Talk:The Yankee Doodle Mouse

message: Do any of you mind if I put a trivia about Tom as a sunflower? Where I come from, it is forever shown on Cartoon Network, but it was originally removed in the 1990s. TobytheTramEngine 20:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Shouldn't there be a wiki entry about the game that was inspired by this episode, Tom & Jerry Cat-astrophe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.248.132 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game created 

message: I have sonething I wanted to point out. It seems as if the last edit, made by User:Badger Drink, was vandalism, giving a poor edit summary, especially since there was an original synopsis page proving that there was a lost scene to this film. Please revert his edit to the prior good version.
98.254.83.35 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done. While the user removed a rather large section, none of the information was sourced with reliable sources and contained mostly original research (please see WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:OR). ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 05:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 98.254.83.35, 21 February 2011 

message: This revision might actually have more support from the cited source. Also, it incldes less info than necessary. 
===Lost scene=== 
When The Yankee Doodle Mouse was re-issued in 1951, the title card was also re-issued to show an Oscar, and there had been a sequence leading into what was the second war communique. The original title card and this scene are both currently "lost". This lost scene takes place after Jerry hits Tom repeatedly with a board while the flour-filled air obscures Tom's vision, and before we see Tom wearing a pot on his head as a helmet. In the original, when Jerry runs off, Tom follows and jams his head into Jerry's mouse hole. However, Jerry uses a wrench to pin him inside, then proceeds to wet stamps on Tom's tongue and paste them into a book. The scene then dissolves into a second war communique, which reads: "Enemy gets in a few good licks! Signed, Lt. Jerry Mouse." 
   
The original plot synopsis has been tracked down and can be seen here in its entirety, showing that there is indeed a lost scene.  The page showcasing this scene can be seen here.  
98.254.83.35 (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Entire section removed by another user because it was poorly sourced. Please see our documentation on identifying reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this page is actually credible, since it contains an original plot synopsis uncovered at the Library of Congress, along with the page showcasing the actual scene. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 98.254.83.35, 21 February 2011 

message: When The Yankee Doodle Mouse was re-issued in 1951, the title card was also re-issued to show an Oscar, and there had been a sequence leading into what was the second war communique. The original title card and this scene are both currently "lost". This lost scene takes place after Jerry hits Tom repeatedly with a board while the flour-filled air obscures Tom's vision, and before we see Tom wearing a pot on his head as a helmet. In the original, when Jerry runs off, Tom follows and jams his head into Jerry's mouse hole. However, Jerry uses a wrench to pin him inside, then proceeds to wet stamps on Tom's tongue and paste them into a book. The scene then dissolves into a second war communique, which reads: "Enemy gets in a few good licks! Signed, Lt. Jerry Mouse." 
   
The original plot synopsis has been tracked down and can be seen here in its entirety, showing that there is indeed a lost scene.  The page showcasing this scene can be seen here.  
98.254.83.35 (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Entire section removed by another user because it was poorly sourced. Please see our documentation on identifying reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this page is actually credible, since it contains an original plot synopsis uncovered at the Library of Congress, along with the page showcasing the actual scene. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost scene

message: Sorry,  but I just can't take "no" for an answer, especially since the info comes from a credibe source, and a script stored at the Library of Congress.
===Lost scene=== 
When The Yankee Doodle Mouse was re-issued in 1951, the title card was also re-issued to show an Oscar, and there had been a sequence leading into what was the second war communique. The original title card and this scene are both currently "lost". This lost scene takes place after Jerry hits Tom repeatedly with a board while the flour-filled air obscures Tom's vision, and before we see Tom wearing a pot on his head as a helmet. In the original, when Jerry runs off, Tom follows and jams his head into Jerry's mouse hole. However, Jerry uses a wrench to pin him inside, then proceeds to wet stamps on Tom's tongue and paste them into a book. The scene then dissolves into a second war communique, which reads: "Enemy gets in a few good licks! Signed, Lt. Jerry Mouse." 
   
The original plot synopsis has been tracked down and can be seen here in its entirety, showing that there is indeed a lost scene.  The page showcasing this scene can be seen here.  
P.S. Check for reissue dates of MGM cartoons.
98.254.83.35 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The claims are still original research on your part based on an unreliable blog source - which does NOT lay out the specific claims you are trying to add. Please see our documentation on identifying reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry Mike, but, if it were up to me, you have no say in this. Leave the response to an administrator instead, or someone that can ACTUALLY decide how reliable a blog may be as a source. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, 98.254.83.35, but I was perfectly within my rights to reject your request - had you actually read the template, you would have noticed this line: "The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user." No mention of admins there, nor do I need you to tell me what's reliable or not. Had you actually read WP:RS (which would lead you specifically to WP:BLOGS), you would know not to use a blog as a reference - especially when the specific claim as presented in your edit request is NOT specifically laid out at that blog. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 98.254.83.35, 26 February 2011 

message: When The Yankee Doodle Mouse was re-issued in 1951, the title card was also re-issued to show an Oscar, and there had been a sequence leading into what was the second war communique. The original title card and this scene are both currently "lost". This lost scene takes place after Jerry hits Tom repeatedly with a board while the flour-filled air obscures Tom's vision, and before we see Tom wearing a pot on his head as a helmet. In the original, when Jerry runs off, Tom follows and jams his head into Jerry's mouse hole. However, Jerry uses a wrench to pin him inside, then proceeds to wet stamps on Tom's tongue and paste them into a book. The scene then dissolves into a second war communique, which reads: "Enemy gets in a few good licks! Signed, Lt. Jerry Mouse." 
   
The original plot synopsis has been tracked down and can be seen here in its entirety, showing that there is indeed a lost scene.  The page showcasing this scene can be seen here.  
P.S. Check for reissue dates of MGM cartoons.
98.254.83.35 (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The claims are still original research on your part based on an unreliable blog source - which does NOT lay out the specific claims you are trying to add. Please see our documentation on identifying reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry Mike, but, if it were up to me, you have no say in this. Leave the response to an administrator instead, or someone that can ACTUALLY decide how reliable a blog may be as a source. 98.254.83.35 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, 98.254.83.35, but I was perfectly within my rights to reject your request - had you actually read the template, you would have noticed this line: "The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user." No mention of admins there, nor do I need you to tell me what's reliable or not. Had you actually read WP:RS (which would lead you specifically to WP:BLOGS), you would know not to use a blog as a reference - especially when the specific claim as presented in your edit request is NOT specifically laid out at that blog. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost scene

message: This is the original editor again. Following my comment in 2011, several revolting developments took me away from this topic, so I was unable to follow up on this discussion. Rest assured though that the topic is anything but closed in my mind.
In my opinion, the fact that there is something in the Library of Congress concerning this (and it's not a "script", as someone suggested; this is the description of the film as written by the studio offices when the film's finished) is reason enough for this to be in the article, as well as the fact that it was cited by an animation historian who is known by other prominent people in the animation industry: surely if it wasn't credible, we would know about it by now.
However, I can see your point, Iniced, that this is an old topic: it's because it's been out of sight of most readers, and "out of sight, out of mind" comes into play. Thus, I will take you up on your offer of renewing the discussion and put the section back in - tonight - in order to do such; I and others of my opinion will argue my case here on the Talk page in what will probably be a huge blowback.
If revisions need to be made, fine; Wikipedia is about evolving knowledge and getting the best information from several viewpoints, right? I look forward to arguing my point of view soon.
71.183.133.206 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk has now reopened on the lost sequence, and will resume 

message: er yea i know a few mouths ago i said in words this case is closed. and since doing that noone has talked about it again. so i am now marking it closed with a section nameing it as closed.  
this section is staying at the bottom of the page. i feel it sould be here. unless someday lots of people start talking again about the lost sequence. 
--Iniced (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lost sequence. new section marking that this case has been closed for good. 

message: 72.74.69.128 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017