritative force in the maintenance of Wikipedia data it would be unwise and indecorous to engage in simple response editing.

The information on the Donald Bogle page within one paragraph — the progress from the Bogle biography to the final production of the Halle Berry movie biography moves from one biographer, Bogle, to another, Earl Mills, in a manner that is prismatic in its deflection from Bogle (the subject of the page) to another reality issuing from another source.

The chosen word by me, "prismatic", I use as a form of æsthetic much held to be valuable by many people.

The subject, which has not advanced to discussion, is the representation of the cultural advance of the African-American in the developing economic life of America. It is for those who are immediately involved in the evolution of that reality to decide on behalf of their own people how they will be represented. And certainly in this yet a Wikipedia article.

I grateful to know that Malik Shabazz has been issued with the authority from the executive of Wikipedia to decide upon the manner of content on the page where sociological sensitivities within and without a designated society lie in the balance.--Laurencebeck (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Donald Bogle. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

An appreciation of your position is in the immediately above posting May_2015. I trust you can see that with your every communication to me that appreciation increases. Thank you very much. --Laurencebeck (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Laurence, please don't add any more unsourced material to Germaine Greer or anywhere else. The relevant policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Many thanks, Sarah ^(talk) 02:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

July 2016

Your addition to Ferguson unrest has been removed, 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 violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Laurencebeck. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring on the Moonraker article. I started a talk page thread several hours ago and that should be the place you should go next, rather than continue your edit warring. - The Bounder (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

_ link : Moonraker (novel) : talk — Korda  -- Laurencebeck (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Koh-i-Noor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orloff. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Koh-i-Noor

I have removed content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/collins/pva30.html, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words please. People who repeatedly violate copyright law are blocked from editing. Also, you copied some material from The Moonstone without providing attribution, which is required under the terms of our CC-by-SA license. When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at MacGuffin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have noted that indeed the edit was reverted . . and then within a spare 19 minutes! Thank you very much for reminding me of your continuing concern regarding the propriety of editing behaviour expected by those responsible for Wikipedia's quality as an informational source.--Laurencebeck (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Laurencebeck. 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)

File copyright problem with File:Warhol Flowers, offset lithograph.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Warhol Flowers, offset lithograph.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Laurencebeck. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

August 2019

Hello, I'm Harrias. Your recent edit(s) to the page Beamer (cricket) appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Harrias ^talk 10:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The thresholds of disruption would be a matter of the sensitivity of those who are ready to be prone to believe such a condition has appeared. It is very kind of you contact me on the matter. Thank you very much. --Laurencebeck (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christopher Sykes (author), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scoop (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) 09:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I have editied to compete the correct link --Laurencebeck (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

February 2020

Hello, I'm BrownHairedGirl. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Casino Royale (Climax!) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. See WP:REDNOT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification.--Laurencebeck (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (again)

This is disruptive and childish. Stop it. Readers are not morons, they do not have to be instructed how to navigate from the front page of a magazine to a specific page. Many of your previous alterations were equally tendentious, and also breaches of the MoS. You have been on this site for years and you still don't seem to be able to do the basics at all. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

To scroll down 59 pages can be eliminated by an URL which will access the exact information of interest, the Book-list Of President Kennedy's Ten Favorites, as will this link >

(I believe the link appears as a figure [1] within these few words . .and within the References section below.)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It takes one minute 25 seconds for me to scroll down the 58 pages of the Life magazine issue March 1961 to arrive at P.59. I gave a direct URL to the page which you should have seen, and still consider, is a preferable use of time in gaining information. Very many thanks to you, --Laurencebeck (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Correction> 55 seconds of scrolling to find information. --Laurencebeck (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

time wasting stupidity

I'm reverted the RfC as being so mind-numbing stupid a step that it doesn't deserve to waste people's time. Move on and stop being a disruptive little troll. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Re those long URLs...

In this edit you re-added the content to the ref that I had adjusted. There's some MOS somewhere that speaks to length of URLs but goshdarned if I can find it now. My point is that the length of the URLs seems unnecessary that's all. You mentioned in the edit summary something about the length of the URL has nothing to do with the length of the article? I said nothing about the length of the article, I know it has nothing to do with the length of the article my concern is following MOS guidelines etc. In any case the refs were both to published books not to a website so both should be cite book refs. I've adjusted the Sarah Hopkins Bradford refs accordingly. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI

The font on your user talk goes all small in the middle of the 2015 Live and Let Die section. If you want it that way that's fine but there is a double bit of code in one of your signatures, which is <small><small>:

I can confirm my understanding to you that your use of FAC means that the article was under this consideration: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates|FAC]] – [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]] <small><small>--[[User:Laurencebeck|Laurencebeck]] ([[User talk:Laurencebeck#top|talk]]) 06:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)</small>

I thought you might want to know. If you want to adjust the font back to the regular-size you can just remove that second <small>. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see any continuing irregularities of font size in the section you refer to but I thank you for your message.--Laurencebeck (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it for you, took out the erroneous/extra <small> Feel free to revert if you wish. Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see . . ty very much --Laurencebeck (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Carmen

I repaired the link to the 1909 film. Just click on the little [it] behind the year, nothing else needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. There is nothing to indicate in reading the text that the little [it] is a link to the previous redlink but in the [it] language. I attempted an insertion,

Gerolamo Lo Saviolink (1909)link

to give the indication of the link. I did not recognize theses link but only after quite some time.--Laurencebeck (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)--Laurencebeck (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw that, but tried to say it's not needed, because it's generally understood that when somehing it blue it's a link. To say "link" each time is clutter. Imagine an added "link" in all {{ill}} in that section alone. Imagine the word "link" after every blue link ;) - We might consider to say "1909 film" instead of plain "1909", - you decide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's ok . . thank you . . . lb. --Laurencebeck (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

TWA 800

The other see alsos are for other incidents of fuel tank explosions. See also isn't a place to imply conspiracy theories via mention of entirely unrelated events. Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

And you've been around long enough to be aware of [[WP:3RR\\ and WP:BURDEN. Bring it up on the talkpage to see if anybody agrees. Acroterion (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Clapperboard

Regarding your edit to the Clapperboard page in March 2020, you have claimed that, prior to the invention of the clapperboard, a crew member bringing his hands together in one firm clap in frame before the removal of the slate and the call, action. I am amused by and interested in this claim, and would love to see footage or another source that proves it. Do you have any such reference? 2.98.84.227 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Traditions continue.
In primitive film-making conditions I have seen this technique to synchronize sound. You have caught me out. It was an educated surmise.

As guessing goes, there was some technique before the clapper board's idea was put into practicality.--Laurencebeck (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vietnam Trần Lệ Xuân.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vietnam Trần Lệ Xuân.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Hello, I'm Doctorhawkes. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Wake in Fright, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you made a mistake. Screening room banter was betrayed in the most famous case by the remark Tony Curtis made in such respectful professional circumstances in his passing quip regarding the superior ranking co-star he had on the film Some Like It Hot. Best, thanks,--Laurencebeck (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Korean Air Lines Flight 007; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Until a communication such as above, it is not known what is the authority of the Wikipedia contributor or contributors who would with the ease of their keyboard eliminate a measured edit. I have proposed the facts that would give coincidence of importance to the two flights in question of coincidental connection of significance and importance. I have proposed the facts. Until removed, they remain within the edit history. --Laurencebeck (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? I've warned you before about this - see the TWA 800 section above. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Jetblue Flight 292.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jetblue Flight 292.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This has been effected I hope to your satisfaction. LB --Laurencebeck (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Superman, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DonQuixote (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

TWA flight 800 conspiracy theories talk

• Special:diff/1012196181

I feel that the comment should be removed per WP:NOTFORUM. Asking Does anyone else know anything about this? is not a direct attempt to improve the article, but instead suggests a desire for a more general discussion.

That being said, it may be reasonable to assume good faith and interpret the comment as a request for additional sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The talk page is there to finalize text for the article after a general discussion. To invite general discussion is to propose exactly what the founders of Wikipedia laid open — that a contribution to the article's text oould have had the opportunity to be creditably explored for its reliability of sourced provenance. --Laurencebeck (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I only know things that are already in the public domain.
Regarding this incident the scandal for its source lay in the fact that the USA was testing a missile in the area which missile was of such a destructive nature that was banned within an international treaty that the USA had put their pen to.
TWA 800 was flying according to proper air control instructions but was being delayed out of the sensitive testing area by the unprecedented flight path of another aircraft. The missile, not launched from land, tested to recognize another USA dummy aircraft, sought TWA 800 due to its delay of departure from the testing area and behaved accordingly.
The White House was watching all this from its operations room due to the particular importance of the missile's testing, it being already banned from practical military use by an understanding signed. That's the scandal, and a whopper it is.
It makes perfect sense and one can see the implications of the enormity of the embarrassment that lies certainly just beneath the surface layer of accepted public willingness not to disturb still waters.
What I read only recently as a few years ago, and nowhere deeper than two hour's browsing on the internet is worth my state of mind's recollection, but that only.--Laurencebeck (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Qantas winton.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Qantas winton.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 05:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Madame Nhu photographic portrait.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Madame Nhu photographic portrait.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The replacement photograph is very satisfactory in its depiction.--Laurencebeck (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

re Edie Sedgwick

Let's not war over this. I'm suspicious of any any edits you make to the article at this point. Your last edit was better, but still: we are not supposed to lead the reader. Let the reader decide if she was ill-fated or not. We just report the facts -- this happened, that happened.

If you have source saying she was ill-fated, that could be quoted or used in the body of the article. Ledes are supposed to be pretty bland. I mean for Hitler we have "Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945... etc etc etc. We don't say he was ill-fated there or evil or whatever. Let the reader decide that.

Rather than going back and forth over this, let's discuss it on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boyd family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert Tucker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Dorothy Dandridge's niece

Hi there Lawrence, my name is Kristin Clarke and I’m wondering if you would be willing to write a Wikipedia page for me. I’m an actress I’ve been in 16 films but I’m not sure how to create one. My great grandfather is Babe Wallace, my great grandmother is Vivian Dandridge. My aunt is Nayo Wallace. And my great aunt is Dorothy Dandridge. Forever31245 (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's quite an heritage you've got there, Kristin.

Wikipedia doesn't like mistakes being made, so you get a lot of information from the website itself.
As: Help:Your first article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article

and How to create a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_a_page .

You have a bio on IMDB by Lydia Etchen : https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10205342/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

You could play on being within the Dandridge heritage, which you undoubtedly are, bridging across to the Wallace inheritance. That's quite something.

I love the story in the Bogle book where your great aunt was sending checques to people when she had no cash. Geri Branton received one. Her response, which I thought was a perfect example of your family humor was, "It was no good . . . but it was a checque."

I would love to be even the slightest help to you. Best, Laurence. Laurencebeck (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Aww thanks Laurence! I appreciate this. Some users said I’ll have to wait a while until I get more notable media, so I guess it’ll have to happen organically haha. But thank you for this and sharing memorable stories :) Best, Kristin Forever31245 (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kristin,
On the Dorothy Dandridge wikipedia page I have made an addition to the infobox (click this) to include you as part of your family entertainment history. Laurencebeck (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to The Quiet Season and Dark Brown (1963 film). Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)