TheOldJacobite

Burroughs

Hi -- I think you made a pretty obviously bad call on the Burroughs article. The wording I used reflects the little that we know for certain from the sources, whereas the wording you reverted it to is contradicted by both the historical record (admittedly nebulous) and by the article itself. We can get into it in more detail if you like, but I'd like to start off by just inviting you to reconsider. Thanks. Franciscrot (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please come back soon!

Hi TOJ, we'll sorely miss you while you are gone, and I hope you come back well rested after a while. You are a tireless and very valued member of the Wikipedia community, especially when it comes to film articles and so forth. Be well and take care of yourself and do what you need to do to be happy and at peace. Much love, Softlavender (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit

Hey, just wanted to touch base and ask why you reverted my edit on the Stripes. What makes you think Stillman ordered the mortor to be fired to impress a colonel? Having just seen the movie myself on television, that didn't seem to be the case to me. Thanks! Sephiroth9611 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and sorry my response is so late. You're correct, firing the mortar had nothing to do with the colonel. My mistake. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit

In April, I'd made a minor edit to the page on the film The Insider (837427540), after being confused by a reference to B&W. My confusion arose because both the 60 Minutes journalists (Bergman and Wallace) and the tobacco company (Brown & Williamson) could be referred to as B&W, and the first use of the abbreviation was unclear: "B&W later coerce Wigand into a more restrictive agreement". Was this a reference to unprofessional practices by the 60 Minutes journalists, or by the tobacco company? Would you consider permitting my edit: yes, it's unnecessary in a strict sense (re-reading the article a couple of times allowed me to work out what B&W referred to), but would have helped me understand the article more quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Rowat (talk • contribs) 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that makes sense. Confusion with the abbreviation never occurred to me. Yes, I think it would be better if it was specific. Thanks for your message. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit

Hi TOJ, I amended the text on the Enemy of the State page because I believe 'opined' is a word describing a particular way of speaking, rather than claimed which is neutral. The use of opined in this context is inappropriate (or so I believe...) and also a cliche. I believed that claimed would have served the article better. However, if you believe that opined is best, then by all means leave it in! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntozer (talk • contribs) 16:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you're correct, "opined" is not appropriate wording. I should have payed better attention before reverting. Feel free to change it back. Thanks for your message. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit

I edited the Jaws article by adding the word "television" to "reporter" in reference to Peter Benchley's role in the film. Can you please tell me why you removed it. There are several different types of reporter, which is a vague word, and my edit was both factual and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Tor (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Magnolia

Hey TOJ, please note that as near as I could tell the last stable version of the article did include the descriptor "epic". If you want to ask for a citation you're welcome to do so, but you haven't been leaving edit summaries so your motivation isn't clear to me. I would recommend raising the subject at the article's Talk page. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)