Talk:The Mackintosh Man

message: Just saw the movie and recognized that the original title on the screen is spelled "THE MacKINTOSH MAN", thus the correct title is "The MacKintosh Man", not Mackintosh... VINCENZO1492  14:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: US movie trailer has only CAPITALS as the posters, too. But IMDb spelling is "The MacKintosh Man" as per original screen title, too. VINCENZO1492  15:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

text: FYI: Admin Shirt58 is reverting or editing regularly my edits about the movie title The MacKintosh Man or The Mackintosh Man. First with non-reliable reasons (raincoat trademarks), second with weaker sources (movie reviews) than the original movie. He is not taking part in the discussion about the movie title (even not after I invited him into the discussion about this matter on his personal talk page) but is still editing the content. In between standard users this is called vandalism. But he is using his admin rights to re-edit or revert my edits. Overruling with admin right my contents to make his contents the one that are used in WP. Thus it is an abuse of admin rights. I put a notice of this onto [noticeboard for incidents] VINCENZO1492  05:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

text: *Also, as far as IMDb goes, the reason that's not used as a RS for film information is because the page is relatively easily edited by random editors. It's happened in the past where people have managed to edit film articles to insert blatantly false data and in one case, a girl managed to create a profile that said that she was going to be She-Hulk in one of the Avengers or Captain America movies. That's kind of the reason why IMDb is unusable as a source to back up claims. Wikipedia does use it as an external link, but that's just about the only thing it can truly be used for. Basically your best bet here is to show how the capital K spelling of the name is the most common spelling, since official sources spell the film in both formats. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained clearly and with facts why I can't accept Shirt58 behaviour. If clear facts are not hitting the tone Shirt58 likes - then I'm getting a warning? With your long statements you don't gave me any proper reason why I should accept his disrespectful behaviour towards me. I only understand that your intention seems to support him. What you call "stepping in here" is simply taking sides of Shirt58. Your statement "give you a bit of a warning about your tone" is more than clear (and offending). Did you ever think about give him a warning about his behaviour? Apparently not... And you have another hint for me: I'd like to ask that you try to assume good faith from other editors.... Well, did Shirt58 assume good faith from me as an editor? By reverting withpreferring secondary sources instead of the original? Additionally ignoring an invitation to be part of a discussion? As an admin, who should know about basic WP rules + behaviour? And you are asking me to be satisfied with his disrespect (or ignorance or arrogance or whatever is the right word for it...). Sorry, your unbalanced, one-sided, NPOV-pretending but NPOV-ignoring statements nor let me understand Shirt58's behaviour neither I can accept a warning about my tone with the reasons you gave me. I assume good faith from you, but obviously this went totally wrong as you simply took Shirt58's POV. At least thank you for trying a mediation even when you missed the intuition in this case. (PS. I did not name IMDb as a reliable source but I was surprised that in this case IMDb has more reliable edits than WP.) VINCENZO1492  19:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *If your move was contested (which it was) then what you need to do is discuss the move. If Shirt58 agrees to the move, then you could request the move as uncontroversial. However in this situation he did not agree, which makes it a controversial move. Now after that happens, the only thing you can do is continue to discuss the move or open up a move discussion. You did not do that and you tried to request a page move two times and accused Shirt of abusing his admin rights. This is what I meant by an attack and not assuming good faith. Shirt was well within his rights to refuse the move if he thought that there was a valid reason and he was also well within his rights to remove the tags. If at any point ANYONE has a good rationale for refusing a move, the move is no longer controversial. Now if his rationale was "because it's raining" then that would be an invalid rationale, however he had a decent point to contest the move. I'm not agreeing with either of you on what it should be moved to, I'm just saying that there was no abuse of power here and I don't think that any other editor would say otherwise in this particular circumstance. Now all you can do at this point is open up a move discussion and talk it out while providing RS to back up your point. Accusing Shirt or myself as behaving badly will not accomplish a thing. I've also reverted your changes to Talk:The MacKintosh Man. While I really do not like The Dissident Aggressor swearing (note: TDA, this isn't helping the situation), Wikipedia is not censored and you should not remove anyone else's comments on a talk page - ESPECIALLY when it is a potentially contentious edit. Now you can either let this go and move on to edit other topics or you can open up a move discussion per WP:RM#CM. However sitting here and accusing an admin that has been here for years of acting improperly in a situation where he has not is not going to accomplish a single thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I never got a notification that you posted something here. Thus I was not ignoring it but it never got to my attention before. But apart from that I do not guess that it would make sense to discuss this matter as you are preferring secondary sources to the original movie title. And you even put a retail corp. advertising under the headline "reliable source" - at least more reliable for you than an original movie title?  I can't find your basis to discuss and what to discuss. There's is nothing to sort out as I am under the impression that you don't want to sort out and that you rather prefer a wrong information than accepting the original movie title. From this basis it e.g. would be o.k. to put a completely wrong plot on Wikipedia if a reliable source describes a totally wrong plot even when you know the movie and you know that it is totally wrong described. Ignoring errors from the beginning is ignorance. And how to discuss or sort out if someone states from the beginning and insists that the most reliable source will be ignored? I have no idea, with best wishes from VINCENZO1492  11:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct title MacKintosh 

message: Here's a brief list of how some reliable sources write the title of this movie:
* Roger Ebert calls it "The Mackintosh Man"
* The New York Times calls it "The Mackintosh Man"
* The Montreal Gazette calls it "The Mackintosh Man"
* Time Out calls it "The Mackintosh Man"
There are many more. 
Even Walmart sells a DVD under the title "Paul Newman: The Mackintosh Man / Somebody Up There Likes Me / Cool Hand Luke / Harper" 
 - if you can find anything resembling a reliable reference to change "The Mackintosh Man" to "The MacKintosh Man", I will do it straight away, as soon as you let me know. Don't let it be said that I haven't given you a chance. 
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I never got a notification that you posted something here. Thus I was not ignoring it but it never got to my attention before. But apart from that I do not guess that it would make sense to discuss this matter as you are preferring secondary sources to the original movie title. And you even put a retail corp. advertising under the headline "reliable source" - at least more reliable for you than an original movie title?  I can't find your basis to discuss and what to discuss. There's is nothing to sort out as I am under the impression that you don't want to sort out and that you rather prefer a wrong information than accepting the original movie title. From this basis it e.g. would be o.k. to put a completely wrong plot on Wikipedia if a reliable source describes a totally wrong plot even when you know the movie and you know that it is totally wrong described. Ignoring errors from the beginning is ignorance. And how to discuss or sort out if someone states from the beginning and insists that the most reliable source will be ignored? I have no idea, with best wishes from VINCENZO1492  11:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, let's sort this out