User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

re:American Pie

Hi there - I understand the concern about this article but the rule of thumb for a long while now is that song articles are about songs and not "singles", per se. Madonna's cover (even thought it's probably the most atrocious thing she ever recorded) is most definitely a notable part of the song's history and is a UK chart-topper also. That said, her section is a bit overwhelming and I think that track listing stuff could seriously use a pruning (or removal), but I think the better solution would be to beef up the McLean section rather than spin off Madonna's. If interested, you can check out about a zillion other articles where the original and notable cover versions are on the same page: I Love Rock 'n' Roll, Venus (Shocking Blue song), I Think We're Alone Now, You Keep Me Hangin' On, You Can't Hurry Love, It's My Life (Talk Talk song), Always on My Mind, Dear Prudence, Walk This Way, etc., etc., etc. - eo (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! Thought you may be interested in getting a real discussion started about a consensus for song cover versions. Looks like editors may want to tackle the issue here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Rules for a cover version getting a separate article. Later! - eo (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rex

I know, it's weird. I agreed with Rossrs when he suspected it was HC, but now this Granville person pops up. Perhaps HC has adopted a new British persona or something. Whoever he/she is, they're annoying. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Annoying is a nice way of saying it, Pink) Rossrs (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

K is a star. She's done very well!  :-) Rossrs (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the WP:Wikihounding continues

Viriditas not only opened up a new ANI section on both Yachtman1, who was a target in the Jonestown part of the campaign, and I -- but he/she failed to give any notice of the new section to me. The same overt baseless attacks, claiming the RfCU was part of a "harrassment" of him/her, when in fact it was at the request of Administrators and editors , such as here, here and here. I dropped you this note because you commented on teh RfCU.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Helter Skelter talk page

I want to bring your attention to "Supposed" — a section I've just added to the talk page of "Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)." It might be a useful reference in future discussions of Manson articles. (After posting it, I carried out the revision it is intended to support.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Whitman

Perhaps we can compromise with:

Gary Lavergne published "A Sniper in the Tower" in 1997. In a non-medical opinion, Lavergne ultimately...

Seem good? The point aside from the paper reference was the undue weight that I think "ultimately" clears up, as it is the summation of the entirety of the book and doesn't make it seem as if the author made a blanket dismissal. Let me know what you think. Keegan (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, I've made the edit. Thanks for the collaboration. Keegan (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm kinda the new guy here. I wasn't aware that "pop culture" sections were as taboo as "trivia" ones now. I read up on the WP:POPCULTURE page and I understand your argument better now; though I still think if kept to a reasonable length there is no harm in adding one. I don't want to argue the point really, I'm just learning the ropes and throwing it out there. Chamelion117 (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Reese Witherspoon

Don't engage. Just my advice. The fact that the editor in question wikistalked you over there and now has a magical problem with a featured article's content stands on its own, but avoid getting sucked into the vortex of yet another endless debate. It's what the offender wants. don't rise to the bait.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Note the aggressive response. Again, do not rise to the bait. The issue was previously resolved.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett

She's quite the chameleon. Elizabeth I, Katharine Hepburn, Bob Dylan and now this. I'm thinking "serious Oscar contender"! Rossrs (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Good news

Yes I did notice, and you're welcome. I'm glad it was wrapped up quickly. Rossrs (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness. Congrats, have a great fourth!!--Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jane Fonda

Thank you for the explanation. Yes the persecution of Ms Fonda is curious. When President Reagan laid flowers on on the grave of an SS Sgt during a visit to Germany, Human Rights groups were outraged but the incident was soon forgotten. The image of Ms Fonda's visit to Hanoi is repeated ad nauseum. I know this sounds like a technicality, but to my knowledge the United States of America was not officially at war with North Vietnam when Ms Fonda visit the country. The Authorities in Washington only classified that country as 'Hostile Territory'. A visit by an American to a 'Hostile Territory' is remembered for ever, the laying of Flowers by an American on the grave of an SS Sgt is forgotten in a week.Johnwrd (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy

Happy 4th of July to you, by the way.

I've removed the Academy Award tables from Spencer Tracy and have commented on the talk page. I don't understand why so much emphasis has to be placed on awards, especially when the article itself is well below but what an actor of his calibre deserves. Rossrs (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and I'll keep an eye on it too. Here's a bit of fun if you're interested, in the form of 80s Australian pop music. This video features the debut performance of a now very prominent actress, and the video is mentioned in the Wikipedia article for this actress.

If you watch it here the name of the person flashes at the bottom of the screen shortly into the video, but after she's appeared.

If you want to watch it and try to spot her yourself, you could try here but there's a very annoying time countdown in the top right corner.

Just a diversion. They played this on TV this morning in their countdown of "Top Number 2 songs of the 80s", and I was transported back to 1983, which is probably the last time I saw the video. (There's also a girl who looks very much like Naomi Watts, but I don't know about that. It's possible.) Rossrs (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, yes it ruined the surprise. I was surprised how mature she looks, because she must have been about 16 in the video. It was one of my favourite songs of the time and a huge hit, but I didn't become aware of Kidman until a few years later. She was in a mini-series called Bangkok Hilton (if you click on the link you can check out a seriously bad perm; for that alone she should have been shot) about a tourist falsely accused of drug-trafficking and sentenced to death. It was brilliant, and I've liked her ever since. I must see Australia. She's incredibly annoying in the previews so I keep stalling - much as I like her. Yes, she's aging well indeed. Rossrs (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Tom Cruise's biggest fan but Far and Away wasn't bad. I paid good money to see it, and it was a long time ago, but I can't remember walking out of the cinema wanting my money back. I think he's occasionally good and I liked Vanilla Sky, Minority Report and Collateral, and I thought his smarminess worked well in Lions for Lambs. I agree that he was miscast in Interview With the Vampire. I was so looking forward to that film and I felt let down by it. He was very cold, but Lestat is full of passion, torment and sensuality. Brad Pitt wasn't a big name then, but I think he could have done it. On another note, I watched Valkyrie on Friday night, and I think it's a better film than its reviews and box office results would indicate. The level of detail is stunning, and filming in actual locations also made it special. Cruise was excellent I thought. I think he often seems a bit detached and overly noble, and yet in this particular role, that persona fitted very well, plus there is no denying his resemblance to Stauffenberg. I read that the marketing was changed to take the focus off the theme of a German war hero. Too difficult for people to swallow, I guess. Rossrs (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cover versions"

Hi there, I hope this finds you in better health than your talkpage suggests. Rather than clutter up the discussion at Cover Versions I thought I would ask here. I agree with you regarding Candle in the Wind because of the different words and the cultural impact is significant without any doubt. I agree the Madonna version is notable which is why it has it's own section in the song article - in fact somebody should at least rearrange the order of the sections so Madonna comes immediately after the McLean version. But I do not know of any reason why the Madonna version should be split into a separate article - it is the same song, it has the the same (truncated) lyrics, it is in a different style, but that's usually true of most "cover versions" If you can I would appreciate seeing a little "Ray of Light" on this! Regards and thanks. BTW What I really don't want to see is for the merge to become policy but with the barn door left so wide open that every alternative version is "notable" enough for it's own article anyway. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see your point, but I think Wolfer68 has raised a solution for that. I also think the McLean part needs beefing up too. Sorry, I had you down as a Madonna fan. My apologies! LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

The wikihounding campiagn of user:Viriditas against you was reported here: [1] Like I said earlier, do not respond, avoid conflict. Hopefully, an admin, will stop this and we can all edit in peace in our own respective corners of the sandbox.  :) Seriously, everyone needs to cool off for awhile.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rourke

I always think the tooshort tag is one of the most pointless tags there is on Wikipedia. If the lead is only "Mickey Rourke is an American actor" I would have kept the tag, but this already has a longer lead. Nevertheless, I see Viriditas has already added it back. Regarding filmographies, I agree that if a seperate article is there for the filmography, a {{main}} link is enough. Otherwise how do you decide which films should be in the summary and which not? And despite Viriditas's comment on my talk, I don't see any table on Bette Davis. Garion96 (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nor will you. The only answer about how to decide which films to use in the summary, is to exercise POV, and that is one of the best reasons for not doing it. Rossrs (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, now I am confused. There comment referred to, includes Vivien Leigh and Judy Garland. Leigh's article has an award table, and Garland's a series of succession boxes, but no filmography table. Rossrs (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And about Judy

Yes, I noticed the Garland image was changed without discussion. Although, somebody stumbled by and added the image that I preferred, so I can't argue with the choice :-) I specifically uploaded the image for two other editors to look at, and they've made other edits since without commenting, including several to the talk page, so my attitude to that now is "why the hell did I even bother?" and "I won't be doing that again." Then again, why should I expect courtesy? I should just appreciate it where I find it. End of disgruntled comment. Rossrs (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Baby blues

Slightly??? Don't you mean "horrendously"?  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

They were. My father had the most amazing blue eyes, but I didn't inherit them from him, unfortunately. I hope Paul Newman realized how lucky he was.

On the subject of POV, I'm about to dive into another article and remove this (and some other things just as inappropriate) :

Every now and then God bestows an extraordinary gift—whether it be intelligence, beauty of form, beauty of voice or character—onto a mortal, not as a personal possession but as the means of offering profound happiness to the world, most of all to the lives of other human beings. Such a treasure becomes a ceaseless responsibility—a jewel to be guarded with utmost care—to be cared for and manifested with wisdom and virtue. How far in this mission Deanna Durbin’s golden voice, and personality succeeded— only her life can tell. Everything but a rainbow shooting out of her posterior. Rossrs (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Deanna Durbin. Well, yeah. She made the angels weep. Good for her. Speaking of weeping angels, you should look at this Australia's Top Fifty Singles Chart in which Michael Jackson has 17 entries. I've never seen anything like this. Of course, Elvis died before internet downloads. I'm off to bed. 12.45am here, and I start dealing with the general public at exactly 8.00am and Monday's are busy. urg. I'll be yawning all day. Rossrs (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Tina Turner lists

Don't wish to start a fight, but just to clarify why this is spam: Turner's listed in quite a few places, but only a handful of these are listed in her see also section. Not every internal link needs to be reciprocated in the target article. Flowerparty^☀ 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Public Enemies"

Carryover from Talk:John Dillinger... an unsolicited review.

I saw the picture last week at a matinee in the middle of a Biblical downpour here in New England. The audience was a weird assortment of elderly couples, college kids, and many, many, many unaccompanied adult males over 50. I sat in the 5th row, as I always do when I go to the movies alone. I thoroughly enjoyed it, the critics notwithstanding; in fact, I'd see it again just for the buildings. Director Michael Mann and crew seem to have found every untarnished Chicago building of 1910-1930s vintage, and made wonderful use of these interiors. Just lovely. And the clothes and the cars... Basically, it's a Hollywood Movie, with gunfights and car chases and pretty girls and nightclubs and blood and wisecracking thugs and sympathetic villains and cops who glower from under the brims of their fedoras. How could you ever want more than that for your (matinee) $7 admission?

Some of the puristy critics moan that it's not completely historically accurate, it's meandering, it needs "focus" or a "purpose", and similar artsy-fartsy complaints. I loved every minute of it. You probably will, too. Seduisant (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could write 10,000 words about Johnny Depp and still never scratch the surface, but three things will have to suffice, namely (1) Johnny Depp picks the best roles to play in the best movies of any actor, ever (D. Hoffman had a chance, I once thought, when he followed Ben Braddock in "The Graduate" with Ratso Rizzo, but he is an insect compared to JD; (2) his decision to star in "Dead Man," a wonderfully cast and thoroughly hallucinatory film, perfectly makes my Point #1 QED, and (3) there should be a special award created - given out only once, and then retired forever - in Depp's honor just for his performance in "Ed Wood." Nothing really more to say about this, just jaw-dropping, pure respect. EW and Mulholland Drive are the only two movies I can recall that I can watch over and over and over etc. as many times as possible and never grow weary of. Enough, already... Seduisant (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Melcher transcript

Just want to direct your attention to remarks I’ve posted on the talk page of the "Charles Manson" article. They’re headed "Melcher transcript" and have to do with a link that I added to the article and that another editor reasonably deleted.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Manson article

Just want to let you know I wouldn't be the least bit bothered if you were to do whatever you think appropriate or necessary to get the "Charles Manson" article into shape for Good Article or Featured Article candidacy. When you and I had our difficulties — a year or two ago — on that subject, all I was trying to say was that I personally do not attach any importance to Good Article or Featured Article status and that I would prefer not to see anything cut out of the article to pursue that. That was all. I wasn't saying I would try to stop you from cutting the article — or that I would change the article back to its long version if you were to cut it — or whatever. I was simply saying, "I like the article the way it is. I don't care whether somebody else thinks it's a Good Article."

I bring this up now simply because you've commented a few times — on the Manson talk page — about the abandoned pursuit of Good Article or Featured Article status. I easily conclude that you really would like to see the article win such status. Great — do what you want with it. I won't get in your way.

You might recall that, a few months ago, an editor posted a talk-page comment in which he/she said that the article's prose was awkward. As the person who probably crafted most of the awkward sentences that annoyed that editor, I had to agree. In the course of making my own contributions to the article, I often ended up with awkward wordings, as I struggled to make sure the sentences accurately reflected the information in the footnotes that were intended to support them. If this were my own website — instead of Wikipedia — I would probably go back through the article — now that the facts seem to me basically to have been nailed down — and try to smooth the prose out. In fact, I'd probably even restate some of the facts themselves; but this is, in fact, Wikipedia — a creature all its own — where it seems best at some point to stop fussing with rewordings and adjustments that will simply invite back-and-forth editing etc. I'm pleased to know that the story of Manson and his crimes and his associates has been told basically-accurately and with some thoroughness — and with several links to "primary sources" (the Watson autobiography, court transcripts, and so on). With all of its defects, the article fulfills, I think, its primary purpose — to inform.

Again — do what you want with the article. You won't get any trouble from me; and as I say, I didn't mean to give you trouble before. I was simply saying, "Why change it?" I wasn't saying, "Don't change it."

In case my opinion's worth anything to you: You're a good egg.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad I was wrong to conclude that GA or FA status is still on your mind. Until you responded to my talk-page entry about the "forum" link, I'd not realized that the nature of some of the article's links would be questioned during GA/FA review, but you know I wouldn't have a command of Wikipedia's policies about that sort of thing. I guess that that subject has simply never come up — because I don't recall your mentioning it before.

Anyway — you're certainly right that the stability is an accomplishment. Of course, the vandals helped — by hitting the article so frequently that they got themselves locked out.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Borden Skulls

Sorry. My bad. I was there a few weeks ago with a group from the Lizzie Borden Forum. Only the photos were there. I made my first of several visits to the house in 2005 (sleeping in the murder room). I learned then that the skulls had been buried in the graves of their possessors (in boxes, I believe, a couple of feet deep, if my tour guide's information is reliable). Kostaki mou (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Borden Forum

May I invite you to join us (if you are not already a member). It's a nice and interesting bunch of people if I do say so myself. Kostaki mou (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

lizzieandrewborden.com This will link you to the forum and to several other Lizzie sites (Lizzie Web, for example, where you can find most of the primary sources including the entire trial transcript.) Enjoy! Kostaki mou (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Quote" template

The "quote" template you added to the Juan Flynn statement in the Manson article didn't seem to be displaying the quotation properly, so I took a guess at completing it (the template). I hope I got it right.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes — that footnote number did look weird, on a line by itself like that.

You're right that the quotations in the Los Angeles article are interesting. The article came to my attention via the "Official Tate-La Bianca Murders Blog," where scans of the article's entire multi-page print version have been posted. (Scroll down to the entry of June 24.) The blog also posted an October 1969 Los Angeles article that the magazine's website has posted as an archival companion to the "oral history." It's here.

On the latter article's third page is a comment about "speed." When I read that, I recalled some things Tex Watson had said about speed in his autobiography — so I added a section headed "Use of 'speed'" to Wikipedia's Tex Watson article.

Did you add the "quote" template simply as a flourish?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

After I let you know about the "speed" portion of the Watson article, I became aware of your revision of it and thus realized you'd already seen it. The removal of my parenthetical speculation about "amphetamine" doesn't bother me at all. I'd included it only because I wasn't sure the reader would have any idea what "speed" meant. By the time I got to the Los Angeles magazine quote, which explains what "speed" means (and thus made the parenthetical remark unnecessary), I was no longer thinking about what I'd put in parentheses. If I had, indeed, thought of it at that point, I probably would have deleted it myself.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Were you wrong?

Ha! No! I suppose one of the "rules" he isn't interested in, is the one about civility. It's a shame that that we actually need a rule telling people (with lives) to be polite. I guess all that life experience hasn't taught manners.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know all the details of the incident, but 40 years is a long time to condemn someone, and who is to say that the people who feel passionately about it, have chosen to educate themselves with all the facts before they comment. Possibly not, human nature being what it is. After 40 years, the Jane Fonda of today may not entirely agree with the actions of Jane Fonda of then. There are some very hot topics, aren't there? Rossrs (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't read the "regrets" section, and now that I have, I don't know what more she could have said to address the situation. It seems she well and truly took responsibility for her actions. Most people did not have the platform on which to much such an error of judgement. I understand that Vietnam was divisive, and it was also divisive here, with the additional resentment against "why are we sending our sons to fight America's war?", especially when the majority of Australian troops were draftees. On the other hand, geographically we're closer and there has always been a fear (paranoia) of invasion from Asia. We have such a huge northern coastline, and whether it was Japanese forces during World War II (which actually did get close enough to attack), communist forces from North Vietnam, or more recently, Indonesia, there's always a wariness about a potential threat being relatively close. I think initially the Vietnam War was easier to sell to Australians, for these reasons, but ultimately it became very controversial. Rossrs (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Chuck

Hi, and thanks for the lovely comment. I've replied at User talk:Monkeyzpop#Charlton Heston, and I would value your opinion. I'm not sure of the best way of dealing with it, and I'm glad User:Monkeyzpop noticed it and questioned it. I think we need to think of something that specifically addresses Heston's situation, because it is a little out of the ordinary. Rossrs (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I have had the experience, although not as bad as in your case. It is ridiculous you have to put up with this. It is such a waste of time and brain damage. At least I hope the more such cases are brought to light, the more we can bring about precedent and ask for more rapid and effective admin intervention in the future. Unfortunately, only when cases are brought to ArbCom, policy changes can occur. Dc76\^talk 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Heston situation is a little more specific than his merely being folksy. His autobiographies are very clear that the area was actually known as "No Man's Land," an unincorporated but quite distinct (and distinctly named) area between Chicago and Evanston. I'm the original WP source for both the Heston information and the references to this area in the No Man's Land and Evanston articles. There are quite a number of additional sources beyond Heston for the specificity of the name. One of them ( http://www.chicagopremierproperties.com/neighborhood_details.php?nID=9 ) both clarifies and confuses the issue, since it makes a good case for Heston's birthplace being in what is now actually nearby Wilmette rather than Evanston. Here's the quote: In 1942, Wilmette's boundaries were further expanded when No Man's Land, the triangle of land near the lake and bordering Kenilworth, was annexed after years of legal and legislative battles. Zoning changes in No Man's Land would allow for the construction of highrise condominium apartment buildings.... The changes in No Man's Land altered the character of the lakefront and brought in new retail and multi-family housing to Wilmette. Other sources for the specific area being specifically defined and named No Man's Land are found at http://www.believermag.com/issues/200802/?read=article_biss , at http://www.movie-theatre.org/usa/il/chicago/evanston.pdf . http://ageless-northshore.com/plaza-de-lago-art-fair/ is another. No Man's Land is described and defined in the WPA Illinois Guide by the Federal Writers Project. Newspaper articles, such as this one in the local Chicago Daily Herald of January 10, 1936 ("Wooden Structure Burns Quickly at No Man's Land"), referred to it by this name and as a separate entity. The fact that Heston's birthplace was neither in Evanston nor in Wilmette (nor Chicago nor Kenilworth, for that matter) at the time it occurred, and the fact that Heston is pointed in his references as to the separate identity (I've read all the pertinent matter in his autobiographies, which expands on what is available at Google books), suggests that WP in the interests of accuracy make note of this locale and its one-time actual name. To clarify things a little, I'm going to create an article on No Man's Land, Illinois, which will describe the history of the area and note its subsequent annexation, and also provide a specific link instead of the one to the generic no man's land article, which really needs to be separated, familiar as it is as a warfare term. I'll post this to rossr's page, too. Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Depp

Um, I couldn't help but notice the comment above. To the casual reader, it looks like I'm walking on dangerous ground with my Charlton Heston comments to you. Don't take me to Arb.com over it. You can write the article any way you want.  :-) Anyway, I've been cropping a few infobox images, Scarlett Johannsen, Robert Redford, Robert Duvall and ...... Johnny Depp. You know how it makes me crazy when random body parts appear, well I thought the bloke behind Johnny needed to go. I think I've made it a bit too tall and thin now. Do you think it sits OK within the infobox. I left the bare chest for your enjoyment, but do you think it looks ok, or should it come up a bit further under his collar? I thought about cloning away the background to remove the other person, but I have a lot of trouble with hair. I did it with Scarlett and Redford but not near their hair... very difficult. Rossrs (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what is with Robert Redford's hair? I think Johnny looks better smaller. It's unfortunate that despite having several free photos of him, we don't have one excellent shot, but this is very good just the same. We've got some brilliant free images - the one of Scarlett is beautiful, the one of Madonna is my favourite, and there's even a great shot of (of all people) Eve Plumb, that shows her wrinkles and all, and it's a lovely photo, full of character. I've been going through some of the articles we discussed ages ago, and it's good to see that several of the images we discussed back then have been replaced with something better. One nice pic of Jessica Lange (or Holly Hunter) would be good; I live in hope that one day she will/they will step in front of User:David Shankbone and give him a smile. Rossrs (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC on extrasolar planet lists restructuring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_extrasolar_planets#Restructuring_discussion

If you belive this is worth your time, perhaps you could turn the attention of a few other people, besides the few people there already there, that you think would not mind having a look/say. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Eric Stoltz

Ooh, I'm pleased. Very little potential, and it's not great, but from this to this Rossrs (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Britneyrocks

Hey, thanks for the notice. I do a decent amount of RC patrol, and so I've placed so many of these blocks it's impossible to keep track. I'll check out the contribs, but my advice to you is to make a WP:RFCU and, if verified, document the vandal at WP:LONGTERM. Sorry I can't be of more assistance, but again, I place so many vandalism blocks that I really have no memory of what you're talking about. ⟳ausa کui ^× 02:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Semantics vs essay

You're suggesting that I changed the tone for my own personal point of view. I explained in the comment section the reason to show the contrasts. "Although" doesn't convey the same direction for the reader to consider. "However" can go as well so it just reads "in contrast", because there is a glaring contrast in the two opinions. Semantically or not. Consider it as you will, I will not revert it, even though I feel it is weaker as it stands. God bess you and the savior Jesus Christ, I am only a slave their divine will! Peace!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to do that, let it stand.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Filmography

I have to admit, I've never really understood why one form of coding is preferable over another, so I've always been at a disadvantage when someone says that such-as-such code is more difficult for some users. I think it looks good, and as you said, in appearance, it's not different to what we've been using. If the coding is better, then I'm all for it, but you probably have a better understanding than I have. Rossrs (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's as clear to me as it's ever likely to be.  :-) I also like Hottie McHottie. This reminds me of The Simpsons episode, where Marge somehow ended up with a breast-enlargement and Homer wanted her to change her name to "Hooters McBoobity". She sensibly refused. Rossrs (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the references all say it was an allegation and they do not attach any kind of factuality to the statements, rather they are careful to consistently attribute the claim to the accuser only. The WP treatment is not so cautious. The external articles all convey that Costner kept a distance from the proceedings and that it was eventually described as a case between an employer and an employee. Again, WP is not giving the same kind of neutral treatment. It seems to me that after 3 years, if it was significant, there would be more than this little flurry of reports from the time. If it was true, couldn't Costner have been subject to a criminal charge? If not true, couldn't he have sued for slander. It's a very weird and isolated "contraversy". More like a storm in a teacup. I don't know what to make of it, other than it is out of place, and biased. Rossrs (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right and I've also commented. It annoys me no end, when people make an easy assumption of "oh you don't like it because you're a fan". Let's not assume that someone removed the information because they'd given it careful thought and reached a conclusion. No, let's just call them fans and thereby completely dismiss their viewpoint. Sheez! Rossrs (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Redford

Have you ever noticed that vandals have major problems spelling words with more than about 5 letters in them, such as what poor Robert Redford was allegedly doing when he allegedly died? If they're going to go to allllll the trouble of vandalising an article, couldn't they at least try to be funny and creative? Do they have to be so commonplace and boring? Is this as far as their intellect will stretch? Rossrs (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, yes! Yes, you did say that!  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - I just thought of something that amused me when I was at high school. We had a visit from a travelling art show, that displayed paintings and such, and it came in a little van with "artmobile" written down the side in red, curvy, 1970s lettering. A vandal had taken a spray can and painted a big, black upper-case "F" in front of "artmobile". I was thinking that it wasn't quite to my liking, when I overheard my art teacher complaining to the principal about how little care had been taken in matching the style and colour of the "F" with the rest of the lettering, and they were chuckling together and saying that if the "F" had been done right, it would have been funnier. That was exactly what I was thinking. Do it right, or don't do it! I burst out laughing when they said it, and I was told to go and look at the paintings, but they were still laughing while they were sending me away. I've thought that little exchange was hilarious for over 30 years. So, that's my complaint - vandals just don't put enough care or concern into what they're doing. Rossrs (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh that? Yeah, well I stole it from you actually, so that would explain the familiarity. I intend to change the colour etc, to make it different, but I had enough trouble making everything work. I'll fine-tune it. I see you moved furry. I saw him about 2 weeks ago. I noticed him walking a tightrope across the power lines outside and I went and watched him, and he jumped into a tree and then climbed right down to me. We stared at each other for a few awkward seconds, and then he jumped down and walked in front of me, and away, with his tail in the air, very snooty-like. I went inside to get him some carrot, but he wouldn't have it. He can't get back into the house, and I think there are hard feelings on his part, but I have no regrets. I was glad to know that he's still alive, and is obviously fending for himself. Rossrs (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I like that. Vandalism does require thought, and I think that it can be art, even if it very rarely is. How odd that you mention "Surrender Dorothy". I added some film quotes to my user page, which I'm sure you saw, and I was toying with "Surrender Dorothy". It has a slightly different meaning for me, because when I was in my teens there was a new-wavish band in Australia called "Surrender Dorothy", and I thought it was the most obscure name for a band. No hits though (because they weren't very good). How strange. Maybe I should include it.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've played with the colours a little. Furry was evicted. The man that came and fixed the house up, found four possible entry points and he blocked them all. The first night, furry made a hell of a racket trying to get in, and then he gave up. He's obviously found somewhere else. We have a shed in the back yard that he's welcome to, and although he was heading in that direction the night I saw him, I've seen no evidence of him in the shed. As long as he's OK.... Rossrs (talk)

I'll probably put furry back some time. I'm thinking about how to set out the page, and I haven't settled on it yet. You must have found my Heidi Klum comment. I'm irritated by her every time she opens her mouth, but I guess not everyone can love her. On the news tonight they showed some enhanced footage of the moon landing, which was taken from a low quality broadcast, and given the best Hollywood can offer. They were saying that NASA has lost the original footage, and after such a passage of time, can only assume it was taped over. Taped over?????? Surely someone's job was to make sure it was saved for posterity. I mean, a copy should have gone straight to the Library of Congress. I was surprised that it could have been lost so carelessly. Rossrs (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion of my +cat at Nicole Kidman

I request an explanation of this revert. To quote from the relevant section of that article,

Kidman is a practising Roman Catholic.ref She attended Mary Mackillop Chapel in North Sydney. During her marriage to Cruise, she had been an occasional practitioner of Scientology.ref.

Unless you question the veracity of the assertions made there, I find it curious that you would revert the inclusion of this article in Category:Former Scientologists. Tomer^talk 10:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Andrew

Heh, there wasn't enough drama on his page to keep my attention. As for Nancy, I'm not up for in-depth discussion right now, so she's gonna have to wait. Have a good weekend! momoricks 01:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Clever you

Do you remember a while ago you mentioned Ernest Borgnine's performance in E.R. and you said you thought he may get an Emmy nomination? Well, he did. Rossrs (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Aaaah, no. If I ever want to know about acting, I'll ask Johnny. If I ever want to know about flour, I'll refer to Nigella Lawson. Rossrs (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I actually saw your info on the page that links to the sign up page, and I honestly thought it was a vandal at work, because you had made no edits to that page. Then I realized it was linked. I've just had someone tell me off on my talk page for removing something uncited, and telling me that the source was easy to find and that I am lazy. So I'm just shaking my head, and thinking so why didn't you just do it yourself in the first place, if it's so damn easy, and if not doing it is so damn lazy, why did you not do it? Is that bizarrely illogical, or what? Oh well. I didn't see Johnny at the supermarket, by the way. I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. Rossrs (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What's My Line status

Hi, Wildhartlivie, you were kind enough to compliment me on my work on What's My Line back in May. Since then I've been doggedly hammering away on it. I might be wrong, but I believe it was you who added the issue tages in April 08. I have removed a couple which I felt were improved enough. There are 2 more which I believe might also be removed, but I would like to get your opions before I did so. I did read the notice about you may have health issues, so don't be concerned if you are unable. I know Wikipedia recommends "Be Bold". There are still a few citations which need to be verified, but I may be able to do that shortly. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Those seven words

Hi, I was noticing that Carlin had been linked in the Cher article and was about to link those seven words to the article about the routine when I discovered you had reverted the link to Carlin. Before going ahead with my link, I wanted to understand why you reverted. Clearly Cher meant for the public to think those words, as emphasis to her point of how livid she was. That point is only made, however, if someone knows the routine. The very next paragraph links to "Senator Hillary Clinton" (who, not incidentally, is not currently a Senator, and should probably simply be referred to simply by name and not by title) and "Barack Obama", even though these two individuals are far more self-evident without the link than Carlin or the routine. I thought the point was to link to things that illuminate the meaning of the text so as to avoid having to spell things out. The routine in question, even more than Carlin himself, strikes me as an eminently pertinent link. Abrazame (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response; I've responded back to you at my page, to keep the throughline of the conversation. Abrazame (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Abrazame's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Abrazame's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DS

Thanks for showing me. It's good to be spreading positive thoughts isn't it? He seems like a nice guy; his user page and some of the things he's written offer an interesting perspective. Rossrs (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavian cooking

He sounds like a hoot. I've never heard of him, but we have cooking shows galore. He sounds like good entertainment value. I think the personality of the presenter is everything. I mentioned Nigella Lawson previously, and she's very earthy, and almost makes food preparation and eating an experience of sensual delight, and another one I like is Rick Stein who has such overblown enthusiasm for just about everything, that I can't help but be drawn in. Plus he travels to some obscure places. Tonight we have the finale of MasterChef Australia (think American Idol for aspiring chefs). I can NOT believe how interesting it is, and amazingly it's the number one program. I don't like most of what is showed under the banner of reality TV, but this one I do - along with So You Think You Can Dance (US version, the Australian version is horrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible and excruuuuuuuuuuuutiating), Survivor and The Amazing Race, all of which have either just started their new season, or are about it. Absynthe - wow, I'd like to try that again. I remember getting weirdly, (although I did not see The Green Fairy) but happily drunk on one glass of it, as I completely underestimated its strength. I hope you get to see the exhibit as it sounds like it would be worthwhile. We've got an exhibit of the machines of Leonardo da Vinci at the moment, and I keep meaning to see it, but so far I haven't, so you've reminded me. Rossrs (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It never occurred to me that anyone but us might be entertained by our exchanges. That's positive. If you like stitled, have you ever seen Eurotrash? It's an odd assortment of European adult-themed items. I don't know exactly where the material comes from, but it's all dubbed in stereotypical British accents, and falsely too. So you might have a big-breasted German woman talking and the dubbing is by a cockney girl saying something like "Here! You looking at my knockers, then are you lovely? They're bloody gorgeous, in't they?" You'd have to see it to appreciate it. I've never seen Top Chef, but I love Iron Chef. I guess you get the same that we get, in the original Japanese, but overdubbed. It's hilarious, when they get so worked up about a disgusting looking sea urchin that lives only in the tidal waters of blah blah blah, and such and such chef is the only person in Asia that really knows how to cook it. I also love the translations, and I'm not sure they're totally accurate. The older Japanese lady always chooses her words so carefully, but a very plummy English voice says, "I respect that you spent so much time in preparation, but to me it tastes like my grandmother's shoes." Simpering, but vaguely distasteful smile. Chef bows and says "yes, yes." I could go on, it's hilarious.

I'm also interested by the ancient civilizations. I like to see "recreations", so I can maybe better see how it was. I saw a documentary about the murder of Cleopatra's sister, and it was fascinating. It started from the discovery of a grave that was obviously royal, followed it through to Nazi Germany where the body was destroyed by bombs, but not until after the skull had been photographed. Modern technology to recreate the skull, put flesh, muscle, skin and hair on it and - Cleopatra's sister. Murdered, along with her two brothers, by... Cleopatra. I also enjoyed Apocalypto for the same reason. A couple of years ago, I was in Italy and I went to Pompeii and Herculaneum and they are the most amazing places. There is so much detail of daily life preserved in both places. I was alarmed to see another doco a few weeks ago, saying that the race is on to save the two towns - they are being destroyed by water seeping into the rock, more quickly than the very expensive restoration/preservation project can deal with. There are quite a few interesting sites in Cyprus too, and when we were there a few months ago, went to several of them. I find it hard to grasp - Australia has so little history, so to see something that goes back thousands of years, is hard for me to comprehend. Rossrs (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How coincidental. No more than a week ago, someone else was telling me about the Parthenon. I didn't get the full story, but about the restoration project and the units of measure that was discovered. You must have both watched the same thing. It's interesting, that for all the technology and insight available, there is so much that is not understood. Who would have thought that the pieces would be as unique as those of a jigsaw puzzle. Another documentary that I saw recently was about the building of The Treasury of Petra. The previously held view was that it was built from the ground up, which is an accomplishment, but one that wasn't easy to explain based on knowledge of ancient building methods. Someone observed that it could have been built more easily from the top down. The natural shape of the rock face allowed relatively easy access at the top, and then as the rock was carved away, the workers would stand on the ledge that they had created, and which was gradually cut away and lowered until it finally reached the ground. It makes the mathematical precision even more incredible.

I should have a bucket list. Everybody should, but I don't. The only place that comes to mind is Warsaw, although I'd be happy with anything. There are places that I'd like to go back to, but realistically, I know I won't. If there was no limit on time or money, but of course there is a limit on both. I've been lucky in that I've ended up in places that I have absolutely loved, but that I had never held any strong ambition to visit. Finland - loved it, but who has Finland on their "to do" list? I certainly didn't, but some friends said how great it was, and they are very tough critics who don't like much. Hmmm, which I suppose is another way of saying I have negative friends.... but they loved Finland, so that got me thinking. Finn-Air had a deal..... and my friends were right. Cyprus, I knew nothing about and I went there basically to have a holiday with other people, in a sunny place. I wanted to go to Gibraltar or perhaps Spain, but they didn't work out, and Cyprus was chosen. It was breathtaking in every way and I was sorry leaving it. Galapagos would be wonderful too. I saw another documentary about the impact tourism is having on the incredible wildlife, and they are making concerted efforts to educate the local people about the importance of not impacting on the environment. It would be beautiful to see. Rossrs (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi, I had noticed that the lovely Scarlett was subject to review and I see that some action has been taken. I'll have a look at it as time permits. I'm sure that if a genuine effort has been made, the one week timeframe could be extended. I've also been notified that Ms. Minogue is being FAR reviewed. I know she's not a topic of interest, but I wonder if you could have a look at the comments I've made at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kylie Minogue/archive1 which relate to article structure rather than to specific content. I'm suggesting that subsections such as "Personal life" and "My unfortunate attempts at an acting career" should be integrated into the article. I'd be interested in your opinion, if you have a moment to look at it. Rossrs (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Scarlett Johansson/GA1

Progress and improvement is what matters not time. Just keep improving the article and there will be no problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuseme99

I've reopened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99, because I think it's time to sweep for sleepers and perhaps block an underlying IP. Feel free to comment.—Kww(talk) 01:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Software

Contact Sphere: The points in comments about cosmos are the facts that application really works when surfing the web. using abilities achieved in research concerning Mr. Sagan.75.202.106.122 (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me

Difficulties finding persons to discuss projects about internets. Only trying to help with communications, esp. before school year begins.75.202.106.122 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Alt text is so tricky, although I think I'm starting to get the idea. I don't know if you are already aware of this, but there is an alt text viewer which makes it a bit easier to see what you've done. Scarlett Johansson

I've done a few articles : Kylie Minogue, Sharon Tate (badly done), Anne Frank. Based on comments made at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kylie Minogue/archive1 and looking at WP:ALT, I've done the Kylie and Anne Franks ones correctly, but Sharon Tate not-so-correctly. I'll go back and Sharon it in due course. Hope this helps. Rossrs (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if I just type faster than I think, or whether it's the other way round. Probably the latter. Oh well, it was high time I invented a new verb. I will Sharon the article at some point, and while doing so I will also FIX the alt text. Happy Sharoning to you! Or rather, you are probably Scarletting, which is almost as much fun. Rossrs (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read through it, and to me it looks fine. The lead is brief but I think it covers the main points, and to expand it may just puff it out. I'm not sure about that. I find it interesting that the "Personal life" section starts "Johansson does not discuss her personal life..." I'm not a fan of personal life sections, but this one at least tries to convey more than a list of sexual partners, so it's one of the better ones that I've seen. A small part of it, that deals with her sex symbol status and Vanity Fair etc, is seperate from her film career, but it's not part of her personal life, rather it is part of her "celebrity" life. I don't know where to put it, but it doesn't fit there. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

@ User:Little Professor After looking at all of this please remember not to template the regulars. I am aware that you are aware of this because I checked into contributions and histories. Just because you blank your user page doesn't mean it can't be seen. Notices like this is in many articles esp. the crimes area, just repeating as I know you have been told this also. Please remember assume good faith and no personal attacks which the template can be seen as both.

Hi Wildhartlivie, I hope you are doing better these days. I have a countdown wikibreak notice going on at my page. I am calling the surgeon tomorrow to go in to see him. Hopefully things will move fast from then on as this surgery is driving me crazy just thinking of someone messing with my back with a blade in their hand. Take care and hope to cross paths again soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Johnson

Hi. Thanks for your participation in the Aaron Johnson article, but I have a question: If there is a dispute and an ongoing discussion over edits in which one person challenges the interpretation of policy, is it appropriate to revert? I don't think User: Lx 121 has any standing for most of the positions he is claiming, but I'm curious as to when reverting must be suspended during a discussion/resolution, and when it is appropriate for a third party to revert. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying pretty much sums everything on the matter I've learned to date. But then under what rationale did you revert the material in question in Aaron Johnson article? (This isn't a criticism, mind you; you're decision coincides with my position on the matter. I'm just curious as to what the stated rationale would be.) Nightscream (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant. You're citing the relevant policies, yes, but that's why I did when I tried speaking with Lx 121, and he responding by disagreeing with me. For example, if insisted that the prohibition against imdb has not achieved consensus, that the policy page I linked to forbade it only for notability, and not for anything else, etc. I know that I was right, but what I meant by my question is, if an editor challenges one's citation of policy, and the dispute is based on that, how can another person revert it until the dispute is resolved? Aren't we required to wait until after that?

As for the date and place of birth, that was indeed the point upon which we disagreed. I know some disagree with me on this, but I indeed have removed such things when they are unsourced. I even had a discussion with Jimmy Wales and others on his Talk Page, and Wales concurred with me in general about such things (though obviously this doesn't pertain to stuff so obvious that it doesn't need a citation, like "Christmas is on December 25"), and it was suggested to me that such stuff may be moved to the Talk Page until it is sourced, which I often do. The only reason I haven't removed it from the Johnson article is because I'm awaiting Lx 121's reaction to the Third Opinion (and your revert) before I do so. Nightscream (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Thanks. As for what I cited to Lx 121, I cited all the discussions about imdb on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, in particular, this first page of search results here, which shows 20 discussions, examination of which shows 15 in which editors says it's unreliable, the remaining five showing some dissent or ambiguity. You can see his Talk Page half of our discussion here.

As for non-controversial material, yeah, I was told that it should be moved to a Talk Page pending sourcing. One of the reasons I feel this should be done is because what's contentious or controversial is subjective, and some celebrities I've met while photographing them at conventions have expressed irritation with me when I say I'm doing work for Wikipedia because of such incorrect material, material that may not appear to you or I to be obviously inflammatory, such as date of birth, ethnicity, etc. Interestingly, Ash, who gave the Third Opinion on the Aaron Johnson matter, touched upon this himself. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dudes and Al Pacino

First, you made me near-LOL for using the term "DUDES" in an edit summary. Way to go.

Second, do you mind going through Talk:Al Pacino to clean it up and set up archiving? I know you're active in BLP articles like that, which is why I'm asking.

Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Penultimate

Why do you insist on putting the word "penultimate" in the Heath Ledger article? I feel pretty strongly that this word degrades the article. Yes, "penultimate" technically means "second-to-last." However, most people think that it means "quintessential," "ultimate," "defining," etc., and that is the way that it reads. You can reference that if you like and you will find that to be the case.

To continue--if it reads as though "Heath Ledger had his defining and most famous role as the Joker in 'the Dark Knight'," it comes across as an opinion. Again, I know that's not what you meant, but that is the way it reads. What's just as bad is that it reads like a press release. "His penultimate performance." Sounds very dramatic. Perhaps in the UK people use this word in every day conversation, but I've lived in America for 32 years and I have never heard it used once. If the article comes across as trying to impress people with the vocabulary of the contributor, that's another problem.

In any case, I think the discussion page has a pretty clear indication that people do not like this word. Please stop reverting back to using it. Thanks so much. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your response to this on my talk page. I apologize if you thought that I was making negative insinuations about your motivations, vocabulary, or nationality. It does say "this user is Irish" on your user page. I only made that statement because I truly do not know why you are so in favor of this word. In any case, I truly am sorry.

That aside--I'm not imposing "my viewpoint" of this word. It really is one of the most commonly misinterpreted words in the English language! When I made the statement about referencing this, you can find hundreds of sources that talk about commonly misused or confused words. I put nine of them on the talk page for Heath Ledger to prove my point.

There is considerable support for my statements. When I said "stop reverting it back," what I meant is--if you don't like how I replaced the word, you can re-edit my edits with a new summary. But to revert it back to this one word over and over again doesn't make sense.

Anyway, don't take it personally, my apologies again if I came across as overly harsh. Cheers. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And at the article talk. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bette Davis

I would agree that it's better to keep the Academy Awards section separate and distinct, but that doesn't mean that other user's addition wasn't productive. On the contrary. FA status doesn't mean an article is now written in stone; if someone adds potentially useful (and easily verifiable) content, it's a lot better to take a minute and fix the formatting instead of deleting it out of hand. I know you're a really great contributor, but don't let that make you so jaded that you forget that there are human beings on the other end of those red-linked usernames. It's just a guy trying to help the project. And, now that you and I took the time to tweak his contribution, it's a good addition to the page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is always a tiny bit discomforting to have an editor I don't recall having talked with indicate they know about me... good or bad. :) I didn't say the contribution wasn't productive, but putting it in the Academy Awards history and changing the section title to encompass it isn't so productive, especially when there is a section in which it better fits. I don't have any Davis biographies handy so I couldn't consult any to verify the content and AFI Life Achievement Award isn't referenced. I do think that additions to a featured article really should have cites. I was also a bit concerned that the editor was making similar edits to other articles and left a template about referencing additions, although that appears to not have been effective. Though I don't think FAs should be set in stone, I do think extra care should be taken when adding to them, and heaven knows, some people don't seem to mind tampering with FAs or GAs. And by the way, I totally agree with your assessment of this addition to Dreamcatcher. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Scarlett Johansson

Spooky, I went through the article this morning, though just to see the "coming along" of the article. Sure, I can go through the article. Do you want me to comment in the GAR? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll most likely comment in your talkpage, more efficient that way. Alright, so far its good. Though, I will assume good faith in the article, cause that's what I do. :) Well, it seems that her film career is summed up. But, I will go through it and give you my "report" on it. Rest your eye, I have your back. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In the Early roles section, this sentence ---> "Johansson garnered widespread attention for her performance in the 1998 Robert Redford directed The Horse Whisperer", there's something missing there. In the Transition to adult roles, "Her reviews were mixed" ---> "Her performance in the film/movie received mixed reviews", something like that. Same section, "CNN.com noted that Johansson" ---> "CNN.com reported that Johansson", too much "noted" in the section. In the Music career section, the last two paragraphs are repetitive with "Johansson", maybe a consistency should be in place. Same section, you probably want to link "Anywhere I Lay My Head" once. That's it, so. I'll go through the article again and see if I missed anything. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean just saying "Robert Redford directed The Horse Whisperer", it reads strange. I don't know, that's just me, so. Also, to stay in "order" you might want to move her appearance in the video "Candy" after The Horse Whisperer, cause the movie came out in 1998 and the video came out in 1999, have a consistency there. Yeah, I know you're super busy, so take your time on it, unless Tony has set a deadline for the GAR. Absolutely. When you get to it, I'll be sure to read it again. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Its fine, I was kinda glad you asked me to see the article's progress. You know, I'm just helping a fellow project member, so. :) Wow, it seems the two of you have a lot in your plate. If, for some reason you can't get to Johansson, I'll be glad to help out, if it alright with you. You're welcome and I hope to be of a good of service to you in the future. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sharon

Hi, thanks for fixing some of the cites for the article. I'm up to my ears trying to fix Kylie and this week I've had such limited time. I've even been stupid enough to allow myself to be sidetracked into discussions about Jayne Mansfield's photos, which I believe in, but which I don't really care about it. I think the referencing on Sharon Tate needs to be updated. Standards have changed over the last few years - back then I would source an entire paragraph at the end, and I still think that's OK, but now ... I don't want to go into referencing overkill, but I don't think the current sourcing would please everyone. When Kylie's finished! urrghh. I really bit off a lot with that one, and there are regular editors to the article who have done nothing to help. I see you've been busy with Scarlett. I guess both of us are making a positive contribution to these articles but it feels a bit daunting doesn't it? Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The online sources are pretty limited for Tate. It surprises me, but most articles are of the fanzine variety, as far I can tell. I have the Greg King book ( and the Bugliosi), but I would also recommend it to you. I know you are interested in the Manson story, and I think you would find it a good read. It strikes a good balance between Sharon the person and Sharon the murder victim. If you can find it in the library, I think you would enjoy it. The sourcing needs page numbers, doesn't it? That wasn't a big deal a few years ago. I was a little mystified that a whole paragraph was removed from the lead section as POV etc. It is contained in the article where it is sourced, and it's also discussed on the talk page. Rossrs (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss anything. I was just seeing something that wasn't there. My mistake :-) Rossrs (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

I unfortunately couldn't attend Comic-Con this year, so I instead went through Flickr and looked at all of the CC images available that had not been uploaded yet. I think I found 12 images for various articles and that was one of them. No worries with the touchups, you've improved several that I've uploaded in the past. Usually, I just do a quick crop and upload it, just to get it on an article. I'll try and keep an eye out for a Gordon-Levitt image. I need to make an audit list of all of the celebrity images I need to look to replace or significant ones that are still missing. This article was quite the inspiration. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks those lists can be helpful. Images are always a side project to everything else on here, so I namely search for replacing really poor images or ones that are completely lacking an image. I've already got one contact that is planning on letting us use the images from an upcoming film festival in September. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fight Club redux

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Erik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anne Hathaway

I've reverted the addition of the photo, but I suggest you start an RfC or something because (s)he seems hellbent on the photo being included (gee...wonder why?). I thought there was some sort of policy regarding "civilians" being in photos...something about they should be cropped out if possible. Maybe I dreamed it. Either way, I don't see the point in removing a good photo for a self serving one. Also, thanks for the revert on Mae West. I was just thinking how nice it was that that particular debacle was over. I thunk too soon. Pinkadelica^♣ 07:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, nothing ever is done here....just wishful thinking on my part. I've been ok, just puttering around the web and working on articles here and there. Pinkadelica^♣ 08:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pink, and I don't know if there is a policy against including civilians - there should be. What is bothersome about this is that it removes a lovely, free image of Hathaway and discards it like it's a piece of trash (and god knows, lovely free images are not exactly thick on the ground,) and replaces it with an inferior vanity shot. I say vanity, because it seems to me that the main aim is to introduce the civvie and Hathaway is incidental. Why else use a lower quality image of Hathaway? Rossrs (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a bit of both. It's an ugly vanity picture. That's two reasons I don't like it.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the picture pusher got blocked for edit warring. Perhaps someone at Commons will just delete the damn thing as it's fairly useless here IMHO. Anyhoo, I haven't been checking my email much which explains why I haven't gotten any emails. Sorry 'bout that. It's hot as ever here, but I'm used to it. I do believe my transition to hell will be a smooth one :D. Oh, and no, I didn't mean to remove content regarding West's second marriage. I don't even think I manually removed it, but it's possible I did. I get the heebie jeebies every time I have to deal with that article. Pinkadelica^♣ 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope...just kept forgetting to count the cds I don't keep right in front of my face. Outta sight, outta mind. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

DWTA

I thought Wikilinking would be easier in terms of explaining, if you're interested, so... and I hope Ashton comments.

In order of appearance:

• Judges - Todd McKenney, Helen Richey and Mark Wilson
• Adam Brand (country singer) and Lincoln Lewis (heart-throbby actor)
• Kylie Gillies (TV presenter) and Layne Beachley (world champion surfer)
• Stefano Oliveri and Dannial Gosper (professional dancers, not currently notable enough for a WP article)
• Luke Jacobz - in disguise. Actor and last year's Dancing With the Stars winner.
• Matt White (TV presenter) and Fiona O'Loughlin (stand-up comedian)
• Jessica McNamee (actress) and Gerrard Gosens (Blind Paralympian and adventurer)
• Luda Kroitor and Jessica Raffa, (professional dancers, not currently notable enough for a WP article)
• Chong Lim, musical director
• Craig Monley and Carmello Pizzino (professional dancers, not currently notable enough for a WP article)
• Ash-Leigh Hunter and Jade Hatcher (professional dancers, not currently notable enough for a WP article)
• Mark Wilson
• Todd McKenney, Helen Richey
• All of the above
• Daniel MacPherson (cartwheeling actor and host)
• Sonia Kruger (naughtiest and most glorious woman on Australian television, and one of my nieces' schoolfriends)

I just watched it again, and I do love it. Nice to see that fun can be contagious. I think they nailed it!  :-) Rossrs (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

more funniness - click here and count the "Jessica"s. I found 8, and 1 "Jess". Rossrs (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thorough maybe. It was pretty easy copying and pasting from the DWTS WP page, it was just getting it in order. I suspect the young lady's name is Jessica, although the article is a little vague on that point. I'm worried that if I start fixing articles for minor Australian TV performers I may well go insane. I'll keep it in mind for one day. Who knows ... the same soapie that Lincoln Lewis and Luke Jacobz star in, also brought us some rather well known performers, including at least one that you like. If Jessica (or Lincoln or Luke) heads in that direction, I'll be happy to fix her/their article/s. I wish them all well.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely not

The one person in Hollywood who could choose anything as the next project, chooses this ?????? I'm perplexed. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Re this, it may fall under WP:BLANKING since the actual block notice was left on the page. I don't think we have to worry overly much; the user is being watched closely.  Frank  |  talk  13:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden and Elizabeth Montgomery

There is text discussing Borden and Montgomery in the Lizzie Borden article, but it is hidden. I don't know where the text is from, but since it was hidden, I un-hid it, since it introduces Montgomery who is discussed in more detail on the next line as being cousins with Borden. I thought it would make the Borden-Montgomery-cousins discussion flow better. Why did you hide it again? What is the purpose of text and information if it is hidden? Why not just delete the text if you don't want it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ow my brain! (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Columbine High School massacre

Nope, I just did a history merge on the article to fix an old cut-and-paste move. Graham87 03:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding unverifiable sources

I found lot of articles related to the 5 carat diamond, but was just unable to find a good reference. But can that be added and then wait for someone to cite the information?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can this link be treated as authentic [2]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh J. Acharya (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got a good ref [3] but the size is not mentioned. So, I will add the details of the massive diamond ring without the size for the while. :) Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, content should always be sourced, to a reference that meets WP:RS and WP:V. The lovetoknow.com website cannot be used, it is written by contributors, much like Wikipedia. The burden of sourcing falls to the person adding the content. This is even more crucial for articles that are designated featured or good articles, but it is important for all of them. The criteria for featured and good articles are even more exacting and I'm not entirely convinced that including a description of engagements rings would be considered encyclopedic and the only thing I can see that you could include in the Katie Holmes article about the ring itself would be the words "massive". The encyclopedic value of that would be challenged by editors who work on featured and good articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I will add the details of diamond ring as the information is available. Again I am researching the topic engagement rings for my personal research work, I thought of updating wiki with the same.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Spacey

Looking at the image, it looks kind of weird with his suit "invisible" at some points. It looks a little "space-y" (sorry, couldn't help myself). I'd say change it back, but it's not going to hurt my feelings. I'm only responsible for getting the images up here, not how they stay in the article. The headshot seems to work, and another free image can always be pursued down the line. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When I looked at the image earlier today on my iPhone, it came out as all black (not the checkered pattern I see on the computer). The current headshot isn't zoomed in too much compared to some images, and it is likely that a new image will be found (especially with him having new films coming out). I was glad to get a new image (even though it's in 1978) for Rodney Dangerfield today, I've been searching for one for months (earlier I only got his tombstone). I was at a red-carpet premiere for G. I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra all day today, and although Stephen Sommers, Channing Tatum, and Marlon Wayans were there, I forgot to bring my camera. Hopefully some of the hundreds of other people there post them on Flickr. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot my camera in the car, and I was also worried about not getting into the theater to see the film. I've been to dozens of screenings and sometimes the guards won't let you in if you have a camera. I also was in a poor viewing position, so the images would have came out like some of the bad images that I'm always trying to replace. Gordon-Levitt wasn't there, but his role in the film was quite interesting. After hearing his voice in the film, I initially thought it was Justin Long. Fraser had a small cameo (probably two minutes) as some no-name Joe watching two other Joes training. As soon as his face appeared on screen, the audience all made this funny shriek. With Arnold Vosloo playing a role in the film, it was like The Mummy all over again! I was actually impressed with the film, and I would have paid money to see it. It of course had its problems (way too many flashbacks), but some of the action sequences were amazing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't tell you the bad part. The ticket said the screening started at 4:00 pm, so usually you have to get there two hours early to ensure you get a seat. At 4, they told us that it actually started at 7:00, so we were in line for five hours to see this film! I think that's a record for me and hopefully I never break it again! I would actually enjoy seeing the King Tut exhibit, and I always like going to the zoo (to the annoyance of family members and friends). It's great having the large San Diego Zoo so close by. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been fortunate to be able to travel to the majority of the U.S. and a few countries. I love traveling and would like to return to the East Coast and Europe again. I'm considering getting a life-long pass to the zoo here, since I plan to stay in this area for quite a while. I'd probably only do it if I could get a great deal on it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ack!

I'll send you an email. momoricks 02:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I just sent it. Hope you're having a good weekend. momoricks 23:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Scarlett and Sharon and Dawn and Kylie

Scarlett Johanssen looks very good, and you should be proud. I see that it's been saved as a GA, so good for you. You've done a lovely job, and I think you are fully entitled to mention it on your user page as an accomplishment. My eye was captured by a picture of Sharon Tate on the main page. It had escaped me that 40 years was approaching and, well, now it's here. There may be a spate of edits to Manson related articles, and I'm sure you've already anticipated this. The only one I closely watch is Sharon Tate's, and so far so good, but I'll keep an eye on the others as well. I'm still a bit concerned about Dawn Wells. I appreciate your comment and your edits, and removing the section header is a good move, but I'm not convinced we should even be discussing it. I'm still wading through the confusion that is Kylie Minogue, but I think I finally see light at the end of the tunnel. Rossrs (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait and see about Wells. I've reverted some stuff from Susan Atkins. It was kind of rambling, and unsourced although I think I've read something similar before. I wouldn't believe a word that came from Susan Atkins, and for it to be presented as fact, well it won't do. It's interesting that Squeaky is going to be released. I just wonder, what does a woman like Squeaky, who has been incarcerated for so long, do when she is released? Rossrs (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I thought WP was not supposed to help people improve their vocabulary! Well, imagine my surprise! With the help of my trusty dictionary, I now know the word "prurience". I can't imagine ever using in a sentence, but if such a sentence ever comes up - I'm ready. Rossrs (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to go to work now. I'll check on Dawn Wells later. It's not vandalism and if anyone needs to read own.... Rossrs (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Billy the Kid

What part of my entry is POV? There is significantly more POV in the existing article. All of my entries are verifiable. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordontaos (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. So... lets try it again, this time on the discussion page.--Gordontaos (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Thomas_Dillon.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Thomas_Dillon.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:Just a note

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Bejinhan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BejinhanTalk 05:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Leslie

I'm flabbergasted by the whole misinformed thing, but especially : "The victim would not be alive today anyway, or in poor health." Someone really thinks that???? This is just a wild guess, but I suspect Rosemary LaBianca would have preferred to live into her 40s, given a choice, which she wasn't, and not be hacked to death. But yes, she - and "Abagail" - would have died one day regardless. Gee whiz! Rossrs (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote is in the second last paragraph of this I agree with you to a point, but I'm torn. I believe that if Leslie had committed the same murder independently of the Mansons she would have been out years ago. It's difficult and complicated, and I'm glad it's not my decision. Rossrs (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You see. It's a very young viewpoint. Noticing the post below - I watched 10 Rillington Place a few weeks ago. Very good movie, but unremittingly grim. Rossrs (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

John Christie (murderer)

Hello there. I've requested a peer review for the article on John Christie (murderer) and I'm looking for feedback from people interested in serial killers. John Christie was a British serial killer from the 1940s and 50s who murdered a number of women but was also controversially involved in another murder trial, where he gave what's now considered perjured evidence against a fellow tenant. The case generated a lot of controversy in the UK. I'm hoping to turn the article into a featured article, so I'm looking for any comments about potential problems or if there's anything that needs improving. The peer review is available here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Wcp07 (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

sssoul in distress

hello again Wildhartlivie - i reckon you'll notice that the Little Richard article is still pretty beleaguered; among other things, the same editor (but not logged in) is offering to beat me up on the talk page.  :[ i've already put in a request for a WP:MedCab mediator, but: is this getting out of hand? please let me know if you think this should be reported somewhere else. and ... not that it should make any difference on Wikipedia, but i feel like clarifying to someone: i'm a she-sssoul, which makes this "man to man fist fight" jazz seem even more ludicrous. anyway thanks for your input; and i wish you a smooth recovery from those health issues. Sssoul (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) (you can reply here if it's convenient - i'll keep it on my watchlist.)

Hi, I noticed that it hasn't let up, but there is one point in his favor - he did back down from the MySpace, perhaps someone else speaking up did help. I'm not sure mediation is called for yet, it seems to me to be an issue of convincing this person that certain things violate policy. Personally, what I'd do is put in questions elsewhere first. One might be opening a request for comments, which will open the issue to a wider group of editors who often weigh in on issues. Another is to take any questionable sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. Then there is the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, especially when he crosses the line into personal attacks and policy violations. You would need to decide if he's posting under the IP purposely to avoid scrutiny from the registered name, then there is the possibility of a sock puppet investigation. It's borderline right now, and I would probably react differently if it were me he was disparaging, you're demonstrating remarkable restraint and patience on this, I must say. By the way, I do know how I hate it when editors just assume I'm a he. This week, an adminstrator made a very hard point about another editor not bothering to even discover my gender - and the editor was flip about it. Personally, whenever I run across an issue with another editor, I always look at the userpage to see who it is I'm dealing with. Cheers. I like your username! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you, Wildhartlivie - for the understanding and for the ideas. yes, it's encouraging that the point about that myspace page finally seems to have sunk in - thank you for that! if there are any more personal attacks i guess i'll report them at AN/I; i suppose i should also consider just staying away from that article, at least for a while, but something in me rebels against letting bullies take over. sigh! thanks again, and take care. Sssoul (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, do not let this make you back off the article. If you have strong opinions on the article, which does need expansion regarding his career without engaging in hyperbole, then don't let it deter you!! I did leave a warning template to the registered username regarding the personal attacks, which made me think he decided not to use that account for a little while because of it. Even last night, he was being snarky about your intent, but don't allow that to bully you away. That's often the tool that is used to chase people off from issues. If you believe in what you're saying, stand by your convictions! Never say quit. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the encouraging words, Wildhartlivie, and for your ongoing interest in getting the issues with this article sorted out. just wanted to point out that thę lavish terms in the first paragraph *are* sourced - the quote is from the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame website. whether it belongs in the lead is a different question, but i don't want the Smoovedogg to trip you up on a technicality, so to speak. Sssoul (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I revised my comments. The article needs a lot of work and it's not all about that Hall of Fame quote. However, I'm not sure the quote should be so completely used, it borders on copyright issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you for attempting to "gang up" on me. i am trying to improve the article but keep it true to the artist and as unbiased as possible. i do not find hyperbole in the opening paragraph. please respond with the gross exagerations. i am willing to stand corrected. the little richard mypace site citation, which violates wiki rules, was acknowledges when I read the rule itself. i am also wondering about the use of the direct quote from the rock n roll hall of fame website. if allowed, it is a wonderfully collection of words. if it is allowed, it is not too much, as more could possibly have been 'copied'. if it is not possible to quote the source word for word, then i will pray to find wording to capture the essence of the rock hall quote. and if it is not allowed, then it should not be allowed in the chuck berry wiki article. that is much more of a mess and has many uncited contributions. the influence section in that article misteriously surfaced in the Little Richard article. i did not put it there. i liked having the most significant artists of the genre quoted higher up in the article but compromised with the Influence section. i look forward to your/sssoul's feedback. and i am not a bully. i am a gangsta lol - just kidding. what do you call it when two people gang up on another. play nice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.211.70 (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

... after some thought, i've decided to respond to Smoovedogg/142.165's post here after all, just so it's on record:

Smoovedogg/142.165, i courteously pointed out to you several times that certain aspects of the article were violating Wikipedia policies; your response was to revert my edits and insult me. it was only after other editors pointed out the same problems to you ("ganging up on" you) that you apparently took it seriously enough to actually read the policies. that's progress - good! please do keep reading - and abiding by - Wikipedia's policies; WP:Simplified ruleset is a good place to start. and yes, "playing nice" is a good idea - you'll find the Wikipedia policy on that here: WP:No personal attacks. Sssoul (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Kelly Preston

Thanks for your message regarding my assessment of High importance on the WikiProject Australia. I was looking at this listing [4] of popular pages on the WikiProject Australia and noticed that Kelly Preston was listed at No. 55, and did not have an importance assessment. I checked the |Wikipedia article traffic statistics and found that the article attracts 50,000 to 85,000 views per month. I am unfamiliar with her rating as an Actor, but on that basis of the articles popularity I assumed a rating of High importance for an Australian article. I have no objection to you varying this rating, but figured some sort of rating was better than none. Regards. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Susan Atkins

You are most welcome. Oddly enough, after I made that post, I got to looking at your contrib history and interests and wondered if I know you in Real Life. Our interests and views overlap a fair amount. You and I are constantly bumping into each other's edits on more than just Crime articles!

Not to sound like an old fart but "these kids today".. all they see is the stuff on the net which is so heavily biased towards The Family that they neglect to seek out any of the primary sources. I wonder if Susan's little fan has even read her book! The admissions she makes in that book, Child of Satan, Child of God are enough to make your hair curl. The most interesting of the autobiographical books, to my mind, is Paul Watkins' book, My life with Charles Manson. Because of his early death in 1990, his viewpoint has pretty much been excised from the online version of events "these kids today" are reading. it's a shame too because he was one of the few relatively clear-headed Family associates, comparatively speaking of course. Barbara Hoyt's versions of events became incredibly tainted by her associate with Bill Nelson and his ongoing desire to cash in on the backs of former Family members & associates. If they didn't keep coughing up ever more despicable revelations to him and allow him to frame their stories on his website, he'd turn on them like a beast and air every piece of dirty laundry he had on them and even stalk them. At least Greg King's book exists. He managed to gather together a fairly complete if succinct narrative. if you haven't read it, you might want to check it out. He was very careful to source every statement so folks could judge their reliability for themselves.

Well, I'll do my best to support your efforts at keeping the creepy crime articles in line and I thank you for the time you put into trying to explain and re-explain what WIki is and isn't to those who need to know. Incidentally, Susan's husband has sent a letter to one of the Family "friendly" sites that brags about how well Susan is doing now. He says she's talking, joking, praying with him and singing with him, and that the docs have decided she doesn't need another round of Chemo since her brain cancer seems to be under control read letter. Of course, this is not what he brays whenever a reporter comes near him with a microphone. When that happens, Susan is a comatose multi-amputee with aggressive, untreatable brain cancer who is gonna die any moment. Since the CA DOC doesn't divulge the health status of prisoners, there is no way to know which is the truth or if any of it is the truth.LiPollis (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I bet you didn't know

..just how bad Ruby Keeler truly was! Rossrs (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever seen a bundle of sticks rolling down stairs. I may have to watch 42nd Street and find out, or I could just get a bundle of sticks and roll them down the stairs. I can easily find someone to sing offkey while I do it, so it should be easy enough to recreate her performance. It seems like an unusual combination of talents on which to build a career. I assume it's true about Penayloppie, which makes me even more sure that a reliable source will come along and the conjecturing can stop. Speaking of bundles of sticks rolling down stairs, I'm with you on those Willis girls. Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Apropos of the Little Richard article...

... it has now been granted mediation. You may (or may not) want to check it out [[5]]. Seduisant (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

please see here and here as well Sssoul (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Gertrude Baniszewski

Hi Wildhartlivie,

You recently undid my edits to the article on Gertrude Baniszewski, putting the bit about depictions back in. You made into a different section, which is better than in the intro like before. Still, what bugs me is that the section only gives An American Crime as an exemple, but it does claim that "[t]he case has since been subject to numerous fictional and non-fictional adaptations". I'm not familiar with the case and just yesterday I stumbled upon the horrible facts of the article, so I wouldn't know any other adaptation of the Baniszweski case. To keep a balanced section, perhaps some more exemples of adaptations should be added? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You're right, it does need to be expanded. For now, I've copied over the depictions content from the Sylvia Likens article. I was growing up not far from the place where this occurred (and still live fairly near), though I was quite young when it happened. A few years later, my group of friends all read The Indiana Torture Slaying and we were both fascinated and terrified by the whole thing. Then Charles Manson hit the headlines and any semblance of innocence was forever gone. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and getting the article a bit better.

It is horrible what people do to each other. Did you ever heared about Marc Dutroux, a Belgian pedophile and serial killer? He abducted and raped several girls, a couple of he killed and tortured. That was big news when I was growing up... --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jackson

I was almost considering uploading the uncropped version as well, just to show the change in weight. I initially didn't recognize him when I was flipping through the set. It was a bummer I couldn't get the rest of the District 9 people's images up before the release in theaters, but the author didn't get back to me soon enough with the permission. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Julia Roberts - factual error

I tried to edit an incorrect date in the Julia Roberts article. The material is in the middle of the "Filmography" table and my editing skills just couldn't cut it. The Law & Order episode Roberts appeared in aired in 1999, not in 1990 as listed in "Filmography." My citation is NBCs episode guide:http://www.nbc.com/Law_and_Order/episode_guide/199.shtml
It's possible that whoever created the entry used IMDB, which lists TV episodes by the show's premiere date rather than the episode air date. I'm contacting you because I saw your name in some of the JR discussions, and you seem to have an interest in actor bios and the knowledge to either fix or ask someone else to fix the entry.
Thank you very much - I appreciate the help. Entrancer (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dottie Day

Do you think this edit summary makes a confusion for reader? I ask because it made a confusion for this reader. Rossrs (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh you saw it. Soon as I clicked on "my watchlist" the confusion was gone. Rossrs (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the film. There are so many well-known films I haven't seen. I've only seen snippets of it, but yes, those two certainly were lovely. Imagine those two pairs of eyes in one film! I was going to call the section "Doris Day" but I thought, no, that's boring. Rossrs (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your friend may be right. According to our Wikipedia article the film "muted" some of the more sensitive topics that allowed the play to convey homophobia and racism. It says the television version with Tommy Lee Jones and Jessica Lange is truer to the original. Still, Tommy Lee is not Paul Newman, and Jessica Lange, bless her, is not Elizabeth Taylor, especially if our infobox image is anything to go by. I would like to see the film also for Judith Anderson. It's too bad she only made a few films, but she always had an air of disdain about her. Aside from Rebecca, in which she is so malignant, I also liked her in The Ten Commandments. She is meddlesome and Anne Baxter says to her "one day your tongue will dig your grave." I like that line, especially the way Anne Baxter delivers it, over-emoting all over the place. How did I end up on Anne Baxter?? Rossrs (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fletcher Christian

Can you please explain why you reverted my edits on the Fletcher Christian page? Please join the discussion on that page. Thanks. Dhris (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Carmen Miranda

That one user Tacv is now at 7 reverts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

7 reverts is good. 4 reverts, someone might argue they lost track of the clock. Not 7. I'm subliminally reminded of a scene from Young Frankenstein, where Elizabeth (Madeline Kahn) says to the monster (Peter Boyle), "7 has always been my lucky number!" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, warning him after 7 reverts that he "may" have broken the 3 revert rule, reminds me of a scene from Love and Death, in which Sonja (Diane Keaton) is fooling around with a large pistol, and it goes off with a loud bang, and Boris (Woody Allen) tells her, "Be careful, that gun 'may' be loaded!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Paying a little more attention, I see you're a film buff, and here I am quoting scenes to you. Taking coals to Newcastle, as it were. Hey, do you know whether Carmen actually wore the tutt-fruiti hat in more than one film? I think someone asked that on the talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Son of Sam: "Mystery Woman"

Thank you for being the devils advocate regarding my research and such... there were many that risked their lives and reputations in this case, known and unknown to the public. "SOS" was not the first nor the last case I have been directly or indirectly involved/consulted in such nasty business from the law enforcement side and the price we all have to pay with little or no thanks from the get go. I count my blessings that I am alive and not a satistic. David Berkowitz played such a fall guy... and it took some of us all these years to bust his false confession. Just like the false confession of David Berkowitz, many law enforcement and psych. professionals built their reputations on a Berkowitz's red herring... and it is hard for them to swallow that "They were wrong". Truth be damned. Aedwardmoch (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet category template

When creating sockpuppet categories please use Template:sockpuppet category. Example. Thank you. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Doris Day Page and Copyright Issues

Hello. The message I received from you (below) informing me that my submission to the "Music" section of the Doris Day page has been deleted (by you) has left me with some questions: 1.) Why were the lyrics included in my addition to the page be deleted when several other references with lyrics remain? 2.) I get no more warnings? As you know, I received none. If you had an issue with the contents, why didn't you contact me and explain, instead of leading me to believe my insert simply didn't take? You would have saved us BOTH the inconvenience. 3.) Who the heck are YOU, anyway? If you presume I'll know – or care – simply because you send an incendiary message signed with some screen name, you're mistaken. STOP.

Btw, "placing Wikipedia is the same predictament?" That would be, "in the same predicament." Boicevox (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Manson Family

Category:Manson Family was placed by someone, I have no idea who, in the Category:New religious movements, which would seem to be a clear indication that someone, whoever placed it in that category, sees them as being a religious movement of a kind. Also, for what little it might be worth, I thought it was a good idea to make sure we knew about both the good and bad sides of NRMs. Granted, with Aum Shinrikyo and Branch Davidians we already have some fairly negative material, but knowing about all the "bad side" seemed warranted. If you believe the categorization of the category is inappropriate, by all means remove it from the NRM category and it will be removed from the project as well. But part of the difficulties in setting up any new group is that you find that the work others have done before you isn't always acceptable, and so I kind of expect that there will be some "problems" of one sort or another in the beginning. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, Cults is one of the most important topics to this group, partially because no one else really deals with the topic very much yet. Some of the more modern cults are overtly religious, and some others, which have been called cults by governments as per List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents aren't so clearly religious. By saying this, I'm not trying to influence the decision one way or another, just pointing out maybe one factor which might be worth considering. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle

Howdy, stranger! Hope all is well! I see you are still hard at work making Wiki a better place for all...thanks! I've been very busy with the PE bio and am awfully thankful you are stil keeping an eye out for our gal's Wiki page. Her family, namely her brother Milton and his daughter Lauretta, are grateful to you as well.

September is around the corner and I and my Gal-Pal Vicki will be visiting the Sign on the anniversary of that fateful weekend...I'll lay down a gardenia in your name at the base of the "H" ... I think Peg would like that since you are--in a way--a friend to her.

Be well. Jameszerukjr (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pearl

Just to note, one of the articles I had to fight with that now banned editor from Karyn Kupcinet also made a lot of edits to Janis Joplin. I think I managed to bring her/his roar down to a dull one on the Joplin article, there might be leftover garbage that I missed from all of that. I'd be ever so proud if we could make her article a good article! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll do it. It can take a bit of time, especially with large subjects such as Joplin, but I have some experience of both writing and reviewing Good Articles, so we'll be able to do it before the end of the year. SilkTork *^YES! 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde

Thank you for the kind words, sir/ma'am — they mean even more coming from your esteemed self. I think we made the B&C page better. Ain't this place a great concept? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Could use your help to understand

(EC) Hi an editor is adding DEFAULTSORT to articles but I don't understand the purpose. I've read the sentence or two about it but written to understand it is not. :) This editor's contributions shows he has put this in a few articles. Apparently it's another hidden thing that can be done to articles, I really do not understand hiding things in articles, I personally think it's silly but that's me. ;) Ok to summarize, I think I am an idiot because for the life of me I don't understand the use of this at all. I just did a search of Defaultsort (in all caps), also Default_sort_key and also breaking these in different ways to see if I could get a clean explanation, I didn't. Would you happen to know a simple description of what this is for and what it does when added to an article which doesn't make my brain go into freeze mode? I would appreciate it if you have the time, thank you. Until i figure this out, I don't know if it is right or wrong to be in an article. Oh just so you know, I originally came across this in Zodiac killer. I hope you are feeling better. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

TV networks

Hi, I was wondering about edits like this that add the network name before the title of the TV program. Is this an American thing? Is the network relevant generally considered relevant because I think it would be like saying "Kate Winslet starred in The Weinstein Company's The Reader". Which, of course, she did, but it doesn't add much to Kate Winslet. I'm a bit perplexed because I see this so often, but am I missing relevance because I'm not American? Your American viewpoint would be appreciated. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought it might have been something like that. It had a kind of TV guide/press release tone, and maybe that's a style that's familiar to people. I looked at Jesse James and true enough, it made my head spin. Now, if you would like your head to twist right off your shoulders, fly across the room, out the window and land somewhere in your backyard, put your cats in a safe place, take a deep breath and look at Richard Todd and the efforts of one individual who self-identifies as not exactly sane. Honestly, put on a helmet and take a peek.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It might. There's only so much you can take. A couple of episodes of Little House and then you should be right to go. Rossrs (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. At least in the Todd case, (I think) you were dealing with someone whose first language is English. It's ever so much harder to deal with shite when the person doesn't seem to realize they aren't writing in complete sentences. Sheesh. I was thinking about brushing up John Cazale. That's a sad story. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your involvement not to discuss actors salaries Wildhartlivie?

Can you answer question Wildhartlivie? You threaten to block me and you threaten to allow me any discussion to improve an article about Reese Witherspoon & Angela Jolie's salaries?

What is your point? This is not a soap box discussion nor is it inappropriate either. I noticed you deleted the discussion on your homepage and theaten me with blocks? Shall I use another Ip address and continue this discussion with you?

Now explain your quest to disallow actors salaries in the articles? What is your involvement? Are you working for an agent company or related to these actors in the media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.20.15 (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you guessed it. Everyone on Wikipedia is secretly employed by various stars to keep discussion that is essentially fodder for a chat forum off of their talk pages. Or at least from the various postings you've made on talk pages of people reverting your copy & paste postings across various article talk pages. Bad form, dude. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why remove a salary issue then? I mean if these women are making $15 to $18 per film or movie, why erase that? It is public information, you can Google their salaries, why not and them

to the pages? Personally I think it is greed to get so much a movie but that's why they like their work. Since they are the limelight and in the media all the time, they pay the price because of they lavish luxary lifestyles, they wages should be page of their wikipedia pages. It's no different if they got a DUI or had a personal affair or etc, what there roles are, nothing says their salaries can't be included. If you want behind the set and ask all the day labors if they think the actors salaries are fair next to their salaries, you would see a stike of argny people in Hollywood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.20.15 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no issue, and you are not discussing additions to the articles, you are mass posting your commentary, only changed by the name, to Brad Pitt, Reese Witherspoon, Angelina Jolie. You aren't actually discussing anything, you're posting your POV rant about your feelings on the salaries. This is not a forum to crusade for social inequality, to denigrate someone because they happen to bring in a high salary, etc. Those behind the scenes people are unionized and their unions bargain for them. They don't need your lobbying on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, don't go see their films, don't buy or rent their videos and don't watch them when they are shown on TV. And besides, the only thing that can actually go into an article are things that can be cited to reliable sources, which are largely unavailable from a reliable source. It isn't appropriate talk page content. This is not a forum and such postings are inappropriate. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James

I understand. For his part he's certainly not making things particularly easy with his bad edits and rude talk page comments. I had hope that he would follow Master of Puppets' polite suggestion that he stop edit warring, but that was evidently to much to ask for.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse

hello, I am very sorry to you, and I sinseras my apologies, I do not want to win over an enemy on wikipedia, because I was bored where I am, I apologize again for my immature behavior for the image you like and do not my works of vandal ism. Thanks for everything, and pardon. Saa19952 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jesse James. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Jolie image followup

Following up on [6]. If it concerns this upload, the linked flickr image currently has licensing BY-NC-SA/2.0. The BY and SA parts are fine, but the NC (non-commercial-only) restriction makes the image non-free in Wiki terms. If the flickr image had NC before, that's why it was deleted from commons. But BY, SA or BY-SA are fine. Gimmetrow 15:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm glad someone notices when I come and go. ;c) I meant to stay away longer, but I can't help myself. I visit to look up a topic then have to fix punctuation or add WikiProject banners. I'm an addict, so help me Jebus! How u been? I don't think I've ever seen your talk page this empty. Heh, momoricks 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ya know, SSDD. My work shift was bumped up two hours recently, so I haven't been getting enough sleep. The story of my life. momoricks 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Doh! I can never remember what bumped up or bumped back means. My shift starts two hours earlier than before, which I like, but my body doesn't want to go to bed until around 4 a.m., so I'm basically a zombie. :) momoricks 00:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too...it's quiet, most people are asleep. I do like the earlier shift because traffic isn't as bad on the way into work. Ah, gotta love freeway driving in a major metropolis. momoricks 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to come visit and take you for a night drive. We'll call it "Driving Miss Wild." Although I reserve the right to get incredibly lost. momoricks 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I like that! momoricks 01:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

At least! momoricks 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you there Wildhartlivie, it's me....Pink

Oh mai...you really are all knowing . Pinkadelica^♣ 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Traceroute. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn

Yeah, I'm tired of all of those who are wrongfully making that claim. We all know that she's the grandmother of Michael Jackson through her legitimate child Princess Diana!! Have a great day! Skier Dude (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Rome

I see you have an interest in ancient Rome. Take a look at some of the books by Ramsay MacMullen. They are not the easiest to read. Kazuba (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding overlap with table work

Hello, do you want to decide on how to separate the Academy Award pages so there's no overlap? For example, I was not sure if you retrieved my revision at 55th Academy Awards. (This discussion makes me think of Fight Club's nameless narrator and Marla Singer splitting up therapy groups. :P) Do you want to tackle the 1980s, and I'll tackle the 1970s? And we'll keep in touch about what decade we'll do next? By the way, I responded about your music question at my talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy filmography

I believe this page could work because it is a tribute to his film career. If Katharine Hepburn has one so should Spencer Tracy. Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(I think a size guideline might work, Wildhartlivie.) The main problem with the article is that it is very brief for an actor of his stature. I think, get the article complete and then see if the filmography fits. If it doesn't, then it may be time to split it off into its own article. Moving it now is premature at best. Filmographies are NOT to serve as tributes, so if that's your aim, you're in the wrong place. Write a good solid, well sourced, neutral article about Mr Tracy and let that be a tribute if you like, but moving a list of his films from one page to another wouldn't even achieve a tribute. Rossrs (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hurt Locker

Thanks for fixing those source links and doing that clean up. There has been a rash of recent changes to that article and some have neglected to keep up the links (BTW, we have a lot of similar interests! Gene Wilder is so underappreciated...). Thanks again. Inurhead (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Serial killer categories

There are different categories that are tracked for different purposes. "Executed serial killers" is a subcategory of "Serial killers" and "People executed for murder". However, the only way to get an article listed under the category of "Executed people by crime", an article must also carry the separate category of "People executed for murder". When you remove one or the other category, the article is no longer listed in categories which are relevant for different reasons. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is so, why don't you put ALL executed serial killers under the People executed for murder category, (i.e. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Harvey Glatman, George Chapman (murderer), ect.)?

71.225.223.11 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jahailyass

Good eye spotting that hoax. I just wanted you to realize (if you had not already noticed) that not only is this user creating hoax pages about himself (I'm assuming there is the "ultimate COI" here, noting the similarities between the subject of the hoax page and the User ID), but he is also:

• Posting his own blog in articles as an act of vandalism [7]
• Stating in the blog that he called the parents of the Jonas Brothers and then posted what he claimed was a quote from their conversation [8], when in actuality the quote was a statement released to People Magazine's online site [9]
• Contributed this little nugget to the article about The Holocaust.

If you still think it's best to report it to the AN, I would agree. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Saa19952

The editor in question likes to make small edits which seem to be a cover for introducing either false info,bad edits or reverting false info and bad edits by 200.116.62.130 (whom I strongly suspect they are , look at my talk page to see the similar broken english from both editors ,reverts of each others edits on the SMG article ) .In this case I made a misjudgement when considering their edits because of those small edits .Garda40 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Josh Golden

Hello. Just wondering why you removed Josh Golden from Pedro the Lion's Personnel table. Golden's membership in the band is well established. --Mattbrundage (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I've reverted your edit, as the Josh Golden in question is obviously a different person from the 15-year old drummer. IMHO, neither Josh Golden deserves a wiki page, so I've de-linked his name in the table. --Mattbrundage (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlize Theron's Nationality

Um, I think we are basically in agreement and just trying to find the best way to word this. I agree that she became notable well before acquiring U.S. citizenship and is thus more usefully described as South African. I could also live with "South African-born American" or some such. Just not "South African American", which is technically true but could apply equally to a third-plus generation American with South African ancestors. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your latest looks good to me.--CAVincent (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The never-ending oddities of the Jim Morrison article

... or should I say, the contributors it attracts. You're right. The IP editor was just trying to help. I'm not sure how I wound up with the impression they had added the booklist. I think it's all cleared up now. Uh... for now. It is the JM article, after all ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

yep

thanks for watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

James Garner

Thanks for the updated URL for the _8 Simple Rules_ Bio. The one that was on the Garner site before did not work, so I found the filmbug one. I'll put that one first, then the filmbug one. Yes, the filmbug one seems blogged, but seems more detailed.

Okay. Thanks for the comments and the reminder about reliable sources. Also thanks for revising the sources on Garner's page. I think even with the sources, the Cherokee page editors will probably remove his name as well as Kristin Chenoweth's. Apparently they only want people who are members of the Cherokee Nation. It is too bad because both Mr. Garner and Ms. Chenoweth are proud of their heritage and aren't using it to gain more fame. Mr. Garner in fact is involved in many causes to publicize the history and the needs of the Cherokee people. Neither are Johnny Depp, Kevin Costner, and several others using their ancestry to bring attention to themselves. There are those who fake their ancestry to get attention, but none of the people I named people have a reason to do so. Also, there are people of Cherokee ancestry who for whatever reason cannot join the Cherokee Nation, especially those like Chenoweth who were adopted and may not have the paperwork showing her lineage. Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks again for your sharp eyes. --Gmosaki (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Um ah

Brrrrrrriiiinnnnnnggggg

• Me: "Oh hi, I ....."

• Random employee selected because she has a smugly superior phone voice that makes her sound like she comes from one of the better suburbs of Sydney: "For your account balance, press 1. To check your last 10 transactions, press 2.... "

• Me: "God, that should be a 2 not a 3." Click

Brrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnngggg

• Me: "I bet she's out."

• Female voice: "Hi, this is Wildhartlivie. I'm out. Please leave a message after the tone." Tone

• Me: "Oh hi, I was glad to hear from you. Well, it has been a while, yes. I haven't logged in for a few days. Nothing's wrong or anything. I've had a busy week, and I've been a bit ill the last couple of days. OK today though. So, I haven't been the near the computer for a while and have spent the last couple of days watching DVDs. Mainly "The Night Stalker" - one of my favourite shows of my younger days, and which I bought recently when I discovered the entire series was on DVD. Well, that's a happy memory ruined. What a bad show it was! How on earth did it give me nightmares? Will I watch the entire set of episode? Yes, I will. We took the puppy to the beach today and the sea air cleared my head, which is a relief, and we're having a week away in early November on North Stradbroke Island. I'm looking forward to it. The last time I was there, I was 18, and even though it's almost in my backyard, you have to get a ferry there, and it's not the easiest thing. You certainly wouldn't go for the day, but a week is another story, and to have that time to do nothing but relax will be bliss. Sunshine, sea, sand and DVDs. Ahhh. I have to say, I feel like I'm at a bit of a crossroads with Wikipedia, and I suppose not feeling well hasn't helped. I feel a bit like I'm always trying to keep nonsense out of the same articles over and over. I've felt like this before and have always snapped out of it, so I'm sure I will again. Rossrs (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound you out...

Hey Wildhartlivie, I see you around a lot and you do great work, and judging by your interactions, I think you would make an excellent admin. Are you interested? I can offer to nom you, but as a brand new admin myself (only 2 weeks) you may be happier with another nom, and I'd be happy to ask anyone on your behalf. Let me know what you think, :-) Maedin\^talk 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that all sounds perfectly reasonable and, moreover, sane! I have to agree that it would be a shame for those two projects to lose some of your time and for your excellent work elsewhere to be minimised by adminship duties, :-) I appreciate that you took the time to explain so well your reasons for declining. And of course, please do let me know if you ever need a hand with something, and I'll do whatever I can. Kind regards, Maedin\^talk 07:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

Your comment re the GAR is well taken. I've noted your concern on the reassessment and at BLP/N. My first encounter with this process, and I may have been overenthusiastic. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to be sure that I followed the proper procedure! I guess the advantage of the GAR is that it is drawing attention to this article from uninvolved editors like you and me. I'll take a look at the edit warring you describe. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

burgle vs burglarize

I have left a list of references on the Manson talk page supporting the fact that American English prefers burglarize and British English prefers burgle. My printed copy of Black's Law Dictionary also supports it. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Game discussion

Are you allowed to delete some1 else's comments from discussion page of an article? I didnt think that was allowed. I see you deleted my response to you, and that is your right as this is your page. But please do the posted comments on The Game discussion so that we may figure out what to do with the page content.70.108.89.47 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I get why you posted this, it is about my reply to Pink. I'll go back & delete a pink, but my comments stand. 70.108.89.47 (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Election 5

The coordinator elections are upon us again! I don't suppose you can be tempted to put your name forward this time? ;) PC78 (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no pressure. It's entirely up to you of course. :) Hope you are currently in good health. PC78 (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Published" sandbox page

I ask you to read "Wells book," which I’ve just posted on the talk page of "Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)." It will direct you to a "sandbox" page that I have just "published." In the sandbox page, I request the assistance of Wikipedia editors and administrators in bringing specified copyright questions to the attention of the legal department of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you will go to the sandbox page, read it, and bring it to the attention of any Wikipedia administrators or other higher-ups you know.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a minute?

Would you mind popping over here and giving your two cents please? Pinkadelica^♣ 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, I've noticed you've gone around policing my edits no matter how sourced they are. It's also stated in Wikipedia that when making an edit change 'explain in the Edit Summary'. This is obviously for people who are not good with Citations(im not good with them either, Wikipedia should make them easier for users or find another way of verification). The information is not necessarily controversial as it's from a published author, matter of fact from several published authors which is criteria enough for Wikipedia. Please dont take sourced information as controversial 'just because you may not like it'. Koplimek (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A published source whether it was on the Google Books or if the book was placed in front of you is credible information. Or more precisely that the source exists and not made up. Thats why I purposely mentioned the Google books as it verified the published source which most people would not have had in front of them. Another example used is the New York Times archive. In placing an edit summary and then asking for a citation, it is doing the same thing twice. Then there's several instances where someone's citation is incorrect information. These errors slip through because people look at the procedure of a citation, not the validity of the content. Koplimek (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the first paragraph of the reference link states that a 'reference' should be added. Nothing about citations. Once again, concerning the statement about Harlow's abortion, the published account referred to Hughes(in a single sentence) not wanting the child, nothing about a forced abortion. My input to the Carole Lombard links section was reverted by you, with no explanation(that would seem to be a requirement if not a politeness). The only reason I didn't change back your revert to what I had is that the site doesn't load quickly in a hyperlink for some reason. And also that people need an updated browser to really enjoy the Corbis site IMO. So I agreed with your revert on the Lombard links. To be short and simple I dont have problems with citations per se, just the way they're done at the present time. If citations were the only true verification, then there would be no need for the edit summary. It's double the work and it's not user friendly. There should be some way at Wikipedia to simplify an in-line citation such as software that crafts an entry from the summary and converting it to citation when the page is uploaded. That's my pet peeve with the citation element and it would seem many others pet peeves as well judging from how many contributions are made 'without inline citations'. See what Im getting at? People have made jokes about Wikipedia Citations in the past on venues like television, cause they dont understand them and it's a mute point when a citation needs a citation needs a citation... and so on. It's just my argument about the current way citations are done. Wikipedia has been around long enough to upgrade this phase of citation input. Thanks. Koplimek (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've never added citations as long as I've been on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean I haven't tried. The Ignore all rules is one of the fairest, most impartial and sensible guidelines that Wikipedia has to offer, within reason of course. It's one of the ways people can work together and improve the encyclopedia. The way the citations are done shoul be modified(IMO) to make it palatable to the multitudes of Wikipedians who never cite content they add or change as they dont understand it. Citations don't correct or stop willful acts of vandalism. It is a shame about the vandalism, as Wikipedia is a great online source for information if used correctly. Going back to the Harlow story, I've known about Harlow's story, amongst others, long before there was a Wikipedia. I didn't just stumble on to her or Howard Hughes, Rita Hayworth or Marlene Dietrich online though several new published works on several of the people mentioned have appeared in the last number of years. Much of the information on Harlow is not new or controversial. Shocking perhaps, but not controversial. I don't see any of the published information, concerning the people the edits were made on as controversial, as all of the people are deceased ie Harlow, Hughes, Dietrich, Hayworth. Im in agreement with you that their names or reputations don't have to be sullied by controversy just because they are deceased. If this information was unsourced gossip, slander or innuendo, I wouldn't waste my time with it. I believe we agree more than we differ in the long run. Well thank you Wildhartlivie. Koplimek (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wildhartlivie. Thanks for the response. To be realistic Wikipedia could always be hit with litigation in lieu of citations. I've learned over the years that anybody can sue anybody over anything at anytime. To deny any author the right to write freely about subjects, no matter how unpopular, would eventually end up as a First Amendment case in the United States. As with the Seigenthaler story it wasn't litigation, but ridicule of Wikipedia that was the result of unnoticed vandalism. If rules are going to work for any one faction then the rules will have to work for all of us. That's why tabloid newspapers can publish without too much litigious reprimand. The very movie industry, of which Harlow, Hughes, Hayworth & Dietrich were involved, benefits tremendously from having that first amendment right. Im sure they would agree. It doesn't mean they can't face lawsuits based on whatever the subject is. It means they can display subject matter. In parallel to the Dillinger lawsuit, which is a great point, in 1997 James Cameron and Paramount Pictures released a movie called Titanic. Im sure you've heard of this movie. In the movie one of the Titanic's officers William Murdoch is shown shooting a man during the sinking and then committing suicide by putting his revolver to his temple. This dramatic license by Cameron has never been proven and the real Murdoch's nephew in England detested his uncle being shown committing suicide when it was never proven. There was no lawsuit against Cameron or anyone involved in the movie but Cameron did go to England and personally made amends with the Murdoch family. True or untrue the scene remains in the movie as Cameron could express his dramatic license. That's all I'm really getting at, everyone has to benefit from freedom of speech & expression. Im not crazy about the current trend of hanging out celebrities' dirty laundry but from my observance many famous faces from Britney Spears to Princess Diana aided & abetted their own controversial reputations. All in all, today it may be Darwin Porter or David Bret, who may want to get something said that somebody may disapprove, tomorrow it could be Koplimek or Wildhartlivie. ...........Thanks so much about mentioning Wilbur's birthplace, I believe it was a farm at the time of his birth. Mrs Miller, Ivonette, I believe got a lot of the Flyer's original fabric (replaced in the 1927 restoration of the Flyer) in her inheritance. I may be wrong, but I think it was from Mrs Miller's batch of the fabric, that Neil Armstrong took a piece to the moon in 1969. Koplimek (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hi. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of Highly active users on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running for administratorship, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny

"almost regularly" ?? Rossrs (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on Harlow and Dietrich if it continues. I don't know about the "Hollywood Fixers" book, but I own the Darwin Porter book about Hughes. It probably says Harlow had an abortion, and it says a whole lot about just about every Hollywood person from the mid 1920s to the late 1950s, and the sordid details of their deviant sex lives, although it carefully discusses only those celebrities who are now dead. I don't know where he sources his material from. It's all very gossipy and he's able to relate, in detail, conversations that happened 80 years ago, and which he wasn't present for... it's trash. I'd put Porter on a rung below Boze Hadleigh on the credibility ladder. What also bothers me is that editors can take a book, that should give a lot of information about the subject, but they choose to add only the salacious tidbit from it. It's the same as the Harvey Carter sock does with all the bisexuality stuff. He supposedly has a highly regarded Rex Harrison biography, but the only bit from it that he thinks is worth adding to the article, is the vague suggestion of bisexuality. It's the same here. Not relevant to the article, but it satisfies a kind of morbid curiosity. Anyone interested in Harlow or Dietrich would be interested in expanding the discussion relating to their respective careers, but that ain't happening. Even if it's true, it isn't useful. Rossrs (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same about authors like David Bret. But Bret and Porter and their bretheren are published people. To say "Even if it's true, it isn't useful". Well who's to say, that's a judgement call by you. If that was the case then the Elvis Presley article wouldn't be as long as it is. That article tries to state every little breath that man made. People like Bret and Porter seem to have interviewed former servants and low tier coworkers and the like but I agree their info is still questionable. That can be said for anybody ever written about. To say Porter wasn't there to witness certain goings-on is a mute point. Most authors are never there. Example, if we were to take everything ever written about George Washington, how would we verify it? There have been a ton of authors writing on Washington for the last two hundred years but all of the information they write could easily be disputed no matter how verifiable. Where does it end and more importantly, who's to say? Well, that's all. Thanks Rossr Koplimek (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Published, yes. Reliable, not necessarily. Verifiable, maybe not. They should be treated with caution. Porter's "biographies" are not really biographical in nature. There is very little depth given to any aspect of the person, other than a detailed run down on their sexual exploits. So the first thing to deal with when dealing with Porter, is that he has a clear agenda of sexualising his subject(s). This is true of his "biographies" of both Hughes and Humphrey Bogart. What little I've read of his Marlon Brando book is the same. Interesting to read in a National Enquirer kind of way. He may have spoken to low tier employees etc and they may be quite happy to relate gossip that they didn't witness first hand, but there's nothing to say that Porter has made any attempt to verify or support any of the "anecdotes" (his word) that he relates. To say it "isn't useful". Yes, that is a judgement call by me. Wikipedia is made up of numerous people making numerous judgement calls, hopefully in-synch and with a common purpose. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I'm sure some would. The Elvis article is overblown, but two wrongs don't make a right, so if that article has problems, that's another discussion entirely. I'll explain why I commented about Porter not being present. I agree that all biographers convey information that they did not witness first-hand. My problem with Porter is that he goes to great lengths, to not merely describe an event, but to write it in a style of prose that is more suited to fiction, while passing it off as fact. He goes into too much detail recreating conversations and "quoting" people at length, describing their actions, and even their thoughts in such detail, that no amount of reliable sourcing or interviewing could establish. But his research doesn't fit what most people would consider as "reliable" - the information is all at least-third hand and he himself admits that the anecdotes have passed through several people - Hughes's friends/Hughes's enemies - before reaching Porter. So when he relates a conversation between Hughes and Harlow, or maybe Hughes and Lombard, he is recreating something that took place, in private 80 years ago, from an anecdote that has passed through who-knows-how-many people before it's reached him and been printed in his book. He seems to accept without question, the story as related by the last person who told it, and we as the reader are also supposed to accept this without criticism. Some biographers are scrupulous in the way they check and cross-check their information, and provide extensive details about their source material, in their published work. Porter is not such a biographer. Rossrs (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well put, I agree. Those guys are book ends, Porter and Bret. Porter and Bret do manage to find publishers, as in the case of Bret with his recent Doris Day book, who stand behind the writers' information. It goes even further as with Bret's already secured rights to, and now titled book on Elizabeth Taylor("Elizabeth Taylor: The Lady was a Vamp") that can't be published until after her death because of so-called 'explosive' content. This all with Taylor's cooperation herself. Go figure. Koplimek (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

I didn't upload that one, but I'm glad somebody added it. I was actually looking through Flickr for recent free images and was going to upload that image of Portman, but somebody beat me to it. We should still continue the hunt until we have the token head-on image. I was only able to get a few images this week: Gabriel Macht, Jacinda Barrett, and Howard Stern. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well about a week ago I uploaded another image of Stern, but several IPs said it wasn't him (I don't keep up to date on Stern's appearance). Then the author asked for payment for the image, so I just went ahead and deleted the image to avoid any issues. The main reason I was looking for an image of him was to finish the last of the two requests from The New York Times article (the other being Julius Erving which I got two images for, including the awesome slam dunk!). If Howard Stern wants a better image, he can send his own headshot (still amazed more celebrities aren't doing this). Although, Kristen Wiig's publicist did add an image to her article recently, even after I added several new images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't too happy with some of the issues raised in the article either, especially since one of the images I uploaded was mentioned (it wasn't that bad). The thing that kind of bothered me was that there was no mention of some of the good pictures that have been added. Many editors have uploaded/got permission for some quality images that could easily appear in a newspaper article/magazine. I'd hate to see the state of the articles if editors hadn't searched Flickr or asked for permissions all this time. Sometimes I hope that even for the bad quality images I upload help to inspire the particular celebrity to say "Hey, I have hundreds of pictures of myself, why don't I use that great one of me in Hawaii/award show/home for the thousands/hundreds of thousands of people who look at my page each week?". Right now there must be so many celebrities out there viewing their articles, thinking "You know, I look really good blurred, turned to the side, with red eyes, and fourteen people crowded around me. I think I'll let that picture stay up to educate the world on who I am." Sometimes I'm baffled at articles I look at, and I think that is further inspiration to look for better images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's cool with him directly writing back to you. You got to keep pushing him, let him see how the article would improve further if he let us use just one image. Maybe celebrities are scared that the press is going to pounce on them if they find out that they contributed to their own article in any way. Maybe similar to the politicians who got caught having their staff put a positive spin on their articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't jumped on to Twitter yet, but it's good that you're also using it to try and improve articles. Let me know when you get your first image from a celebrity from Twitter, I'm curious to see how it turns out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Film Critics

I have a website if you want to have a look. [10] Enjoy!! Mr Hall of England (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Erm...

But what have you done lately...?! :)

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Lugnuts (talk), hereby award Wildhartlivie the WikiProject Films Award for your valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. For your work on getting one article to a Featured List status and two articles to the Good Article standard. Awarded 08:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem! Your award page was sadly lacking the above anyway. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded to Wildhartlivie for totally livening up the joint. Keep up the silly work, dude. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD comment

Is this comment in the correct section? It seems like it may belong in the section immediately below. --RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dolly

What's wrong with "pornclassics"? Really, Wildhartlivie, we should be more open-minded. They don't waste their time with garden variety porn, just the classics, like Dolly's distant cousin. Kidding, kidding. "Pornclassics" sounds very tabloidy. If I was ever going to write an encyclopedia of world porn, I would call it "Encyclopedia of World Porn". It sounds much more scholarly and worthy. If I was going to write it, and quite frankly, I don't see it happening. Rossrs (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe I could start "Wikipornia".  :-D Rossrs (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The (neverending) Game

Seems like Jayron32 protected the article already so I don't know if I need to comment on the AN/I. I'm doubting this is actually Jawn Murray pushing the link into the article. If it is, his writing outside his blog really sucks. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Ping, you have mail! :) Thanks for all your responses to me, you help me remember why I'm here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tina Turner discography

Please refrain from adding Tina Turner awards into a the Tina Turner discography page. This also means no renaming the page as well. These are two completley different ideas, which should obviously be kept on separate articles. The discography is a place for albums, singles, music videos, and other appearances. Awards do not belong there, if anything. Thank you =) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Leelee Sobieski preggers

File:Leelee Sobieski pregnant Shankbone Metropolitan Opera 2009.jpg. Couldn't resist. -->David Shankbone 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)]]

Hey, dude!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :) Just wanted to swing by and say yo. I don't know if you like beer, but it's Guinness' 250th birthday (nom, nom) and I'm feeling all wiki-lovey. Signed, The Dudette aka momoricks 22:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

momoricks has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Travolta

Hey there. I realize that Scientology is a hot-button issue and I don't want to edit war. You deleted mention of Scientology from the section on Jett Travolta's death, saying that that's not the issue. I actually think it is a central issue to this. The whole scandal about Travolta and autism is that John didn't treat Jett's illness because his religion doesn't recognize it as real. I haven't found refs that back this up to the standard I think we need here, but I do think they're out there, and I do think this is the issue. What do you think? Conical Johnson (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree about everything you said about this. I don't want to put anything there that isn't sourced. All of the news articles that mentioned him confirming the autism also mentioned the Scientology link, so although I won't revert your edit to what I wrote, I stand by it as not being a synthesis. I didn't write that Jett died because of autism, only that Scientology does not recognize it, just as all the articles from major news networks did. I'll hold off further editing until I find a source that specifically outlines the connection. The point isn't whether you or I think it's true, the point is whether this subject has been covered by many reliable sources, and I think it has and will continue to be in the coming days.

If Scientology isn't the issue, why would it even be news that Jett was autisitic? Conical Johnson (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Dahlia

Thanks for your note! Editing mostly in the visual arts, I see a similar kind of listcruft: if a vaguely Toulouse-Lautrec related image appears in some video game (say Dynasty Warriors 5), somebody is sure to add that factoid to Toulouse-Lautrec; oddly, they never think to place it in Dynasty Warriors 5, where it might be relevant. Ewulp (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt

Hey there. As you were getting so stressed about my unsourced commentary, I've now sourced it, especially for you! How do you like those eggs? ROFL! Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kate Bush

I'd like you to clarify why using the noun "perfectionist" is perfectly okay but calling an artist who's had one top 40 single in 40 years of activity "essentially unknown" isn't? As you've deleted my "essentially unknown" comment, I've repaid the compliment with the "perfectionist" statement. So we'll call it a score draw and leave it there. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, don't play games. But at least answer my question : If "essentially unknown" is a point of view (which I accept can be construed as one), then why isn't "perfectionist" considered one too? A case of picking on the newcomer methinks. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't try to play the wounded newcomer card so soon. The edits you are discussing have been reverted with edit summaries, and the comments on your talk page have been helpful in so far as they have directed you to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Most experienced editors will try to help newcomers in such a way; nobody should have to help you with politeness but ... please look at the tone of your comments. Consider that a 'tit-for-tat' edit to Kate Bush does not result in "a score draw" regarding edits to Linda Ronstadt. Two wrongs rarely equal a right. I see nobody "picking on" a newcomer. The basic issue relates to edits to the Linda Ronstadt and Kate Bush articles, but you make it about the editor with your "How do you like those eggs? ROFL!", your "repaid the compliment " and your "picking on the newcomer methinks". If you are going to be wounded by other editors respectfully disagreeing with your viewpoint, I can only say that you are in for a bumpy ride if you choose to continue editing here.

"Essentially unknown" is a point of view in my opinion, and you accept that it can be construed as such. Lack of chart success does not necessarily equate to lack of recognition. Joni Mitchell, for example, has had one British hit, "Big Yellow Taxi", which reached number 11 in 1970. In the USA it reached number 67 but is still considered a "signature tune" for her. Her highest USA chart placing for a single is a number 22 hit in 1974. Is she "essentially unknown" in either the UK or the USA? It would be fairer to say Ronstadt achieved more success in the USA than in other parts of world, but it's more difficult to measure how well known she is, especially when you consider that she had several successful albums. The edit to Kate Bush is a different story, and I partly reverted it. It is clear that the paragraph in question follows one line of thought - it is one point being made and even though it takes several sentences to make the point, it does not automatically follow that a cite is needed at the end of each sentence. The paragraph as a whole is cited, and if you look at the title of the Q Magazine article used, it also points towards "perfectionism". Could it be cited more strongly? Perhaps. Should it be removed simply because it could be cited more strongly? No, I don't think that's helpful. There are comments throughout the article that also support this term, but it seems to be only your pique that supports the use of "egotistical", which you say you added with the aim of equaling a score (that exists only with you). Perfectionism may derive from ego, and ego may be one element that separates an artist from his or her audience, but unless someone is directly stating that Kate Bush is egotistical and it is attributed, it's not appropriate to use. "Perfectionism" is a broader type of word anyway, but before this becomes a discussion of semantics, the point is that it's used in a suitable context, is sourced and is generally supported by other article content. The article is a featured article, and although this does not mean it's perfect, it does indicate that it's gone through a more strenuous critical assessment than, for example, the Linda Ronstadt article. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dusty

Hiya, did you see 2009 Australian dust storm on the main page a few days ago? It's the most incredible natural phenomenon I've lived through. There are some great photos on the page. Sydney received worse than Brisbane, but this picture was taken in Brisbane. Our black puppy was red when we got home. LOL Poor thing - I was just relieved she hadn't choked to death. Not much fun for anyone accustomed to breathing oxygen, but we survived, and another one is blowing in tonight, according to tonight's news. They say it's not going to be as severe, but it's looking a little hazy already and I can taste it. Nothing like the taste of the Australian outback! "Dust in the Wind"..... Kansas never said that it tastes bad and makes you sneeze. You have mail, BTW. Rossrs (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Wahlberg

Hi, as you know I am trying to get back to doing things on the project that I enjoy so a question. ;) The Wahlberg article is starting to look like a list already. What are your thoughts about maybe making a list about his music, have to admit I know nothing about his music and am surprised he did so much, so that his article is less list and more well article? Also since I don't know much about his music, hopefully you do, maybe you can look at this latest stuff since it's mostly redlinked? I have enough trouble typing this right now but I hope real soon to be able to start doing research again. Thanks as always, in many ways, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Stipe

I just reverted back to Wess' last version. I just need to change the main image back. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Judi Dench

I can't believe after all the effort I went to in creating a lead for Dame Judi, someone slashed it to almost nothing, as POV, unreferenced and unnecessary! Thanks for restoring it! Rossrs (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Wildhartlivie/Charles Manson

User:Wildhartlivie/Charles Manson, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Charles Manson and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Wildhartlivie/Charles Manson during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Susan Atkins

May I ask why you reverted my edit of the fact that Susan Atkins died 14 months after she was diagnosed? --Accountant45 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Usually. I watchlist all of the GA/FA/FLs I've worked on along with other pages. In total, I have about 700 different pages on my watchlist (the majority being non-free images I've uploaded). Sorry if I beat you to the punch, you usually get to some of the articles I work on (such as Matt Damon) before I get a chance to. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye for vandalism. Although I can't edit during work, I usually check my watchlist during lunch and fortunately I can at least revert vandalism using my iPhone. Reverting vandalism is one of my least favorite things to do here, since it detracts from actually improving the encyclopedia. I believe I'd have many more GAs if I was able to focus on just improving content instead of convincing anons why a particular actor should not have "xx is the greatest actorz eva!!!!" added to the article (or obviously things much worse). I guess not everything can be successful with Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I think that would be the first time that an article could then cover the "hottest" factor. Unless some of the articles already have cited the People magazine's "top sexiest" list. It's cool how you're using Twitter to try and improve articles. If you ever get some success with that method, perhaps you should tell the Signpost or something, so maybe others could try to do the same thing. It's hard to contact celebrities, but that's an interesting medium to give it a try. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm no Shankbone either, I'm just a really lucky guy who happens to get nice people to allow us to use their work. Nearly 1,000 pictures so far, hopefully they keep coming! We should be open to any methods that are successful, and I think we're definitely improving compared to images' state when I first joined Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

For future reference, in situations like this you can just tag it per WP:CSD G7.--Rockfang (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise. :) Rockfang (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Finding links to external sites

Re this: Special:LinkSearch. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean, but do you mean something like this? Obviously you'll need to change the article name, but it'll show all links for the article and you can update the ones that are no good. Rossrs (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine thanks. Just about to take puppy for a walk, and then I start readying myself for work. I'm on a late start today, so I've had a relaxing morning. How about you? Rossrs (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Late days have their advantages and disadvantages. I can sleep a little later, do a few things before I go and ease into the day. On the downside, it's dark when I get home, and the nature of my work changes on a late day. End of day is usually about fixing mistakes and problems that don't come to light until the day draws to a close. Last night I had to stay back nearly half an hour fixing a problem that had to be fixed. Finishing earlier, I can avoid all that. I'll check my emails later. Have a good night, and hope the interview goes well for you. Rossrs (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hilary Duff

I noticed it too, but when I went through, it seemed generally unproblematic. I could see detail getting removed, but I didn't see any citations being removed with the material left in. I've cautioned Kikkolakabud, but I don't see anything I feel compelled to revert. He's generally a good editor, so if you see something you feel a need to revert, feel free to do so with explanation.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Michelle Gellar

I know you've spent some time on this article as well, so I am interested in your opinion. What do you think of this (seemingly unhelpful edit, in my opinion) to the article? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 01:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resources to use

Hello, I do not know if you are aware of WP:FILMRES, but I think that some resources there could apply to Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. The potential resources are those in the "Books" sections, namely items related to film directors and filmmakers. Wanted to give you a heads-up so you can choose to provide the resources on the WikiProject main page or not. :) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)