User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 7

Thank you. That really means a lot to me. The reason I worked on the article was that it was previously very fancrufty, and when I looked outside Wikipedia I found that the fansites were fancrufty, the crime sites exploited her death and the trial sites were dry and wordy. I thought all of them, even with the best of intentions, treated her as a commodity, and I didn't think any of them did her justice so I wanted to bring all those aspects together into one place. I'm so happy that someone has noticed that, and especially happy that it was you. Thank you, you've made my day. (I guess it is a tribute... no, I didn't really say that) Rossrs (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have compassion for Roman Polanski. His life has been destroyed twice, first during the Holocaust when many of his family were murdered, and then with the murder of Tate and their unborn child, and taking that into account, I have to wonder what the world looks like through his eyes. Rossrs (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting story, and something that I wasn't aware of. I think he's been portrayed as a monster, while I think it's probably more true that he was an opportunist. His version of events in his biography Roman by Polanski has a ring of truth about it. Of course, in writing it, he's had time to sit back and carefully choose his words, so it should appear to be truthful. I wonder if Anjelica Huston has ever made a public comment. Polanski says that he and the girl had consensual sex, and that during it, they realized that someone had entered the house; it turned out to be Anjelica Huston. The girl was anxious to leave because Anjelica saw her. Supposedly the girl was drugged and fearful and if Polanski is telling the truth, Huston should be able to confirm that the girl was neither drugged nor fearful. The girl's desire to get away could be so that Anjelica doesn't have time to look at her too closely. I find this interesting. Polanski says that Huston agreed to give evidence against him because drugs were found in her bedroom and she was offered a deal in return for her testimony. A bit convenient for Polanski to say that, but I wonder if Huston has refuted it. At that time in his life, there must have been ambitious girls throwing themselves at him, and if he's accustomed to this and is basically arrogant about it, is he likely to give the girl's age a second thought? It's at least possible that he could be set up like this. It will be interesting to see what results from this documentary as I notice it's only come to light in the last month. Rossrs (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't heard that Travolta's son had died. The vandalism - it hard to imagine what motivates someone to be so malicious and to trivialize something like that. What a poor excuse for a human being. Rossrs (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

and this What a cretin. Rossrs (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey. I just saw the news about Travolta's son's death on NBC news and I just correctly predicted that some idiots folks who hide behind the safety of their monitors and keyboards would be posting utterly disgusting comments because of Travolta's involvement with Scientology. I'm sure the IMDb boards are flooded with same nonsense. Whatever happened to not saying anything if you have nothing nice to say? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If they had to relinquish their anonymity and were compelled to stand in front of Travolta and Preston and speak, they would find something else to say, I'm sure. Rossrs (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I only learned the basics of Wikipedia so I could fix the shambles that was Ms. Pfeiffer's article! I'm completely ignorant with it, but I'm glad you seem to mostly praise what I've done. However, I believe my recent edit did not refer to the actress herself as iconic, but specifically to the character and costume, as backed up by my quotation and reference. The phrase you appear to have changed was written some time earlier, and not (I think) by me. All the best Charleynathan (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wildhartlivie. Ralph here. After reading your response to my letter this morning...well, I'm truly thankful that I stayed SINGLE! C'mon now, there was no need to grouch like you did. I hope we can still write back and forth, but PLEASE leave the buffalo stampede BEHIND!! Thanks very much.....Madam..(!)...fromFleaphone (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the music section, transfering some of the already available information to the new music section. If you have a problem with the current setup, please let me know before reverting as I would like to work on it without being reverted. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 3, 2009 @ 18:48

Oooops....I forgot to take that out when I moved the section. My fault and my apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 3, 2009 @ 19:04

No worries. Glad we got it worked out. I will be more careful and slow down when I edit. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 3, 2009 @ 19:07

Just got back from Lake Worth where I filmed Whitman's gravesite as well his mothers and brother John's. I was sent to four different graveyards before almost being turned away by the fourth one where they actually are. Lake Worth is quite estranged from Whitman and very indifferent to the incident. Savannah...let's meet in Savannah. I actually want to move there. Much more interesting and the most gorgeous area I have ever been. I'm not sure about it's short ton status, but it beats NY and the Empire State Building all to hell. Filmed the Bethseda Boy's School, but the grounds have been revamped and the original gate replaced with a similar one, only in brick. AND...the day I left, a triple murder happened across the street from where I live. Go to the Asheville Citizen Times site and read about it. I know he used golf clubs and I know why he did it. It just won't be released until Monday, after autopsy's. What a new year, eh?! Victor9876 (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I on your lost list? Sorry about the dog - what ever it is about. Every time someone calls the dog pound around here...they try and take me away!!!Victor9876 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a small white dog, a Jack Terrier mix, who has adopted me. I too can not afford her, but she keeps coming around and I do what I can. So you bruised your ham giving a ham bone!? Ironic! lol! Victor9876 (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're no sap Wildhart, you've got character, a valuable commodity these days.Victor9876 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

According to your weather report, you better bring the dog in...as a heater! I lived in Milwaukee until my ex decided to ship me out. The forecast there is even worse. The Milwaukee temperatures are going to be almost as cold as my ex! lol! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

lolololol!!! Good one, I think mt ex misses me too! lololo!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a new computer. A Mac! A Mac Pro! Remember that!!! Enough about you. I've just scanned over 300 pages of my Whitman archive and haven't reached a 1/3 yet. Oh well! I looked at the footage of Whitman's grave and the cemetary and came up with a different opening than originally intended. Whitman mentions in one of his notes that when death over takes him, he will try to remember to observe it closely. So, my thinking is, a slow motion scan of the giant Oak tree in the cemetary, with a voice over of Whitman's note, scattered with brief close-ups of his eyes (on the tower looking at the shotgun) as the camera comes to a close-up of his grave. Whatta ya think?Victor9876 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought "hmmm she's trying out a new font" ;-)

Well done indeed! You were certainly put through your paces but that's a sensational result. 14 days from article creation to featured list status, but if you take out the holidays it works out to something like 9 Wikipedia days, by my reckoning. Congratulations! Rossrs (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it brings out all kinds who probably never edit here, but it usually settles down quickly. Last night someone said on the talk page that Travolta had been held in "custudy". Not sure exactly where that is. Another week, or probably less, they'll have moved on to something else. I must note the Kelly Preston image for cropping. She looks like she's trying to entice someone to join her in the Macarena. "C'mon it's really fun!" How do we get so many weird pictures? Rossrs (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the worst of human nature on display, deriving entertainment from the pain of another person. If they want to expend their energy and strain their limited intellects to create vandalism that can be reverted by hitting one button - how futile is that? Reverting as quickly as possible is the only way to deal with it, and give them no satisfaction. They'll get bored and will go pick on someone else before long. Rossrs (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me some people resent the success of others and will use whatever cheap vehicle they can find to compensate for their own perceived relative failure. In a sense, that's one of the failings of the Internet, but in another sense, one of its successes. Everyone's brave behind a keyboard. From our perspective, I've learned to live with it here, and it soon goes away. --Rodhullandemu 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very true. And complicating this is their interest in something controversial which simply pulls in the conspiracy theorists from the four corners. What's really annoyed me was the drudging up of the old "she had a more severely disabled child with her first husband that Scientology has conveniently cleansed from the internet... but wait!! We have caches and web archives!! Look! IMDB said it in her bio, you KNOW it's true!!!!" Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Which only goes to convince me that some people are just not equipped to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Everyone's got an agenda, it seems, and what really annoys me is the thinking (if you can justify it as such) that if it's not there, then it's been covered up. As you correctly say, "Sheesh". Thank the lord (of the Rings, if you like), for some sensible people. --Rodhullandemu 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on

Thanks for your reply to this. I have taken this to

Martin

13:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wildhartlivie, if you have a moment would you take a peek into the article and the deletion review here? This has been added and removed and is at it's third nomination in 24 hours about. Please read the article and then if you feel like commenting please do. The article is here. There is also an ANI about the editor who started all of this at [1]. I have very strong opinions about this situation so I would appreciate someone with less emotion than I commenting. I trust your judgement a lot so maybe you (and anyone else watching your page) will give me a reality check if I need one. But I am outraged at the moment about this whole affair so I am trying not to comment anymore about about it though I can't promise I will be able to. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos on that pretty little star. I'm gonna be outta town this week, so drop me an email if you need to track me down. momoricks (make my day) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. No offense was meant. I suppose my colon ("wildhart:") may have made me sound mad :( I'm not :)Beansandveggies (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya ;) Beansandveggies (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your article is a featured list? Very cool! Congrats! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 08:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny, we were just discussing this. Rossrs (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't really looked at the filmography, but yes, it's unacceptably biased. As is the opening sentence - he's "an Academy Award-winning and four-time nominated" (director), so it seems even his Oscar nominations are more important than his winning of other less discussable awards. Another reason I loathe the "Academy Award-winning" (and all awards actually) fluff in the opening sentence. The filmography is in dire need of attention.

On another topic, after a comment that the Julia Roberts image was "awful", I've tried a revamp. Do you think it looks OK now? Rossrs (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, it wasn't you that said it. You've only commented previously on the teeth, and they're beyond my technology. In any case, it's been switched for another crop. One that I don't like at all, but oh well. Rossrs (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the image of Hottie Hot. I agree, it's a very good picture and suits the infobox far better. Did you know that "He was named #1 on VH1's 40 Hottest Hotties of the 90's"? Wow, imagine being named #1 "hottest" in an entire decade of hotties! All the other hotties must hate him. Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to complate about how this particular template is overkill, then you might as well do the same for all of other film related templates on Wikipedia. This Batman template isn't the only one (e.g. Back to the Future, Terminator, Rocky, Die Hard, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) that mentions the movies, actors, crew, msuic, and other sorts of marketing tie-ins like video games or theme park attractions.

This template is the most in-depth one in relation to the Burton-Schmuacher Batman films on Wikipedia. Naturally, with four films, numerous characters to be featured, and different production crews, there's going to be a wealth of information. The video games and other sorts of merchandise (which typically don't get as much coverage as the films themselves), are purely an expected offshoot of this. The soundtrack also falls under this table.

There's already individual templates for Batman related video games, the Batmobiles and what not, so giving them their own template as you suggest would be pretty redundant. Plus, why should a there be an individual template for the characters created for the films, when there's pretty limited number to begin with? The key is that they're related (regardless of how you want to define it) to the films in question, instead of merely having the Batman namesake. Don't you think that people visting Wikipedia, want to have easier access to the info about the Batman Returns video game or the Batman & Robin roller coster rides and what not!? TMC1982 (talk) 2:12 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm wading through Flickr trying to find something better. I think I've found the perfect shot I so want this in the infobox. LOL Rossrs (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay,

If it is not a free image than what in the world is it doing on wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I thought un free images were not allowed on here,hhhmmmmmmmmmmm? It is a picture of the actress and it can't go on hr article why? I dont get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nosebutton (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello and Happy New Year! I hope all is well with you. I see that there has been some new activity on Peg's Wiki. I also see where an editor wrote "What a dosey mare" after the description of her death. As I searched the "History" page, I see that this same editor was still allowed to make other edits. I disagree with this to no small extant!

This person's obvious lack of compassion is expressed in his/her comment calling Peg a "dosey mare." I also see this person added to the top of Peg's Wiki (Which I cannot access to edit). The information this person added says she died after getting "her break in the film 'Thirteen Women.'

This is not the case at all. Peg Entwistle did not get a "break" into films. I have various interviews of her in newspapers and the personal interview (for my book) of her brother Milton. Peg was packing her bags to return to New York when RKO called and REQUESTED a screen test ... this is in direct contradiction to the old story that she "broke into," or got a "break" into film.

Can you please edit accordingly? Mentioning she died after "Thirteen Women" is true ... that she had a "break" into film is a myth. She wasn't looking for film roles. She was, as I said, returning to the stage. Films just seemed like a "fun thing to try," said her brother to me during our interview.

I appreciate all you and a few others have done in keeping an eye on Peg's Wiki. I can assure you that her family does as well! Jameszerukjr (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Was easier to fix than just talk about. The article is now expanded to show she has significant coverage in reliable sources for her acting AND her directing. Thanks for bringing this one to AfD so it could be improved. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Some authors feel that

WP:ATD kinda obligate a nom to do some digging just to make sure a nom is the right move. Some don't. Myself, I feel it is a lot easier just to add sources if available and end any bickering about who should have looked and who should have added. It is certainly important for any editor to polish up an article in a userspace before moving to main space... as new page patrol is on top of things quite quickly... and if an article looks weak, it will treated as weak. So... my very first article, Harry Kloor, moved from my workspace to main space and has not needed to be touched. Perception is everything. Anyway... thanks for letting me bend your ear. And thanks for withdrawing the deletion. That was very courteous. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he s busy at work catching up after the holidays. Or maybe has is waiting for other replies. Anyway I did move the wax sculpture to artistic impression and deleted a ITunes stat as per the talk page consensus. But we have a much more important concern [2].How should we handle this?. Of course anything by the Sun we have to be wary of but Glen Jenvey who is quoted in the Sun seems legit Edkollin (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As of now it has been out 8 hours and not reported up by a reliable source so it may not end up notable Edkollin (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you help! I can imagine the headaches regarding the Travolta tragedy! As to the edits in the introduction of Peg's Wiki, I don't really have too much of a problem with what's there. I'll leave it alone. I did contact the other editor in question and made my feelings known. There will be Peace in the Valley. Best to you and again, thanks for all you have done!Jameszerukjr (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit it sounds fishy, and to be perfectly honest I might well have done it without thinking and then deleted it with the same forgetful malaise; that sometimes happens when I'm half-heartedly editing an article while pondering something else altogether, unconsciously transferring my thoughts onto the keyboard. The only reason I threw a hissy fit and got all defensive was because I didn't appreciate the user's tone. --Heslopian (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok. I can see what you guys are all doing- I put it in my own words reworked from the biography reference- but whats it matter?

You guys are adamant in keeping anything to do with his drug problems, alcoholism or stage presence off the introduction.

How about you do your duty to this site (you take so keenly) and rewrite it so it is true to the reference? Whats with this blatant ignorance? The new dawn brings the fresh sorrows of man, bleached, weathered and unreturned. (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a history major and thus I'm used to capitalizing titles and putting references at the end of sentences as opposed to putting some in the middle of sentences. While I understand the section titles issue, I personally think that putting citations in the middle of sentences (as opposed to the end of them) in the articles clutters what the reader sees and is not good for readability's sake. But hey, I'm not the Wikipedia format expert here, am I? What the guidelines say goes here. Change whatever you deem necessary. At least I'm trying to contribute positively to Anne's article, as opposed to vandalizing her article with references to lesbianism and anal sex like so many others do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchockythegreat (talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You removed the Category:Best Picture Academy Award Nominees tag from Shakespeare in Love saying that "winner supercedes nominee." But if we are to make a list of all nominees, should that not include winners? You got some serious splainin' to do. Bill shannon (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a very fair answer. Once I figure out how to do subcategories I'll get on it. Cheers. Bill shannon (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It's very bloated. I suspect that not everyone has read

69.22.238.202 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you an admin to believe you have the power to block me out of your own will? I see no "admin" badge on your Wikipedia page. I will, in fact, get you ANOTHER resource to demonstrate that it is a reported fact in news papers for the citation.69.22.238.202 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So if I provide another source for the deleted section I am expected to be blocked from further edittings regardless? So in other words: I cannot provide any resource that would vindicate my position? Or am I misunderstanding you?69.22.238.202 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall dig up another source. This espite the fact that, as I shall mention once more, the section had been up for nearly a year. I will seek further information. Thanks for your clarification.

One further question: If I cannot find further references, am I to expect a block even if I will not revert it if I cannot find yet another source?69.22.238.202 (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We appear to be working together on the Charles Manson article, and you may be "annoyed" at some of my edits. Just wanted to come by with cookies and say I'm not accusing any particular individual of plagiarism, but describing a person as "tearfully" stating something did strike me as sensationalist/plagiarism and not appropriate. In my opinion, the article still needs some work on the tone, but given the main source used, I'm not surprised. Anyway, see you around! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 08:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for the article. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right about discussion-via-edit-summary: sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's good you got this particular discussion to the talk page promptly.

Glad you were satisfied with my comments. Can you come up with a substitute for the heading "Slaughter," which, as you know, another editor has removed? If I come up with one, I'll put it there. I recall you and I both thought a heading was helpful there.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you got a laugh out of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I added some info to Talk:Audrey Hepburn#Ballet lessons. The opening section of the article needs to corrected. There may also be some other good tidbits in the stuff that I left there. Thanks. - 4.240.120.118 (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

B'cause I wike you.(batting eyelashes as cheeks flush) - 4.240.120.118 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be cynical. Obviously if we knew each other you would have thought that was funny. BTW: Have you seen the documentary: Cinema's Exiles: From Hitler to Hollywood? It is worth a look. - 4.240.120.118 (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad to see you've been back here editing, so I hope you're feeling ok after your mishap yesterday. I really detest cruelty to animals, or the neglect of them. I hope that poor dog finds a good home, but it's just a shame he couldn't have shown a glimmer of concern for you. I suppose the ham bone was just too tempting. Hope you're not feeling too battered and bruised. Rossrs (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So you don't have a stalker after all! It's a shame about the dog, but hopefully there will be a nice family someone just waiting to give him a home. I didn't get to see the Golden Globes, although I have looked at the results. I'm glad Heath Ledger won - I thought his performance was exceptional and more than lived up to the hype. As you can imagine, it's big news here in Australia. I thought of you when I heard that Kate Winslet won two awards and I could see your intro being Golden Globed to the hilt. She's going to win an Oscar, you know. Better keep her watchlisted.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep an eye on the user. Hey, listen, I know you and I didn't get along great from the start, so I would like to apologize if I was seen rude or somewhat towards you, I sincerely apologize. So, listen, I was thinking, since you have a watchful eye for actor/actresses articles, would you like to collaborate on an article and maybe see it to FA status? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, after our discussion, that stood out to me as being unfriendly, which rarely happens. Yeah, I remember you left a notice at WP:Films about the list, I was gonna comment on it, but with the whole Heath Ledger controversy going on in the talkpage, never got to it. Yup, I'm working on Liv Tyler to be likely be my fourth FA. Well, would you maybe like to expand Edward Norton's article, just like Maggie Gyllenhaal and Liv Tyler's articles are? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that was me. I found a way to make my anonymous Oregon IP address trace to Arizona. And also I wike you very much! The snow is gone thank gawd, although a 10-mile stretch of I-5 (the main north/south freeway) was flooded for several days. Luckily the water receded in time for my return. How u doin'? momoricks (make my day) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You poor baby! I hope your back feels better soon. It's amazing how much an injured back affects one's overall mobility. It's probably a good thing Mr. Rottie was more interested in the bone than you. He might have shown his concern by peeing on ya. :) Did I leave a note for Rossrs about Audrey? I don't recall doing that; however, I do seem to be getting a little more senile each week. momoricks (make my day) 06:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I didn't find your dissertation boring. I've always intended seeing A Mighty Heart and you've reminded me to seek it out. I think Angelina is underrated, but her films aren't always good plus she's got a media-image the size of Texas to carry. It does her no favours. There's always Changeling but I doubt it. I think the Oscars are more about timing than some of the other awards. My bet is that it's time for Kate Winslet and Heath Ledger. With Heath, I think the outpouring of goodwill is genuine, but it's also the last chance to award him, so... I'd be surprised if anyone else got it. I think Mickey Rourke has a great chance, and as you said Hollywood loves a comeback. I think the very fact that his performance surprises people is to his advantage, but if not Mickey, Leonardo Di Caprio is due/overdue. I expect Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Viola Davis and possibly Amy Adams to be nominated for Doubt but I think Viola Davis will be the only one to win. I'll say Anne Hathaway will be nominated and will have to settle for that, but I thought the same about Reese Witherspoon - what do I know? I never get these things right, but it's fun to ponder. I'm going to predict Kate Winslet, Mickey Rourke, Heath Ledger and Viola Davis and thus kill all of their chances. After killing their chances, it will go to the second place-getters - Anne Hathaway/Leonardo Di Caprio/Philip Seymour Hoffman/Penelope Cruz. So now I've killed off 4 more possibilities... OK Meryl Streep/Brad Pitt....... ;-) I have no idea. Rossrs (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can take or leave Sean Penn. I've seen a preview of Milk and in the little I saw, I thought it could be an interesting performance. I think you're right about the male nominations and I can't think of anyone else who could emerge as a contender. I thought Leo was brilliant in Blood Diamond, so if he'd won for that, I would have been happy, but I also liked Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises (and Naomi Watts). The problem is that often I don't see the films until after the awards are given out, so it's probably fortunate that I don't have a vote. Interesting to hear that you despised American Beauty. I didn't despise it, but it left my a bit underwhelmed because I obviously bought into the hype. It ruined Kevin Spacey for me though, as he was just a little too creepy. Like you said about Angelina and tapping into something that she must have experienced, I thought Kevin tapped into something that was a bit too disturbing. We'll have to compare predictions when the nominations come out. Rossrs (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh, I think my joke was misinterpreted. While I do wike you, I did not post the strange Audrey comments. I'm a freak, but I'd never play a joke like that, especially because I know about your past bizarro encounters. Hope the back is feeling better. momoricks (make my day) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not me. I took a look at that IP's contributions and the editor(s) appears to be familiar with editing based on the edit summaries. They talk as if they know you. Perhaps it's an editor who you've encountered before via a different account? momoricks (make my day) 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is puzzling because if it's an editor that has encountered Wildhartlivie before, the editor must have also encountered me as they also left Audrey messages on my talk page. I have no idea. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue about this. I was much appeased when I thought it was Momo. I can't think of who I've encountered somewhere who would associate me with Audrey Hepburn. Like I said, I've made one or two small edits to the article in my whole time on WP. It's a bit freaky. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time stringing words together coherently tonight, but I looked at it and will add my opinion soon. Nighty night! momoricks (make my day) 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no excuse. I'm fully coherent at the moment and I don't understand what the hell the problem about the banners are! Is the gist of this about the use of the word "Criminal" and that it might be potentially libelous to someone who isn't a criminal (please show me a bio that is labeled as such and is wrong)? If that's not the issue, let me know and I'll go back and reread. So far, I agree that the two banners should stay as they are because they do in fact cover biographies and topics about crime. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm partially coherent. I can string a few words together, but not as easily as I would like. I'll give it some thought. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

wooo-hoooo you paint a purty picture! Rossrs (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comfort's much more important. You do realize though that this will be the night that Brad Pitt is driving by, has a flat tyre, has to pop in to one of the friendly locals to use the phone, knocks on the door...... Oh well, he's probably got Angelina and the kids with him. Hopefully the dog is nice and warm and has a full belly after his ordeal. Rossrs (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And, after months of only working on it in fits and starts, I've pretty well finished the James Cagney article. I've added the personal and political life sections which hopefully give a bit more insight into the man. . I've also updated all the references to the standard wiki templates. I'd really appreciate your comments on it, and what you think might be needed to improve it further. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Plural noun & plural verbs for couple or they. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.171.64 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What matter is that it's fixed, properly and also that imaginary second middle name for Violet is removed. I'll sign, but won't do you any good. 65.92.171.64 (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It will be a "slider". A mixture of documentary, film and interviews. A lot of the story will be voice over narrative from the files and voice interviews I have with actual officers, professors and victims. The narrative will dictate the action. In some scenes, the narrative will lead to actors in the situation, or/and vice-versa. The incident will mostly be from Whitman's perspective. There will be a lot of flash back scenes from the tower. The interviews yet to be done will be with professionals in their respective fields and be interpolated at the appropriate interlude. But it will all lead back to the parapet. Well, now that I've given a 110% description, I don't want to give away any spoilers!!! My only issue right now is the time constraint of two hours. Most films have a problem with two hours being too much, here, it will be too little, so I need a lot of power scenes with brevity. The only slow-mo scene will be with McCoy and Martinez confronting Whitman. The gun battle lasted under five seconds, I've reserved five minutes from the time Martinez goes around the corner and McCoy catching up with him. From their, it will be in their own voices. Victor9876 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Would you mind taking a look at recent edits to Ann B. Davis and my comments at Talk:Ann B. Davis? I'm not prepared to get into an edit war with an anon over something as stupid as this, but it really bothers me. This is the kind of trivial crap that leads people to dismiss Wikipedia and I see no value in it. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had reverted it 3 times and I am not going to get myself blocked over something as inane as this. Thank you for wading in, and being the voice of reason. Rossrs (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not at all a controversial edit I made. But I dont know what edit I made that you say I need a citation Ripper404 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, how come the violence and vandalism thing dont have no citation? and it is all pretty much the same when you read all the stories about his past and [here|http://www.markwahlbergfan.com/article_vanityfair.htm] is a good souce for all that

Hi there, I hope you're OK. I've looked at the Marlene changes. Mostly it's just rearranging the info into a more chronological sequence, and I think it's reasonable. Very little has actually been removed. The lead section is unbalanced and places too much emphasis on her early career, but it was like that before the edit, so that part is neither better nor worse. The only bit that is significant is the removal of a piece of info relating to her becoming an American citizen and leaving Germany etc, which was unsourced, looked like original research and in my opinion wasn't quite accurate, so it's good that it's gone. The way that part has been rewritten is an improvement. All in all, I think it's OK, but these long edits are so hard to follow :-)

On another note, that idiotic paragraph has been added back into Ann B. Davis. I've already removed it several times - would you mind..... ? Looking back through the history, it's been added and removed numerous times. Originally it was Ann herself who was the virgin, the Jeopardy and Brady Bunch reference came later. Jeez Louise!! Rossrs (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've mentioned before that you have problems with your vision but I thought you were dealing with a "consistent" degree rather than an "inconsistent" - that must be incredibly frustrating. The bit about Marlene's sexuality was removed from the lead section, and placed into her "personal life" and I think that's where it should go. It's dealt with very briefly, but I think the duality of her characterisations/persona is more interesting and more relevant than her private sexuality. It's touched on very briefly in Marlene Dietrich#Image and legacy (where my pet-hate-word "icon" has been imaginatively used twice in one sentence !!), but not discussed at all in relation to specific roles. As for Ann B., I might request semi-protection if it happens again, but I wonder if it's worth the bother. Semi protection is usually only for a couple of days, and this has been going on since early December. (Maybe longer, as I couldn't bother checking back further). Very tedious. That's like the anon who used to be HC. I've had so many articles semi-protected and within hours of the protection being removed, he's back. He's getting worse - his recent edits at Talk:Tyrone Power are getting quite nasty and personal, but I digress. It seems a little futile. This Wiki toolbar sounds interesting. Where can I go to find out more about it? Rossrs (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The toolbar looks quite interesting. The protection thing - yes it may look like a content dispute. I'm believe in 'give 'em enough rope and let them hang themselves' when all else fails, and no, it's not a bad thing to think or even to say. Many of the HC edits look like content disputes too. I worry that an admin unfamiliar with the history may see me as the one being contentious, but so far that has not been the case. It's only as workable as the admin that looks at the request, but it is usually satisfactory. One thing I'm sure of, is that I can outlast anyone who wants to take on Ann B.!  :-)

No, I didn't see it until later, but I was glad I got to see it eventually. I'm going to install that toolbar and check it out. In the meantime I've just been busy housekeeping, archiving etc. I can't motivate myself to plunge headlong into an article. I've been neglecting all those actresses lately, but most of them are dead, so they're not likely to mind. Rossrs (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Knackered" is the word, but I'm more likely to use the Australian variation that means the same thing, but nastier. According to our very own Wikipedia, its popuarity as a vulgarism exists not only in Australia, but I think it's very Australian. Anyway, goodnight. Talk to you soon. Rossrs (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the boxes pertaining to the arsenal and supplies Whitman took up on the tower, and replaced a line linking to his uploads of the actual police file list.

1. The boxes smack of a CNN, MSNBC or Fox News multiscreen information scrolls. My belief is that the boxes distract the reader from the surrounding article. The link allows the reader to go to the actual source if they want to see the mega list. We are both at two reversions. Will you consider this? I would compromise for his link at the bottom of the page, it would be a better alert that there is information, rather than the list, which frankly, appears tacky to the article. Thanks!Victor9876 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured out how to move the list and tag into the proper area. Does this seem fair? Victor9876 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Revisit the page. I have removed the Wikisource tag into the article. Victor9876 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

By moving the Wikisource back down, are you saying the source can not be used in the article per WP rules as a substitute for boxes? Victor9876 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I mention above, the boxes, though interesting, distract from the article. The article already has a fair amount of the items, just not complete. The Wikisource (created by Sherurcij) includes the complete list that even the boxes didn't have, or, were so chocked full of Wiki-links that the average reader probably wouldn't mess with it. The real deal is the actual documents. They lend authenticity to the reader. Again, watch any news program and the information they try and cram on the tube, is overwhelming, a speaking announcer, scrolling text, stationary text, what's on next, etc, etc, no one can absorb or concentrate on it all. The boxes list items not in the text as well. What's the point?! And further more, who really cares about the boxes (sorry, present company excluded). Sure the boxes were a well intentioned input, but not the same as the real McCoy (no relation to the McCoy in the article). Besides, the Wikisource can't be argued with, lazy readers may question the content of the boxes. Just like the photos give credibility, so does the Police Reports. Have I made my point? Victor9876 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K., now, after 24 +/- hours, and re-visiting the page, I get a sense of pride in the the way it looks. Realize, I don't feel that I am the one to be satisfied for selfish reasons, I truly believe that the visitor will leave with a 98.6109473% satisfaction ratio, over the 88% accuracy rate of the article (truth being factored in as 0%, since WP doesn't find it necessary). lol! Honestly, it is better now, would you agree? Victor9876 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh! It must of been real cold that day and I missed the feature list. Can you link me and I'll give you the "well done" after I see it. Sorry! You may be right about the photos, in fact, I canceled my subscription to Playboy because they kept putting those damned pictures of naked women before the article! What a rude distraction that is! Victor9876 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

First, call it...heads or tails!? Your review depends on it! Ohhh...alright, it is great and I'm very proud of you!!! Must of took a lot of work - writing the Coen Brothers names so many times. You left out that the title to the movie is my AUTOBIOGRAPHY! When my project gets done, I want you to write the review for it - both sentences. Very, Very well done kiddo! Congratulations! Victor9876 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy Bake Oven! I think someone is in a Trade Mark Violation. I'm sure that is how everyone described my ex-wife after I married her. I'll check into that and get back you, just to be sure. Wait a second ... nope, no violation - they called her Shake and Bake Oven! Victor9876 (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So you know her too eh! Goodnight! lol! Victor9876 (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

yea, I really jumped the gun on that, and realized that right away. Really sorry about that ... I'm not used to seeing such quality articles on the unpatrolled pages. My compliments to you by the way .. excellent work. I like to go through the unpatrolled pages when I'm not actually editing (working on Twilight (1998) now in my sandbox) - cause it gives me a chance to build my ability with mostly stubs. I just joined the movies group, ... look forward to seeing you around the site. Appreciate you not yelling at me too.  :)

NIMOY? ... Wow ... VERY COOL. Just looked over your user page too. I didn't get to Indiana this summer, and usually do (Salem or Winchester for a stock car race). Probably will next summer though. Photography too, I use a Nikon D80, but would love to get the D90. I can see right away that I can learn a lot from you. You might notice me following you around (but I'll keep quiet for the most part, and not pester unless it's worth it). I did some work on Ethan Phillips, and a couple Voyager articles, but nothing major yet. I'm usually a pretty quick study, but admit that my writing background is more prose than research and factual, so it's a learning experience. I just joined back in November, so lots to learn. I look forward to working with you, and ... Nice to meet you ;)

talk

) 05:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm harmless really. Did notice you have some very similar interests in topics though, and also did revert just now on Ann B. Davis (same last name as mine). I want to help too ;) ...

talk

) 06:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL at paraphrase, ... "The needs of the many". Yep, I use Firefox, (sometimes Chrome off wiki), and have tweaked my preferences with Twinkle and such. The vandalism thing is new to me, really only started paying attention to it a week or so ago when the

talk

) 07:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear about your Dad. didn't mean to bring up unpleasant memories. That link was cool, kinda like a "Hey, you really have accomplished something here". I'm not really wanting rollback, what I have with Twinkle is fine. I'm quite content to go about my quiet little editing. Well, it's been a real pleasure talking with you, and I look forward to working with you in the movies and such.

talk

) 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the spelling error Wildhartlive. With reference to the difference between "uncovered" and "linked to the investigation", the difference is that in 1982, Chikatilo killed seven people, and in 1983, he killed eight. In September 1983, six of Chikatilos murders were linked to the manhunt for the then unknown killer, but by 1983, eleven of his victims had been found. Many of his murders were only linked to Chikatilo after his arrest and confession. This is due to the difference of age and gender of his victims and the fact Chikatilo did not always follow the same method when killing his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieronoldham (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

alright, that was my bad. i wasn't aware of the policy, so now i am. thanks for letting me know then. sorry i snapped. Justme89 (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

i will contribute the best i can. i'll be honest, i've seen that a lot of articles on this site don't have images, where they really do need them and i was wondering if you can help find images to those articles, because i don't have the rights to upload any. if you can't, can you find someone else to, that'd be great. Justme89 (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

that sounds great, i will let you know the articles i find that need them. so, when i mentioned before about not being able to upload images, i actually meant that they have a strict copyright policy here. i have uploaded images before, and they said that the images are not allowed to be put up. i find it difficult to put images up in any case. so, the wikicommons site will have free images you're saying?Justme89 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah i checked there and they don't have much like you said, but i will look around. also before i forget, i will give you a list of certain articles that i think should have images, sometime later on. thanks for your suggestions Justme89 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what it is about me, but I always seem drawn to these obscure articles that no one edits until I find them. Every time I clean 'em up and watchlist them, it's only a matter of time before SPAs seep out of the woodwork with claims of birth records and other such nonsense. Since I really don't want a repeat of the last debacle, what do you think the best recourse for all this is? Natch, there's no other reliable source on planet Earth for the birth name and DOB so I'm thinking about just removing it all (à la the Shinas article minus the AN/I, go nowhere SSP report, and the fake OTRS). There's no need to weigh in on the talk page, been there, done that, I'd just like your opinion. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I need to stop watchlisting these reality show wannabes. The strange thing is, I don't even watch reality shows. Ever. These people seep into my brain via US Weekly. Even though I should stop with these losers, I found

this gem which is just begging for a redirect or delete. Anyway, I think removing it all is what I'm going to do. I don't really feel like dealing with these "new" users and I highly doubt anyone has his school records. I also doubt there's a huge conspiracy by Trendy and his management (geez, imagine having that as a job) to give out misinformation. I suppose it's possible, but it's a lot harder to hide information in this day and age. The attempts to to change his birth name to Gnock Yu Gaang Muro Tranh or some variation of an Asian-esque name has been going on since 2007. Personally, I think it's someone with far too much time on their hands. Yes, even more than me. Thanks for your opinion. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...}

05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Miss Creepy Kimmy is not notable and I was shocked she even had an article. I can't believe it's lasted nearly two years without anyone nominating it. I'll probably redirect the article in a week or two depending on if anyone edits it. If it gets a hit, I'll AfD it faster than E! canceled that mess of a show. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I thought I'd better show you this with regards to image cropping. I cropped an image of Eliza Dushku by David Shankbone, and I uploaded it using the derivative template, which seemed the most logical one to use, but it creates a particular format that is wrong. (edit 1 & edit 2 & edit 3 - the worst one) The last thing I intended on doing was to claim authorship, and I've offended David Shankbone - I'm mortified. I've apologized which is all I can do. There's also this Madonna shot (which is in my opinion the best free image on Wikipedia) and it's just got a simple box saying that it's been retouched. I figured that if Commons had made a template it would be right, but I live and learn.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not just that it was the wrong upload method, but that it was of a lesser quality, which David rightly pointed out when the image was reverted in the article. It's only in the last couple of days that I've discovered how to save images at the highest quality - I thought I was doing it correctly but I wasn't. He doesn't know me, so from his point of view I may look like a vandal, or a nuisance, or both  :-) but I was genuinely trying to improve it. It didn't work, but I was thinking what a good image it was, and how much better it would look with the line removed from above her head etc. I think it's right to use that particular upload template because it's an efficient way of interlinking etc, but it may be better to manually change the authorship part of it. It would be easy enough to copy and paste from another image before saving it, and although it's adding an extra step into the process it would be simpler than doing the whole thing from scratch. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably something that everyone but me knew. Click on the "Full resolution" link directly under the image and then save it. I was right clicking/saving from the first image. It seems so bleedingly obvious I can't believe it took me so long to stumble upon it. Rossrs (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I saw that you were a part of the neutrality wikiproject. Could you recommend someone to help me out on the

That's fine, at least you gave me options. Thanks so much! Lighthead ^þ 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you tell me why you reverted my edit of adding an image to her page? I thought Wikipedia encourages the use of images, featured articles of film stars contain many. In my opinion, it also illustrated an important part of her career, as Barbarella was the film that made her a sex symbol, and it wasn't copyrighted. So, what was the problem whit it? Thanks in advance. Aquila89 (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The articles about Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, Judy Garland, Sharon Tate and Diane Keaton, all featured, have several film images. That's why I thought it would be appropriate. Aquila89 (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So, should I put the image to the page about Barbarella? Aquila89 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I detect a touch of "Academy Award-nominated" madness being added willy nilly to the opening sentences of several articles. I think it's going to be an interesting couple of weeks with lots of fluffery being added. I noticed the comment above about the film images. As a matter of fact, I added most of the images of Davis, Garland, Leigh and Tate and most of them are from public domain film trailers. (All of Garland, all but one of Davis/Leigh, some of Tate). I've left a message for Aquila89 explaining the difference. Too bad Fonda's career has been almost entirely post-1963 when film trailers started to be independently copyrighted. Rossrs (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at that Barbarella image. It says it's from the trailer and it's linked from Commons. It should be OK to use. Rossrs (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Travolta used to be a year older than me but now he's a year younger. I tend to be conscious of people's ages if they're that close to my own but I was almost beginning to wonder if my mind was playing tricks on me until other exact contemporaries starting telling me the same thing. If you were that close to Travolta's age in the '70s, you wound up keenly aware of his age, or at least many of us did. Finding an online source might prove inherently difficult, though, since he seems to have changed it right around the time the internet was transitioning from scrolling text read mainly by academics and immediately after a long spate of no one having the slightest interest in him. It's amazing that he can blithely get away with changing his age and fool so many people just by dropping a couple of years, given the extent of his fame back in the '70s; it proves something but I'm not exactly sure what. I wish I could suggest a good source; anything published with his birthdate in the '70s and early '80s would list it as 1952 as a matter of course, but how many references from that period listing him are easily available? Next time either of us is in a library, we'll have to try to look for that, although references from that far back would have been routinely replaced. Any biography written about him from the period would corroborate this but most libraries would have discarded them during the Look Who's Talking period if not before. I can't prove it at the moment, but bear this whole thing in mind and at some point in the future, even if it's in Travolta's eventual obituary, you'll see that he actually dropped two years from his age when his career came roaring back to life with Pulp Fiction. When you do, please change the birthdate in his Wikipedia article for the sake of precision, assuming no one else has already done so. Skymasterson (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Per

WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN says that there is no need to fix redirects. I will get around to fixing the links in the navigation template though. Dabomb87 (talk

) 13:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he did set back his birthday and continues to go uncalled on it by all current media, including Wikipedia, is even funnier. I imagine he laughs about it whenever he thinks about it. Skymasterson (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Verrrry interesting. Kate Winslet for The Reader? Not Revolutionary Road? I have a feeling that this is the year that Meryl Streep deserves to win, but won't because she's kind of taken for granted. I would have said Winslet in a heartbeat for Revolutionary Road but The Reader? Didn't the Golden Globes call that a supporting role? That makes me less confident, but still I'll say Kate Winslet, Mickey Rourke, Heath Ledger and Viola Davis. Davis because I've been reading a lot of things about her performance being a stand-out. I also think that the voters will want to give something to Doubt as the acting is being so highly praised and Streep and Hoffman are unlikely. Working against that theory is Amy Adams....(I think she's great) .... in which case I would say Penelope Cruz who is inexplicably popular. I think she's as interesting as a cardboard box, but that's just me. The nominations are spread around aren't they? Nothing particularly dominates except for Benjamin Button. I thought the Slumdog Millionaire goodwill may have extended to Dev Patel, but I'm happy that someone unlikely like Richard Jenkins has been nominated, although Mickey Rourke is pretty unlikely. I also think it's time they stopped the "Best Original Song" award - they must have struggled to scrape together three nominations.

On another note, I read recently that Sharon Tate had "passed away". Sounds neat and clean, doesn't it? Gee whiz! Rossrs (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sharon - nowhere important - here "the girl has passed away" Actually I find "the girl" a bit off....it's a Wiki page but I was still surprised by the wording.

I've just seen (a bootleg copy because it hasn't started in Australia) of Milk and ... oh my god .... Sean Penn!!! Someone I know got hold of a copy and every five minutes or so a banner comes across the bottom of the screen saying "this copy is not for public viewing but is for award consideration only", which makes me feel like I should be voting. ;-) I'm torn now. Hollywood loves a comeback but I think they love Sean Penn too, and although I have never been a fan, I thought it was a beautiful performance. I hope I don't change my mind too often, but I think it could easily be Penn/Winslet/Ledger/Davis. Rossrs (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Viola Davis! Well, the awards section was bugging me, and I'm rather pleased with it. If anyone ever suggests that it's easy, we can both assure them it's not. Langella's looks good, and I feel guilty now. I looked at Richard Jenkins and I even reworded the lead section, but I looked at his filmography and thought it was too hard, straight after Viola. It looks lovely. I think the table format is much better than the basic list. Rossrs (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting annoying! What is with some people? Viola Davis has been nominated for a whole bunch of awards for Doubt plus she's already won a Tony Award for her stage acting, but all that keeps getting added is "Academy Award nominated". Yes it's wonderful and I couldn't be more pleased for Viola Davis. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've created

Kekkomereq4 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

She is not longer Pit's wife!--Gaviota2009 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello WHL - I know you've got more to do than just police the B&C page (which needs constant policing) - but the last two entries under film don't look legit to me, though I'm not expert enough to know. A Hillary Duff possible project in pre-production? Anything with a character named "KleptoClyde"? Not in keeping with the intent of the page,IMHO. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was just looking at the list of Academy Award winners you mentioned at the Actors project as requiring filmographies etc. I've decided to do Spencer Tracy. Could you please have a look at the article and tell me what you think of the Academy Awards table (I hate it) and the BAFTA etc section. Could this be summarized by simply putting it all in the infobox, or can you see a case for a seperate table for awards? (example Julia Roberts). Thanks Rossrs (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And... I don't like "partial" filmographies. I agree with Anne Bancroft in 24 Charing Cross Road when she indignantly refused the offer of a concise version of Samuel Pepys diary - who decides what to keep in and what to keep out? - so I'll expand it to the full list. Rossrs (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Awards and nominations template is superb and I will be linking to it - thank you. I'll give Spencer my best shot, and as for the awards table, I'll absorb it and make it disappear. If it wasn't for the big Y I might have merely disapproved, but it's (there's no nice way of saying this) hilarious. I'll continue with it. If you think Spencer is a little ambitious, I have also been working on this, for one of my all-time favourites. Seemed like a good idea at the time! Rossrs (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Kennedy and Obama are representative of a similar kind of step forward for their times. That's an interesting thought. I can't imagine, from where I'm sitting, how it must feel to be part of such a pivotal moment in history. TMZ have to lower the tone, but I guess nobody would have asked the same question about Ron and Nancy, or George and Barbara or George II and Laura.

Agnes - she had a truly amazing career. I'm only half way through her radio work and haven't even started her stage work, but I'm glad I decided to tackle it. It's worth the effort. I read that she could be a little snooty during the Bewitched time because that's all interviewers wanted to talk about, and she'd remind them that she'd had rather a good career before that. I first became aware of her in Bewitched but I've gone back and looked at some of her other work - Johnny Belinda, Thirteen Hours are both brilliant performances and her Twilight Zone episode too. (among others - but she could also overact with the best of them).

You're right about "other notes". I'll change it just to "notes", and same with Spence - see if anyone notices :-) Rossrs (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge burden of responsibility on Obama and he'll be remembered longer than many recent Presidents who have not have major cultural impacts, and that's even without him doing anything more than being elected. I hope he is able to carry that burden, and if he can, it will be amazing to see what he can achieve and what changes he can bring. It's one thing to have a black man reach the Oval Office, but more important that he be the right black man. Another 20 or 30 years and it will seem inconceivable that a black man could not have reached the highest office. It's fascinating. Australia has so far had only white males as Prime Ministers - we've yet to see a woman, or anyone from any of the many cultures that make up Australia. I wonder if this will give us the courage to put forward people who don't fit the established set of criteria, or more importantly, give those people the courage to put themselves forward. I think we're culturally different in the sense that this is a very emotional event in the US, but I can't imagine that it would be such an emotional thing in Australia if an Aboriginal person or a Chinese person or a Lebonese person became Prime Minister. I don't think we're as passionate or as emotionally invested.

I've seen that Twilight Zone episode fairly recently. I've been collecting them on DVD and I've got the first 3 seasons. There is some wonderful, imaginative stuff there, not necessarily all creepy, but thought provoking. Rossrs (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, they absolutely do! The guy with glasses was Burgess Meredith in "Time Enough at Last" and the Donna Douglas one was "The Eye of the Beholder". It's amazing the things that stay with you. I remember one episode from when I was a kid, and it's about a man who slowly starts to notice that people are speaking English but the words are wrong. I remember vividly that a "pen" was called a "dinosaur". All real words. It gets worse and worse until finally all he hears are words but has no idea what they mean and so he loses his ability to communicate. I haven't stumbled upon it yet. It'll probably turn out to be an Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

I know Australian history isn't widely known outside of Australia (or even within it, thank you Australian education system). Yes, your history is much different to ours, I was thinking that the American black history in particular has been horrendous and it's only fairly recently that things have significantly changed, so it makes sense that Obama's election is such a milestone. Australia has quite a racist past too. Aboriginals were killed, often for sport, and with little provocation. My great-grandmother was killed by an Aboriginal. I think it was an accident, but it was a pretty wild time, and the Aboriginals were regarded as - wild animals, I guess for want of a better description. I think after she was killed, there were "problems". They're kind of glossed over in the family history. Aboriginals became extinct in Tasmania. (

White Australia Policy" that specifically denied immigration to non European applicants, particularly Asians, because we were pretty scared of them. Except when they were working on the sugar cane plantations in the 19th century - we weren't scared of them then. That lasted until the 1970s too. Anyway, it's a pretty nasty past. I think it's coming together but we still have problems - race riots in Sydney in 2005 for example, between "Australians" (whatever that means) and Middle Easterners. We're a little country, in terms of population and world influence, so we're not under the spotlight like the US is. It's not the part of our history that we like to trumpet in our tourism advertising or at the Olympics, but it's there. I think there are similarities in our histories but I can see that yours is a whole different thing, from a world point of view. End of history lesson. Sorry  ;-) Rossrs (talk

) 13:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I had not heard about the Trail of Tears, and although I have some knowledge of the treatment of Native Americans, it's sketchy at best. Racism is in the fabric of most cultures, I guess, either in their present or their past. Yes, Australia was founded as a penal colony, but there was a mix of free settlers too. I think a lot of the settlers were running away from something, rather than running towards something, so they probably weren't the cream of society. In the case of my ancestors, they were running away from the Irish potato famine, although a convict ancestor would be more interesting. William Bligh ended up being governor of the colony but that was years after the mutiny. That wasn't connected with the convicts and the Bounty was a British naval vessel, that was working in the Pacific. The mutineers were general sailors, revolting against the cruelty of Bligh, but his cruelty was seen as a plus, and he ended up governing the settlement, and was particularly responsible for the convicts. Right man for the job, and all that sort of thing. Rossrs (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have finished Spencer Tracy (whew!) and would be happy if you could take a look at it - complete filmography added, awards table and list removed. Hope it is good enough for a Y as long as it's not in the table. Rossrs (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Aww, you changed it! That was the biggest tick I've ever seen! The awards template certainly helped. I missed the dates - I've been so maniacal about them lately, I wonder how I missed them? Yes it is Monday, but it's also Australia Day so I'm home. I feel really bad that I could have made better use of this weekend, but it has been sooooooooooooo hot and very humid. Every time I open the door, I reconsider and close it again and stay inside with my aircon. I've commented at Talk:Angelina Jolie. I noticed the same thing at Julia Roberts a few days ago, and it was on my list of things to look at later, so it's interesting to see the question addressed. Rossrs (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what to do. I think that project members should be able to decide the preferred presenation of articles of interest to that project, and I thought we had done that. I don't understand why something can't be adapted to a custom style other than it's labor intensive, but OK I'll accept that it's not the best idea. I don't know what a "CSS" is. You'll have to help me there. I thought your edit summary here was getting to the point. Assuming that they are both wanting what is best for the project, do you think this might be a better way of dealing with it? ie instead of asking in an edit summary, do you think it would be worth asking the editor directly on their talk page to help. If we let them know: this was decided by consensus, so please help us adapt it to "CSS" because we don't know how to do it ourselves. They're not looking at it from a project point of view and probably have no interest in the project itself, which is fine, but are looking at it solely from a formatting point of view. (If I knew what CSS is, I might have a better idea of what is going on). It may just be a case of being at cross purposes. Neither of them are expressing a preference for the table itself only the way it's coded, so maybe it's not a case of liking or disliking something. Rossrs (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh.

Cascading Style Sheets I recognise the words as being English, but other than that it's like that Twilight Zone episode I mentioned. Rossrs (talk

) 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, wait and see. I've read through the earlier request/question you posed. Somewhere in the reply may exist a good reason for not using this style. Maybe. It's not very helpful when you go to an "expert" for help, and instead of receiving an answer that is directed at a level that you may understand, you get an answer that seems to reinforce the expert's expertness, and nothing more. A lot of people are chock full of knowledge but not so good at imparting it. Which is to say that the reply had a lot of content, but I didn't understand it, and I know I'm not an idiot. On the bright side, I can usually spell things correctly. If someone says in clear English, "this won't work because... " and "it will cause problems because .... " that would be fine, but I'd like to comprehend everything that comes after the "because". I could say more but I'll remain prudent. :-( Rossrs (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That is useful, thanks for the link. I probably will end up using just like I use your nifty filmography chart. Things are fine with me. I've been playing an addictive PC game in the last few weeks which is why I haven't been editing much. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you were disruptive. I'm fairly certain you're going to be blocked soon because of it. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most important awards for an actor. Being in a featured or starring role in a nominated film seems quite important in a bio article. Winning the award as best actor would clearly be more important, but I see the need to mention their starring in a movie which was nominated. In an article about an athlete, their team being a contender, or in the final few teams competing for, a national or world championship would be worth mentioning. Bring a winner of or nominee for a share of the Nobel Prize is worth mentioning in a bio of a scientist. There are many more actors than there are Oscar nominations. If the fact of their nomination is documented by reliable sources, why is it not important enough to be mentioned in their article? The statement would not be true for the vast majority of their peers. Do you expect that more than 1% of actors could make the claim that they starred in an Oscar nominated film? Edison (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I inserted a Media Distortion paragraph on the Whitman page. Huntsville, Texas was apparently referenced in "No Country...". I'm going to get some heat over this. Please verify the info at your leisure. I want it to stay! Thanks! Victor9876 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How do I open a request for comment, and do I revert the article back for a point of reference? Thanks! Victor9876 (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! As to butting heads...I would like nothing more than to have him in front of me for a friendly little conversation about our history. He is a thorn and nothing else! Victor9876 (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't call in anyone to gsme the system, that's always been his MO. Victor9876 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried to follow your instructions. Expanded the section, posted with a talk page discussion, and the same two, Sherurcij and Jwy make a comment and Sherurcij reverts it per the talk page. How is it OR when the author and media made the mistakes? Victor9876 (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with the section and sourced it all. Others can add to it as they find mistakes in the media...not that anyone else is looking! The form requires a registered email address. Can't do that. When you find time, can you send me a detailed html to copy and paste above the section? That is not a strong point of mine. Victor9876 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not confused Wildhartlive, I'm confusing. I read the sources for RFC and I can not construct the proper format, for placing above the section, a request for others to comment. On a better note, Jwy kinda apologized and didn't realize he was siding with an arch-enemy of mine, after I did to him on a page what he did to me. He can't believe Sherurcij already reverted the section also. Please understand, Sherurcij and I go way back before you joined WP. He has always had his way on WP and enjoys his petty nuisances. He must be a large donator! Victor9876 (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I know you're fair, that's why I turn to you, and apparently, others do to. As to working on it, if you mean the section,I have put everything in there as of right now. Four cases should make the point. All referenced and verifiable. Now, if I were to make a section about the media and Houston McCoy and myself, it would be an article unto itself. I stuck with the Whitman oooff's because that is the Article heading and appropriate. In life he had major issues, in death, he has a right to a fair review after the fact. Not being referred to as just evil and unable to control a sociopathic urge. That may apply to me, but not Whitman. Andrew Kehoe deserves his place in history above Whitman as well. If Lavergne, Rich and the rest of the media are going to change the facts for their own advancement, someone has to address their lack of research, why not me? Hope your new dog is O.K.! Victor9876 (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What a great ending for the dog. Perhaps you can find me a home now! I don't eat much, have the same waist size I had in 1778, and as you can tell, I use vowels and verbs where needed. I reverted the page again and touched up one area that was a hanger. If Sherurcij would read the content of the sources, he couldn't argue with the whole. He and Lavergne are probably friendly, as I suspect Lavergne was in here a while back. I forget his moniker, but it seemed like he didn't like me. Can you imagine that!? Victor9876 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You guys are getting pounded by the weather there. I was really empathetic about the cats and everything else...then came the "smoke" question. Yeah, but I smoke the ones that are labeled with the warning about pregnancy...the others can cause cancer, empha and other health issues, we don't want that now do we!?! Victor9876 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I would never eavesdrop on your private conversations. I want you to know that I didn't read your comments on Jwy's talk page like you mentioned I would. Thanks for the kind words though, if you wrote any! lol! Victor9876 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do mean from the Goodwill Store or more of a Good Will Hunting theme? Either way, I am glad you are secure in your privacy. Did your area get the ice? Victor9876 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They smoked in Good Will Hunting didn't they? I wasn't too far off. I get a carton of generics here for $16.00, including tax. How much in Indiana? Victor9876 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm geting vertigo scrolling down the list. lol!

I could see you likely missed my edit and your history didn't exude ominous vibes, so I didn't bother you with it. But I appreciate your note. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like somebody, with a new website to promote, grappling to attach themselves to the coat-tails of a celebrity who's made a comment that can be exploited. It's not been added to

If Matty doesn't know about, that says a lot about Breitbart. LOL. I just noticed an interesting comment at Talk:Angelina Jolie. I'm sure you've got it watchlisted though. Rossrs (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the Oscars are important and maybe they are the most important. I get annoyed by the focus that is placed upon it, such as "Academy Award-winning" (or nominated), but excluding any other accomplishments. This suggests to me someone going through adding it to any nominees without knowing or caring about their career. Example Viola Davis - Academy Award nominee but she's a Tony WINNER. That's undue weight. I loathe the shopping list of awards - eg Tommy Lee Jones. Unless the article is being read by statisticians, I think it's more meaningful if it's put into context. It'll always be an uphill battle, but if we keep chipping away.... I notice you reverting Philip Seymour Hoffman on a regular basis. Rossrs (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, don't backstep, quietly, noisily or sheepishly. I didn't mean this. That's not a laundry list.
I meant the first sentence. This is a laundry list -
"Tommy Lee Jones (born September 15, 1946) is an

tap dancer, director and all round good guy." Rossrs (talk

) 13:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of the debate challenge is national news as cited.Even if Matt Damon does not debate Bill Kristol, it is news of political activism and public quotes by Mr. Damon. It is not the role of WIKI to censor news. Your deletion looks a lot like POV or vandalism.68.217.133.119 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Added to both the Manson talk page and that of the offending editor. BassPlyr23 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, do you think we're going to have to block this putz for incivility or edit warring? He's not letting this go, if you want to check my talk page. BassPlyr23 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't tired of you reverting, but I was tired of you being reverted. :-) Would you mind having a look at the images for deletion. Someone's on a vendetta with the Sharon Tate images. One was deleted last week, and I supported its deletion, (Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 22#SharonTateandRomanPolanski.jpg) but I disagree with the most recent two (and I suspect there could be more to come). It's not being done in a very "assume good faith" manner. first discussion and second discussion Thanks Rossrs (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"that's a little harsh cuz mom wouldn't let you use her Ebay account, isn't it?" I love it! momoricks (make my day) 06:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment on the talk page. On another note, I'd like to get moving on removing the "and Criminal Biography" from the WP Crime banner template. Shall I start a discussion on the talk page? Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 00:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wildhartlive,

This is just a headsup. After restoring a large amount of sourced material that had been removed from Jack Warner, I received a rather angry response from Declair, who claimed that this material was "hearsay." (The user was also concerned about the removal of some of his/her contributions, though I attempted to retain at least some of this material.) While I think this user is well-intentioned, s/he has no problem with removing sourced material that s/he views as "unsubstantiated." I wouldn't mind if this user were to refer to published sources that refute, or qualify, material in the article. The user's decision to simply remove sourced material doesn't strike me as constructive, and there may be a need to watch this article. Again, this is just a headsup. Best, twelsht (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've commented at Talk:Kevin Spacey. Just thought I'd mention that I have disagreed with part of your edit. It may be useful to file away so that if ever anyone again dares you to show evidence that I have disagreed with you on anything, you'll be able to say, "well, yes". But it's mild, and I doubt it would have assuaged that particular editor from a few months ago. I'm sure you know of whom I speak. Rossrs (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he is asexual. I hadn't thought of that. I think it's an issue that won't go away, unfortunately. Rossrs (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ry:Articles that need a cast section]] ==

Well, we could certainly do with some help clearing out this category! I'm not sure that there is a single consistant format for these sections; you might want to have a look at

There's a bit of a kerfuffle over at Talk:Meagan Good. Would you mind weighing in and letting me know your opinion (I think the talk page is self explanatory)? Thanks. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know who you're talking about but I can't remember the username. Was it the one creating article about Jewish stereotypes? It's possible they're the same person and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were. I found the "bureaucratic wrangling" comment to be odd coming from a supposed newbie, but assumed they were a lurker or a long time anonymous editor. All I know is I find the entire situation irritating. My solution was to copy the next verbatim but I'm sure that will someone make me a racist anyway. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've commented. I think sometimes people see what they expect to see, whether it's racism or whatever. I think it was a good idea to use Good's own words. It's not our job to interpret them or check her family history to see what percentage of each ethnic group she represents. Rossrs (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They're beautiful, aren't they? I hope people spend more time noticing that, than wondering about their genetic composition. I thought your reply was restrained and correct. I do like the "Editor Wildhartlivie gets emotional..." assessment, as it reminds me of a school report. I was waiting to see what it said about how well you play with other children. Rossrs (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You can read all about Stormfront's plan to join the ranks of Wikipedia here. I guess it was all talk, but I guess they did try awhile back. CAMERA's plan was a bit more organized and, as you can see at the article, fairly newsworthy. After reading those groups' plans, I really found the whole Meagan Good complaint laughable. I also don't get why people take to the talk page to complain when the page can be edited by anyone, but I guess it's more fun to bitch and call people zealots and dorks. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 11:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They look like a lovely family. Thank you for sharing these pictures with me. I appreciate it. The eldest boy in the family photo has a strong resemblance to the older of the two boys in the first photo. Although I guess not everybody sees the same resemblance in people. I thought your comment about your niece not hearing derogatory comments until she went to the second place, but she was pretty.... that's so interesting. I wonder if being raised in a safe environment and being pretty and popular gave her the confidence to deal with bad comments later. Looking back to when I was at school, some of non-caucasion kids (some Aboriginal, some Islander, some Asian backgrounds) were very popular and I can't remember anyone giving them a bad time. The only thing I can think of that made them different was that they had self-confidence, but some of the quieter non-caucasion kids who didn't fit in so well, did suffer, along with some of the caucasion kids who also didn't fit in. Thanks again - better take them down before Brooke gets mad at ya!  :-) Rossrs (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

At least your Aunt didn't object to your sister having a biracial child, which says a lot about her heart. The wedding ring was always the big thing wasn't it? I can remember when that was an issue in my family too, but we moved on to bigger things. Our big family "secret" was that my father was my mother's second husband. He didn't want us to know because he didn't think we'd understand. He also had a fit because my brother chose not to have his children baptised. Not that he was religious but it just wasn't done. He's been dead for a long time now, and after he died my mother told us about the first husband. We were just relieved that she had a "past". We always thought she was such a goody-two-shoes. So my Dad missed all the family developments - gay son, divorced daughter, spousal abuse, murdered grandchild, heroin addicted other grandson who also ended up in prison for 3 years, illegitimate children (and not baptised either) and one abortion that we know about. Plus of course, he missed all the good things, and the children, grand and great-grandchildren who are happy, well adjusted and devoid of drama. My mother, who grew up in the same generation - actually she's 83 this week - has had to take all this in her stride, but I don't know how my Dad would have dealt with it all. I'm sure they would have welcomed a biracial child if they'd had the choice ;-) There may be a soap opera somewhere in all of this. Hopefully one where we discover oil and found a dynasty, and I'm played by a good looking actor who can't act. Rossrs (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your note on my talk page. The heading made me chuckle.

On the article's talk page, you did a good job, I thought, of arguing that the article has been protected against trivia. To me personally, the Monkees thing can go either way. I see the objection to it, but I also see why someone would think it worth mentioning. I wouldn't be surprised if there are persons who come to the article for information on that very subject. Wikipedia does a good job of providing sources for little things like that.

Just to let you know: I probably won't be doing any more work on the article. I might look in on it once in a while, but I'm unlikely to be visiting my own talk page with any frequency. In other words, this (sniff) is probably goodbye. Thanks for everything. You've been a good buddy.

PS: As I remarked just last night to a friend of mine (and about a year ago to my brother), that Monkees theme seems modeled on the Dave Clark Five's "Catch Us If You Can."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, everything's all right with me. I simply have a few other things to take care of and have decided I'd better not give any more time over to the article. Thanks again.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article failed an FAC mostly because of irregularities in citation format. I found you at the ciitation cleanup project, and I am really hoping that you can help the article. Would you consider helping it, please? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You have tagged this article as needing additional in-text citations. There are at present sixty-nine listed, which is quite a lot. Could I ask you to indicate which statements in the article need additional citation? --

Thank you. Please believe me when I say that I have no wish to appear to criticise; I have spent a lot of time on this article and on its talkpage, was instrumental in achieving its permanent semiprotected status, and feel about it rather as a mother lioness feels for her cubs! (Yes, I do know that we don't own articles). --

^"talk"

11:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

talk

) 20:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Date links

Thanks for removing the date links on a number of royal biographies. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films

January 2009 Newsletter

The

January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk

) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Claude Rains

What's the latest on the preferred form that filmographies should take in actor articles? An editor just replaced a list with a table in Claude Rains. I don't really like tables much, but I don't want to revert if tables are preferred.

Could you take a look? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the come-back. I'm glad I didn't do anything about it! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

Regarding the filmography of Claude Rains, I put it in a table because I think that it looks better than merely listing the films. Ed, who commented up above, thinks otherwise but we are all, of course, entitled to our own opinion. A lot of filmographies that I've seen use the rowspan= function for the year listing and, in the past, I have as well. Until I received your inquiry today I've never had anyone inform me as to whether or not there is a preferred style. I can always alter the Rains filmography to use the rowspan style if anyone prefers to see it that way.

The

Christopher Walken filmography

includes stage, TV, and Award listings, and this has received featured list status.

In regards to numbering the films in the Claude Rains article I realize that this is seldom done. It just seems to me to be a handy way to tell how many films he made. (The Michael Caine filmography, which I did not work on, also numbers the films.) This is also something that can easily be changed.

So far, over the past few years I've put together filmographies for (among others) John Wayne, Tyrone Power, Errol Flynn, Barbara Stanwyck, Anna Neagle and Gene Tierney. (I also wrote the article on the lovely Miss Neagle and want to expand it, but I can't find any more significant information.)

Until I received your note today I have never received any comments about a uniform style for filmographies. In fact, I've been pretty much an "island" and not part of any network of "Wikipedists" (although I'd like to be). Thus I'm looking forward to more feedback. Thanks. — Jimknut (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, again. I upgraded the filmography on the Claude Rains page to include the names of the directors and co-stars as well as some notes. I removed the numbering of the film along with the television section.

In the near future I plan to work on the filmographies of Ronald Colman and Gary Cooper. As Cooper's filmography runs to well over 100 titles I will probably move it to its own page. — Jimknut (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

BS at Imitation of Life (1934 film)

Take a look, if you're so inclined. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here too. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's tendentious and that it targets Ed. Last time we discussed this editor, regarding the images from The Palm Beach Story, I went through the edit history of the editor and I had to go back more than 80 edits before I found an edit that did not relate to Ed, and then about another 50 before I found the second edit that did not relate to Ed. I notice your comments were removed as "guesswork". Interesting choice of word - specific but inappropriate. I don't see anything positive in any of this editor's contributions, and the attitude being conveyed when he/she chooses to interact, is worse than poor. Rossrs (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would, take a look at this. Edit it, punch it up, make it stronger or less so, I'm open to whatever needs to be done. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

IMDb

Hi, and thanks for your post!

I do see after some digging that Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, which is an essay and not a policy guideline, allows certain things from IMDb, including cast lists from released films. So thanks -- that's good to have in mind.

An uncredited role would not be in the film's cast list, of course, so information about that in IMDb could not have come from the film but from a user. I'd bet we're of the same mind that in cases of uncredited-role claims that it'd be wisest to seek independent confirmation, particularly for claims about living persons. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IMDb employees let errors get into cast and credits list constantly. One TV Guide editor a couple years ago, making a point for the copy editors, added a non-existent "turtle wrangler" credit to a film; it still exists.

You're citing an essay -- it's not a policy, and the use of IMDb is highly controversial among Wikipedia editors. But if we're using this essay, it also says contentious things about living persons cannot be sourced with IMDb. Clearly, from this discussion, a claim of an uncredited role is contentions.

IMDb has even been deprecated from movie infoboxes, the template page for which says IMDb goes into External links.

The larger point here is, an editor is asking in good faith for a source citation. It goes against Wiki Etiquette to remove it, and I'm not sure why an editor would not want the most reliable citation possible. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've been on Wikipedia for years. So have I; only the IP is relatively new, after a move.

Wikipedia considers a controversial source -- and I would, in all collaborative honesty, like your take on whether it has been controversial or not -- but IMDb is not an unimpeachable Bible. Therefore, I'm surprised and confounded at why any editor would deliberately want to block another editor from asking for a more reliable source. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been pursuing dispute resolution, at the WP:FILMS talk page, with you yourself and others! And given that I haven't made an edit to Sean Penn or Marisa Tomei since 20:10 and 20:09, respectively, your putting a 3RR tag on my page at 21:07, an hour later, smacks of

harassment. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk

) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wandering in from Project Film. No source is unimpeachable, as ANYthing that involves humans has a potential for error. IMDB is controversial in some aspects just as is the

New York Times, in that those parts of each that do not have editorial oversight are not acceptable by Wikipedia. Containing informations that do not have oversight does not automatically make a source completely unreliable... it only means a determination must be made as to what is or is not acceptable. It is generally accepted by Project Film and Project TV that the certain non-controversal informations as defined in the Cite IMDB essay are reasonable and prudent. Better sources are always preferred, but in their lack, it is acceptable to turn to IMDB cast listings. Rarely will a production's website or film review list all the minutae of a film production department or minor roles... but they will submit such to IMDB... to vett and to post. That Penn had a walk on in Cool Blue as Phil the Plumber is not contentious. I saw the film. I saw Penn in the film. Wikipedia accepts the film itself as a source for such information. That it was done as a favor for his friend Woody Harrelson and was a last minute production decision and was never listed in the onscreen credits does not mean it now requires a cite. The film IS the cite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And this was meant as a clarification for the anonymous IP, not for Wildhartlivie. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Now wasn't this an interesting day? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope I made it apparent that you were correct in your removing of the cite tag. How that got turned around to his hope that no one removes an actual citation is beyond me. If he had posed that question to the co-ordinator of Project Film, he would have recieved a similar answer. This is why plots are not sourced. This is why cast listings are not sourced. The film itself is accepted as a

WP:V of a non-contetious fact. Notability is a whole different issue. Hope things remain calm. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For myself, and no insult ever intended, unless an editor makes a point about gender, I usually presume the masculine. However, and I did suspect as much... I saw Stevie Nicks live in concert back in 1985 when she played at the Orange County Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa, CA, at a venue called the Pacific Amphitheater. She had a surpise opener ... Bob Dylan... and they sang a terrific duet in their encore. A great evening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he only joined her at the Pacific Amphitheater... but is was terrific when they did an encore together at the performance I saw. I remember very well how she took the hat right off of Bob's head and wore it while she sang with him... and I remember how much Dylan's voice had changed since I first heard him in the 60's. She was hot. He was Dylan. Where was it you saw the tour? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I have to consider myself quite lucky to have been at the event. It was great. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Birthdates and Years of Notables- Commitment to Accuracy

FYI: The Astrodatabank is the most reliable source of accurate birth data on the planet. The late Lois Rodden was an impeccable data collector and created the "Rodden Rating System" of accuracy. It is used to determine and log the source of where a birth record comes from, and gague it's reliability. John Travoltawas definitely born in 1954, Mae West was born in 1892 not 1893, and Jackie Mason was born in 1928 NOT 1931 or 1936 (My father went to school with him, if you must know). Wiki is notoriously sloppy with birth years. It's a shame, because so much else about Wikipedia is so on the money.--Starfish1014 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be the most reliable source in the world, but not on your say so. It has to be cited by a reliable source or don't change it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Depp

And I added a source. What would have been reasonable would be to leave me a note asking for one, and adding a citation request on the article, not just removing it because you've never heard of it. Anyway, I've added one now, so that's the end of it. Sky83 (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not a problem, I was always going to. And just to be clear, it is on imdb, if you scan down the list of appearances as himself. Sky83 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

'Replace this image' notice

Hello! Re this edit. Personally, I couldn't care less, but some users (I can't remember who off the top of my head) insist on this to encourage a free image. Personally, I think it looks bad, and would support your edit. Just so you know... The JPS^{talk to me} 13:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that discussion; thanks for pointing it out. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Serial Killers

On this page the Serial Killers in Popular Culture and References are mixed up and need to seprated...please reply on my talk page Jon Ascton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Award show tables

Thanks for quickly and easily reverting those pages where the lists were unnecessarily transformed into tables. I'll try to fix others if I find them, but thanks again for taking care of the main ones. --Mtjaws (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Note

Hello Wildhartlivie. Thank you for your note. I apologize for not taking the time to find out that those pages had been moved and no longer had {film} in thier titles. Please feel free to change back my edits. One question though, with the page moves am I correct in thinking that the links no longer need to be piped? Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Detail

To the Manson article, I've added what should be, for me, a final detail: The discovery of the Tate bodies and the beginning of the crimes as a news story. Just wanted to let you know. Take care.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Manson investigation

On the Manson talk page, I've just posted a comment about a problem with the "Investigation" info. As I told you last week or so, I really have to put the article aside; but this has been bothering me for some time. Wanted to get it on the record before I duck out.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response on the talk page. If that was, indeed, an error on the part of Bugliosi and Gentry, it was a minor one, which didn't harm their argument that the Tate investigators had been too quick to dismiss the lead; but I didn't want to delete it without notice.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by

The more I look at Raymond Aaron the more I think the article is worth taking to AfD. I've done a pretty comprehensive google search for the man and all I get is gossip and puffery leading to people flogging their own get rich quick schemes.

This is one of the reasons I flagged it on the project talk page. I feel somewhat too close to the article having striven to improve it to make that call with any objectivity currently. Perhaps a few days will solve that! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I may well press the AfD button myself. I may be cynical but I think this stuff surfaces as soon as a recession is announced. No-one will die if I leave it a few days, but I shall not stand in your way if you propose it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just popping in..

Hi, I haven't crossed paths with you for awhile so I just want to pop in to say hello. I hope things are going well and you are editing and having fun. Take care, I hope we cross paths again soon. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong gender

My apologies! PC78 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pauley Perrette

No worries, it happens to the best of us. :) Have a Great Wednesday...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 11, 2009 @ 09:26

AfD nomination of Raymond Aaron

An article that you have been involved in editing, Raymond Aaron, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Aaron. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Houdini!

You've disappeared from the Whitman page. Alright, I'll be nicer. How's the weather and other bad habits?--Victor9876 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's good that you got out. Weather has been fair here. Colder than expected, but nothing like your area. I'm reluctant to share this, but I did an interview for a local TV Access producer and I was satidfied with the interview, but the graphics he put behind us was rather bohemic and risque'. Watch it if you like, I'm the one with the Cowboy Hat. Number 22 or third video down. I've sunk rather low for this, but...it was practice. http://pleasuresaucer.com/--Victor9876 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

TYVM! Hmmmm! The talk page doesn't get resolved for a few contributors and than a newbie shows up with the same issues. Hmmmmm! Passive-Agressive maybe? Thanks again!--Victor9876 (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh gosh! I'm sorry, I made a Rose for you on Valentines day and thought I sent it to you after the above message. Did I not push the save button??!? I'm sorry Wildhartlivie, you are so deserving and I messed up apparently. Hope you had someone send you something besides death threats like I got!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that a certainty? Or can it be avoided?--Victor9876 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, with your purple clothes (you ol hippy you), and being mid-fortiesh, with a red hat; and me with my snake skin cowboy boots, black Stetson and red Apache Scarf, would make a fine looking couple...at the top of the Empire State Building. Kind of a Tim Burton does "Sleepless In Seattle"...sans the kid, and several cats and a dog in tow. No sequel for that one! --Victor9876 (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are rumors of some Cherokee, mostly English and Irish mountain stock, with a touch of moonshine. The Trail of Tears path here used to point West of the reservation in Cherokee, since the Casino has been built, the arrow now points to the Casino.Victor9876 (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you actually sounded excited with that exchange. The drummer part - I didn't get. How far are you from the Belterra Casino Resort and Spa? I prefer Hold-Em cards but, if slots are all there is, I like the poker Muli-Times machines. Have you ever been to Lake Lure? It's about a half-hour from here and "Last Of The Mohicans" was shot there. What drummer?--Victor9876 (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.freezeframethemovie.com/ Have you seen this movie? A fabulous flop, but a great movie none-the-less. I wish I could get the rights to the movie...7 or 8 minutes of editing could make it a classic.--Victor9876 (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like it, I'll remove my endorsement. Of course I've heard the drummer sayings, you used it as a sentence subject, making me think you actually had a drummer. Which you did, but were married to, who had long hair over his high cheek bones and dark skin, but was incompatable though you should have had a kid with...maybe it was a parapraxis! You must be beautiful!!! Good night.--Victor9876 (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you beautiful?Victor9876 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC) You're defaulting to modesty - do others say you are beautiful - besides family, friends, etc.?Victor9876 (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC) That is obvious, r u beautiful?--Victor9876 (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 'scuse me...Wow! She's Hot!!! Too bad...I was hoping you were ugly and looked like Danny Devito in drag. You're way too hot for me! With your brains and looks, why are you soooo...Wikipedia-ish? You should dancing and howling at the moon...carpe' diem and all that jazz!!! Whaz up wit chew!?Victor9876 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, guess I intruded too far.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gothicley divine.Victor9876 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blood isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway.Victor9876 (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Wildhartlivie, you are beautiful! Forgive me, I've been hitting on you with inappopriate questions and I've just had the revelation that I've lived in isolation for so long, I really don't know myself anymore. The media damage caused by the 40th Anniversary of the Tower tragedy and the misperceptions of my role have had me in a quasi-paranoid state for a few years. I think I'll just tidy up a few loose ends on WP and get out. I really loath Jimbo Wales and this whole confangled project of his. Have fun on it and don't take it too seriously as a lot of people do. I hope everything works out well for you with the SSD and you have a lot of fun. Best to you! John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't the last hour believe me. I'll keep you posted! Victor9876 (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And I loved every second of it!Victor9876 (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you!Victor9876 (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my head is still above water for the moment...still have the one fight to exorcise. I noticed on you movie list that "The Notebook", is not a part of your library. You're not a romantic if that movie is not on the list.--Victor9876 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Join the fun or at least give me your opinion.[[4]]--Victor9876 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I just came off of there and Ari comlains you are not impartial because of our exchanges. I also back up a charge of personal attack that he did to me. Check it out. I liked your response.--Victor9876 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Colman

Added a filmography for him. Take a look see. Any suggestions? — Jimknut (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mary Surratt

Hello Wildhartlivie,

Thank you for your message on my page. I put those fact tags on this article because, I'm actually translating in french, "

Abraham Lincoln assassination", and all articles regarding actors of the drama. I have no doubt the Surratts were supporting the South, but as all statements in Wikipedia articles, it has to be referenced. For each of the fact tags, I need to find a book, author and page that coroborate the statement. If by any chance you have such books, thank you very much to share. Best regards. Giovanni-P (talk

) 11:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gertrude Banizewski

Woops, I should have read the article on Sylvia Likens befor I made the edits on poor Gertrude. You might want to edit out traveling throughout the "Country" and insert "The State of Indiana" as this was my intent before getting "carried away" with creative license. RegardsKaltenborn (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tina Turner

Hi, I've commented on the talk page. I can understand your frustration. When someone new begins to make radical changes without discussion, it isn't the ideal approach. Some good may come of it, maybe. I have to say, although I prefer your version of the lede, I don't like it. It's not balanced, and I think it sells Turner short. She's notable not only for her success but her success through adversity, and this is not mentioned at all. It's just praise and acclaim, rather than a summary of the article, and the last paragraph of quotes, I think is very wrong. I've never (to my recollection) edited this article, at least not in any depth, so I'm not familiar with its progression. A side comment - it's interesting how successful she became, and the number of people she's played to is staggering,

WP:RS or not. I remember when she was at her crossroads, between leaving Ike and breaking through with 'What's Love Got to Do With It', she spent a bit of time in Australia. She played service clubs and football clubs, and in Australia that's only about one or two steps up from Whoopi Goldberg's cabaret act in Sister Act. I could have driven about 3 minutes from my house and seen her for about $5 and I thought, nahh, not even worth my time. Stupid me. To go from that, to everything she has achieved - oh my god!! Rossrs (talk

) 16:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've left a comment as well (sorry I'm a bit late). I used some example articles to prove my point, but have a feeling it will fall on deaf ears. Like I said, I'm a fan of Turner's as well, but there's no need to drive the point home that she's accomplished. I seem to remember someone on AN/I stating that "award-winning" shouldn't be in the lede, but since it's not policy, people keep sticking it in to prove notability. You know I worked on the article before and gave up because it's overrun with POV and more fancruft than you can shake a stick at, so I'm really not surprised by the latest turn of events. If you ever get it to GA status, you deserve a Grammy yourself (they'll create a new category for you, I'm sure). Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As Christina Applegate once said, "The mind wobbles". I think that sums up my feelings at the moment. Rossrs (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's my take. I think the editor sincerely believes that he/she has good intentions but those good intentions seem to be to the exclusion of all else including politeness. What's difficult to deal with is that he/she replies without actually addressing comments that have been made, but latching onto one minor point that was not the intention (ie the format of the lead sentence vs. the content. Where the hell did I mention content?) A discussion only works if both sides are at least discussing the same topic. I think we're discussing Wikipedia and he/she's discussing Tina Turner. He/she seems not to distinguish between the two, at least not to the degree that allows an impartial view. The 'if I'm to be believed' comment was offensive, but even more offensive was that it offered proof that although I'd provided links to FAs etc, the FA page hadn't been read. So, in good faith, how do you work with someone who thinks they know it all? Even when you point them towards information that may help them understand, they choose to disregard it while still disagreeing with it. It's annoying, but remember, new editors often come along with a burst of enthusiasm and then disappear when they get bored. It may happen again. On the other hand, sometimes it's good to walk away, even for a while. I've done that with a number of articles, and have returned to find that someone else has successfully dealt with the issue. Someone else will notice. It's a kind of "medium traffic" article. Not exactly Rihanna, but given time enough editors will see it. Meanwhile, the article stinks, and it should be nominated for delisting. I don't think even Tina's publicist could come up with a blurb like the current lead section.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the FA/GA mention. I understand what you were saying. Unfortunately I think you may as well have been saying it in Swahili. The fires were a long way from me, but I know people in the area, and the real horror of it is the randomness. It could have been anyone, depending on which way the wind blew, and it was the unexpected shift in wind that caught so many people by surprise. They're expecting the death toll to well exceed 200. Horrific. Coincidental that you mentioned Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and the fires in the same message. One of the minor actors from the first Mad Max, Reg Evans, is among the dead. Rossrs (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A Fallacy is like a bad joke: it doesn't make sense and its not even funny. I'd say its something that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. Arguments like this can clutter talk pages for days on end. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You may consider filing at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#General_user_conduct with Rossrs (talk). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest starting with

WP:AN/I probably isn't the best place to start. Use every example you mentioned on my page and make sure Rossrs (talk) files jointly with you, since you two are the most involved. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

23:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

After bringing this to

WP:AN/I. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

05:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, my time is going to be very limited. I'll be around for another week, but I can't count on being able to spend any time here. This whole Tina Turner thing is sooooooo tiresome, and it's such a boring viewpoint. "Icon" is a lazy word, used by people who can't express themselves clearly, to say something that they aren't entirely sure about, with as little effort or discernment as possible. That's my opinion. I loathe the idea that someone could use such an inane, banal word and think they've done something clever. It's blindingly stupid and it says nothing. Albert Einstein "was a theoretical physicist." Leonardo da Vinci was "an Italian polymath, being a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer", (but neither are icons). Even Jesus "is revered by most Christian churches as the Son of God and the incarnation of God." (my bolding - we are careful to attribute it to the church). But we're going to straight out declare Tina an icon, and not even attribute it to anyone but ourselves? No way. Tina Turner is a singer and actress for gawd's sake. Her profession is identical to that of an American Idol contestant the first time they earn a dollar for their singing. It's not rocket science. I can't think of anything more to add to her talk page without being redundant, and although I've tried to present an intelligent viewpoint, the latest challenge is to disprove that Tina is an icon. Back to where we started, and I just have to slap my forehead and think "sheesh!" After all that good faith effort, we're back to the beginning as if the middle never even happened. I'm sorry it's spilling over into other articles, and I may have drawn attention to them by holding them up as examples of a desirable format. I applaud anyone who makes a serious effort to improve any article regardless of its status, but when it goes against consensus, common sense and established policies and principles, I have to question it . When it attempts to circumvent FAR procedure because it's too hard, I just shudder. Maybe that's why policies are being disregarded here, there and everywhere. I won't bore you further with my opinion, as I know you know what it is. I won't be around to support anything that may follow on from here, in any meaningful way, but I'm more than happy for you to refer or link to any of my comments, any and all of which I stand 100% behind. I also endorse the comments by User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult and User:Realist2 - both knowledgeable and impeccable editors. Rossrs (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I won't set off without saying goodbye though, so even if I'm not around much, I will be sure to stop by. The more I think about it, the more I realize that if she brings her POV to a wider forum, she's inviting more editors to dispute her. We know that what she's doing is not accepted, and if she doesn't yet realize it, she will find out. I've seen the same type of dispute (but less tendentious) at

Madonna, Kylie Minogue, Mariah Carey and Celine Dion and it wasn't tolerated. She's trying to reinvent the wheel. Taking it to Michael Jackson brought it to the attention of a different group of editors, and that will be the same no matter where it's taken. It'll be fine. I have no doubt. Rossrs (talk

) 12:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Curious" is one word for it. I can think of a few others. I've reverted it again. Rossrs (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is fooled, I'm sure. I also have Diana Ross on my watchlist, but I rarely bother editing. Someone just removed some "award winning" from the lead sentence. I took a look, and it's quite a nice lead. It gives all the details without the desperate sales pitch, again proving that it only requires a small degree of restraint to strike a suitable balance. Yes, it's going to be cold. I have to take clothing for 2 climates, so deciding what to take will be a challenge. I love cold weather, and I'm looking forward to be away from the heat and humidity of Brisbane for a little while. By the time I return, we'll be heading into Autumn, my favourite time of year. (Nothing much changes, but the temperature drops to a comfortable level). Rossrs (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Melissa Moore

Hello and thank you for your contributions and support. The power of Wikipedia is that many people edit and add content, which makes it more relevant, I think, than written text. However, I have since read via http://www.more.com/more-women/model-search/2006/melissa-moore/ that Melissa is single. I continue to seek information about her as she is truly a fascinating person.l santry (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the article - I hate people named Moore! lol! What is Santryl saying? Isn't everthing here written text? Never mind, I just saw through it and answered my own question, duhhhh!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, be careful not to use rollback on edits which are not vandalism. See this edit. Garion96 (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it happens. Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary Cooper filmography

Yup, I went and created this page. Take a look. Make any corrections or suggestions you see fit. A thought to ponder regarding some other actor filmographies: Many only list the year, title, and role the actor played. If this is all that's listed then why make the page at all? Why not just provide a link to the IMDb? — Jimknut (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The line that you mentioned, "Also, the IMDb lists Cooper in a small role in Red Hair (1928). This seems highly unlikely as well, as he was an established star by that time," I have replaced with, "Also, the IMDb lists Cooper in a small role in Red Hair (1928), even though he was an established star by that time. Unfortunatey, Red Hair is a lost film, making it difficult to establish Cooper's possible presence." This may still seem speculative, but the film's lost status is sourced.

Even if the film may be lost, publicity stills undoubtably exists which may feature Cooper (if he is indeed in the film). Trivial note: the leading man in Red Hair is Lane Chandler, who bore a slight resemblence to Cooper. — Jimknut (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hepburn

Hmm, the image isn't very good. I'm surprised it has survived as long as it has. I'll try to find something else when I get a chance. The other editor, Phantom, was a fairly regular contributor of images from films etc but he seems to have vanished. I was a little perturbed that he changed a lot of the Stage Door Canteen images. His images were somewhat sharper than mine - I guess he had a better copy of the film. I was only concerned that I'd spent time going frame by frame to get a particular facial expression, and whammo, they all disappeared. But he was such a valuable contributor that I didn't dispute it. So, yes, I'll see what I can find. It may have to wait though. I'm going to be travelling for the month of March, so I'm winding down here, and getting ready to go away. I have a lot of things I have to do. Only problem is, I have a virus at the moment and I feel ill, so every time I think of doing other things, I sit down at my computer because it requires less physical effort. Can you believe the comments on the Tina Turner page? I had decided that I'd finished saying what I wanted to say, but today I read that lack of opposition = support. That's a far greater assumption than I would have someone make about me, so after the steam stopped shooting uncontrollably out of my ears, I decided to comment.

And you must read this - regarding Kevin Spacey and Katharine Hepburn. [5] Kevin Spacey: "I would write her about what was happening in my career and she’d write back, “Dear Kevin, Good for you! Kate.”

I guess she only bothered with replies when it interested her. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did take a holiday last year, and I may even take a holiday next year. This will be 5 days in Hong Kong, then about 2 and a half weeks in Wales, during which there will be a one week side trip to Cyprus. I've never been to Cyprus, so I don't know what to expect. Sunshine and ancient ruins probably. An eclectic selection and I am so looking forward to it. I want to go to Warsaw, but time and money don't stretch far enough to allow that. One day...  :-) Rossrs (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Melissa Moore

sorry to beat a dead horse <terrible saying>, how about removing the whole "spouse=Robert" tag until it is resolved - for the sake of providing truth and good information.l santry (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Film articles needing a cast

Heh, I'm not that good! :) No, the category has been replaced with Category:Film articles needing a cast section. It migh ttake a while for the old category to empty into the new. Regards. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The new category will eventually (that is, when I get around to it) have subcategories, so you will be able to choose articles by task force if you so wish. :) PC78 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Film articles needing a cast section by task force is now up and running. :) PC78 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What's your opinion?

Am I wrong about this character named "hehasabutt"? —Dixie Brown (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Charles Manson

No problem, glad to help. Best, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Hag2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

american

if you click the link for american you will find it leads to a dab page. the first reference is to american as a resident of the americas. the second is to us citizens. first usage should specify country, after that, use "american" as much as you like. it is NOT a universal usage outside of the USA. see articles @ bbc or any international (non us) news service.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

see the subject's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American

Lx 121 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_the_word_American

an even better link; see the talkpage as well

Lx 121 (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

as are you (3r). also, i was not referring to you re: removed material. that was a different user, if you check the history you will see it.

Lx 121 (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

you know what? fine, i quit. you win. congratulations. i am not going to waste my time arguing this. clearly it needs to be adressed as WP. i'm sorry about the misunderstanding re: removed material. i know that was a different editor, i thought my edit comment made that clear.

i'm not clear on why you split the HJO personal life material between 2 sections, he is <21 years of age, and there really isn't enough material to justify a split, but also fine. i am however going to restore the details of the accident. since you don't seem to have a problem with that, i hope you will support this against the editor who is removing it. the material is referenced, & i can add more reference links, tho i hate doing footnotes. i am also not clear on what grounds this person claimed that the given references (which predated my involvement with this article) were invalid.

for the record, i think you are wrong about the usage. the fact that "american" needs a dab page, that your chosen definition is secondary, & that you need a redirect to "US" speaks volumes about the degree of ambiguity involved in use of the term. internationally the default seems to be: specify US on first usage, then use as appropriate. i think that's probably the best model. but i'm going to fight that battle as wikipolicy, not on a bio article. i do agree that the usage should be consistent throughout wikip

regards

Lx 121 (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, when I reverted, I wasn't aware you were involved in a discussion, but in any case, I saw the edit and didn't agree with it. I can see Lx 121's view regarding "American" (and I've replied on his/her talk page). "U.S. is more specific, I suppose, but "American" is perfectly acceptable, clearly understood, and used much more widely by WP, than "U.S." As a "foreigner" I can safely say that very few people in my part of the world would see "American" and think "hmmm I wonder if Meryl was born in Argentina? I'll have to keep reading." I see no value in changing the wording in one or two articles, when there are thousands that use "American" as the standard. Rossrs (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

NNDB

Heh. Amazing how much questionable stuff I've found in IMDB. I won't even start with NNDB! Stetsonharry (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oscars

(A lot can happen in a month - by the time I get back ....) Yes, I'll get to see the Oscars, and Heath is obviously the big favourite in Australia. The thing I struggle with is keeping myself in the dark until the broadcast. We don't get it live because of the time difference, so while it's happening in "America" and being watched by "Americans" (including, I guess, "American" actors) it's about midday in Australia. So all you "Americans" can see it live, while we wait 8 hours for the broadcast to screen during prime time. By this time it's been on the news, the radio, the internet. I can't even log on to Wikipedia, as results are invariably strewn across the main page. Then there are the people within my orbit who have only a passing interest, and will suddenly start blurting out results at me. Driving home from work, I can't stop for bread, milk or petrol. As I can't live in a cocoon, the suspense is usually ruined for me. One way or another, I'll be sure to know whether Heath has won or lost, within about 3 nanoseconds of it happening. I love watching the Oscars, but it's the anticipation and the unfolding that I enjoy most. So, predictions : Winslet/Penn/Davis/Ledger. Director : Boyle. Film: Slumdog. Rossrs (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HJO

if you read thru all the references, you will find that he pleaded no contest to marijuana possession. it is also relevant to point out that the court case was related to the crash. i have tried to be nice & be reasonable in working on this article with you. but i am not going to back down on this. it is not your perogative to edit the article in a way to downplay factual events. Lx 121 (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HJO

if you read thru ALL the references, you will find that he pleaded no contest to marijuana possession. if you feel a need to adjust the references, go right ahead, i can provide you wil several dozen. it is also relevant to point out that the court case was related to the crash. i have tried to be nice & be reasonable in working on this article with you. but i am not going to back down on this. it is not your perogative to edit the article in a way to downplay factual events. Lx 121 (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of resources:

http://www.google.com/search?q=haley%20joel%20osment%20car&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=QiqhSdeOK5DoNdntoOkN&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=haley+joel+osment+marijuana&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=haley+joel+osment+pot

http://www.google.com/search?q=haley%20joel%20osment%20charge&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

since you seem to be very particular about finding appropriate references, for an incident which is common, public knowledge, i invite you to select the references you like best, & insert them into the ref notes as you feel best.

i would particularly recommend:

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/ent/osment81706duipot.html

as it is a facsimlie of the charges presented in court.

i have also removed the reference to the golfer's name, as irrelevant. if osment joined the team primarily because of this person's involvement, & if you have references demonstrating that, you are welcome to include a sentence explaining the point. as written however, it is simply name-dropping; not of value to the article & it makes for a run-on sentence.

i have restored the (U.S.) to "ABC". there is more than one major television broadcasting network that uses these initials, & to avoid confusion, it is best to be clear which one is being referred to. if you object, we could simply drop the acronym & use the network's full name "american broadcasting corporation".

i have made repeated efforts to find a reasonable compromise with you on our points of disagreement in this article. i have repeatedly given ground. and received very little in return. this is my last attempt at assuming good faith on your part. if you persist in editing the article to downplay the accident, and related legal issues, in spite of the available, multiple references for an incident which is public knowledge, i can only assume that you are seeking to shape this article in violation of WP:NPOV. expect me to respond accordingly.

i hope we can resolve this matter, i have wasted a great deal of time here on what i consider to be petty issues.

regards

Lx 121 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My fans

Thanks for the talk page revert. If you didn't do a revert, you know it wouldn't get done because I don't do my job! I'm starting to remember why I hung up my Huggle hat! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that. If you need any help over there, just say the word. As you can see, I've nothing better to do than block people (oh, wait) and, evidently, learn that completely screwing up a page to add one thing is the right way to edit. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Danny

Well...I checked that Corn quote and discovered that it really was two separate quotes. So I made some sort of change to compensate for the misquote. But I suppose I will need to dig deeper into the referencing citations, and that sort of thing to make everything as it should be. Frankly I'm tired of Casolaro, and I said so to the Theo guy on his talkpage (who's actually been very helpful and friendly). I'm going to try to sweet talk him into addressing the issue which you have raised about perhaps removing as much quoted material as possible because I'm more interested in researching the factual material. That other user (the new one named Ihaveabutt) is persistent (and annoying) but because of the persistence, I checked Corn's quote and found the mistake. Hopefully, this will clear up the situation for Ihaveabutt. Outside of that, I do not know what else to do other than suggest butt opens a Request for Comment (and I said that to him on my talkpage). I'll keep you posted. Oh...if you're looking for most of your commentary on my talkpage, you'll find it in the Archives, and go ahead and comment in there if you want; it makes no difference to me, that's OK. But there's really no need to comment unless you want to. —Dixie Brown (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ray Milland

Another filmography done. Take a look and tell me what you think. The introductory segment might be a little lumpy, so if you (or anyone else who wants to take a crack at it) care to try and smooth it, then by all means do so.

This one was pretty extensive. I think I'll give myself a break and make

Helen Gahagan the subject of my next filmography. — Jimknut (talk

) 01:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oscars

Well done! Your predictions were good. Mine were also pretty good, but I didn't see Penelope as having a chance. I haven't watched the show yet as I heard all the winners before I even made it home, and I got busy with other things. I've recorded it so I can skip through the dull bits. Hugh Jackman's been getting a big pat on the back in Australia for his hosting duties, and Heath, of course. There's been a tendency to add the "Academy Award winning" bit, which is not surprising. I think Kate's great, but honestly.... it's not like her entire life has led her to this one moment of triumph. Likewise Penelope, the "Academy Award-winning Spanish actress" (who was briefly the "Spanish Academy Award-winning actress".) Never again a mere Goya winner - she can now look Marisa Tomei squarely in the eye as an equal. I've removed it a dangerous four times. I know her fans are so overcome with joy that they're about to spontaneously combust. Would you mind checking it from time to time? Thanks Rossrs (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean Penn

A brief look at the contributions of the editor in question reveal agenda-based editing, so I concur with your assessment. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

GSNborer

Ugh. Gotta love that original user name. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I almost missed conversations about kinescopes. Takes ya back, doesn't it? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 01:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever had a WTF moment when you stumbled on an article? Take a gander at this version of an article I found and cleaned up. I especially love the homosexuality theory. Priceless. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

albert fish

i noticed that you are active on this page and i wanted to discuss some changes there on talk. please join me! untwirl(talk) 06:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

birth and death date templates for microformats

This thread moved back to my talk page because I think we have outstayed our welcome and it is of general interest regarding microformats. Thanks for hosting us Wildhartlivie. The party is moving back to my place. -J JMesserly (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See ya later

Just dropping by to bid you a brief farewell, and I look forward to chatting with you again in about a month's time. I was surprised to learn that Kate Winslet stared in The Reader. Usually that's considered impolite, but it won her an Oscar, so what do I know? Is there no end to her talents? Bye for now. Rossrs (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive Whitman talk

I tried to archive the talk page. With Miza-bot and other alternatives, I became confused, would you mind? I have a feeling a whole new discussion is brewing. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried, too and succeeded in an ugly way. Sorry. I'm not sure how to clean up the mess. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. I made the archive time 30 days instead of 7. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked it once more - I think the format param didn't like "Archive" in it. Moved to prefix param. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Randall Flagg

Hi, thanks a lot for your help. I changed the bit about civilization and removed a lot of the "also"s. I'm not sure about the Hand of God, either, as I haven't read it in a bit but I'll see what I can do.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Daniel Day-Lewis

Could you of said that in the edit summary ? Gnevin (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No i don't think so it's a function of the way the template works, feel free to revert but remember the edit summary this time :) Gnevin (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S i can't see much difference with or without the grouping Gnevin (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and not seeing this behavour, can you take a screenshot of it? Gnevin (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link to Daniel Day-Lewis being an agnostic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.216.137 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for clearing that up. Much obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.216.137 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films

February 2009 Newsletter

The

February 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk

) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

albert fish

hi, i left you a message a few days ago, but you never responded. there is some trimming of the albert fish page that i think needs to be done, but i wanted to discuss it with you since you are quite active at patrolling (and reverting) recent changes to that article. i'll go ahead and cross post the section that an ip started on the talk page:

Too detailed?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a collection of horror novels. Whilst, of course, Fish's crimes should be mentioned, one could dispute if it is necessary to get so detailed about how exactly he tortured, killed and cooked his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.28.95 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. "He sent a letter detailing how he killed and ate the child to the parents," would be much better. There is a link to the full text for those who wish to read it. these block quotes are unnecessary and sensationalistic. untwirl (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

please join me there or respond here or my talk, whichever you prefer. untwirl(talk) 01:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ondaatje's "The Collected Works of Billy the Kid"

Hi, I personally like unresolved (red) links on the pages I work on, since I think that encourages someone to respond to the "red flag in front of a bull", by creating the page in question. They can't react to something they don't notice. And that particular title is quite well known, at least here in Canada anyway, so someone could see that and get motivated. I had read that book myself back in university, then noticed later that my thesis supervisor kept a copy in his office.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto, Ont.)

Sometimes I also like the red links as encouragement for someone to provide the article. Thought Ondaatje's book on Billy the Kid was outstanding, one of the first by him which I read, along with Coming Through Slaughter.--Parkwells (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

infoboxes

Your Question was:

Hi. Please show me the discussion where consensus was determined to change the date template in articles from WP:ACTOR. It has not been broached on the project talk page, nor can I tell that it has been determined by consensus that the present use is acceptable. My understanding is that at present this is essentially a trial/study, etc. and from reading some discussion pages, I do not see that it has been accepted on a wholesale basis. Please do not change any more infoboxes related to this project without first obtaining consensus from the project. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Savolya"

Answer: My Feb. 16th revision on Erika Eleniak was changed:

On Feb. 27th by: (cur) (prev) 21:30, 27 February 2009 J JMesserly (talk | contribs) (10,281 bytes) (Article text unchanged- inserted birth and death date templates for microformats "event" functionality. (Further info here) (assisted manual edit)) (undo)

On March 1st by: (cur) (prev) 15:49, 1 March 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m (10,319 bytes) (Date maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)

Thanks

Savolya (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)savolyaSavolya (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood Savolya (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)savolyaSavolya (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actismel

I don't know if it helps, but I tagged Actismel's comment to make it easier to find.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_sockery_and_assertion_thereof

Good luck in getting to the bottom of it, and my sympathies. arimareiji (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad. I don't know if you picked it up from my reaction with Snipercraft - I consider sockery to be one of the worst things around. But stupid "cute" veiled threats like that in the pretense of friendly chatter make it outright disgusting, and I'm sorry you had to deal with it. People like that, I really do want to see go away and never come back.

People like Victor, I want to see stay. I know you don't believe me, and I don't blame you for feeling that way, but my objections are based only on how I perceive his behavior. I think it would be an utter shame to lose him as an expert advisor to the article, and I would much rather that he listen to someone about working civilly in consensus than to see him go. I know it won't be me, but I hope there is someone. arimareiji (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for giving the impression that I thought you and Victor were socks - I had only meant that being close friends (as Wikipedians go) makes it really hard to be neutral. If I think someone's a sock, I say so even if that means I get yelled at for ABF. I don't know whether Snipercraft was a sock, but I was still willing to throw out a strong caution for that reason.

What bothers me most about that now is that I think it really is possible that s/he simply came to the article at the wrong place / wrong time. I just don't know what to think about that one. arimareiji (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is why I just don't know what to think, even though I want to AGF (mainly due to the fact that those were good edits in the language sense). I'm a big believer in WP:DUCK too, and I heard a couple of quacks.

But there've also been a couple of times when I thought I'd found sockery, and later it turned out to be simple partisan tag-teaming... that made me quite leery of being "sure" of suchlike. As Victor's previously noted, I spend a fair amount of time with partisans who are happy to jump on each others' bandwagons. arimareiji (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably feel completely different about it once I've actually come across and had the "pleasure" of dealing with one. But I do wonder - are that kind actually the majority of sockery, or are they just the most nauseating kind? I frequently find myself suspecting that the majority of sockery flies under the radar, and it's only the griefers who really get everyone's attention. Just idle curiosity, and I'll probably be happier if it's a long time before I know that answer from experience. arimareiji (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Aiyaa... actually, I didn't know either had anything to do with Manson, I'm woefully uninformed. That has to be comforting, dealing with a griefer obsessed with Manson. 0.0 arimareiji (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: How's ya?

You're welcome – I did it with a heavy heart, but ultimately it had no place there or anywhere else on the page. I'm still alive and kickin' it. Got through the latest busy period at work, so I have more time to waste here. I'm gonna send you an email about your latest "savings" project. Have a good one, momoricks (make my day) 07:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at my watchlist and saw yesterday's vandalism battle on Serial killer. I requested semi-protection for the umpteenth time...sigh. momoricks (make my day) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on getting Manson permanently protected. How long did that take? That's my goal for the Serial killer page. Feel free to reply to my email at my work address. I can't check personal email at work. :( momoricks (make my day) 00:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

The checkuser result is already in. I've opened a thread at an admin board, if you'd like to comment there. Durova^Charge! 03:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Manson talk page

I fear you think I was objecting to your statement on the Manson talk page (in the discussion about "Cultural Reverberation"). I have just posted a statement that makes clear I was not.71.242.171.202 (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Got your message. Thanks.71.242.171.202 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

I this edit you wrote in your edit summary: "rem dubiously sourced content; moved succession box to bottom". I supplied the content of the Anthony Pelligrano material. I thought it was adequately sourced. If you think you have noticed a problem with those sources that escaped me I would really appreciate you returning to Talk:Linda Fiorentino and offering an explanation.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dreaded West

After seeing this, I decided it might be safe to edit the article again, so I started the task of getting rid of some of the fact tags. I added a few refs and deleted some other stuff that probably couldn't be proved with a source anyway. I'll do some more cutting and ref finding tomorrow, but it should be done very soon....thank God! I've had my fill of that woman. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw all that. I caught the similarities in speech last night when I read the whole "Please don't fight this!" diatribe. I've yet to see another person use that odd phrasing coupled with the whole persecution bit. Oh, and the ranting about you being an angry mastodon, that's the cherry on the crazy cake. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, vent away. I'd be peeved if someone was rambling on and dissecting every move I made here too. I read what he wrote and we all know it's a big pile of steaming poop (ha!). You've contributed and created GAs and (am I wrong here?) contributed to Commons. That's a hell of a lot more than I do! Even if you hadn't done any of those things, it doesn't warrant the outbursts that inevitably come when dealing with whathisface. I don't take any of it seriously because it's like a child throwing a tantrum, albeit with a keyboard and lot of exclamation points. He'll be back in a few months, get whacked again, go to his coffee klatch and brood, regroup and come back. Have we learned nothing from Dooyar? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 03:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooo...seems I'm missing the Dooyar drama. I must take a look at that talk page. I don't watch AI. It's never been my cup of tea for some reason. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gene Kelly

I've got yet another

Academy Award winner, but I think he's worthy of a good filmography page. For this one I used the Woody Allen filmography

as a model.

By the way, perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I think that among the pages that have attained Featured List status regarding the performing arts (notably discographies and episode guides) there seems to be an overwhelming bias in favor of contemporary entertainment. Care to comment on that? Jimknut (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk

Hi, I just got around to checking it out and it is a mess. I take it that our old friend is back from what I could see from the Mae West talk page. I followed it to the sock page. Now that everything is archived, is everything ok or is there another link to go to? He sure doesn't give up does he? Anyways, please let me know if there is more I should be looking at. I got myself a bad cold so sorry for the delay. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you do me a favor please?

In the Diane Downs article the paragraph about the gun reads weird to me. Would you take a look? I am not feeling well and to be honest I can't tell if it's me or the paragraph. She didn't buy the gun, it was stolen by her husband. Then the paragraph goes on to say the bullet cartridges were run through this gun that of course was never found. Anyways, I would appreciate it if you would take a peek at your convenience. I will be going offline here in a sec. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Its no problem, I see you are interested in Existentialism, if you need help in any of articles in that genera, Id be glad to help. Thanks happy editing! --Zaharous (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

I added article alerts subscription templates to the WP Crime/Criminal main page under a new section: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography#Article_Alerts. Would you prefer to see the alerts for the Serial Killer Task Force grouped with those or on its main page? Thanks! momoricks (make my day) 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AS FLC

Thanks for your comment. I too don't think it is a major issue to have the color there, but I'd rather the article pass than fight something as small as the color in the table. I would have thought more people would have commented on the review in general, but surprisingly, it's been limited. I've learned more about the FLC process, so I may go on and work on Little Miss Sunshine awards and nominations modeled after your FL. Thanks again for taking a look. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof of what?

Hi, I wanted to commend you for your history of responsible edits to the Cher page. Some of my posts and edits there have called out exaggerations made there, so I'd like to make a point in Cher's favor with regard to a recent series of edits there. A glance at her albums discography shows that Living Proof is probably the fifth best-charting album of the woman's long career worldwide, yet the section about it reads as if it was a massive disappointment. By that standard, everything she did before the late '80s was a complete flop. That's simply not the case. Obviously chart and sales figures tell a good part of the story of an album's popular reception in that there are some which are among an artist's most popular and others which do not gain major national success. But beyond noting things like that, we shouldn't make too much of contrasting the success of one album with the another unless we are citing an examination of trends in an artist's career made by a notable source to make a larger point. But if we are going to compare, Living Proof was her second-highest charting studio album in the U.S. in her five-decade career. No, it wasn't a Platinum-selling album, but let's get some perspective! I understand your desire to not overstate the album's success but I think it could read a little less harshly. Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Findagrave

If the site had just about any other name, we could also refer to it by abbreviation in the talk pages. For some reason, I don't think it's a good idea with this particular website. :) —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn funny..but even funnier that it already exists! [[:Template:FAG]] ...no kidding! ☻...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, any though about changing the template syntax so that {{

Template talk:Findagrave. —C.Fred (talk

) 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Coordinator nominations

Coordinator nominations

The

here by 23:59 (UTC) on March 14! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk

) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sharon Tate

I am inclined to create a main article for the Tate-LaBianca murders, and link from the Tate page for various reasons, including length of the Tate article. It bothers me that that poor woman has to share space with the persons who unmercifully killed her and her unborn baby. What say you?

I reverted the paragraph about immunity to elim use of passive voice (e.g., "was seen as" and immunity "was offered"), wordiness ("candidly stated" instead of criminal law vernacular "admitted"), and clarity and accuracy. Linda Kasabian, for example, could have been tried for murder as a co-conspirator or accomplice as driver of the getaway car, or both, though she was not an active participant in the stabbings and shooting. My revision reflects that Atkins testified before the grand jury, but refused to repeat her testimony for trial, which forced the DA's office to withdraw immunity. My revision can be shortened and worded better, but this paragraph is a cleaner edit than what I found. You weaken it if you just revert it back. Swinterich (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you said on my talk page, disagree with some other things, but appreciate how you said it. Fair enough about the "I'm not like you, Charlie." I'll quote it in its entirety below and give you a page cite. Swinterich (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The accurate quote is "I'm not you, Charlie. I can't kill anybody." Bugliosi 1974 hardback, p. 270 (p. 273 in Google Books). It's out now, because it interrupts the flow of the paragraph, which I cleaned up. I agree that the sentence of mine that you excerpted needed work. I believe that in any article involving this a sensational crime the editors have to be accurate about who committed murder and who did not. The edition I corrected said that Kasabian did not murder anyone (I'm sure the previous writer meant to write that Kasabian was not actively murdering). Kasabian, though she stayed in the car until it was too late to affect the outcome, drove three well-armed accomplices to a house in the canyon for an obvious purpose, so she was a conspirator. I've thrown open the topic of the separate article in the talk page, though I mentioned it on your talk page moments before. It did occur to me that there is a reason for the lack of a separate article. If consensus goes against me, so be it. Though I believe it's warranted, without help, it's too much work. Swinterich (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitman page

Reorganized some redundant info into other sections and closed the previous section.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the report. They first looked at the parafin slides of Dr. Chenar's original autopsy, then had the brain re-examined to come to their conclusions. They even diagramed the brain and mention Dr. Chenar's sectioning and the damage from the gun shots.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages 10-11 of the PDF file - http://alt.cimedia.com/statesman/specialreports/whitman/findings.pdf --Victor9876 (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

O.K., that should do it.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that is what you meant, and I did.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on one's definition of difficult. Not mine however. --Victor9876 (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm not following the course of the conversation, or something has been misinterpreted. What are we talking about? --Victor9876 (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

When you used the term obtuse, it sounded like I must have insulted you. I don't know where if I did. Did I? --Victor9876 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, our responses probably got answered out of order. My fault! Too tired to continue. Goodnight.--Victor9876 (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying a Robert Hawkins approach to writing. I'll combine the sections and then sit and breathe in AND out for awhile. --Victor9876 (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Coens and Rudin.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151

20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

B&C Again

Some clown is trying not only to include the JayZ song but is also removing your "No More Additions" warning. FYI - I've reverted twice already. Sensei48 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

James Cagney GA

Hey there, just thought I'd let you know that James Cagney has been promoted to Good Article! Thanks for all your help on this article! Featured article, here we come (eventually)! --GedUK  09:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Coen brothers and Scott Rudin.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Coen brothers and Scott Rudin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an

image copyright tag

; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James

Hi, you did absolutely the right thing and did a terrific job of working on references. I don't know where the new editors are coming from, either; they don't seem to understand how different authors can use the same sources, or that Wikipedia can show more than one opinion, or that history interpretation may change. Will try to pay more attention.--Parkwells (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Coen brothers and Scott Rudin.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk

) 21:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Filmography table

Hey Wildhartlivie, listen, I have a question, regarding a filmography table included in an article. See, John Cena, is a wrestler, but is also an actor. So far, he's starred in two films, though, his second film doesn't get released until weeks later, it still counts at his second. Alright, my question to you is, is the table required or needed, despite just appearing in two films? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it helps. Another user removed the table, so, for the future, I'll use this discussion, as future reference. I didn't know who to turn too, so thanks for the know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

Exactly which TV show/interview did Natalie Portman actually reveal herself as "Natalie Hershlag"? Boinga (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a request for comment to you...

Hi, please stop by Charles Whitman at your convenience and respond also to an editor's request at [6]. I gave my opinion when I noted I was asked in the subject line to pop in from my watchlist. I think the editor might appreciate your response also. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Silent Film Wiki

If you note on the time those articles were posted they were all posted on the Silent Film Wiki first, thus Wikipedia is the copy article which is fine under the free liscense but I think the links belong there still.--Maggiedane (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not write the articles, I brought them here so no I am not a double. However I find it odd Wikipedia doesnt feel the original sources should be credited; there wasnt anything significantly expanded in any of the articles beyond some spelling changes and wiki linking (the [[]] things). That just seems very odd to me.--Maggiedane (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you are welcome to believe whatever you like, I try my best to contribute decent edits to wikipedia. All I am saying is I find it odd that they dont/wouldnt/whatever want the original place cited. I know wiki articles from any wiki are not sources; I just felt it was relevant and honestly I'm still not a 100% convinced as it is very odd. But I'm not about to pick a revert war over it as its not the important or relevant. --Maggiedane (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to play some link tag here. You have my email and you are welcome to it. I am trying to make some peace and reach some consensus with you, but I do not like posting personal information on wiki pages (or email links for that matter) because anyone can find it. I looked for the email link here but I've missed it, I dont use user pages much.

I am not trying to make anything personal, I disagree with your viewpoint BUT you have a right to it, and all I want is a fair hearing of a grouping of more wiki folk. If they say nope I'll disagree but I will abide. Im not a jerk spammer, I just want good information where it belongs. And as for the Mabel Normand article I think you need to seperate issues; that has nothing to do with my other beef though I am still annoyed by the fanzine and 'fan written' comments Gilda has made a few times now. I will get over it, and I will keep trying to contribute good info there. That is it. And as for adding links all over I did that in one fell swoop a few days ago, not to just annoy you one comment after another. Im at least allowed to ask for another opinion I feel thats it.--Maggiedane (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Everett

Hi Wildhart. I was checking the contribs of a guy who was cited at

WP:COIN, and in fixing up Rupert Everett I changed something you recently added. If I messed up, please correct. (I thought you added a ref to a different article than the one that mentioned Everett). EdJohnston (talk

) 05:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor Issue: Amy Winehouse Polling Results rephrasing

I noticed you changed the wording from "released" in March 2009 to "conducted" in March 2009. The cite itself said "released". Since the poll was interactive it is probably was "conducted" this month but we don't know that. Edkollin (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jodie Foster

No problem. I've seen them try to push their image before. I haven't taken a look at the text that they're trying to push but if it's anything like their rationale for that image, then it isn't worth keeping the text their way either. Dismas|^(talk) 08:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Links

No problem. I've already updated the template once I saw you correct it on Sam Cooke a few days back. Same goes with the IMDb template. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Meryl Streep

Hi I recently added a point on the Meryl Streep artricle about her Polish accent when speaking German in the film Sophie's choice. I see you removed it questioning the source? Yet the preceeding comments stating that she speaks with an Australian or Polish accent are left in. These are also unsourced? But my point is its like asking someone to source she has Blonde hair or is caucasion, or american...Its simply a fact, (a very immpreesive one) that she perfectly imitates the way a Polish person would speak German. I live in Germany, there are many Poles here and I know what I am talking about. what source would you expect for this exactly? And if you remove my comment at least explain the inconsistency in your reasoning why you haven't removed the other comments on her accent which are also unsourced.

I feel strongly that this is am impressive and important highlite of her talent, which is why I feel it should be added to the entry. I Look forward to hearing from you. Regards Navsikand (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Cher

Hi! As you can see I have added many citations in the "TV and musical stardom", can you remove the notice of the lack of citations?

Kekkomereq4 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, its unfortunate someone as legendary as Cher doesn't have people keeping proper track of her sales figures, conflicting reports ranging from 25-275 million is pretty sad. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

new details on the talk page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

Hi there,

Just to let you know I've restored the Amy Jade Civil opening for now - according to the

WP:MOSBIO#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names

guideline we should actually be using the legal name in the lead, closely followed by the stage name. I think that form should remain, unless I'm wrong and her name is still legally Winehouse? (a source for this would be needed, if so).

Cheers —

talk

) 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Evenmoremotor

• Hi. Based on our prior discussion at
  WP:3RR but I'm not sure when it'll be noticed. 72.74.198.46 (talk
  ) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not in a edit war, they are in one with me. There are multiple IP's for this person. This persons only edits are to undo mine. Personal pages/blogs, etc are not for external links and not for references. I see you deleting them also with your edits.

Evenmoremotor (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Evenmoremotor

• I just noticed that User:Evenmoremotor has been blocked. I wish the situation would have been worked out differently. Is is alright for me to start editing again ? Obviously I don't want to escalate things any more then they have already but does that mean I should stay away from any pages he's editied in the past ? I've found a lot questionable edits looking though his constribution history but I'm not sure if I should leave them alone. If I edit them myself it might like I'm being spiteful but on the other hand I don't want to clutter up a discussion forum bringing each individual edit. I don't want to look disruptive to everyone else and either way Evenmoremotor would probably think this was a personal thing. 72.74.198.46 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FindAGrave

This site has been discussed over and over on the talk page of

WP:EL as an inappropriate link and even outright spam attack. That's why it was removed. The fact that it keeps getting added to articles doesn't mean that it's appropriate, much like other spam doesn't mean spam is good. DreamGuy (talk

) 14:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of spamming for changing a template. This edit (in which you reverted an edit of mine removing FAG) asked "since when is findagrave an issue?", so I thought I'd give you an answer. I see now that your edit was from a couple of months ago. The page is on my watchlist so I don't know why I missed it the first time around. At any rate, there's the since when. DreamGuy (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Election 4

Hi, I was just wondering if you had considered nominating yourself in the project's current coordinator election. You're already well known within the project and have plenty of experience as an editor, so I think the role would suit you well. It certainly wouldn't hurt for us to have a few more candidates! Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for you..

I just started looking at the article about Timothy McVeigh. The page is really long but part of it is an editor adding a lot of quotes to the article. [7] I don't remember the policy on using so many direct quotes and to be honest I'm too tired and too lazy to go hunting it down. (Didn't sleep well at all.) Anyways, I would appreciate it if you could explain the policy on this or just supply the link. As always, thanks and be well. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the really quick response, much appreciated. So I was thinking what you said but I wasn't sure if I was remember correctly about the use of quotes so thanks for pointing me in that direction. I also think that the article should be reverted back to the way it was prior to all the larger quotes being inserted. What are your thoughts about my reverting this editor back to the previous and if I do/should, can I use the info you quoted on my page? It would make it easier for me, and yes I am a lazy editor today! ;) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please except this

This is because you are always so kind and patient with me so I just want to show you my appreciation in a little way. Thanks!

WP:FILMS Coordinator Election

Voting is open for coordinator election

The

here. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by March 28. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk

) 18:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Infobox actor

You'll have to make a request on the talk page and tag it with {{

editprotected}}, since the template is protected and it will require an admin to edit it. You might be expected to gain a concensus for removing it first, though. Pain in the arse, perhaps, but ultimately I think it's a lot easier to add these thing to the infobox than it is to remove them. Just removing it from the documentation doesn't actually do anything. Regards. PC78 (talk

) 10:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs any great debate, but a few comments of support from others might ease its removal. I don't have any strong preferance either way, but I don't have a problem with taking it out. To be honest I think the whole infobox needs a radical overhaul, though it's not something I'm overly keen on tackling. PC78 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I did see that on my watchlist actually! Felt it was best to leave that one alone... :) PC78 (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Much as I would like to be rid of the awards section, actually doing this brings up its own issues. It would be difficult to justify keeping the infobox if there is nothing to distinguish it from {{

Infobox Person}}, but to merge it there would open up the floodgates to parameters such as height and weight which we can really do without. I don't have much in the way of ideas, but I think the infobox needs something that it doesn't currently have. PC78 (talk

) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

reflinks

Sorry about the Reflinks tool, I wasn't aware that it caused any major problems as it was recommended to me by an experienced wiki editor. Could you please explain in more detail what the problem is so that I can watch for it in future. magnius (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Find A Grave delinking

Hi - and beautiful that you're doing the work needed to finally remove the Find A Grave template!

One question, though - why are you putting "nowiki" tags around the occurences of {{

findagrave}} on talk pages? I understand why you need to unlink {{tl|Find A Grave}}, but I don't understand the other one. --Alvestrand (talk

) 14:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jodie

I know you're busy, so this is just to let you know I replied to you here.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Oh yes, the succession boxes. Tell me when you're going to discuss those. :) I don't know why editors want all that information in a template one way or another instead of simply in a "normal" way in the article. Garion96 (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, on that discussion page I noticed you were busy with filmographies. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 21#Template:Selected filmography and User talk:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Selected filmography. Garion96 (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Awards

If Wikipedia had a "Medal of Honor" I would recommend you for it! Thank you for putting up with me!

Barnstar

Aww...thank you! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi there. Well I am back, and I had the best time. I'm paying for it now, as I'm exhausted, but a couple of good nights' sleep should fix the problem, and then it's back to the old grindstone for me. You asked for a rock, so I brought one, and not just any old rock either. Hope you like it.

We went there one day. Personally, I think I took a better photo of it, (In fact I took about 50, from every possible angle) but I haven't uploaded anything, and it was cloudy when we went, so this one at least has a nice blue sky. Thanks for keeping an eye on some articles. I see Sharon Tate is up for discussion. I think another good example is Anne Frank. If Anne had lived, her diary may never have even been published, and had it been published it may have failed to attract the audience that it is has. Her notability is unquestionably linked not only to her death, but the reaction to it. I don't attempt to put Sharon in the same category, but the principal is the same. If she had lived, her acting career may have fizzled to nothing, but she didn't live, and that's the whole point. To reduce either of them to a straightforward bio that ends with their deaths, would be failing to adequately assess either of them. Rossrs (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, that "ripped from the womb" bit that you removed, is complete nonsense. It's one of the myths, but easily disproved by the coroner's report, which is cited in Bugliosi's book. Rossrs (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Wales was wonderful. I love Wales and I've spent a lot of time there. About 10 years ago, I spent almost a year there, and have visited about 6 times since, each time seeing new places and exploring. It's beautiful, and you mention Ireland.... there is a strong similarity, so I think if you like one, you'd like the other. Why Wales? Well, my partner is Welsh so it's always the main holiday destination, so as to catch up with family and friends. It's so easy then to travel within Europe - a group of us went from Wales to Cyprus together. I just wish there was more time, as there is never enough, and leaving is always a wrench. Coming back to Australia feels odd and I feel somewhat displaced now. I think it's partly fatigue, as I've now spent about 3 days without sleeping properly, although I have tried. I'm glad you liked the rock, but I'll find something nicer for you, over the next few days.

The Sharon question seems to have been resolved. I think it's healthy when questions like that get asked, and it also serves to record something in the talk page that may be referred to in the future. I had a quick skim through the article and the recent changes seem fine. I also like the image with the candles, but I'm not sure how it would look cropped, as the candles frame her face and if cropped too close, it may not be obvious what the candles are. Only way to find out is to experiment with it. Rossrs (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Richardson's death was a shock, and I was also disturbed by the exploitation of Liam Neeson's grief; the British press also published photos of Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson entering and leaving the hospital. It was very interesting to be in the UK and contrast Richardson's death with that of Jade Goody, who died about 3 days later. You won't know the name, but she was a British Big Brother contestant who died of cervical cancer at the age of 27, and who decided to "sell" the story of her impending death to provide funds for her two children's education. Noble perhaps, attention-seeking perhaps. Very sad, but also very bizarre to think that someone would intentionally turn their death into a public spectacle. The only day she wasn't on the front page, was the day Natasha Richardson took her place. Following Richardson's death there was considerable publicity given to the medical need to have even seemingly minor head injuries checked immediately. Did this also happen in the US? Ultimately some good may come of that. (Likewise Goody's death has raised the issue of cervical cancer among young women - once again some good may come of it). Rossrs (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, probably a stupid question but....;)

I'm still going to ask. :) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Gein&diff=279901478&oldid=279746921 the (br) (except it has <> around it. It did something to my comment here but I can't tell what other than it isn't showing up. Confused as ever now!) is deleted here, what is it for? I don't understand most of the computer coding used but I am interested in trying to understand and thought that maybe you could explain it to me just a bit. I did a search of it but didn't find anything usable for me to understand. Also, deleting this, does it make any impact that I am missing? Sorry if this is really a stupid question from me but what the heck, I admit that I am dumb about this coding stuff. :) Is there a link that I can go to so I can read about these types of coding? If so, can you direct me to it? Sorry to be a bother about something like this. To be honest, I don't know if this is important or not. Again, thanks for your help/advice in advance. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mel Gibson page edits

Hello, I don't mean to cause conflict, but perhaps next time you can make corrections based on the revisions that I've made instead of undoing everything that I did, which took me quite a bit of time. Firstly, the links that I added are not superfluous; in your view, what should I not have linked? Secondly, I am admittedly fairly new to Wikipedia so I don't possess an encyclopedic knowledge of all style guidelines; therefore, if there are violations of the MOS style, then there should be revisions of what I did; however, the changes that I made only increased the organization of the article. Thirdly, in no way did I disrupt the chronological order of the article; to the contrary, I made the chronological order more explicit for the reader.

I will restore the edits that I made. Perhaps, you could tell me specifically changes that I should make based on my revisions. Indeed, that is how articles are improved, with collaboration, not with dictation by one individual. Thanks in advance. Vdjj1960 (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I didn't use the proper protocol. I have no desire to stray from the norms of Wikipedia; this is an ongoing learning process. Considering that my changes have again been reversed, I will relent; however, I fear that there is a tendency on Wikipedia for articles to be guarded by a small clique, and new ways of approaching articles are not allowed to see the light. The Gibson article is far from ideal. Let me share a few comments and a question with you, because you seem to be something of an expert:

In general I think the introductory paragraph is weak. It doesn't fully highlight the breath of his career. Specifically, why is the statement, "Born in New York, Gibson moved to Sydney, Australia when he was 12 years old...", even in the intro when it is stated in the "Early life" section where it belongs. Also, I don't understand what is objectionable about explicitly referring to his parents as "Irish Catholic" or "Irish-American Catholic", which is a distinct ethnic group in the United States. Many readers find it interesting and quite useful to know someone's ethnic group in terms of getting a greater understanding of the person in question.

As far the MOS style I will defer to you. I think the changes that I made were more aesthetically pleasing but oh well. If there are guidelines, then they should be followed. Thanks for being patience with this wiki novice! Vdjj1960 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Date manipulation templates - clean up

Now that MOSNUM has been reverted, the anomalies need to be ironed out. J JMesserly has already gone ahead and transcluded his templates on hundreds of articles, which should be reverted. He has also changed many infobox templates where the birth/death template is encoded directly in the infobox rather than the documentation. I was thinking that

WP:TFD may be the best place to sort this out and get back to where we just have one template for each job. What do you think? _wjemather^bigissue

10:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Nsaa (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Doris and Sandra

Hi, I've been catching up on things I missed during my absence and I've just been reading Talk:Doris Day. I had a similar exchange with the same editor at Talk:Sandra Dee back in January. It never ceases to amaze me, when I read what some people consider to be suitable content. Rossrs (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know... if someone calls you a moron, you're entitled to be less than civil. I thought you were civil though. Clearly annoyed, but civil just the same. Did you ever see the episode of The Vicar of Dibley where Geraldine calls Alice a moron, and then quickly catches herself, and explains that it's a term of endearment.... ("my little moron")? I'll play devil's advocate and suggest that's what he meant ;-) You're not buying it, are you? Rossrs (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm calling it a day. Since I've been back in Australia, I've been waking up every morning at 5.00 am. I feel fresh and energetic, and then by the middle of the afternoon, I'm fading. I've never had jet-lag like this. It's playing hell with my creamy complexion topped by golden hair. On a more serious note, Andy Hallett's death was another very sad one. He was much younger than I would have thought. I was never a serious Angel fan. (or Buffy) If ever I watched them, I really enjoyed them, but I never made a special effort to watch. Rossrs (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)