User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 5

Hi, Wild... I want to clean my Usertalk. I thought that I would ask you to delete everything of yours first, with the exception of the Reference Guide. I will then delete my own comments. I do not feel that our correspondence is necessary to be kept around as archive material. Thank you. (p.s. you can delete this ASAP.) Hag2 (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Wild...It was nice to see your addition with the Checklinks tool. That is a fascinating tool! I am glad that you brought it to my attention. I have been obsessed with the darned Danny article because of its content. Consequently I have not been able to abandon the project.#$%^&! Rather, I have attempted to organize the citations, the notes, and various other things e.g. find pictures and add them in. I ran into a discovery about the first sentence (which I am sure that you have noticed) and I have explained myself on the talkpage. Actually, whoever began this article years ago did a fairly good job of information gathering (and writing, I suppose); and so now that I have added my meager attempts to help the article along, I think it is beginning to shape up. I certainly appreciate you input from time to time, and look forward to seeing a remark or two on Danny's talkpage. Hag2 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned the GAR. I had the same thought too. I will let you know when I am prepared. Until then...I am battling with footnote citations inside explanatory notes: very tough stuff on one's mind...%^&(?) Hag2 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wildhart, I am at a bit of a quandry on a specific issue. I would like your input. If you access, the article and go to the "Explanatory Notes 2,4,5, and 7", you will see that they would be better presented as the example "Footnote citation no. 3", because they are really footnote references, not explanatory notes.

On the other hand, if they are presented as the example "Footnote citation no. 2" (e.g. "a,b,c,d,..."), the specific explanatory internal citation details of each are lost.

As I recall in the document on citations, it shows an example for this kind of thing, but I think I recall believing that the example made the main article look like a wild bunch of heiroglyphics, or a Christmas tree with ornaments. I really prefer to avoid that. With all the "overlinking" and "footnoting" and "explaining", I think most average readers would walk.

Do you think that I should leave "Explanatory Notes 2,3,4,5, and 7" as is, or should I alter them as I have done for "Footnote citation no. 3". (I hope this is not too confusing; it is to write it.) My personal opinion is to make all the references to HR 102-857 like "Footnote citation no. 3" This would mean then that the "Explanatory notes" would be what they are: explanatory notes. Hag2 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just a quick note: I was going to move the books into the section called "references". But you mentioned "For further reading". I like your label much better. Should I change "references" to "further", or are you saying that I should make a new section called "further"?

  I am digesting your other remarks slowly. I'll get back on those too, but the "ref/fer..." is easy if you answer nne way or the other.... I prefer the "further reading". Hag2 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I performed a "reorganization" of the details we discussed above. Please look it over for me, keeping the following in mind: The title-labels can be renamed to whatever we determine is best, and the "External links" contains both websites and books which ought to be organized to reflect the difference, and which could be relabeled "For further reading".

  I'm still contemplating your other suggestions. Thanks for taking the time to oversee this mess. (Somehow I wish I had never stumbled upon the main article in the first place.) Hag2 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi there, Wildhartlivie, I think that I am finished with editing Danny Casolaro (at least for awhile). I removed duplicate references from "Further reading" and "Footnotes" subsections, organized (or collated) the "duplicate page reference citations" in "Footnotes", and removed my "comments" regarding the {{dubious-discuss}} references to the Sheraton Inn etcetera. I have, however, left the first "dubious-discuss" because the fact is dubious, and I have attempted to find an explanation from several different sources. Unfortunately, to date, no one has returned any email inquiries. (No big deal; the entire argument can be resolved by simply stating: "hotel" as several 1991 news reports in reputable general circulation newspapers did.) With respect to your suggestion about not referring to Casolaro by his first name, I eliminated as many of those references as I could. The remaining ones fit into two categories: (a) they exist in quoted material, and (b) there are several instances where it is grammatically necessary to use his first name in order to eliminate confusion e.g. ["Casolaro's brother Anthony met Mason later and said that Mason had remarked to Danny, "You look kinda tired." Danny had replied, "I get these calls in the middle of the night sometimes and it's hard to get back to sleep." Anthony insisted that Danny had claimed to have "been getting odd telephone calls for about three months."] Since there are three people involved in this passage (two of them Casolaros), it seems less chaotic to leave it as such then to rewrite it using different langauge. Anyway, as I said, I believe that I am finished with the article for awhile. I plan to leave it in your capable hands at this point and move on: I am more interested in the various sidelines of the labyrinth called The INSLAW AFFAIR. There are just too many Wikipages referenced in the Danny Casolaro article which need more help, as well as more detail. In closing, drop a remark on Danny's talkpage where you and I can continue our discussion. That seems to be a better place for general viewing of details. (We ought to consider moving some of our own talkpages over there too. If you know how to do that, feel free to move whatever is located on mine at any time.) Thanks for your help. Oh...in regards to the GAR, I would hold off for awhile. I believe that the article needs several more images. I have attempted to secure some relevant ones. Hag2 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's called a non-fiction novel, as other books are, but that phrase is a contradiction in terms. Novels are fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.64.190.41 (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me in my insensitive post on the Jonestown issue.

If I had a tail it would be stuck between my legs. since I don't have a tail I can only feet embarrased about my post and continue to remember this admonishment. Gilda Rules! Jaxdave

I don't understand. Do you have documentation that AIDS was known with 100% certainty to be non-transmissible via vectors other than blood and semen in 1986? My point wasn't that AIDS is "probably" not transmissible via saliva, just that it was not certain at that time.

Please ask for page protection on Marlon Brando. There have been 16 attacks in the last 100 edits, over a one month period, by 92.x.x.x. or 16%. There have been 39 (39% of the time) reverts (rv, undid, delete, reverting) in the last 100 edits. Thanks. 207.69.137.35 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) (aka Zoro)

I was hoping you'd jump into this discussion. My perspective is that no one will be satisfied until there is no mention of Harvey Milk and Peoples Temple on the same page, but that's probably not entirely fair. I'm not sure what else to say about this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree, except "no one" is really one editor. The Rfc he started demonstrated that his feelings were not that of everyone. In fact, many wanted a fairly extensive section to stay in the Milk article.

I did jump in the discussion.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You probably do not want to re-enter the craziness of the Milk talk page, but for a laugh, you should go check the history of the Milk article now on adding literally a SINGLE SENTENCE on Milk's support of Jones and a link to the new article.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

was a mistake. I am a multiple partner in many languages. and at that time was putting images that were not used. command him greetings and I apologise--Argentumm (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wildhart! Thanks for the note about Gia Carangi. When you left your note I realized that I had heard of her as just Gia. Having never heard the last name before threw me for a loop. (Like saying "I've never heard of Madonna Ciccone.") I wondered why I'd never seen the name in any of the reading I did for Ryan White... Anyways, I agree and took her out. Should have looked into it more closely when the IP added it to begin with. --JayHenry (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard of this movie (I didn't have HBO back then). Is it any good? You know, beauty is a funny thing. When I first looked at that picture of her I thought she was unexceptional looking. But like an aftertaste, I've found myself unable to shake the image from my mind. --JayHenry (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not know about that policy. Thank you for telling me Edkollin (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy to. I just wish there was a standard usage, 'cause other projects are using importance.... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 07:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep...I'll give it a go. Pinkadelica 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2. All of my contributions were removed yesterday - Eve Ensler, Al Shean, Arletty, Lydia Thompson, Ada Rehan, Elizabeth Short. All were researched with the appropriate references. Did someone dislike the fact that I linked them to my site, which posits possible reincarnatory links with the various people named. Even if whoever it was didn't like the links, the information was solid and enhanced each one of the articles, while I feel my editing improved them. I feel very disappointed in Wikipedia for doing this. Getting rid of the links would have sufficed. Getting rid of my contributions seems malicious. Seems like a very prejudiced editor slashed all my contributions. I'd appreciate hearing from you as to the motivation behind it, or putting me in touch with whoever did it. Gracias OrlandoMaroro (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)OrlandoMaroro

Hi, I just noticed that

I've gone through quite a number of actress articles, made a list and tried to group them according to the content, style or completeness of their leads, and then with the ones that are more than a mere stub of a lead, I've tried to suggest what I think is needed. I've gone through numerous articles and found less than 10 that I think are complete and needing no further attention. That's pretty terrible, isn't it? It's all here :User:Rossrs/Sandbox2. I've listed every actress nominated for a Best Actress Oscar, every female from the Top Priority Category, I've started Best Supporting Actress nominees (working backwards from the present) and have added random names as they've popped into my head. It's obviously not going to be a quick fix, but any effort directed to it can only be an improvement. It would be great if Pinkadelica also took part.

As for a rule of thumb, I think that can be easily determined. I guess kicking around some ideas will be the way, but I've noticed certain things as I've been reviewing, and have made comments. It's interesting that some leads look quite good until you read them and see that they are a stream of hollow praise, or they focus on trivia, or place undue weight on one thing while ignoring some other aspect that is also relevant. There is currently no uniformity. Maybe if we can agree on the ideal example and then use that as a model. I think we need to look at uniformity in structure, content and language/tone, and also determine whether it is a true summary of the article or if it contains unsupported assertions.

What is your view of "Award-winning" in the opening sentence? I have to admit, it sets my teeth on edge. Katharine Hepburn, Maggie Smith, Helen Hayes, Judi Dench, to give a few examples, have/had absolutely stunning, noteworthy careers that have enriched their profession to a high degree, but here it seems that they are measured by the number of awards they won, and nothing else is relevant. I think it does them (and Wikipedia) a disservice. To me, that's a major problem to be addressed. Awards are fine, but in context. Rossrs (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been a bit sidelined by the Olympics too, but it's been great. I think you've suggested a good approach. How about we pick 2 or 3 leads that we think are of the required standard, compare them to see if they are similar in style, and then identify their key points. Then if we can have a guideline that is a simple 1, 2, 3, 4...., we can start bringing them into line. Which do you think we should be looking at as models? Rossrs (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Phelp is amazing isn't he? I wouldn't like to be paying his food bill, and on a selfishly personal note, every time an Australian gets in the pool with him, I hope for a silver or bronze, because it's pretty certain there'll be no gold for the Aussie. I'm happy to host this discussion over at my place, and then archive it when we're finished discussing the basics. Ideally, I'd like to see a list for both female (which is just about complete, I think) plus males, and a general idea of where we're heading, and then start project pages, and continue the discussions on that talk page/s. I've never started a mini-project or a project-spin-off or whatever this is, so I'm a little unsure about the protocols. The four choices you've given sound fine to me. Rossrs (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've replied on my page as per our previous comments. It seems that we were both working on the male actor list at the same, so I'll merge them together. Michael makes it 8! Rossrs (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's no problem. It's the sort of thing that can be just chipped away at, and it doesn't need to be constantly worked on, so I've been content just fiddling away with it. It's really disturbing to find yourself being stalked, and it's happened to me a couple of times. On one occasion I remember going to someone's talk page to leave a message, and saw someone else discussing me... that particular episode wasn't stalking, but it's not the best feeling. I don't even need to know about the issue to know that you have right on your side. Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that says a lot. Not exactly a safe subject.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about the charge being incorrect. (70.244.58.103 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Hey, thanks for the nice note of encouragement. I think I was being a bit over-sensitive. Ah well, 99 percent of the time this is a fun hobby, and 1 percent of the time you run into something like this... Anyways, thanks for sticking up for me, it's sincerely appreciated. Back to the happy 99 percent! --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ehh... sorry for the rant. No need for all that. On to more interesting subjects: I got Gia on Netflix over the weekend and gave it a watch. Interesting film. I generally dislike Angelina Jolie, and I've never been terribly impressed with any actor in a crazy role. I tend to think crazy is the easiest acting to do. Like, even easier than being Bruce Willis in Die Hard. But I did enjoy the film. Especially the portrayal of the mother -- extremely flawed but still very sympathetic too. Think there's enough good information about Gia out there to fix her article up? --JayHenry (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well I'd actually ordered it back when we first discussed it, but didn't get around to watching it until this weekend. I have Netflix but don't really use it that much. I might fish around and see what's out there on Gia. Of course, it's no fun to work on highly visual topics and not be able to use any images... so we'll see. I dislike how some articles get really, super long. But I'd think the perfect Gia article would still be pretty brief. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

for fixing my user page. Pinkadelica (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dōmo arigatō! I found it odd because I've never reverted them or anything. Eh..trolls. No rhyme or reason I guess. Pinkadelica (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have stopped for now. The last one they did was a revert of yours that they labeled vandalism. I wasn't online and I caught it as soon as I got on which was about a minute after they went on their last tangent. Maybe it was someone I po'ed before because I'm seeing zero connection to me and that IP. Very weird. Pinkadelica (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wildhartlivie, This is in response to a response you posted on my talkpage, for OrlandoMaroro. Sorry about the slow response, but I've been traveling sans computer. There isn't any copyright infringement, since 4dbios is my own site. OrlandoMaroro is the Spanish translatin of my name. I didn't add references to my own site, since it's large enough already, but for each submission I made to Wiki, I scrupulously referred to its source. Maybe I should have put the references higher up in the articles, instead of at the end of the paragraphs I edited. Everything on 4dbios is from biographical dictionaries, biographies or newspaper or magazine articles. As an External Link, my site gives complemetnary information on all the lives, including their projected life themes, their ongoing storylines, their inner lives and how they possibly link up with other his'n'herstorical characters. It's biography taken to the 4th dimension, hence its name. It certainly adds more than Find-A-Grave or IMDB, which don't even list sources, and are merely repeats of Wiki-info. I hope you reconsider my contributions, and reinstate them, along with 4dbios as a viable and valuable External Link. I feel I can be an excellent source for bringing to life a lot of Wiki's half-realized bios. I have thousands of saidsame on my site, and can augment many of Wiki's bios with the info I've gleaned over decades of research, since each of 4dbio's bios is geared towards giving the reader a strong sense of the person from birth and early family life right through to cause of death, rather than just a collation of random facts, as many of Wiki's stub and semi-bios do. I'll abide by whatever you decide, but please give it a little thought. Gracias for allowing me this forum. OrlandoMaroro (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)OrlandoMaroroOrlandoMaroro (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks much better. I've noticed that when an image is changed in Commons it takes a few days before it starts linking correctly in en.wiki, so when I first clicked on her article, I thought your changes were quite subtle. Then I remembered and clicked on Commons, and there she is all clean and sparkly. Previously, she looked like she'd been in a bar fight. Rossrs (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand how to fix image problems. I learn like a monkey, someone shows me what to do and then I copy it, and remember which buttons to click. My understanding is not that great. I wonder if it's something to do with the program you're using? I've uploaded some images, such as the one currently in the Rita Hayworth infobox and it was all distorted, and I didn't know why. Someone else fixed it, but I didn't ask how. I'll let you know if I find any similar but most I've been finding are just in need of cropping. I get frustrated when I see that whoever has cropped them has just neatly sliced off whatever is superflous but hasn't bothered about actually trimming off the weird stuff. Patrick Swayze is my favorite (there's a part of me that doesn't really want to fix it).  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"She was a crisp, opulent blonde"? (In my head I'm hearing this as a Jeopardy question.)

Answer - who is ..............?.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely appreciated your comments. Especially Broadway trying to remove Angela Lansbury. I'm not sure how to get rid of her; she's all over Polly Bergen like Diana Ross blocking a pair of Supremes. I think keeping this light and fun is a good way forward. (But I wonder if some of my comments would be appreciated by people who don't know that my tongue is in my cheek.) Do you think this project is a kind of Field of Dreams? Build it and they will come? Fingers crossed. Rossrs (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you notice a touch of the bizarre surrounding a certain well known actress? She had 3 children, Barbara, Margot and Michael, but not a Susan or an Edward. I'm glad you're keeping an eye on the article as well. Rossrs (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read through the talk page, of which I have been a contributor and there is a lot of copyright abuse, and a fair bit of Wikipedia as a work of fiction. Marilyn Monroe and Joan Crawford have only fairly recently left us, Marilyn earlier this year, it seems. Image:Adrian.jpg is supposedly a GNU image, but obviously it's not. I'm not sure how to tag for speedy. Can you please let me know how to tag it? thanks Rossrs (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. OK so there's a reason for all of this. I'll be more tolerant now that I know. Rossrs (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By tolerance, I meant that I won't start comments with "Listen here pal, you seem to be missing the point", which I tend to do when I'm convinced of my own rightness. I will try to keep firmness and consistency in mind. Here it's 7.50 am and I'm reluctantly starting to get ready to go to work. TGIF! :-) Rossrs (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha, not so much looking forward to spring as bracing myself for the inevitable hot, balmy summer that will start almost as soon as spring does. We've had such a beautiful winter. This morning, for example, the sun is shining and it's crisp and bright and lovely. Well, gotta go and spend this lovely day inside at my desk (looking out the window). Rossrs (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Have replied on my talk page. Just keeping it together.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about the Michael Johnson article. Also, thanks for helping in reverting some of the vandalism that was occurring on the page. I am afraid that I do not have the time to edit right now, but indeed, most of those times and achievements can be referenced to the very same page that was used in the previous citation that you fixed on the article's page. If you feel the need to add in citations there and have the time in the meantime, feel free to do so, although I think it would look much more sightly if we just put one general citation at the end of the list rather than a little mark next to each individual time posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.31.140 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I put down the category "American tenors" is because of his singing in Sweeney Todd. I know that is a lame source, but I'm just letting you know why I put that down. Tribal44 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

Oops, I made the same mistake on the Amy Winehouse page. I'm not good on relible sources, lol. Tribal44 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

Thanks for sending the "Guide to referencing" page. I just added another source/reference on the Annie Lennox page. Was the source good enough? Lol. Tribal44 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

Ok, I've added two sources so far today. Hope I did good this time around, lol. Tribal44 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

Hi, I just spent a fair amount of time assessing from the actress list, and then I realized there could easily have been edit conflicts. I'm working on the actor list for change, so I'll put an in use tag on it. Maybe we should do this, as we seem often to be online at the same time. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. There has been no problem. I intended to only spend a few minutes, and then I became absorbed and lost track of time. I don't plan on staying around for much longer either. See ya Rossrs (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

oh my god, that's a lot to deal with. I remember the Johnnie Ray thing, but I didn't realize it spilled over into so many other areas, or that it was still going on. As for finding your name and email address, that's crossing the line. How does someone even know how to go about that? I would imagine it would take some time and effort, not to mention a considerable degree of premeditation, and that's disturbing. Rossrs (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That would give me the creeps too. It's bizarre isn't it? However she went about checking, it's just wrong that she even thought about doing it. Obviously there are two posts deleted from IMDb, so I don't know exactly what "mstyn" was replying to, but I must say "mstyn" sounds like a complete moron. I'm assuming the "what a winner" comment is about you? So she's telling her children not to trust Wikipedia, but she's taking someone's word at face value on an IMDb talk page. Is that clever?

On a more serious note, the name "Cindytrells" is very like a name I've seen on Wikipedia at Anne Frank and Talk:Anne Frank (example). I mention this only because the name is not one you listed on your sock puppet page, and her recent edits have been on the Marilyn Monroe films Something's Got to Give and The Misfits, and Marilyn comes up in the sock puppet edit histories. Maybe it's no more than a coincidence, as I can't see any other connections in article subjects, and I hope I'm not being unfair. Rossrs (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I posted a follow-up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Extlinks to Broadwayworld website ([2]) If you could, please respond. Thanks. Broadwayworld2 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I asked you about a month ago whether you might be interested in becoming an administrator and you said you'd give it some thought. Sorry I've been mostly away since then - I was wondering whether you'd come to a decision? WJBscribe (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I respect your decision and I don't wish to pressure you. The offer remains open, do get in touch should you change your mind the future. WJBscribe (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I should stop it! How dare I removed someone's interpretation of the bible! Speaking of POV, I see your friend is back and using more IPs. I guess the lithium is running low. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw it, but you may have sent it to me. I noticed someone else made a suit and tie comment. Can't remember where, but I laughed. Did you do some recruiting? Pinkadelica (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I request like I would regular page? Pinkadelica (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have Twinkle. I use Huggle to patrol. It's fast! Those IPs hate it...obviously. Thanks for the tip. Watch me get denied. lol Pinkadelica (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is nominated for deletion. The guy who created it kept removing the tag. Don't tell me he created more. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pissed. lol Was I snippy or something? I didn't originally tag the article, I just saw the guy removing it without adding the {{hangon}} thingy. I always thought that even if someone removes the tag, an admin can still delete it if it wasn't notable. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, disregard my last comment then. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It sounds like a Doodlebug rant, only religious. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The