Talk:The Dorchester

message: I’ve reverted two recent changes by anonymous editor 212.227.114.140 (talk) with edit history
“I come here to learn something and end up staying a half fucking hour to clean up the writing of your drooling idiots from the trailer parks. I just how you stupid fucks get shut down"
and
“The bit about Shinawatra is nonsense. It is not borne out by the BBC link. You stupid fucks"
I can't see that these unsubstantiated changes are any better than what was there before, and I can’t see any reason to accept changes made in such an uncivil fashion. Swanny18 (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Inappropriate adding of COI and other silly tags which clearly indicate that you haven't read the article. Please provide examples of what concerns you. As far as I can see the only sentence which even comes close to what you claim is in the lead that it is one of the world's most prestigious and expensive hotels, which it is, and there are countless sources which support that statement. The article is clearly written neutrally and any claims are quoted for neutrality purposes in the architecture section. I always make a conscious effort when I write hotels to try to make it not sound like a travel guide. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the article instead of removing the tags in bad faith and with accusation of editwarring. The Banner talk 15:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

text: ow, claiming ownership  and protecting your own article. The Banner talk 19:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Banner, I'm not sure there is any call for accusing people of ownership based on such scant evidence. Perhaps you could back up your tags by saying who has the COI on the page, and where you think the POV is in the article? - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, am unclear about the claim of ownership. Dr. Blofeld isn't the only editor here; I'm working on it as are Ipigott and Nvvchar. Pokey comments promote a hostile environment, the kind that some editors, especially women (i.e. me), tend to avoid, so please be nice when addressing concerns. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody noticed the smiley straight behind it? The Banner talk 20:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh that's funny isn't it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can appreciate your efforts to remove move of the peacock terms out of the article. The Banner talk 16:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Dr B.  OWN accusations are used all too freely on here and IMO are attributed to pissed off individuals not getting their own way.  I would be very careful throwing around such accusations Banner.  There is a huge difference between OWN and protecting an article from POV pushing information from being added. -- CassiantoTalk 04:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Sometime you can't scare people away with rudeness and bluff, Dr. Blofeld. The fact that you removed a lot of the peacock term indicates that what you called "bad faith tagging" was not so bad faith as you cried out. (Maybe too harsh, okay.) And your edit on by userpage was just of a historic level of pity. The Banner talk 11:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of terms?? I reworded two statements which bore any resemblance to "peacock" and were not at all problematic, but I reworded them just to be on the safe side and at least try to see what you were going on about. You've only had four barnstars in your history on here and one of them was by me; don't you think it looks out of place you carrying on like this and and you being rewarded by me? If you're comfortable with that then it just illustrates what a pitiful character you are. Martijn Kajuiter is far more likely to be a COI case than this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And now you start following me around tagging (mainly older) articles I have written. How pity-full. Here is some candy, stop crying and be a good boy now. The Banner talk 13:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

text: No, I'm not tagging for POV and COI even though most of them have the same level of "peacock" and "advertising", but a lot of your articles have sources which need filling out. That's not disputable and I think you know this. Be a good boy and fill out the sources. Citing a source as "Highbeam" without any proper publishing information is problematic. I just find it astounding that somebody who clearly lacks basic editing skills can go about slopping masses of tags on articles... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: I appreciate that it's cited and that it does indeed concur with what the source says, but I find "American mafia boss Wille Bioff stayed at the hotel with his wife in the winter of 1939 during a vacation to Europe, shortly before being arrested for income tax evasion" hard to believe. Quite aside from the difficult logistics of "vacationing in Europe" at the height of World War II, Willie Bioff was a prominent Jewish figure and I can't imagine Continental Europe would have been top of his list of tourist destinations. The sole source is Hollywood and the Mob: Movies, Mafia, Sex and Death by Tim Adler; Bloomsbury is a respected publisher of children's books and fiction but not exactly the Cambridge University Press when it comes to non-fiction, and Tim Adler is a hack freelance journalist and former London editor of Deadline.com, not any kind of historian. Since Adler also claims specifically that Bioff's trip to London was made on the SS Normandie, which had been seized by the US military on 3 September 1939 prior to being converted into the USS Lafayette (AP-53) and was in no position to be taking mobsters on vacation jaunts to London, I don't think anything he says on the matter can be considered credible. – iridescent 2 12:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willie Bioff 

message: In my opinion the "The Dorchester, Dorchester Collection" logo at the top of the page looks rather amateurish and tacky – apart from its placement being somewhat awkward in a page-layout/design sense, it's a blurred, poor-quality scan or something, and rather detracts from the page. I'd certainly remove it. What do others think? Ericoides (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox pic 

message: The room at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey is based on a hotel room at the Dorchester. Fast-forward to the 9:45 mark. Does this deserve mention in the article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfTgU8G6Ljc --RThompson82 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Stanley Kubrick apparently based the hotel room in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) on The Dorchester, as he stayed there during filming. This may be worth mentioning here, and in the article about 2001. Another thread is at Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Dorchester_Hotel_connection.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''2001: A Space Odyssey'' connection