User talk:Pinkadelica/Archive 4

You aren't paying attention to my edits. The sentence I removed is plagiarized from the Time Magazine article cited at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.183.175 (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left an edit summary saying that it was plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.183.175 (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is often a debate with many fans as to who is the better of the comedy duo. Many have said Hamish is the better half of the team, after considerable brain scans people appear to secretly like Andy and have him as their favourite but would rather admit to liking Hamish Blake more because he is seen as a funnier comedian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.183.110 (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heya ... i'm only a "distant admirer" of Little Richard - don't own any books about him or anything; i tried to smooth out his article more for editorial reasons than for "aficionado" reasons, if you see what i mean. i agree that that long list of famous names in the lead-in seems excessive, and sure hope no one would take it as a "putdown" if it were removed as unsourced (and probably unsourceable, unless someone felt like digging up references for every name, which would be unwieldy at best). as for the other unreferenced statements, i'd suggest doing just a few at first to see if they arouse any active ire - some of the statements no doubt *are* sourceable, if people they're important to would just make the effort. as for his sexuality: those discussions on the talk page made me smile really ... in short: sure, since you have a source you can cite on it, i'd go ahead and work it into the article somewhere. as you say it's not something that needs to be a big deal but i can't think of any reason to treat it as an "unmentionable". meanwhile, thanks a lot for the improvements you're making.

Hey, I saw that you cleaned up the Melissa Keller article, especially with regard to the links. I want to say first that I agree with your edits in theory. However, a while back (months, years, I don't remember) a couple of editors lost their minds editing that article. One of the editors was a friend of Keller's, and she tried to rewrite the article several times, resulting in more sources being needed to keep the revisionist history out. Then another editor came along and decided that the best way to solve the problem was to cite a source for every single word in the article. I think the article looks better the way you've edited it, but I thought you might want to know why it looked so awkward previously. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I feared, your edits to Melissa Keller weren't well received. The editor that I previously referred to has substantially changed the article, removing much material, claiming you violated numerous Wikipedia policies. Sorry. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it can be pitched and then see what the fall out will be. Hey, btw, I've been so involved in working on the Serial killer and Criminal biography lists that were chosen for Version 0.7 release that I haven't had an opportunity to get to the actors and filmmakers list yet. If you have time, could you take a look at some of the articles listed here, especially in the first section, which are articles with issues tags? I'd really appreciate it. I will get to the whole list, and run the checklink tool on them by the end of the week. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've started the checklink thing on the first article. If an article is essentially crap, let me know and I'll just take it off the release list. I've a couple criminal articles I'm taking off, and I will be turning over Cyndi Lauper to copyeditors. It's a mess. I made a note at the top of the page to briefly note what's been done to an article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've been doing a couple of things routinely as I've gone through the articles. I delink the deprecated date links, check for use of last name instead of first only, and clean up references and grammar, if it is too bad. Don't go for major rewrites or anything, just clean up well enough to pass a brief once over. If it needs major work, that's the kind we'll dump from the list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you can. I've foolishly started with the first on the list - who the hell is Amitabh Bachchan and why do I care? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem 59.95.121.40 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I have only one question about the article. WTF is that listing of references at the bottom? Is there any good reason to keep that since each of the list is already in the footnotes section? And I have one question about Julia Stiles, since you know way too much. Is she? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the list out then, it's redundant. Is she - I note there is nothing about her private life or love life. I've heard whispers in dark places about that fact and just wondered... if she was. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's been more than his fair share of talk about that guy anyway. That could be a bit too convenient... Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a short note and then tagged the IP as another sock of HarveyCarter. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm trudging along on these actor bios, I came across Drew's, which had been really deprecated from its GA status due to additions, changes, etc. It mentioned her production company in the lead and didn't discuss it at all later. Would you just take a quick look at it now as compared to Drew Barrymore yesterday and see if it has an improved flow or if you have other suggestions? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot of work on it between the "then" version and the "now." I hope you look and think it's all good! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh MAN!! Is it duck and rabbit season again already? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I reverted the Melissa Keller article back to the otrs edit version. His edit summary ran two lines on my browser. Like I dummy, I didn't bother reading the second line. Thanks for the heads up. As a side note, I hadn't read your user page until just now. In the interest of Wikipedia harmony, I won't elaborate any further.  :) Chicken Wing (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...joins

But we're always nice. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. You're both utterly fabulous, but that's another story. Rossrs (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you don't see the e-mails we sending flying back and forth. But we make a nice little cabal. Wanna join? Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please ! I love a good cabal! Rossrs (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Harvey is he's only got about 3 comments to make. He just looks busy because he makes them over and over and over and over. Rossrs (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably stepped in it, but this is one of the articles I've reviewed for version 0.7, and while I was checking links, the link to a YouTube video was dead. It was to a video made by one of them in which he says he has ADD. I took the sentence out, along with the dead ref, and this guy puts it back in tonight, shouting reliable source. Here's the issue. This is a good article, and I've never seen a good article with a YouTube source. The original video was posted on the Sprouse's account, the one the guy put back up is a copy posted by someone else. I've made a point about it, and will take it to

What they are using is a caption added to the video at the 8:41 mark that says "Shaking camera provides proof: Never give a camera to a person with A.D.D." Really. I'm going to remove it based on that. It's been listed at

WP:BLP/N. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I had to enlarge to full screen size to read it myself. Yes, please do weigh in, on the article talk page and at

WP:BLP/N#Cole & Dylan Sprouse (you can say the same thing). If they continue to pursue using this, I'll challenge the GA status of the article. I mean, what the....???? Speaking of WTF, go see who popped in to tamper with Gertrude Lawrence tonight! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. I guess I should take it as a badge of honor, as that's the first time it's happened. Ulric1313 (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that section is getting to be a bit unwieldy. The article is close to 32 kb, with about 5.5 kb of it in that section. Little of it is referenced and it is turning into the list of death. I'd recommend using the focus we used on Charlie Manson or Lizzie Borden - use the most known as examples of how he's in popular culture. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know my opinion on the matter, so if you need support on it, let me know. Meanwhile, I'm dealing with something I really don't care about - crap on a killer's page. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not nearly as much as I love Weekend Warriors. I had another issue early today, someone didn't appreciate my merging two disparate tables into one on a page (filmography table in the nice format with an awards table in what I think is an ugly format). I spent two hours this morning arguing over that, then I said chuck it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would fully agree with your comments about the state of the current article. You are right that the wording, and what should or should not be included, has been the subject of hot debate, and you may stir up a hornet's nest. However, the current article is a shambles (even allowing for your recent editing attempt). Be bold - I am certain we will end up with something that far exceeds the quality of the present situation. Very best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo pinkdelica, please have a look at user 83.248.165.157 he has faked my reference Oct. the 8th article ==Neven Subotic==? Pls. see discussion. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Speidelj (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Joschi Speidel[reply]

I've probably really annoyed someone, but... Someone who seems to have a huge thing for Pfeiffer added some things to the article, a multi-colored awards table, bolded out the won awards in the filmography, and rainbow hued the succession boxes. The awards table is totally redundant, it has nothing that isn't present in either the filmography, succession boxes or infobox awards. I worked it over, but I have some issues with the references he or she has added. The majority of them are from a fansite - http://www.pfeiffertheface.com/, which is used as the source for published articles that are available on the internet from their own publisher sites. That wouldn't be such an issue, except that the first thing I saw on the front page was a note that part of the material on the first page came from Wikipedia. I ran a search and this is how much Wikipedia is used on the site. How can it be reliably sourced if parts or all of it is circularly referenced? Then there is the POV. "She is considered one of the most beautiful women in the cinema, having appeared on the cover of the first People Magazine's '50 Most Beautiful People in the World' issue in 1990, and re-appearing a record six times during that decade, making the cover again in 1999." Yeah, but still, isn't that a bit of peacockery? There are cites from IMDB from the trivia page, and what's this "The Garbo of the Nineties" crap heading?? Let me know what you think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I thought too. I know it's gonna really P.O. the guy who did it, but those rainbow tables were annoying. The trouble with the fansite is that it's used to ref about a dozen things in the article. I'll work more on it tomorrow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you pop over to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 23 and weigh in on the Mel Gibson template deletion? I nominated it because it only has 4 films on it, all of which are on the other Mel Gibson template. It's redundant. (I love that word.) Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the comment on my talk page. Nice work with the filmography chart and vandal-watch. :) Queer Scout (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... for reverting the vandalism to my User page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been acting like a sockpuppet of

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks!

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, but I know. That's what made me do it. I didn't make a change that wasn't appropriate!! Copyright violations and deadlinks, ah well. I can't resist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know (and good for a laugh). Thanks. There's been some inertia in improving that page, so the sock/troll probably came at a good time. --Mosmof (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dump her. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 28#Category:American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor and weighing in with your opinion? I'm really confused by the reasoning being used here and the obvious mixing up of Best Actor/Best Supporting Actor with no explanation of why they are lumped. I think the article is redundant and unnecessary and the category is over-classification. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell, it's worse than that. The page is a combination of best actor and best supporting actor (Robin Williams won supporting). I found it after the guy who created it started posting those templates for American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor all over the pages I have watchlisted. It's a nightmare. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying but due to the fact that it's a blog in which she writes in the webpage doesn't appear valid when I want to add it as a citation. Either way that's no reason to continuously delete this factual information. Being that you've continued to update the Holly Valance page, why don't you look up the page and see for yourself that the information is correct. --Klutzulmaniack (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a braver man than I am, Gunga Din. I was so very tempted to just revert the whole thing back to about 3 months ago. All of those lists of what rank a song or album reached in a dozen countries can just go. There's no sourcing for any of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, while I can't particularly fault the photo and intent, it was a scary presentation as entered. Don't fret too much over Tina, someone has been working quite hard on it and seems to be making some headway. More power to him. There is someone whose work you may want to keep an eye on. There's been problems (what's new) on the Claudette Colbert page and it seems to be rippling. The person doesn't/won't discuss things and so far, Ed Fitzgerald, Rossrs and I have all had issues with what's going on. Good luck! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please take a look at the difference in sections of what I edited the section to say vs. what this guy is insisting that it says here and then weigh in on the talk page. I'm losing my cool on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Old-Skool (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just wanted to stop by to thank you for your help with making a 2nd Nature article! Cheers!

You're very welcome for the cookie! Hope it was good (lol). If you'd like, you can go see the

2nd Nature (band) page that i created... I'd say it's pretty nice! Tell me what you think about it, if you'd like! Mr. Old-Skool (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Aw, thanks a bunch... again, lol. Well, their one and only album, What Comes Natural, is quite good. If you don't already have it, I highly recommend you get it. You know what another good group is?

Subway. Just discovered them and they're fantastic. Just thought I'd mention that :) Mr. Old-Skool (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for weighing in, you're very authoritative. I felt like I was being chastised. The guy has a bias against Basinger and apparently thinks Baldwin is a hero. That may be fine, but his writing reflects it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None so far. I finally bullied him into moderating what was said, reported him for 3RR, he was blocked and hasn't returned and I tried to neutralize the last version he left. He pissed me off to a large degree and I'm afraid I was a bit incivil, but I don't care. I'm not that great a fan of either Baldwin or Basinger, but geez, it wasn't a book review. I love it when people don't read what you're telling them, then accuse you of bias. My aunt used to say "The fox is the finder, the stink lays behind her." That was usually referring to farts, but the gist is the same. You might take a look and see what you think now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the real skinny on it. They had a hugely tumultuous marriage. Each of them was as nasty as the other. He accused her of being mentally ill (she has phobias). She accused him of cruelty and being abusive. I think the tape to the daughter kind of reinforced that a bit. In any case, all their dirty laundry was publicly aired. Then he wrote this book, I think mostly trying to ameliorate his public image after the nasty voice message thing. Some things just won't die. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly on both points - funny as hell and likely insufferable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for returning the favour :). \ / (⁂) 07:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The

Why in the **** would someone slap a merge suggestion on this then change it over to this, which just slaps in the IMDB filmography, as it exists????? WTF?????? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came upon it by accident. I replace the filmography in the main article with the lovely tabled one and nominated the separate page for deletion. Go ahead. Vote delete. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After having pissed off dougweller when I spouted off being pissed about "edit warring", I posted this (try this one instead) about the alleged birth certificate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've commented, and I hope that video referencing is not the way of the future. I can't think of a more tedious way of fact-checking. In this case, the fact is confirmed within the first two seconds of the video, although I don't really see the point. Will Kylie say "yes" to Justin?  :-) Rossrs (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just drumming up what may be needed back up. I ran across this, this, and this. The editor added expatriate categories to those three articles based on the logic that they stayed in New Zealand while filming Lord of the Rings. I removed the categories and he quickly reverted two of them, saying Oh dear, we are protective, aren't we?. I went to leave a note on his talk page, only to see he's a contentious edit warrior. I reverted his reversions and noted that they are no longer there, even if they were expatriates at the time, they aren't there now. You might watchlist those three pages to be on alert for this silliness. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how does this add to the article? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've opened a request for comment on Talk:Cate Blanchett#Are actors who worked on location in another country other than residence considered expatriates? It's fairly self-explanatory, I think. I'd welcome your input. I'll just say that based on perusing the editor's talk page, I felt like this was a better approach than trying to discuss it, and partly since he's not bothered to respond to my note about it. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't address the new West image at this point. I'll back you up on removing whatever you think is necessary. Thanks for your comment, I am surprised at how quickly people have commented on it. I knew it would turn out the way it is headed, I just didn't want to battle. Did you see the guy's talk page? That crap stresses me out, so I decided a consensus was a better way to go. Administrators tend to support consensus. BTW, the OTRS guy didn't respond to my note on his page. Take a wikibreak. I've not done a lot the last few days, so I suppose mine is a partial mini-wikibreak. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on the Cate Blanchett issue. Rossrs and I have been trying to discuss an issue located at Talk:Mickey Rooney#Born-again Christian, homophobe?. We'd both like your perspective on the newest issue this week. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Apparently I've rubbed someone the wrong way when I removed a newly started trivia section in this article. Or maybe it was that I was super annoyed that someone started it, and worded my hidden note too strongly. In any event, he's raised the issue on the talk page, and I've responded. Would you please look at the discussion at Talk:Susan Atkins#Pop culture reference and (hopefully) support my opinion? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welllll, I removed the infobox, that is not the proper usage of it, it is for awards ceremonies, so I'll probably piss someone off. It's a little suspect, seeing that the image used was the nomination announcement that the nominated person receives. Wonder who provided that? Lots of things I see:

• it makes it sound like he was in the West Side Story film because he was the youngest cast member of the stage production.
• "Winters taught dance to world famous actors."
• "Winters was nominated for a Special Achievement in Choreography Emmy in 1967, which was unusual, in that choreography was not a category that year."
• That show is sometimes considered to have launched the music video as a promotional device. In any case, former Monkee Michael Nesmith went on to be a pioneer in American music videos.
• "Now seen as a classic '70s timepiece," by whom?
• "Winters' 1986 film Thrashin' remains a seminal piece of work in the board sport industry two decades after its initial release." The source says "The Grind appears to be following in the questionable steps of Hollywood’s previous interpretations of skateboarders in legendary 80s films Thrashin’ and Gleaming The Cube." Does that support that they are seminal? Questionable steps makes it sound more like the films weren't seminal.
• "In 1978, in a jam-packed Universal Amphitheatre (now the Gibson Amphitheatre), fans of Diana Ross, were treated to a concert spectacular, conceived and executed by Winters."
• "the Thrashin' Incident." What Thrashin' Incident?

Finally, why are parts of the notoriety section bolded? Yeah, you're right. If this is the improvement, I'm not gonna look at the original!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, actually, you do come up with some real winners. I just get into fights. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: David Winters (choreographer)

It was the first article I birthed, and was beginning to feel I was the only one that ever looked at it. It got challenged early on as a non notable person, which is why I went overboard with the citations and obscure details. Your edits make the whole thing read so much easier. Liek most people, I have difficulty editing my own writing. Without the little red underlines in firefox, the only way for me to proofread for spelling, is the Hebrew way (right to left bottom to top). I see you are a MSTy, I have had drinks with Mike Nelson, way before the show started. In an odd triangle, he was the best friend of the new boyfriend of my ex girlfriend that I remained friends with. And as a potentially awkward foursome, we would go out. I have also started corresponding with Winters after I started the article, and quizzed him about

You could probably make a Wiki Career following me around, since everything you adjusted in this one, is probably present in my other babies. I think I have rid my self of gratuitous capitalization *fingers crossed* --K3vin (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Did you see the message above yours? WTF? Needless to say, it hit me the wrong way and I left a tersely worded reply. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my talk page, here and Talk:Mae West. WTF? Can you say "over-react"? Can you say anything to keep me from getting in deep trouble for personal attacks? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Craig Ferguson often says "I KNOW!!!" It's way involved and bordered on lunacy. I wanted Susan Powter to come out and scream "Stop the insanity!!" Thank GOD Rossrs and an adminstrator who came across it at

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons) got my back on it. There's a bit to be learned about it by reading between the lines on my and Rossrs talk. Ya know, sometimes reading between the lines involves hitting edit. All in all, it sent me to bed for about 5 hours with a raging headache. In lighter news, we had snow flurries today. Talk about WTF?! It was in the 50s last year all during November. I'll do a bit on the page, I'm already toxic poison, ya know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I suppose all's well that ends well. Sort of. It doesn't hurt any of us to make a stop in The Twilight Zone once in a while. Regardless of protest, the one editor most certainly did imply a legal threat. Just weird. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but you know, someone did "some constructive work, real editing that is." Your "good edit" fixed everything that was conceivably wrong, although you personally only removed one tag. Wow, you're gooooooood!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good. If you'll look at

Sounds fine. I went in and fixed the non-formatted outside links in the filmography, but that's about it. It's all yours unless you need me. Actually, what the deal is with the Wae West guy is that he's a West fanatic and I made no bones about POV in my reply. Honestly, there may be symbols of All-American-ness and positive good will out there, but Mae West wasn't one of them. Go read my reply!! Night! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

in your profile I read that you come from Germany. I am German (you can check my contact address at www.bobbydriscoll.net, section: Contact-Impressum) and therefore English is not my native language, although I understand it good enough to communicate in it.

Can I write to you in German, what, of course, is much easier for me to explain my point of view etc., or are you preferring English, what doesn't necessarily must mean a general problem, since I simultaneously work with www.dict.leo.com. and similar comprehensive online dictionaries.

Best wishes Oliver - Bylot --Bylot (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on your user page that you support Madonna, gender equality rights, animal rights, Barack Obama, and Stalin. So, I was wondering if your user name was a reference to being a communist (pinko-delica) or if it's just a coincidence. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a pro-Stalin userbox? Woah. Sign me up, stat!

shoot! 05:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, she's certainly been called worse!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, how could I forgot? First I was a liberal whore now I'm a suspected pinko. My views sure do swing wildly, don't they? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, if you are pro gender-equality and pro-animal rights, then it only seems natural you would be pro-Stalin? LOL. That is some deductive reasoning that I certainly missed as an undergrad.

shoot! 08:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course! You really can't help but think of Stalin when you think of PETA or say Gloria Steinem. I just can't believe it took this long for someone to 'out' me. I suppose that invisible I Heart Stalin userbox I have on my userpage was a dead giveaway. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 08:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

feel free to edit the article as far as you think to improve it properly. Concerning further readings the problem is, that there is no written biography or other book on Bobby Driscoll available. His children refuse any assistance concerning such a project and the only informations on him are from the press of then and via contemporary people like acting colleagues and/or friends/school-mates, as far as they are still living and are ready to remember. One of such lucky contacts I could make with Peter Votrian (Jonno Koslow in MEDIC - Laughter Is A Boy, 1955) who at once shared his memories on his work on this show to me very kindly. And I'm in a loose contact to the webmaster of Margaret Kerry's website, who is planning her autobiography with passages mentioning her work with Bobby in IF YOU KNEW SUSIE, 1948 and PETER PAN, 1953 and actor Russ Tamblyn, one of his closest friends during his time at Wallace Berman's art circle (Semina Culture), also wants to reserve a seperate chapter in his announced autobiography. Unfortunately there's still no exact release date of both books. So you can image the difficulties to get reliable informations on him.

I added another important quotation (on his addiction) to the article and another file plus the references.

I will come back later this day, since I am very busy today.

Best regards --Bylot (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note. Funny, I was already working on some ref and other clean up on the article. I'll do some more work on it, I haven't gotten to the spelling/possessives errors I noted when I looked at the changes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look, have I overtagged? It's pretty bad (I know - picky, picky). Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, say it isn't so!! Worse than Kupcinet?? Are you sure? I'll tell you sometime what this all reminds of. Remind me to do that. You've made some good progress. Maybe at some point, it could go to GA? Or would that make you hate her all the more? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clorox for the brain? I don't think so, but there is a product that has nearly the same effect. I think it's called Thorazine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinkadelica, I have posted an incident report regarding User:EmilEikS, which is located here. I thought you might like to comment on the incidents. I also ran across a posting by this user that accused you and Wildhartlivie of disruptive collaboration on the Mae West article, but I can't locate it now. You may want to mention that as well. Best regards, mo ^talk 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to add more specifics. This is my first noticeboard report, and apparently I was too vague, which I have duly noted, although I hope I never have to make another one! Thanks again, mo ^talk 07:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So was that overkill or did I leave anything out? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got an email from you about it! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a

...when you have time, go to Talk:Mark Wahlberg#Tracking down victim and lend your opinion. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did you know Marky Mark had been such a bad boy? I guess I didn't! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See response editor made here. Did I misunderstand or did that seem just a little ... whatever? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait and see what's said next. I looked around and there is a history of POV and questionable edits. I can always ask the girls (Momo and Chronie) and Rossrs their opinions as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank it out and redirect it to the talk page of Kobe's. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gobble gobble!! (P.S. I'm going to open an RfC on Mark Wahlberg. There's something kind of condescending in the comments from that guy, I think. "Feel free to add charities"??? Puh-leeze.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinkadelica, I happened to see this note (I get most of my Wikiexcitement following Wild's talk page conversations...I'm such a lame-o :)) and wanted to fill you in on something I learned recently. According to

WP:MERGE, this is the guideline for dealing with merged articles' talk pages:

To avoid losing quick access to that historical discussion, a link to the source page's talk-page should be placed at the top of the destination's talk-page, such as: Article merged: See old talk-page [[talk:PAGENAME|here]].

I hope this helps. momoricks ^{make my day} 01:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You are very welcome. I'm also a Nervous Nelly when it comes to merges, redirects and the like, so I make sure to go through the instructs with a microscope to make sure I've done everything correctly. momoricks ^{make my day} 03:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do some Googling and see if you can't find the webpage from where it was copied, then nominate it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be from here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, in this case, considering the copy vio on the other page, I'm betting the WP article is a copy of the answers.com page. It carries a 2006 copyright. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping myself busy expanding some colonial America crime related biographies. It seems to keep me out of trouble. I'll have you look at Bathsheba Spooner in about 15 minutes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. This is what I started with and this is where I am. Wow, I wonder if I could manage to persuade someone this qualifies as a good article? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks! I love Google books. You can find sooo much there sometimes. I did a fairly detailed clean up of

Lewis Powell (assassin) last night. He was kind of fascinating for a Lincoln assassination conspirator, and between us, he was kind of good looking too. No one much bothers with these early US biographies and I've come to discover, they were a randy bunch!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I've opened a request for comment on an issue about apologies at Talk:Mark Wahlberg#Request for Comment. Would you mind looking at the issue and leaving your comment? Thank you!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that he was implying that when I read some of his statements, but I blew it off. Apparently he did mean that anyone defending da Mahk was a petty criminal too. I have this bad sort of luck. I firt noticed it when I began working at the developmental center. Before, I didn't attract attention from developmentally disabled people in the community. After, no matter where I was, the DD people noticed me and came to talk to me... grocery, restaurants, stores, where ever. Then I worked with the mentally ill. See the pattern?? And here we are. Did you stop by the RfC and leave an endorsement yet? How are ya?? Good weekend so far??? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The

Hi. Concerning this edit of yours and many other I want to make two comments: a)

Category:Year of birth missing (living people) reads "This category is appended to article pages of living individuals whose year of birth is not indicated. " and "When the year of birth for living individuals has been researched, but the month and day remain missing, please do not use Category:Date of birth missing (living people) before ascertaining the individual's full public prominence." -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I came across Marie McDonald, which is need of your NPOV magic, if you're interested. It says some weird things: "In 1957, she made headlines by faking her own kidnapping." "In all, she married seven times, including twice to Harry Karl, who later married and bankrupted Debbie Reynolds ... (later) ... Marie's three children were raised by Harry Karl and his new wife, Debbie Reynolds." It needs some referencing too. Let me know if you don't wannnnnnaaaaa. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How funny. I didn't even look to see who'd tagged it. I've been busy uploading my images from Hollywood cemeteries on Commons [1]. And yeah, I'm a tyrant, aren't I? First Dooyar, then Werdnawerdna, now Emil. But Emil departed prior to being banned. He had taken up disagreement with someone else this past weekend. I didn't do it!!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, "Wikipedia equals wolf pack." What a pompous thing to say. I don't suppose it occurred to him that he couldn't get along with anyone, including the people he sort of was nice to. Tag-team meat puppetry or sock puppetry, it's all the same. There's NO way that he wasn't in the same room as Fiandonca, if both were using the same computer, if for no other reason, the timing of all the posts in the initial flag icon issue. Does he think people are stupid? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple notes on Marie McDonald. Rossrs thought I should upload the cemetery pics on Commons and I have added Image:Marie McDonald mausoleum.jpg. You might note on there that Donald's year of death is given as 1965, but the article says he killed himself in January 1966. Hopefully, there is clarification there somewhere. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go here and shout out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so angry, it keeps me from being stunned. He included this on 27 articles, all but one which I undid. Someone else got to the other one. He included Tiger Woods. Have you ever read his ethnic background? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of our trouble is that we edit at night, and you know, they only come out at night. It's a lot less schizophrenic in the daytime. As far as he's concerned, I was in management for a long time, I could usually tell if someone was going to work out in a day or two, then I could fire them. It's a little harder here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, gee now, you're just buttering me up! I've give it a go when I get up later today. I was going to work another 20 minutes or so then try to get some sleep. I tried watching Finding Neverland, which I love, but it just made me sob like a little girl. In any case, I didn't know there were public lynchings in California in the 30s! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did catch that, but that's okay, I don't get the "magic touch needed" message often. Poor Marie McDonald. She deserves better. Meanwhile, and oh shit!, it's 12 degrees outside here tonight. The cats are so far under the covers I may never find them again. I'm thinking the warm bed is right where we all need to go! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm working down a "needs infobox" list and I've come to this name, I opened a discussion at Talk:Kathryn Grayson#Infobox, to which I'm guessing you're supportive and will say so? Heh. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh and great. Marie sounds much better. The only question I've got is still about Donald's death. The article says a year later, but if he died in January 1966, and she died in October 1965, it wasn't a year and it still doesn't explain the 1965 date on his crypt. But at least Karl is identified as something besides the man who broke Debbie Reynolds. I wonder what happened to those children after Reynolds and Karl divorced? Maybe the library will clear this up!

Meanwhile, I wasn't questioning your sincerity about the Brooke Hart articel!! Really!! As for Mario Lanza, you might check Rossrs' comment on his here: User:Rossrs/Sandbox2#No_infobox. This is why I chose Kathryn Grayson to challenge this rather than Lanza. Heheeeeeeee. How would you feel about removing the bad images from Mae West rather than me? I know that while Emil says he's gone, if I am the one to do so, he will come back just to fight with me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd get rid of all of those fansite links. They aren't in keeping with WP:EL, keep the latimes article, modelsanctum, cultsirens, npr.org, and youtube and I'd get rid of all unsourced trivia. Does that help? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After the changes we've all been using on filmography tables for a long time, someone who has never risen to say anything about

Initially, his complaint that the three minor changes hadn't been discussed, and no matter what he says, that username isn't on the participants list and was never on the revision history of the project page or the project talk page until now. He might have joined, but it's not with that username. It was only after the discussion was opened that he decided it was the colors. "They clash?" Look at the various shades of yellow used in just those awards templates those guys have made this past summer!! I think it is going to get consensus to stay, so it's good. Meanwhile, have a look at User talk:Kingturtle and User talk:Jehochman. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, no, the tables are open to adaptation. That it was adapted from the one endorsed by

WP:FILMS is moving toward the decision that using the ugly Win/Nominated green/red templates isn't endorsed for film articles anymore. I hate those myself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

1) Youre telling me about 3RR when u need 2 tell yourself about it.
2) READ the sources. PW was @ a charity event 4 kids, that doesnt mean she is a sciento. Brandy Norwood was also @ the charity event, so will u add to her article that she is a sciento? I didnt say u said she was a sciento, I just removed that she was bc she isnt.
3) Mecca & Saturn arent cited with pics. There are other references, I added the pics just so 1 can see what they look like.
4) You speak of consensus yet you deleted her tattoo section quote. Why? Tattoos are a big part of PW as well as her character on Gfs. Why didnt u ask consensus b4 u cut it from the article?70.108.136.225 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think we should take this to AN yet? He seems pretty persistent about adding those pictures. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do. READ the sources? We have to READ the talk page post first. Have people forgotten how to write in real English? The tattoos section consists of a large block of text attributed to a magazine. This would probably violate copyright laws. WP allows a sentence or two, not a large block of text, to be quoted with attribution. As for her children, this is a violation of privacy, WP does not publish images of stars' children unless those children are notable themselves (think Jaden Smith). We cannot allow links to images of these children placed as inline citations. Never. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am feeling better, though I have a bit of a migraine hangover. If you don't have them, the hangover part of a migraine is hard to describe. It's kind of like being... a step to the left. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. Thankyouverymuch. I've nominated it for a featured list review. It's looking good. I created it on Saturday. It could be a record create --> FL if it passes. Yeah, it won about 847,382 awards and was nominated for another 127, 937. Or at least it seemed that way when I was typing "Joel and Ethan Coen" and Javier Bardem" over and over and over! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I recognized your hand in this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. I'm having an issue right now with someone who has come in and completely undone extensive reference formatting someone else did on the Jesse James article, because he doesn't think it is a proper style. What is the problem going on with it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has issues, it does. Lots of uncited contentions, it implies she didn't get AIDS from the dentist, that she lied about how many men she'd had sex with... it's a mess, dear. Tear it apart. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it was before he started, and this is how he left it. I don't object to his correcting content errors, but I do object to his wholesale changing of the citation style, which happens to be the style used on the featured article Joel Brand. As for the Bergalis article, I've looked at it before, but I simply cannot remember when or why.

On a lighter note, did you get my lolcat Christmas card? I will be spending Thursday with my goddaughter and her whole family. It should be fun. My aunt came Sunday and I got The Dark Knight. It rocked!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Merry Christmas!
		Wildhartlivie wishes you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Thanks for being my Wiki-buddy! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i am sorry you did not realize why i apologized to you when i found out that you were woman. In my culture, insulting a woman, is a sin. We say> Do not ever hit the woman not even with the flower. Obviously, not the case in your culture which is why you were so surprised when i apologized. Sad. Next time you and your friend Yoda feel a need to turn Serbian player into Croatian or Bosnian i wont be around to bother you. Truth can swim, even without me. From Serbov, with love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKRM (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from a new arrival. Ralph, aka Fleaphone here. I've been reading various complaints from you and another editor/user, all apparently directed toward 'interbang' who wrote most or all of the subject -The Golddiggers- prior to my account here. I know the man; he was OK at first meet two years ago but he has grown arrogant and disrespectful, caring not a whit about other peoples' opinions - including those of the Golddiggers. He wrote the entire Golddiggers Super Site in a manner akin to the Little Red Hen, i.e. without an assistant editor, even after offering me the job. I accepted, but he grew far too secretive as he assembled the project. I was fully aware of his intents four months before he put it on the Internet. He kicked me out of the Yahoo 'Goldsanddings' group where I served many members + a half dozen of the Golddiggers very well. So I started my own Yahoo 'DeanMartinTVShow' group where I could - and DID - tell the truth regarding the Super Site's creation and continued expansion. FYI, 'interbang' is [edited out due to privacy concerns Wildhartlivie (talk)], hiding behind the moniker 'Video Vision' . You can reply to my own talk page, look for Fleaphone. Thanks very much.Fleaphone (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Fleaphone[reply]

Well, it sounds like we're both in the same boat regarding 'Interbang'. Perhaps we should venture to his talk page and let 'im know that the cat's outa the bag! Have a look at the name columns now. I just completed a full rearrange to alphabetical order. And there are a few more names to add; they'll go in later. There are certain limitations regarding possible links to Yahoo and the various groups therein, so I'll avoid this for now. However, if you and Wildheartlivie would like to see the truth behind the Super Site creation and its owner, you can find me in the Yahoo groups. Mine is 'DeanMartinTVShow' as listed in the previous message. The 26-member group includes one of the Golddiggers from 1969. See you there?Fleaphone (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The