Wikipedia

Talk:Mary Elizabeth Winstead/Archive 1

< Talk:Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I Think we need to put an image on the article page. Thief Lord 14:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider it done. JackO'Lantern 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Thief Lord 13:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please don't use non-free images to illustrate this article per WP:NFCC#1. I'm currently working on obtaining a freely-licensed image. Videmus Omnia 15:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, a Flickr photographer donated an image for use, I've added it. Videmus Omnia 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually got permission for a second one better suited to the infobox, updated. Videmus Omnia 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Great work.Gunslinger 04:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wow, am i the only one who thinks the current photo of Mary is definitely not a photo of Mary? It doesn't look like her at all. Maybe it's just a bad angle or something, but that woman looks like she's almost 40! Ckolar612 05:48, 3 Aug 2010 (UTC)

It's the lightning and the way her hair is done. Definitely is her. Not sure if the previous photo needed changing though, but oh well. Nymf hideliho! 23:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

for gods sakes, get a real photo of her, this girl is so attractive its not funny. Someone for the love of god find a proper pic of her, thanks

Support?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not exactly sure I would call her role in Sky High a support role, she's the main villain. I have changed it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.134.8 (talk) 20:47, December 26, 2006

Someone changed it back. I'll Re-correct Herogamer (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Scott Pilgrim mention in the lead

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't understand the resistance to keeping the mention of her role in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. It is a lead role in a major motion picture; without it, I would never have heard of her and I would not have her article watchlisted. The lead is short enough already, you have no rationale for removing this important fact and making her appear like a B-rate horror movie nobody. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

confirm photo id

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone who's familiar with Mary Elizabeth Winstead please confirm if Commons:File:Actress at Scream 2007 Awards.jpg is actually her, as I believe it was mislabeled as someone else before. I don't care if we use it in this article right now, but I just want to properly categorize & name it in Commons, for possible future use. --Rob (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It does look like that's Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the photo--GroovySandwich 03:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
That definetly is Mary Elizabeth Wintead. I looked on Google for a photo of her at the Scream Awards and I found a photo of her there with the same dress, hairstyle, etc. I'm No Winner (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

New pictures?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One to accompany the "Indie film route" section, and perhaps a new cover photo? She's attended many events in 2013, so it must be fairly easy to find some apt pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairolfitri (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Early career

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's been awhile, so I'm not sure this is the right place to raise this, but I notice in the section "Early Career," there's a reference to Ms. Winstead having appeared on Broadway, in a production of JOSEPH AND THE AMAZING TECHNICOLOR DREAMCOAT, starring Donny Osmond, around 1997. The thing is, I find no mention at all of Donny Osmond having played that role on Broadway, or of Ms. Winstead having appeared on Broadway in any show. I suspect she may well have performed in the show somewhere else, when Donny Osmond was starring in it.

Actually, the article that is referenced at that point, from GQ Magazine, does not state that either Ms. Winstead or Mr. Osmond performed in JOSEPH on Broadway. IBDB.com is usually pretty reliable on matters like this, and it lists three Broadway credits for Donny Osmond [1], and none for Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Also, there was no production of JOSEPH... running on Broadway in 1997, according to IBDB.com. Should that part of the article be changed accordingly? Toscaskiss32 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ibdb.com/Person/View/55246
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of iCloud leaks of celebrity photos?

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Mary Winstead was one of several hundred celebs that had personal photos stolen and leaked. I rather suspect it is an incident she would like to forget. Mentioning it here without indication of possible impact on her career seems a bit much and I am inclined to remove the relevant sentence. Thoughts? Plus a wider question: Do all victims of the hack have it listed at their bios? Should they? Has this been discussed elsewhere already? --Hillbillyholiday talk 12:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the point, such incident is totally irrelevant, those are private photos, most of them are SELFIES, is this information relevant for an Encyclopaedia?? of course not...Talking about the BLPs, 95% of them are free of such tabloidy inseRtion (see Kirsten Dunst, Mischa Barton... NO IMPACT AT ALL ON THEIR CAREERS, so, save the chattery for Daily Mail, E! Entertainment, and their fan sites, not for an Encyclopaedia, I agree..it should be removed FinalPoint1988 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The topic is already discussed. And if it was found inappropriate, then it wouldn't be in the featured articles such as Jennifer Lawrence. Sebastian James (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Where was the topic discussed? Lawrence's bio being an FA is pretty meaningless -- it is one of the worst FAs on the project for a start -- and like many celeb bios it is just a repository for any old media tittle-tattle with virtually no decent secondary sources to provide perspectve. One could at least make a plausible case for reference to the leaks there, as Lawrence was particularly vocal about it; she was later interviewed by Vogue, her comments about the leak were then reported by the BBC among others.
But bar a brief comment immediately after the leak (and her leaving twitter for a short time), Winstead hasn't had much to say to about it. If the event had led to her becoming some kind of privacy activist (cf. Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan, etc.) or led to her quitting acting or something, then it would probably be pertinent. As it stands, I think not. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree Hillbilly, actually, in 2009, during the early career of Lawrence, I was one of the editors of her article, almost nobody knew her; well, since her performance on Winter's bone and Hunger Games lots of editors began adding chattery, gossip and trivial details, but nobody says anything about that 'cause it is a FA, mmm, the same thing with Britney Spears GA!! and...one of the worst FAs Kanye West..just take a look.. Kanye_West#Award_shows..verbosity, puffery, GOSSIP...such things (like the Nude leaks stuff) are totally unencyclopaedic, Non-Senses...I think there is too much missing info (debut details, milestones, early life...) which should be included instead of such trivialities.....We must not forget the name and LEVEL of this site.. Wikipedia, the free ENCYCLOPAEDIA FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
"Where was the topic discussed?" It has been 3 years since. I don't remember, just look up for the talk pages and their archives.
I certainly disagree that Jennifer Lawrence is a "pretty meaningless" featured article. It was determined jointly by Wikipedia's editors. Featured articles are the best articles on Wikipedia. If this was an ordinary status, then every article on the Wikipedia would have been a featured article...
"...in 2009, during the early career of Lawrence, I was one of the editors of her article, almost nobody knew her; well, since her performance on Winter's bone and Hunger Games lots of editors began adding chattery, gossip and trivial details..". LOL. (These comments are hilarious.) You mean there has been thousands of editings, but NONE of the editors opposed the article for being featured?
"...one of the worst FAs Kanye West..just take a look.. Kanye_West#Award_shows..verbosity, puffery, GOSSIP..." Hahaha! Another hilarious comment! First of all, Kanye West is not a featured article, it is a good article. Second of all, there is a big section named: CONTROVERSIES. Do you know what that means? I think you should search it, and read "how to write a good article on Wikipedia". Good luck!
"I think there is too much missing info (debut details, milestones, early life...) which should be included instead of such trivialities.....We must not forget the name and LEVEL of this site.. Wikipedia, the free ENCYCLOPAEDIA". Did you find the missing infos. If you did, why didn't you add them? Oh, i almost forgot, after you read "how to write a good article on Wikipedia", you should also read some encyclopedia books.
I think i wrote enough, if you still want to discuss this issue, then I think you should take this to a more common place. Warmthness, Sebastian James (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Art of Self-Defense

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

There is no news about her involvement in this film except a source that is about the pre-production process of the film back in 2016. She wasn't listed in the cast list, and the filming has started. Moreover, there is a user that doesn't understand what is written and keeps this info without stating much. I suggest that we should wait 'til we get an official announcement. Sebastian James (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finally coming to the talk page instead of continuing to edit war. Without stating much??? I have repeatedly told you that the information currently in the article is reliably sourced, that you have not provided a reliable source stating that she has been removed from the film, and that fansites are not reliable sources. Yet you persist in removing properly sourced information against policy, falsely claiming support at WP:FILM. If she is officially off the project, that information will find its way to a reliable source. Until you find that reliable source, stop removing the sourced information. And one more point: stop the personalized comments about me as you have done on my talk page and above. Comment on content, not contributors. Sundayclose (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Whoa! Let's start with "...continuing to edit war...": I don't see that as a "war" or whatever, but it seems like you clearly want yours to be done, (see "do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point")
"you have not provided a reliable source stating that she has been removed from the film, and that fansites are not reliable sources": First of all, I PUT THE FIRST SOURCE IN EDIT SUMMARY TO SHOW THE CAST LISTING, and THE SECOND FANSITE SOURCE INCLUDES ALL THE NEWS LINKS ABOUT THE FILM, I DIDN'T PUT IT AS A SOURCE, IT IS IN THE EDIT SUMMARY.
"falsely claiming support at WP:FILM": I have already fixed that to WP:CRYSTAL. THE SOURCE WHICH IS "RELIABLE" FROM 2016, THE FILM'S PRE-PRODUCTION & DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, CLEARLY STATES THAT SHE WAS THE LEAD FOR THAT TIME. And this doesn't match with WP:CRYSTAL.
"personalized comment": I'm really dying to send another two messages to you, you know. You started to send messages to my talk page, and you "wasted your time" after I wrote a message and you replied. I would never message you if you hadn't sent me messages and understood what is written. You sent really disturbing messages, and it seems like you were bad-tempered and unwelcoming with other contributors, so assume good faith, kindness won't harm. Sebastian James (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm waiting for your reliable source that Winstead is not in the cast. When you provide that, this issue will be settled. Until you find it, stop ranting, drop the stick, and move on. Sundayclose (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
As I stated above, one can clearly conclude that YOU need to prove your pre-production source with a reliable new one if she is still in the cast. Until one finds that source, the sentence will need its clarification. You are the one who still wants to reply, as I already stated everything above. I'm not the one who uses negative imperatives and behaves unkindly. Sebastian James (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Please link the policy that states that it is appropriate to remove well sourced information without another reliable source that contradicts it. Until then, move on. 15:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Elizabeth_Winstead/Archive_1&oldid=1216703061"