This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
WikiProject Films December 2009 Newsletter
The December 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Why the long face?
What do you think of this? She has my vote, but I'm not aware that Wikipedia has any notoriety rules. I wonder if he means "notability". Even so, if it is notable, it's still not exactly an "award". But then neither are the "sexiest". Do Brad or Hugh have some kind of People magazine sexy trophies on their mantlepieces? Or more likely, their headboards? I dunno. On another note, if SJP was the winner, who do you suppose was the runner-up? I'm curious. Rossrs (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh wait. I should have looked at the source. Hmmm and they say "on the dubious list" ... so we have a WP:RS to say the list is "dubious" .... 2. Amy Winehouse, 3. Sandra Oh, 4. Madonna and 5. Britney Spears. Well, she had some pretty fierce competition, didn't she? Rossrs (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
That could be updated slightly and used as the theme for the next Sex and the City film. It could be playing over the credits as SJP strides along one of those Manhattan sidewalks on her way from the blacksmith's shoe shop. I heard Connie Hines died just before Christmas. I can't imagine anyone else delivering the line "Wilbur" the way she could. Rossrs (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, as I see both that you are not feeling well and you've retired from crime articles, but a user named Rockwing is attempting to delete the photo of Bundy's murder kit from the article. If you have a chance I'd much appreciate it if you'd weigh in on the photo's discussion page to keep it. Vidor (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Morrsion Under Assault
Hi Wildhartlivie! Hope things are better for you, and glad to see you're still fighting the good fight! It seems the "Image Police" death squads have been sent out after a feverish rally whipped them into frezny, raping and pillaging articles of their "unnecessary" images ("Text for all! Images for none!" is one of their rallying cries). Now, File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg is under assault at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_5, deemed pretty much "obsolete". If you're available to vote, please make your voice heard, so as to keep as many appropriate historic images of The Doors on WP as feasible! Your help is needed! Thanks... Doc9871 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I just replied to the e-mail - didn't know you could do that. Anyhoo, it may include my real name, as that how it said it was sent. I don't care about that - just don't create a fiendish series of false identities, using them to create false documents and charge millions of dollars through Nigerian credit operations, please! You never know with you, Sockmaster ;> Doc9871 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ping
You've got mail! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
For sure
Of course, I missed you — particularly in the last 48 hours — but c'mon: I begged you to stay. You got angry with me simply because I rose to the defense of editor Catherine Huebscher on that one point, which was important to her and which she really handled with care after you and I had told her we thought she was being a little freewheeling in her editing. I just thought she was a good egg, who had adjusted her approach, and who deserved to be received a little more warmly. Anyway — I hope you and I are on good terms again.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The intro is really the only part of the Manson article that has been changed — by the same editor who posted the copy-edit tag. In fact, as I realize now, it's odd that editor Doc9871 was complaining about the long intro while defending the copy-edit tag that had been posted by the same editor who had wrought the long intro. I suspect Doc9871 wasn't paying close attention to what had been going on.
Anyway — in a series of edits that began at 00:02, 23 December 2009, I reverted the intro and removed the copy-edit tag. After that, I simplified some of the awkward sentences, mainly in the section headed "Early life." Before long, the other editor reinstated the copy-edit tag and went at the intro again. On the talk page, he posted an entry headed "State of this article" — and yesterday's exchanges began. Without removing the copy-edit tag, I again began simplifying several awkward sentences (in a series of edits that began at 04:10, 6 January 2010). I don't know whether the simplification I've done has increased the kilobyte count — but I think it's helped the article. It basically has to do with the elimination of many awkward constructions that troubled editor BassPlyr23 way back when.
I plan to carry out one more series of simplifications — and then I'll announce on the talk page that I plan to remove the copy-edit tag. The editor who posted the copy-edit tag (and went at the intro) also changed some of the wording in the "Spahn Ranch" section — but that's about it. I might tidy a bit of that, too — but nothing else has really changed in the article. The main thing, in my opinion, is that you restored the former intro.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If any sentence changes have created citation problems, they're probably my work. As I said, Zeus changed only the "Spahn Ranch" section (as far as I noticed). Other changes — to, say, "Early life" and the murder and investigation sections — are probably mine. With each rewording, I took some care, I think, to preserve citations — or, at least, a single citation that would cover an entire paragraph; but I might have made some errors. Maybe you should look through the article and let me know anything specific that bothers you. If a citation needs to be reinstated, I'll help you find it, in Helter Skelter or whatever.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Forest Whitaker
The article Forest Whitaker, to which you seem to be one of the primarily contributors, is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted. Lampman (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Revert tool
Hi. I'm concerned about these recent reversions [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]. I don't see how those edits that you reverted are "blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense" (from Wikipedia:Rollback feature). On that same page: "Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory"; how are these self-explanatory? They seem to be part of a good-faith content disagreement. From the guideline again: "If there is any doubt about whether to revert an edit, please do not use this feature. Use the undo feature instead, and add a more informative edit summary explaining your revert." I'd say, in these cases, there's doubt.
Can you please explain to me why those edits are appropriate for the rollback feature? Also, it doesn't seem that you've communicated with the editor you were reverting. Are you planning to do that? Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well... it doesn't border on vandalism. I'll just say for now that a lot of people would see those reverts as inappropriate use of the tool, and you could have it taken away on account of that. In particular, it would be a lot better if you talk to the person. Communication about disagreements is extremely important on this project.
I am very careful on Wikipedia to only use the "v-word" to describe such edits as insertion of random obscenities, page blanking, inappropriate image additions, etc. We define vandalism very, very narrowly, on purpose, and using a broad definition of it leads a lot of people to grief. Anything that could possibly be a good-faith edit, even a very misguided one, is emphatically not vandalism.
I hope you understand that I'm letting you know this so that you avoid trouble down the road. I don't think you want to lose the rollback tool, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Shakespeare in Love Casting
By your own standard—verifiability, not truth—your undoing my edit on the casting of Shakespeare in Love was out of line.
I properly sourced the edit—and Salon is a reputable source. Furthermore, there are several other sources that independently confirm the same story.
Sorry, but your own standard obliges me to undo your edit.
You're not worth it. --TallulahBelle (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Not much of an argument. I find it amazing that the source paragraph that plainly states that it's a rumour can get processed into the article, minus the qualifier. We don't regurgitate gossip and rumours, although lots of other sites do and there's probably plenty that repeat the story, which is a very different thing to "confirm" the story. And an edit summary that says "the truth hurts". That's nonsense. Wildhartlivie, you are right to remove it. Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Rossrs. My comment back included if "You're not worth it" is the best justification for adding gossip and falsely sourcing it that the editor can do, my edit was supported. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: WikiProject edits
What I have done it just based on meta.wiki. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You may not have noticed that the mediator already closed it in favor of the status quo, i.e. "Portugese-born Brazilian". In another threat at forum-shopping, Tavc says he wants to go to ANI due to having been badly treated. My guess is he wants to get all the opponents blocked so he can change the article. Can you say "obsessed"? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
They reduced his block to 24 hours to see if he would improve his approach. He didn't. And now he's taken it to an admin, and of course I've added my dos centavos there. Good grief. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The way we had the photos in the two backstory sections just after the lead — both on the right — left a big, wide, white stripe of empty space between the Clyde Barrow subhead and its body copy on a widescreen monitor. (This is because the Bonnie text wasn't deep enough to fill out her photo.)
The stripe problem is solved if you move Clyde's photo to the left. Now, the two photos do overlap a couple lines (and I know you don't like that) because Bonnie's picture is so deep, but on a widescreen monitor, the couple-line overlap looks way better than the big swath of no-man's-land — way better. Hopin' you won't revert unless you really hate the overlap.
Happy New Year, by the way. :) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hi, have you ever filed an RFC on an editor? I've never done it but I think we might think about this as an avenue. Just a thought, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
"But I can't and won't say that I know I was edit-warring and that I think this block is just because (a) I know I wasn't edit warring, I was just plain editing, and (b) I won't compromise my integrity by saying I did something I know I didn't do. I really wish you would look into the other editor(s) involved here..". My. my, my... Doc9871 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Kate Winslet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It will probably take as long as Scarlett because I am in the middle of the WP:CUP and am not doing as much WP as I use to. It may take me the full 7 days just to do a first pass.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
No rush. I just have some time and want to look at this. Feel free to change what I have done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Stiller
I planned to get to it eventually, I've just had a really busy week (one straight week of work, I finally get to sleep in tomorrow). The article definitely needed some cleanup, especially since it was one of the first articles I worked on and I wasn't initially that knowledgeable on sourcing. I've also let this article get changed quite a bit as it gets buried in my watchlist. I've also got Leslie Nielsen in GAR, but I haven't had any issues brought up in a few weeks (it's a long review). I probably brought this on by pushing everyone to help complete Sweeps, but I'd be happy to have GARs for all of my GAs at once if it meant Sweeps would be finished. If you need any assistance with sourcing for the GARs let me know. I'm gradually getting Stiller done and will hopefully finish by tomorrow. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm about to head off to bed, but I'll try and give you a hand with Whitaker during the week. I always try at least once a year to clean up all of my articles (not going for WP:OWN here, but articles that I've worked to upgrade), by adding citations, removing hidden vandalism, and updating figures. I'm kind of looking forward to flagged revisions, but that might complicate things. I've also been more focused recently on image permissions and have been trying to review as many articles as I can for the Tag & Assess drive. I want to knock the drive out of the way so I can devote my time to article writing (already have three articles picked out). However, I've got to figure out how to get more WP:FILM members to contribute to the reviewing so I don't need to assess so many. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Robert Hanson
The edit that added the alias "The Human Hunter" wasn't vandalism but appeared to be a good faith edit. Hanson being called by the nickname "The Human Hunter" is not new. He is referred to as such in at least one documentary about him, several websites refer to him as such, and he is even referenced in Wikipedia's article on human hunting as a human hunter. Will you now change it back? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
[10] If you want it back, do so and add a proper reference supporting the name was in use when he was active. I don't plan to revert my edit because someone says they read it before or it is included on some websites or it was included in documentaries. Neither is it referenced on the page Human hunting. That is not properly citing the use, which is absent on that page. Please don't follow around on my editing and make cases that aren't supported by proper referencing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Ben and Forest and friends
I don't know how much I would be able to contribute, time-wise. I've had a look at Ben Stiller - not a good article in my opinion. Forest looks pretty good, and I don't think it would take a lot to bring it up to scratch. I don't agree with reducing the filmography from a POV point of view. Rossrs (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll comment at Whitaker about the filmography. It's one of those situations where the alternative to exhaustive is to allow POV to creep in. Rossrs (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you think the film and TV work for Forrest should be two distinct sub-sections? To me, it's all acting and it's all the one career. I know some people like sectioning everything into little boxes to save actually reading the article (I learnt that at Roman Polanski), but I don't think it flows as well as it could. I think it is disjointed. What do you think? Should I be asking this at the GA review page? Rossrs (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hes stated in several interviews he will not be returning. You can either remove the rest of the sentence or leave it alone. But He WILL NOT BE IN THE NEXT MOVIE. Also if someone repeatedly adds false info it is vandalism.LifeStroke420 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Vandalism: I don't know who's right about the content, but merely inserting the "wrong" thing repeatedly isn't vandalism. No one who's trying to improve a page can be said to be vandalizing it. WP:VANDAL: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism....edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Equazcion(talk) 16:50, 12 Jan 2010 (UTC)
From the Manson article
Hi. As you can see from the talk page, I'm stepping in to help get the edit-warring to stop over there. I'm committed to being impartial in this issue - I certainly have no stake in the article - and I'm monitoring the discussion there. Now, a lot of words have flown around on that page, incuding your asking SkagitRiverQueen to "Please stop "improving" the article". In the interest of a good-faith attempt to focus that talk page on discussion of the article, I'd like to ask all participants to make a commitment, or a renewed commitment to leaving personal remarks off of that page entirely. I am absolutely willing to hear any complaints you may have, but I would like to keep them from derailing the talk at Talk:Charles Manson.
Is that a reasonable request, do you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at GTBacchus's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Kate
Hi, I wouldn't worry too much about the assessment being placed in jeopardy. I think instability is inevitable on any article that is not protected, and that includes most of the featured articles. It happens, and I think everyone understands it's part of the price paid for the "anyone can edit" ethos. If it's an isolated event, it passes without causing too much of a problem. I was offended by the recent comments, and commented. Really offended. Rossrs (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
now that's really nice and much appreciated. Thank you ! Rossrs (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
John Wayne Gacy
Instead of just reverting and wiping out all my changes, including ones not related to the citation formatting, you could have discussed it first. I don't see any reason why having the references more organized is a problem, but of course I wouldn't since you didn't actually say what your problems were. How about taking it to talk instead of just wiping it as if it's vandalism?—Chowbok☠ 22:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Please look closer at the edit history. I did not add the text you claim I did. I don't see why consolidating citations and making them refer to the reference list via anchors is such a radical change that I need to bring it up in talk first. It sounds to me like you have some WP:OWN issues.—Chowbok☠ 00:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I did add it in the revert. That wasn't intentional. I think you should at least restore my additions of OCLCs, en dashes, and other fixes instead of wiping out my contributions wholesale.—Chowbok☠ 00:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Well, if you're often accused of ownership issues, then maybe there's a reason... I've been editing here for over six years and have never been accused of that. Just something to think about. Saying that your roommate or whatever agrees with you isn't really that convincing an argument, by the way. Anyway, I've left your revert intact, so how about we move on to your actual problems with my edit, rather than bickering about whether I should have asked your permission before editing?—Chowbok☠ 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You talk about everything under the sun except what is wrong with the edits I made. If you don't want me to think that you were just reverting because of WP:OWN, then maybe you could say in talk what the problem is you have with the edits (aside from the fact that I didn't seek consensus, which is no longer relevant since I have let your revert stand).—Chowbok☠ 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Wiki weirdness
Saw your post on Gwen Gale's talk page. Feel better. [11]. Malke2010 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL. Yeah, skip the drama thing. Says a lot that they need such a thing, eh?Malke2010 03:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Check email.Malke2010 03:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I like that. I'll use that from now on.Malke2010 03:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Whitaker
I went through and added multiple sources as well as did some minor cleanup. Hopefully those changes will allow for extending the hold if necessary. I also don't see an issues with the length of the filmography, so it shouldn't be held up on that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to help more, but I'm really trying to get more of the assessment drive done. I want to get that knocked out of the way so I can focus more on improving other areas of WP:FILM as well as working on article content. I want to get at least the Start/Unassessed ones done, and if we don't happen to finish the Stubs it won't be that big a loss. Although, the Stub-class articles are the fastest to review. If there are any more issues the reviewer raises, let me know, and I'll try to help out again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Good
Glad you got a laugh out of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the ugliness...
going on at Bonnie and Clyde and its "affiliated" articles. I assumed good faith by this guy for a long, long time and tried to work in a collegial fashion with him, and perhaps that was my mistake; I understand now that he was out to disrupt from the very start. This was my first encounter with this type of individual here.
I know your time is at a premium these days — hope the ugliness didn't consume too much of it. Hope also you're feeling better. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
[Said like Norma Desmond's "I AM big..."]: "We all vehemently defend you..." — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Message to my friends:
For the record, I am not a sock master. When LaVidaLoca came over to post her unblock request using my computer, she inadvertently posted it before logging out and logging herself in. All requests to review the so-called evidence that was used to place a block on me were refused and despite repeated emails back and forth explaining my relationship to LaVidaLoca and how this happened, it was not accepted, even when I stated this has been well known. The email requests even asked for what kind of computer and browser that was used and where it came from. I vehemently deny that I am my friend and I vehemently deny that I used that account at any time or in any way. This is a specious conviction without being allowed to present a defense via a sock case. I also vehemently deny that I in any way harassed another editor via email or on her userpage, simply because I have been subjected to repeated harassment and wikistalking by her. Someone picked up on something about her and began to harass her. That even continued today with posts to her userpage. That was not me, and I believe my friend when she says she did not do it. I was urged to "come clean" and throw myself on the checkuser's mercy or I would be blocked "for a good long time". That is a direct quote from the email. The email stated that I was making things up. The things I allegedly was making up included a frank admission that I have a deceased goddaughter, who was LaVidaLoca's child, or that I had a cerebral event last year, or that free and cheap dial-up connections pop up a new IP location each and every time one connects via one. Since an early email stated the conclusion and left me to deny it, each and everything I wrote was determined to be "made up". I believe the wording was "I'm going to block LaVidaLoca indefinitely and move the tags on that one and <another account> to point to you as the sockmaster, and block you for a good long time as well, unless you can give me an explanation of this that hangs together." No indication despite requests to explain what did not "hang together" or how one could conceivably refute what was stated as a preconceived conclusion. That is essentially a conviction before a trial and a blatant "here's what I think, now prove it wrong." Even when you frankly tell the truth about the events, you're called a liar. Essentially, this sucks and it is untrue. To my friends, I hope this doesn't taint you or reflect poorly on me and you don't hold such an indefensible conviction sway you. I did not do anything to harass that other editor and I am very regretful that this will cast any problems on issues that are ongoing with the other editor. Her wikistalking is very real and the continued attacks and incivility continue, a fact which is repeatedly defended by administrators involved. Nothing has happened to her despite her behavior. The fact that multiple people from here find her a pain and a disruptive editor continues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I am completely unaware of any policy that states I cannot remove your post about your side of your clear threat to block me for a "good long time" unless I threw myself on your mercy. Please provide the policy that says I have to leave your last, defensive, comment addendum on my talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't completely understand the situation. Isn't it possible for two real-life friends to use the same dial-up service and be assigned IPs from the same pool, and maybe even log in from each others' homes from time to time? This can't be the first time that's happened. How would something like that normally be dealt with? Does the decision really default to socks? I'm not saying they definitely aren't, but I'd also hate to find out there was a de-facto prohibition on two friends in close physical proximity using the same dial-up service to access Wikipedia. What happens if two people edit from the same household? Is the suspicion based on anything but the IP evidence? Also is there an open sock case on this? I don't see one. Equazcion(talk) 06:04, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Despite the guidelines that say this is possible, apparently the presumption is guilt unless proven innocent. I saw no assumption of good faith in the emails I received, which said I had to admit to this or I'd be blocked for a "good long time". I accept that Lar thinks I'm scum, but I steadfastly deny that I am her or she is me. That we use the same dial-up numbers and bought similar computers at the same time is enough without a shameless confession of guilt when you know someone came in and made a mistake. And no, there was no sock case filed, only acting on what someone said. I still don't see the policy that says I have to leave his follow-up post on the talk page here. You all are free to write to me if you feel the need. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me. On the face of it, Wildhartlivie and LaVidaLoca may look like the same person. They've said that they're close friends, and that they've edited from the same dial-up, and that the nature of the internet services they use assigns IPs from the same pool. It's been dealt with before. It seems to me, that if it was assumed that they're telling the truth, these other points fall into place. If it's assumed that they're not telling the truth, these points look like damning evidence. I've been in contact with Wildhartivie for a long time. Well over a year, maybe closer to two. We both edit film and film biography articles, and have similar attitudes. I agree with a lot of Wildhartlivie's opinions in relation to editing here, and I expect that a close friend like LaVidaLoca would also be on a similar wavelength, and if they weren't, they probably wouldn't be so close as friends. Wildhartlivie and I have emailed privately over most of that time, and in numerous emails, Wildhartlivie has commented about her friends, her family and her life. I've also heard from LaVidaLoca and communicated with her when Wildhartlivie was ill and unable to contact me. If Wildhartlivie is lying, which is the clear statement being made, then every email I've received from her must contain at least one, or even several lies. If she's lying, she's been stringing me along for a couple of years with a line of fiction, and for what purpose? So that in any edit dispute Wildhartlivie and LaVidaLoca can pretend to be two people so she can get her way? So that I can be one small voice saying "yes I believe her"? That's a hell of a lot of groundwork, and a huge amount of energy, solely to gain the support of someone like me who has minimal influence here. It makes absolutely no sense.Rossrs (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ross. No, I don't have the kind of energy to string anyone along. It's good to know my close friends know about this and know we are not the same person. It's good to hear you say so. Please watch after the Kate Winslet GAN this week if any other issues with it come up. If you need to, you know how to get hold of me. I appreciate it this more than you can know. Geez, even Ted Bundy had the benefit of the assumption of innocent until the trial. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Things didn't work out so well for Ted. Are you sure you can't think of a better example? Like, for example... geez Wildhartlivie - anybody but Ted! Yikes! Rossrs (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Lar for this extended comment, it helps seeing how you came to your conclusions. Question, now that you and others think these are all one person, how would they go about proving that they are actually good friends and not a sock? I admit to being a friend of Wildhartlive which has been ongoing for quite some time. We just started sharing more personal information with each other. With that being said, I am having problems believing these are all one person. Would comparing contribution histories help if it shows overlapping editing at the same time? What else can I do to learn for myself the truth in all of this. Sorry I was and am totally shocked by all of this though I do see your reasoning with the last edits that went on. Thanks Lar, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
A few observations. Checkuser is not a perfect tool. As we like to say, CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and CheckUser is not a crystal ball. So when a checkuser says "Confirmed" what is meant by that is that the data available suggests it is highly likely that the two accounts are related, and highly improbable that they are not related. Not certain, highly improbable. There is no certainty in this area. And to a certain extent it's an arms race, as we improve our methods and techniques for determining correlation, so too do clever sockmasters improve their methods and techniques for evading detection. So we often are circumspect about what exactly it is we found. (Security through obscurity never works in the long run, but sometimes it can at least postpone things).
You're basically saying you're sure but you can't tell us why you're sure, but we should believe you because you think you're good at this. I'm sure you can understand how that might make some of us uncomfortable. If I wanted to open up a sock case to at least confirm these results with multiple other CUs, how could we do that? And who is the other CU that you say originally came to the same conclusion you did? Equazcion(talk) 19:27, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)
That's true I suppose, regarding how CU works. This whole thing not being on the SPI page being discussed "in public" is throwing me off. That doesn't mean I don't trust you, just that without being able to hear the evidence, I would like to get confirmation from someone on this finding. I'll start an SPI on Wildhartlivie's existing subpage, IF Wildhartlivie wants me to. The block is just for a week, not indefinite, so it might be easier just to ride it out. From what I've seen of SPI cases, they can easily take longer than that just to get looked at. Equazcion(talk) 20:16, 16 Jan 2010 (UTC)
I'm shocked by this situation. Like Rossrs, I developed a friendship via email with Wildhartlivie over the past year and a half. We have discussed our personal lives, and she told me about her longtime friendship with LaVidaLoca. Nothing she has ever told me about that friendship, or any of the edits by those accounts that I have seen, has led me to suspect that they are the same person. Due to her health problems, Wildhartlivie is stuck at home and relies on friends and family to help her. Under these circumstances, I find it plausible that LaVidaLoca would edit from Wildhartlivie's computer while she is visiting.
At the risk of sounding like a parrot of Rossrs, I just don't believe that Wildhartlivie would string along numerous editors via detailed, personal email correspondence for years to maintain the LaVidaLoca account as a sockpuppet. If this is the case, she was doing this with me, Rossrs, Crohnie and at least one other editor while simultaneously contributing to articles, nominating some for GA status, and persistently fighting vandalism on BLPs and high-traffic crime-related articles. This behavior does not "hang together". Even pathological liars slip up now and then. momoricks 22:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
A final comment
First of all, I asked twice, now the third time, for a link to the policy that I am required to leave anything you have put on this page up, beyond the intial block notice. I have looked diligently through the policies and guidelines and cannot find that. Please provide the policy or guideline link that says I am required to keep Lar's posts on this page or are mandated to keep his responses up here.
Secondly, most of the people posting here have seen the exchange of emails and know what was said. I gave you a direct list of questions of the nature "What doesn't hang? Are you saying that I do not have a goddaughter that died? Are you saying that I did not have a cerebral event last year?" You ignored all of those questions while trying to coerce me into admitting that I am LaVidaLoca and she is me. Saying I had to confess or be subjected to a "good long block" is, in my view, coercion. And her name is not something I would think to make up. Unless one thinks I went to all of the trouble of establishing the existence of her years ago, in case I wanted to one day come on Wikipedia and create a sock puppet, both of us can be searched on Intelius. After I sent my explanation, you wrote back "I'm still willing to listen but I prefer the truth even if it's damning." If that is not calling me a liar, I do not know what is. Granted, you did not say "You are lying and I want the truth". The statements you did make however, implied that. That statement, plus others like "doesn't hang together", "come clean", may beweaselly, but the implication was there. You have esssentially said the same thing here: "explicitly acknowledge that you were socking".
Thirdly, you asked what happened then? I think we both thought you meant in terms of Wikipedia and not at all whether one of us went to pee, or make a cup of tea, or to scratch our butts. And of course, we were talking on the telephone back and forth during all of this and agreed about what actions were relevant to your questions. Bathroom habits were not considered. I believe you even asked if she called me before she came over.
"Proving the negative" is exactly what you asked us to do, and as you said, that is nearly impossible to do. Here, there or anywhere.
Two accounts do belong to two different people, who at one point did live together and likely will do so again given the current state of her marriage, and one who was editing here from just up the road. Same telephone company, same basic set of dial-ups and phone numbers. Same computer tech who built our computers at roughly the same time. I can not produce written evidence, even when I am telling the truth, to "prove the negative". People who have posted responses here know that we are not the same person, even having communicated with both of us.
You gave diffs where I posted the warnings to LaVidaLoca's talk page. I use the script that generates those warning templates. She sent me an email asking me to give her the text for those templates. I could not think of a better way to do so than to post them to her page. When she removed those from her page, she acknowledged that with her edit summaries:"yup, it was, thanks" and "yup, the 2nd on".
Finally, it is no secret to those posting here who the target supposedly was. I note that the harassment to that editor continued, even while we were emailing and extended into today, with one harassing account posting to this page and which was removed. I am not that person either, but apparently this is an ongoing issue with that person. I would note for the masses that it is assumed and explicitly stated that I am the one doing that too :here and here, where it is stated "probably executed by you-know-who" (although I would appreciate my name being removed from them). That is patently untrue and a false accusation. I would expect that to be addressed here by adminstrators. I notice that the editor is forging ahead and reinstating the content that was protested, by many editors, to articles she battled over. Is it someone who moves connections around or calls up a buddy and says "Hey do this for me!"? Likely, but it is not me.
I am not a kamakazi. I do not plan to throw myself on my sword here for the greater glory of the masses. The questions and comments being posted here by others are not at my instigation. Some of them are from people who have communicated with me and with LaVidaLoca and know who we are. I accept that you blocked me for a week. Nothing I post here is a request to be unblocked, given that such a request instigated this. I had considered filing at ArbCom about this, but realized I can no more prove a negative there than I can here. I can only stand on what happened and what I know. I am not (currently) suicidal, thus I need for this stress to stop for the benefit of avoiding a stroke. Neither am I Sybil, you commented on the use of different "voices". So have others in their emails to me. We like the same topics, mostly, and discuss issues that arise here. Comparing articles is not likely to help, although previously, a situation arose where the evidence was presented, which was also the truth, was sufficient to disprove we were the same person. Neither of us were asked to post a note saying we are friends and have lived together. It is present there and is not something that either of kept clandestine or were asked to display for the world, although I could show where it was found by the passing editor. Do I forgive her for making a mistake here? Yes I do, although she now must cough up a visit to Joe's Crab Shack and a trip to see Johnny Depp in Alice in Wonderland.
Lastly, thanks for your comments and support, folks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
"Attica! Attica! Attica!..."
I am outraged at the treatment received by the most conscientious editor I know here. I wish I had torches and pitchforks to pass out to all her supporters for marching on the HQ. I wish there were some huge breaker box I could yank the lever on and shut the whole place down till the suspension is served. I wish the name "Wildhartlivie" were more chant-able.
Of all honorable people to besmirch — Wildhartlivie! There's no more straight-shooting, sincere person on here.
This makes me sick... and angry. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Got to agree with Harry on this one, Wildhartlive is a great editor, and deserves better. Pv86 (talk) 09:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ditto... Doc9871 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Double ditto. Rossrs (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes everyone and it is continuing. A third editor is now also gone under all of this. Is everyone finally upset enough to do something? I have been trying to get this stopped now for days. I don't think I can do it on my own anymore. I really need others to help show it's not just a personal beef between editors. I've never gone to a board to bring actions against an editor like this except for blatant vandals. I don't express myself the best and to be honest I am burnt out almost. Check out the Charles Manson talk page for further BS. This caused an editor to lose their cool and now they are indefinitely banned but apparently there popcorn being prepared. :( Sorry, I'm finally at a loss, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow!!! All of this and the economy is no better. Jimbo should give raises to his contibutors instead of jetting across the globe on contributors money and asking for more donations (10% of 0 is still 0). The amount of energy spent on this process still doesn't solve the issue of verifiable sources that get used that are full of errors and yet acceptable by Wikipedia because they can be linked to a source that gives erroneous information. That doesn't add to the sum of knowledge - that adds to the sum of mass ignorance. Life and societies are not fair or evenly balanced for anyone or anything - Wikipedia has been sued to have changes made by living persons because the sources were in error. In this case, so what if WHLV is a sock of LALA(?)! The weight of her contributions far outweigh the sock accusations. If the accusations are true, do they really disrupt Wikipedia to throw the baby out with the bath water? I think not! Wildhartlivie should be asked to cease and desist any sockpuppetry if it is occurring and to focus on her more valuable assests to WP. Just my 4 cents (inflation is a nuisance).Victor9876 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
She's innocent. I believe you. Gosh, Livie, I didn't know we were allowed to visit you in WikiJail. I brought you these: [12]. Let me know if there's anything else I can bring you: soap, toothpaste, bottle of scotch. Name it, girl, it's yours. Also, I'm just whipping up some T-Shirts with FREE LIVIE and RUN LIVIE RUN, if anyone is interested. All proceeds go towards Livie's bail. Malke2010 17:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
"All available evidence, including private evidence and checkuser data, strongly suggests that you are the sockmaster of these two accounts, and that they have been used in contravention of the WP:SOCK policy,"
After reviewing the issues of Wildharlivie's block, I read the above that was included in the decision to ban Wildhartlivie. The italized term "private evidence" smacks of Wikipedia Administrators being able to intrude into the private lives of editors and other Wikipedians. If this is true, as the term suggests, then everyone, including the writer, has much to fear from Wikipedia as a whole. Un-disclosed "private evidence", and the ability to veil it as useful in a making a determination to judge someone without full disclosure, was and is the hallmark of all unethical institutions and governing entities.
Who, including the writer of the ban, would want to be punished for "private" activities that are protected in a free society? This means that all a person in power has to do is claim an issue - and enforce the claim for their own personal reason, and not have to disclose that information for any reason, just or unjust. It is this writers opinion, that this is much like the Dred Scott decision where Judge Robert B. Taney spoke volumns in his written opinion about the state of slavery, and upheld it. Only to have his own decision used against him from more scholarly interpreters who found his words to be much akin to the decision to ban Wildhartlivie. This led to a civil war and the amendments that followed. All Taney would have had to say was, "slavery is and has been a tradition since the Colonial days, since time immemorial, and up to the present time, therefore, slavery is part of the States who accept it and the other States can ban it if they wish or already have". Period. There would have been no argument against it, and slavery would have existed without the war. There was no "private evidence" held to justify Taney's decision, like Wildhartlivie's.
If there is any sanctity left within Wikipedia after reading this decision - this ban should be over-turned based on the writers decision to use such a tactic, in part, to ban Wildhartlivie. If the writer were to place themself in a position where, in part, a decision was made where no remedy could be addressed as "private information" suggests, the writer may get the point of this essay and remove the ban.Victor9876 (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pessimist, but do you actually think an admin is going to overturn another admin's block? Really? Do you think "precedence" or "legitimate examples" will matter? It's a bureaucracy, sir. We all lose when "The Man" gets involved... Doc9871 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The "private evidence" thing does smack of fascism. Such comparisons have become cliche, for people to repeat sarcastically to one another. They nevertheless do fit sometimes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but there is method behind it. The evidence isn't being revealed because if it were, the person who might be socking might simply alter their socking methods to avoid leaving those clues in the future. We currently trade freedom for security in that regard. You can philosophize as to whether or not we should be, but you can certainly understand the motivation behind it. The block is expiring soon anyway; at least it wasn't indefinite. Equazcion(talk) 01:24, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)
I definitely understand why it has to be the way it is; it just sucks sometimes. But, c'est la vie, non? Doc9871 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like - "Kill'em ALL - Let God sort them out!".Victor9876 (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It absolutely is not "ridiculous". There is no reason not to respond here, and ask that it be referenced there. Given the number of watchers of this page, it would happen quite rapidly and efficiently, I am sure. That is within policy. Socking or using an IP is block evasion, and that is not within policy. As a note... I was in IRC last nite when this was discovered and another admin was independently ready to block right then and there. Someone pinged me to alert me, and I asked for forbearance, so that policy could be explained, and a warning given.
For you then to hurl accusations at me shows your lack of impartiality, I'm afraid, not mine. I remain committed to trying to find a solution to this matter that doesn't end up with a long term contributor permanently blocked because of some mistakes she made, and some prideful resistance to working to correct them. As for the suggestion I'm taking this personally, you really need to re-read what I said above... I am sad that things have come to this. Then you also need to read where Versageek corroborates my findings. This is a serious matter and it's not going to be resolved amicably with posts such as yours and Victor9876's stirring things up. ++Lar: t/c 12:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Folks, please don't squabble here about this. I wrote to Lar and apologized for posting there, I didn't know how else to respond. Let's let this drop amicably, please. Only shiny, happy comments from y'all, please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I consider this submatter closed. I assume AGF that WHL wasn't aware of policy. A warning was given, it's been received and understood, and nothing more need be said about this submatter. ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Message to my friends:
PLEASE, PLEASE, folks. Let us not post any more challenges to the adminstrators here,
or make commentary about this issue to or about them. I wholly appreciate all your messages
and posts, but PLEASE, let us let this die a natural death here, without stoning anyone
in the process. I would REALLY appreciate it. Like I said, shiny, happy posts are cheerfully
accepted. Hugs to you all. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone's back, I see? So much has happened since you've been gone... WB :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back from me too. Rossrs (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, welcome back, there is a lot of work to do! I hope the time off was beneficial to your health. You need to update me later via email and let me know if you are doing better now. Again, welcome back, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back from me as well. Please expect a (somewhat tardy, for which I apologize) email from me soon. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kevin Spacey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't do that much for Whitaker, but I'm glad to see that it has been kept. I'm gradually working on Jackson and will hopefully get that done tomorrow. I was thinking of modifying the pop culture section, and I plan to incorporate it into the career section. It's actually good to drop it as it will cut down on the number of IPs who keep adding random things. It's quite fun to have all of these actors at GAR at once, but it's probably my fault with the bounty. Anyway, glad to see you back and appearing on my watchlist (and talk page). Don't ever leave again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't sound like too much fun. To help ensure the article is accurate, stating the actual facts and the issues with the references would be beneficial for any mediation. As long as you provide a brief statement detailing the other editor's issues, at least other third parties will be able to take a look and make the best judgment. From what you're describing to me, if you point the same issues out, it shouldn't have too many problems being resolved. These things take time, but it will be resolved. Keep at it! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Gene hackman
"we dont' list persons as "retired" in the lead section" well then explain to me why Sean Connerys wikipedia page list him as retired in the Main lead section, gene hackman is retired, why don't you get that into your head, I even posted a link for it! Sigge365 (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Hello, I am wondering why you reverted this edit as vandalism? The article in question mentions Marvin as a guest star of the show. Regards, Skomorokh 04:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out what the problem was with this ref. I clicked it though and got [13]this. I don't know how to relocate a link that is no longer available, Do you? I posted this here to bring it to your specific attentions. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hello there,
Do you know anything about Wikipedia rules on writing articles about fictional characters?Malke2010 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know about the fiction board. Thanks for the help.Malke2010 20:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
When you put it like that... yes. Rossrs (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
email
check email.Malke2010 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Filmography tables
I was unaware of it. Thanks for the link. Qylecoop (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Tall
You gotta check out Aoife Mulholland who I am thinking must surely be Wikipedia's tallest woman. She'd be even taller if we could see her feet, but I got tired of scrolling. There's a lot to be said for sensible image cropping. Rossrs (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to. Rossrs (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for redline info
Thanks for the redline info. GoingBatty (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Gangs project
Looking.... the "Motion Picture Sound Editors" official site are asking for volunteers to go copy their programs so they can update their site. Not very helpful. Is Movie City News a WP:RS? Still looking. Rossrs (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen this film. I can barely tolerate Cameron Diaz, and I can't think of any other reason I may have missed it. I love Not Another Teen Movie but I have to agree that it is in fact, another teen movie. (but less lame) You were obviously quite taken with Fried Green Tomatoes... Rossrs (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was. It just occurred to me that I liked Something About Mary and Vanilla Sky. I wonder why I don't like her? I've watched Fried Green Tomatoes several times. There's a lot in it to love. If you haven't already read it, I recommend the book. It's mostly written in narrative form, with each section dated as it jumps from past to present and back. It's also peppered with little snippets from "The Weems Weekly", the local Alabama Bulletin, (and others) referring to events that have been covered in the story, but from an outsiders misinformed view. Very clever, and charming. I found the book and the film equally moving. Rossrs (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you mentioned that about Val Kilmer before, and that is incredibly cool. What a great surprise ! Rossrs (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Then I don't need to tell you how lovely the book is. You have some very interesting things on your shelves, haven't you? Rossrs (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Stephen King would be an interesting person to talk to. I used to read all those Creepshow comics etc when I was a kid, but unfortunately it didn't inspire a flood of best sellers from me. I don't have anything authentic like that. The closest I've come is staringly longingly at a signed Carole Lombard portrait in a shop and walking away because I couldn't justify spending so much money. I had my wallet out of my pocket about 4 times before I decided. I wish I'd bought it, but oh well. The only "vintage" memorabillia that I have is a 1938 set of cigarette cards, in mint condition, which I had mounted and framed. I thought I'd see if there was something online and I found this bad, very bad, You Tubevideo. If you want to completely waste 2 and a half minutes of your life.... The guy is going through photographing the cards and has he moves through he says the name of about every fourth person, and I was thinking "that's right mate, you've never heard of Frances Farmer". He pauses for just a second on Olivia de Havilland and I think he's about to say her name, and then.. no... It's very eclectic what people will film and put on You Tube. Rossrs (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Grrr, I shoulda I shoulda I shoulda. The one that caught my eye was under $1000 but it was about 15 years ago. According to History for Sale a Carole Lombard will set you back between $3000 and $6000, but for under $1000 you could get a Myrna Loy or a Bette Davis. For just under $50,000 you could get a crowd scene signed by MGM's top stars c. 1927 (Greta Garbo, Norma Shearer, Dolores del Rio, Joan Crawford). I'll get 2 of those, a Carole and a couple of Myrnas. Holy Moly. Rossrs (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk: Anthony Burgess - POV-check
POV-check
There has been a great deal of pop-world plagiarism from Burgess. Some examples:
Plagiarism? Sounds POV to me. Can this be rewritten to sound more objective? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
When I deleted all this as "trash", Wildhartlivie disagreed: "even if you don't agree or don't like a comment, pls don't delete talk page posts from other editors."
It's not about what I disagree with or dislike but that the entries in question are TRASH, aren't they? The first one is anonymous and also crippled because someone has already removed the examples. And both make no sense anyway because no one knows what they refer to.
Are we supposed to delete TRASH in the articles only? But in talk to preserve it for future generations like it was from the bible/quran hereby making it more and more impossible to find RELEVANT discussion? I certainly do not think so.
--Vsop.de (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't much matter whether you consider someone's comments trash or not, WP:TALK is clear about deleting, changing or removing someone else's comments. In fact, no one removed examples, if you'd bothered to look through the posting history, [14] you'd see that the poster was referring to an existent statement in the article at the time that said "There has been a great deal of pop-world plagiarism from Burgess. Some examples:" He was stating that the sentence reflected POV. It is not a trash statement. It's clear you had no idea what was originally posted so it's more than a little off-base to delete the post as "trash". I'm not even sure you know what you are calling "trash". The quote the poster put up to discuss? The response he made to the quote? Are you referring to the article quote stating that pop-culture stole from Burgess or the poster's assertion that the quote itself was a POV statement? As it is, behavioral guidelines say not to refactor, delete or change someone else's post. So, no, we do not just delete comments. And yes, they are preserved in an archive. Take a little time to learn the rules before you act. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
What I meant by “trash” is quite obvious: something to be removed because it is obsolete, no longer of any value. I did not imply that the entry in question never had any. Although it could have made clearer that the first line is a quote from the article. But what about my caveat that preserving all and any in the talk page will make finding the relevant issues more and more difficult?
Talk page "clutter" isn't considered a problem on Wikipedia. There are no "stupid questions". It's easy enough to search talk archives to find what anyone might be looking for. The policy is that only blatantly irrelevant comments are removed. If an editor made a good-faith comment that relates to an article, it stays. That's it. If you want to argue this policy, I suggest doing so at WT:TALK. Equazcion(talk) 13:32, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I found the question interesting, and your comments likewise. I linked to them from the Tate talk page. I'd like to get a hold of Dideon's The White Album and read the entire piece for my edification. I really like the way Bartteks is approaching the Sharon Tate article, questioning it in a very intelligent way, but not criticising it, which is what a lot of editors seem to do when something is not clear to them. The article is currently being translated into Polish, and Bartteks has found a few inconsistencies that can now be fixed. Rossrs (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm so glad it passed! Congratulations! I helped a little and I'm happy to have been able to do that, but it's your work and your nomination and you deserve the credit. For some reason... it must be the "helped a little" that triggered this.... I can hear Prissy from Gone with the Wind, after Melanie's baby was delivered, saying "Well Cap'n Butler, Miss Scarlett, she helped a little but it was mostly me." I think it would be fun if I did a Prissy. "Well, Miss Wildhartlivie, she helped a little but it was mostly me." So now you've got from one of the shortest nominations to one of the longest, but worth it in the end. I hope the next post to your page is about Kate Hudso. You'd have some kind of weird trifecta. Rossrs (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
EEEK. Don't slap me! A Prissy slap is way worse than a Gilligan slap. I will do it. Then I'll continue to tote the weary load. I'm sending Tony a tiger. Have you seen his user page? He collects tigers. I love it. Rossrs (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Kate Hudso
Kate Hudson? No, not Kate Hudson. Kate Hudso. Oh well, you got 2 Kates in a row and Blanchett is missing an "n". It's OK, I'm the only one amused. I'll consider myself Gilligan-slapped and if someone other than me posts a Kate Hepbur post, well, I'll be gobsmacked. Rossrs (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Welcome Back!
Look out there could be some crazy edits tonight! You may be a little distracted. Rossrs (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Deletion and later rewriting my invitation
Just thought you may want to know, an alternate account deleted my poorly worded invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions.[15] and also went to ANI about it.
I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. The template was inviting you here: here. Ikip 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Corrected Charlize Theron
Thank you for the succinct manner in which you edited my contribution to Charlize Theron's split up. I always enjoy learning from seasoned editors like yourself. I also had a look at your resume and it is pretty impressive, to say the least. Incidently, you share my fascination with crime and serial killers. Maybe that is why I am in law enforcement myself. Good luck with your health issues! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozinsky (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter
The January 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
James Stacy
Your actions from two (yes, two) years ago are being called into question here in case you're interested in explaining your damn self. I've already left two somewhat curt messages but I suspect this will be brought up again in two years time because, you know, explaining your actions at the time wasn't quite good enough. This article is quickly becoming a big pain in my ass. Every time it pops up on my watchlist, I just know there's going to be some kind of jackassery to deal with. Pinkadelica♣ 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I take it you no longer need my comment at Dawn Welles? Pinkadelica♣ 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I do believe your theory about attraction was spot on. Pinkadelica♣ 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:Flag icons
I just want to make the articles become more beautiful like the stars. I thought the articles are prettier than before.
I understand the information about it, but I really understand that the ladies are much more younger than Bruce Willis. The ladies' nationallity are absolutely American, Hungary, France or Czechoslovakia.
After seeing this edit, I changed it from the reverted "best known for" to "recently known" as this is her current television project. If this isn't any better of a term, please let me know and I will self-revert. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Neat, little psychic connection there. :) Yeah, I am cool with "known for". Would you like to do the honors? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL, excellent. :) My is a little cracked, gotta take it into the shop. Take Care :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Twitter links
While social networking links are normally avoided, note that the top of WP:ELNO states Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:. Please stop removing these links unless there is an established consensus. The fact that a template exists for twitter should tell you that it's currently considered to be acceptable when it's the subject's own twitter feed. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Jeopardy
Wildhartlivie: I'll take "People Rossrs wouldn't want to trade places with in a gazillion years" for 1000.
Alex : This nude model inspired works of art and a murder, attempted suicide and spent 65 years in a psychiatric facility before dying there at the age of 104.
(And you probably are wondering "Who is Audrey Munson?" Poor Audrey!! We must tell Angelina Jolie. There's an Oscar-worthy film there, just crying to be made. Rossrs (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
I was tempted to revert this. What, if anything, do you think this poking is going to acccomplish? I see no reason at all for you to be making comments like this esp. with the bad blood between you and Wildhartlivie. Please stop as this will bring more heat than light to everything going on. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
That editor has been notified that such posts are from now to be considered overt harassment and such will be reported to WP:AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie
To both of you. You both need to disengage from each other. That means completely. No more accusations from either of you about the other. Both of you need to read meatball:DefendEachOther and rely on others to make any reports, because this level of sniping is unsatisfactory. I've left the indentical message on both your talks, because I don't want to hear about who started it. Be the bigger person, and walk away. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied
Please see my note at her talk page. You have the power to stop this now. Please do so, in the way that I've recommended, or I guarantee, it's going to get uglier, for both of you. Trust me; I've seen this go down many times. End it, please. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Downtone Bonnie & Quiet Clyde...
Why, thank you ma'am, for noticing how quiet sheriff Harry's been keeping B&Ctown recently. Even the teenage vandals with their spraypaint cans have been steering clear. It's my shoot-first, ask-questions-later policy.
Basically our insurrection back around New Years was an editor or editors who had dragged out the same old anti-Hamer axes to grind — except without any new research to support anything at all. I'm not sure how serious s/he/they were about real editing and how much was just for some argumentation. I like to think the former.
I learned something important from the whole nasty business, though, and it's important that you know it, too, as one of the guardians of Truth (note cap) on our article here. At several points, our article talks about "the controversy" surrounding the execution of that 1934 ambush, and all the questions it supposedly opened up about shoot-to-kill and no capital warrants on BonPark and no warning called out to Clyde. Well, I went back to brush up on the B&C canon — especially the more recent books like Guinn, Knight, Phillips, Ramsey, Milner and Treherne — and I gotta tell you, Wildhartlivie: there ain't no controversy. Not at least among the writers of all the important books. There is not a-one who engages in the kind of discussion (with the kind of stridency) that we've had here about it. It just never comes up. It's 99% on our page and just about absent from the canon. And when you go back to the mentions of "the controversy" in our article, you'll note that there is not a single cite among them that says that so-and-so says such-and-such on page xxx — not a one. There's a line in our article that says that "respected historians such as Phillips, Treherne and Milner failed to find a capital warrant on Bonnie blah-blah" — when in fact they didn't even look. Treherne, a Brit, doesn't even seem to have come to the States to do research, just wrote from the U.K. I find it really upsetting that these "controversy" accusations are sorta "sneaky-cited" in the article, never to pan out when you actually check 'em. What they really are is leftover polemic from the days when the POV rampaged around the article.
All of which leaves us with an article that isn't as good as it could be, and isn't as good as you and I — to name only two — want it to be. An article that's giving readers the wrong impression. I know we'll fix it, don't get me wrong, but until we do, we're not doing justice to the subject or to our readers.
Well, lest I make you sorry you ever wrote, I'll close here. There's about 30 things I'd like to fix on our article without even getting into "the controversy." Hope you're well and not too despairing about the football the other night. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sandra Bullock
True, she was born in the USA, but her mother is German (and her father being American), therefore making her German - American. Norum 11:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Links
Thanks for your message, Wild. I was just concerned with the number of EL's, not the quality. --BwB (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Tim?
Gosh, no I was not aware. But surely he jests. He looks nothing like Marlon Brando!! Rossrs (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Kate
Thanks for your rvs to the Winslet page. You are quite right; the fact doesn't belong there. It would be nice, however, if you left it on the other page that you reverted. I did not place the fact there in the first place (merely providing two refs for what was, until then, merely an allegation); it predated me. Perhaps it is encumbent on you to explain why it doesn't belong on what is - in truth - not a wholly serious page. Kind regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, a good compromise. Ericoides (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism?
This, with what looks to me like a source delete, plus a change from a correct (AFAIK) DOI to FBI has the appearance, to me, of vandalism. I stand by saying it looks like it. I don't claim anything else, or I would also have added a warning here before now. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 09:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
No apologies needed. I wasn't sure about the shoe polish remark, either, but figured it'd be highlighted in the rv, so if it needed addressing, it could get taken out later. As for an AN/I report, 1) I had no idea & 2) I wouldn't know one if it bit me. ;p TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 10:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, hey, some people can be real dicks. I've run into at least two I can only call trolls: go out of their way to complain about a page, refuse to answer any questions or comments, then just walk away as if it never mattered in the first place (which is what I really don't get in it all). If all we had was a simple misunderstanding (& I've had more than my share of those ;p), no prob. Cheers. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 11:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
When I made this edit I wasn't asking for a smaller version, I was noting the fact that a smaller one had been supplied. When this template is used, after 7 days, an admin will come along and process the template. Could you please revert your removal of the template please?--Rockfang (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
I suppose what you're saying makes sense, but even so, the definition of spree killer only LOOSELY corresponds with Harris and Klebold's crimes. I agree with you %75 percent about what you said, but other certain Wikipedia users rejected this explanation when I used it, so what's the deal? As for now, I think I'll quit removing Harris and Klebold from the American spree killers category. Just remember that others like the Colin Ferguson, Nidal Hasan, George Hennard, James Huberty, and the Jonesboro killers are only MASS MURDERERS, nothing else. Although they did go on KILLING SPREES, they don't fit the definition of SPREE KILLER. As for Thomas Dillon, I decided he was a spree killer after all and decided to just leave that be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.165.30 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Your sandbox
I'm going to ask that you blank your sandbox page in accordance with item #10 at WP:UP#NOT. You can retain the information in a local text file on your computer. Any recording of grievances against another editor has to be used in a timely fashion at some dispute resolution page or ARBCOM/ANI etc, and not be something ongoing. Your sandbox page has been used this way since 15 Jan.
This shouldn't be taken as any kind of judgment on the issues you recorded on the page, as I haven't even read them. But that page does seem to constitute a technical violation of the policy. SRQ had a similar page at one point which I asked her to take down, and when she refused I nominated it for deletion, which was successful. I hope you'll heed this request instead though, so it doesn't have to come to that. Thanks. Equazcion(talk) 01:15, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this page & #10 at WP:UP#NOT, this compilation was started last month as an intended RfC/U or AN/I report that addressed wikistalking prior to my being blocked, other evidence started to be added 6 days ago. After that, and Lar's restriction on editing, after I noticed the uncommon irregularity with which she popped up for the first time on pages where I routinely edited and acting in concert with other editors, we have begun to assemble evidence for an ArbCom filing. That is based on a belief that a statement made by Lar here that "ArbCom is a very real possibility" was a real possibility, I am not aware of a restriction upon one beginning to compile evidence for a potential ArbCom filing, about which I have already had discussion with various individuals involved. I have been in contact with various administrators off site and with one who works with ArbCom. A month to assemble such content isn't extravagant. And the webpage the other editor had was kept as a selectively contained archive which refactored select statements. I don't mind blanking the initial paragraph, but the list contains no names except article names and dates. This is for a possible ArbCom case or perhaps an AN/I request like the one you recently started on Tbsdy. The pros and cons of each avenue are being discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled. WHL's sandbox seems, to me, to do what RfC/U#Preparation suggests, though it is missing the recommended RfC/U template. I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. -FeralDruid (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This does seem to be correct: attach the {{Userspace RFC draft}}
template to the top and it would seem to be without serious issue... Doc9871 (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Lizzie Borden/The Man Who Came to Dinner
I added a reference. You had deleted my link, instead of requesting a citation, which is unusual. Also unusual is the fact that there are three totally unsourced items directly below it, that you did not delete. I would also imagine that the following blurb used in the play "Harriet Sedley took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks, and when the job was nicely done, gave her father forty one" might possibly be a reference to Borden.
Is there some reason that you deleted my paragraph, but did not notice the multiple un-sourced paragraphs below it?
Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Sorry
I don't know how I did this. I looked at the article a little while ago, but I would have sworn I did not hit the edit button. Clearly I did something, and when I looked at my watchlist later, there it was. I've reverted it back. Rossrs (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Ben Affleck
First of all, as I have mentioned earlier, I have edited several wikipedia articles under a different username, including writing almost the entire article on Hugh Grant that attained the Good Article status right after and the entire article on Zac Goldsmith. Even if I hadn't, while longevity on Wikipedia is a sign of respect and assurance, it isn't the only criteria for making a valuable contribution. Secondly, if you have a problem with the style, then take the time to move the projects that I added (on film, TV) into the original table rather than getting rid of the thing entirely by simply undoing a contribution. I will confess that my strong skills are sentence construction, researching references and providing structure to articles - I am not an authority on style guidelines.
The reason I have only majorly worked on his wife's article lately is because I tend to take a topic, work on it and expand that article - one at a time. It just so happens that my new username is relatively, well, new, so I haven't gotten around to other projects. My contribution had more to do with assuring complete coverage rather than pushing a POV. I plan to add a lot more to the Affleck article in the coming days as I have been researching on it and the article as it stands today, though good, is obviously far from comprehensive or top-notch - would that mean that if I amend the article, I must run a copy of it before you first? I am not here to pick fights, but, like I said, I do like to work on articles wholly and that sometimes means maybe making too many changes at a time - most of them meaningful and enhancing. If you accuse me of lack of discussion, then you, with your constant reversals, are not that much different. Moving forward, I think I can improve the quality of the Affleck article, if you have any suggestions on how I should - or shouldn't - proceed with editing it, I am open to advice but not the hostility that you display towards new members (which, in this case, I am not, but you seem to behave similarly towards other new contributors).Hutch y2k (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a courtesy note to let you know (in case you haven't kept track) that you've reverted on Ben Affleck 3 times today. I'm sure you're aware of the 3RR, but I'd advise you not to revert again and to discuss the matter. If you need anything from me or you just want to chat, do feel free to drop me a line or email me. Best, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Picture
I've sent out a request to a likely candidate. Will let you know when it's up. I've been really happy to get the images recently for the Hathaway and Forrest Gump articles. I've kind of shied away from searching for images recently as I've been trying to complete Sweeps, the Tag & Assess drive, and work on an article off-wiki. But sometimes, out of the blue, requests that I sent out many months back will all of the sudden have replies and new images come about. Hopefully this image request goes through quickly, the author seems active. By the way, congrats on the book. Although it's great to be published on here every day, a book is much better! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking over the talk page (again, I didn't read the whole thing, and hopefully nobody ever has to!), I'm amazed that section after section has started again and again about the topic. Looking at the article and the talk page, the discussions are more than 15 times larger than the content of the article itself. For the number of editors looking over the page and spending time focusing on this one issue, it could have been a GA by now if the same effort was put in it. Anyway, to prevent further issues of editors arguing about canvassing and/or biasness, instead of having me concluding the discussion for a consensus argument, I would instead recommend either doing a final request for comment/BLP noticeboard and let everyone resolve it one last time. After that there should be no reason to again and again question the prior consensus especially since the details of the situation have not had any breakthroughs since the initial discussion of adding the section. I apologize for not being of more help, but as we have these community pages and they invite further and wider opinions, it's probably best to use them to hopefully conclude this issue. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The image has been added to the article. Hopefully it has the impish look you're going for. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The Levitt image seems to me like a new editor got it from somewhere else (if you go to Commons, the image upload is the author's only edit), and to get such a good pose, I'd figure the author would have other images to contribute (it's also the standard web size image and lacking metadata). I won't mess with it, but there's always a possibility that somebody will come along and put it up for deletion without an OTRS confirmation from the uploader. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I just sent out a request for one I've been watching a while, we'll see out that goes. Not the best angle of him, but it will be a good backup to this one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
How about that: File:JosephGordon-LevittZooeyDeschanel500DaysMar09.jpg! Maybe not the clearest image of him, but after months of searching and requests, I finally got you a Gordon-Levitt image. He's been harder to get than actors such as Clint Eastwood, Tom Hanks, or Matt Damon. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ibid.
Is there a way I can use the "< ref name=/ >" system but also supply a page number? The more I follow down cites at B&C (particularly), the more I'm realizing just how many of our cites are bogus! I want my cites to be abso unassailable. Howzabout I stay away from Ibid. and op. cit., but use the author's surname and a page number? The alternative is to embed the pg, no. in an invisible comment. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. On a BLP I've work on improving (specifically Mariska Hargitay) and would like it to be accessed (currently a start class), do I add it to both the WikProject Biography and Project Actor? Also how do I determine what the priority scale to use for her? Thanks. —MikeAllen 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I had already added it to BIOG/A before I realized that WP:ACTOR also had an assessment. Moved now. This is better, they had a backlog. lol Thank you—I try to catch them as quickly as possible. :-) —MikeAllen 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem. —MikeAllen 07:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'll get on that. It was my first BLP article I had worked, I kind of looked at Angelina Jolie's article as a guide for the lead and the award table. I worked on this last month and was going to ask for an assessment then, but forgot about it until her name showed on my watchlist the other day. LOL. I did her filmorgraphy table like that (compact style) because separating them made her "Film" table's width so small and looked out of place, so I thought the compact would look better. Unless you think I should add her film and TV credits all in one table? Oh and in the table under "Notes" there is no use in adding all her list of award and nominations for SVU are there? PS. How do I add the IPA for the pronunciation of her name?—MikeAllen 20:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Which titles?
Which redlinks in question do you feel that I should not have removed? OOODDD (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Keanu Reeves
I wonder why is there a link for the paparazzo, Alison Silva? It is a link to an article that has been deleted? Anyways, just wanted to point that out. OOODDD (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Katie Holmes & Cruise photo
Hi, could you tell me why did you undo my edition of changing the image about the relationship between Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise? I think the new image is better because it doesn't show a third person apart from the couple. Lobo de Hokkaido (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
3rd Opinion re: Ingrid Bergman
Any chance you can take a look at Ingrid Bergman, incl. talk, and offer any suggestions? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Scorsese
"(switching one blog source for another doesn't reliably source this content)"
"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." WP:RS
Instead of constantly reverting the changes, please, tell me specifically what is not reliable about sources cited? Most are sourced to a page at Le Monde, the French newspaper of record. (You can also listen to the audio of the actual interview.) A second source was to New York Magazine. Specifically, why do you think that these are not reliable sources pursuant to WP:RS? Jedgeco (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
....Per WP:NONENG, the source should be available in English for verifiability. That you just changed out sources from a blog to the ones you added made me question it again. What would make the quotes and comments based on the content in the first source you added would be a copy of that interview in an English language reliable source.
OK, a couple things: 1) This still doesn't explain why you reverted citations to New York magazine's website, of which there should be no question of reliability. 2) WP:NONENG provides that "English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." While WP:NONENG would justify citing a French source in this case, such justification is unnecessary here because the link was to the source of the quotation in English; you click a prominent green "play" button and you can hear audio of the actual English interview and verify it yourself. (Incidentally, I don't speak French and I had no problem with the site.) 3) Again, Le Monde is a prominent, and therefore reliable, French newspaper, and if there were any questions regarding its reliability, I think being able to listen to actual audio of Mr. Scorsese's interview obviates them.
Finally, when I have a chance, I plan to reinstate my edits. Based on the foregoing, I don't think that we have any disagreement. But if you have a problem with them, instead of unilaterally reverting them, kindly tag [citation needed] or [This quote needs a citation], and we can take it up on the article's talk page with other editors. Thanks. Jedgeco (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you're objecting to or the justifications for those objections. (1) the cites ... were too extensive to sort out other cites you might have added in there. Frankly, that's your burden as an editor, especially if you're reverting changes that are clearly not vandalism. "Revert a good faith edit only as a last resort." WP:STATUSQUO. (2) We have no evidence that the tape shown there is not copyrighted, making it a copyright violation, which we cannot use. Under that justification, there can be no quotes on Wikipedia at all. Regardless, the amount quoted and the purposes for which it is used are well within fair use, so this is a non-issue. (3) not everyone has sound capability. The point of a citation is that the source "can be checked," not that every reader can instantaneously access it. Should we stop citing to .pdfs since not everyone has a .pdf reader? Stop including pictures since some users read text-only? (4) WP:NONENG ... it does indicate that it must exist somewhere reliable in English. This is just flat wrong. WP:NONENG: "English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." But again, this is a non-issue here, because the original interview is in English. (To make this point more directly, next time, I'll just link directly to the audio file.) You appear to want me to find an English translation of a French translation of an English interview, which is pointless when I cited the English-language primary source.
Finally, I'd note that, although it would be useful to someone who wanted to know about Scorsese's future projects, this is hardly controversial subject matter. I'm really having a difficult time understanding why you're flyspecking edits that are sourced perfectly well and, frankly, cited better and more reliably than 2/3 of the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.2.4 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of the Koenig's and their friends...
Dear Wildhartlivie,
Though I know you're just doing a part of what every good Wikipedia editor does, I have been asked to thank you on behalf of Andrew's and Walter's friends & family for your efforts in un-vandalizing Andrew's page during these difficult times for them.
Hi, I'm looking for a good image to add to the Pre-Code Hollywood article. I'd prefer not to get into any fair-use hassles, so I've been searching through the Commons, but have yet to come up with anything really good. I'm looking for something that exemplifies the sexual suggestiveness of the pre-code film, but, of course, that's just the kind of thing that the studios didn't put in the trailers, the primary source of free images for this period. In a similar situation for Moral panic, I used a picture of Harlow, but I'd like something better, if I can find it.
I thought you or Rossrs might have an idea of something that would work well, so ... here I am. Any ideas? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The Theda Bara stuff you pointed me to is great. After I get some sleep (been up all night), I'll look at using them.. Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Charlie Sheen
Wh do you keep removing the info i put on the Charlie Sheen article...the info im adding is notable and well sourced.Handstoni (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
What about the part about him entering Rehab, why did you remove that?Handstoni (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
??????Handstoni (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
But its his wife, just because her page was deleted because its not notable, that doesnt mean that any info regarding her should be removed from every other article....she's his wife, and its notable to mention her in his article........its already mentioned that he married her and has 2 kids with her and that he got arrested on charges of domestic violence againest her....so, she is already mentioned in this article...so, your not making any sense..........im gonna add the info back cause its well sourced and notable..........Handstoni (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This was removed because it's not notable and only adds negative information about his wife's drug problems which is against biography of a living person. You don't add negative, non-notable info into an article for shock affect. Please do not readd it, thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
But the part that about him entering rehab being "conjunctive or auxilary therapy in cooperation with his wife" is just a rumor and not confirmed...so that part doesnt need to be mentioned....all that needs to be mentioned is that his publicist announced on February 23 that he entered rehab and is taking time off from "Two and a Half Men".Handstoni (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Filmogs
You don't need to add all the coding bumpf (border="2" cellpadding="4" background: #f9f9f9; center, etc) now we're using the wikitables; the "wikitable" coding automatically takes care of all that. It's much better to have as little coding as possible visible in the edit window, so that unfamiliar editors aren't scared off. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm the one that added the table with that obsolete code. I'm sorry. Now I know what to use; I've updated my notes. Thanks. —MikeAllen 02:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at MikeAllen's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Razzies again
Are we including Razzie noms and wins in awards charts? I know there was discussion about not using the template at WP:ACTOR awhile back but I'm unclear about mentioning them on awards charts. I say nay because of the reasoning behind not including the templates in articles but natch, there's opposition over at Sienna Miller. You know, because her Razzie nomination for G.I. Joe is incredibility newsworthy and should like, be totally mentioned because "wiki-clowns" are trying to whitewash her article. Pinkadelica♣ 06:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Johhny Depp
Hi. I thought you'd like you to know that Depp was interviewed by Jonathan Ross on his BBC TV show tonight (26 Feb) and Ross specifically asked him about his vineyard. Depp replied that he doesn't own a vineyard, as the French won't allow him too - that's the reason I removed the sentence. I realise that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, but when references are so obviously wrong it makes one wonder about the veracity of other parts of the encyclopedia. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦talk 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Sophia Loren
Hi
I have made an account now. What was wrong with my edits on Sophia Loren's page that prompted you to undo it? Jarjar66 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Sophia
Actually I did the opposite of that....I added movies to her filmography because that other user was deleting them. I also added some extra information about her life and movies. If you look at my edits I don't think you will find anything wrong with them.Jarjar66 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a peek at the comments on my talk page by Truudder and then possibly commenting at the Bundy page? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Help with Image Tag?
Hi again, can you help me with the image tag on Andrew Koenig's page? I seem to have screwed it up (though I copied and pasted it from another article and simply changed the file name) - for some reason, it is showing the tags on the page along with the image.
The February 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Followup: I've gotten an okay from Dabomb87 in a previous FLC log about using Amazon as a references. For the info about number of episodes, cast members and producers I originally had a reference at the top of the page (i.e. after the intro) stating that all this information came from the two books listed in the reference section. I was informed that since the books are already listed in said reference section the statement at the beginning of the episode log was not needed. I've also changed the neilsen ratings ref and DVD release date per your suggestions. Jimknut (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have the book you are referring to. It does indeed list the information for each episodes (cast, credits, brief plot synopsis, broadcast date). The other book (by Costello) contains the same information. However, only the Costello book has the number of the episode (i.e. the number of the broadcast order) so I used that for my ref instead of the Barbaras book, although both books are (in my opinion) excellent sources. Jimknut (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Kindly cease reverting valid fixes to the code on that page. What you are re-adding, is demonstrably invalid code. Jack Merridew 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Is that something like saying my revert to the Mary Pickford infobox image was inappropriate? You'll note that consensus overrode your contention of "inappropriate" and that the "restorations" on the Pickford image were ill-founded and carried outl. Like I said, if you have issues with the coding in the WP:ACTOR suggested filmography, take it up there and kindly explain what is wrong with the code they are using. On the other hand, your changes to the color coding to the other table style was based solely on your POV - "mo-betta-icky-colours" is less than a helpful edit summary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
That was you on Mary Pickford? I've not looked back. Durova had issues with the restoration, so I moved-on.
I did look at the bit at WP:ACTOR, not that I much care what that wiki-project thinks. They, and you, own exactly zero articles. The coding they're suggesting is pretty much what I was doing. The code you were restoring was *invalid* code and is needlessly verbose for what it was trying to do. If there's a concern here, it's with you seeking to control articles in your preferred state.
Please keep this thread in one place, I have your page watched, now. Jack Merridew 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Durova wasn't the only one who objected, not that it made much of an impression, since the rest of us aren't administrators. Considering that WP:ACTOR sets the style guidelines for actor, etc. bios, and WP:FILM sets the style guidelines for film related articles, what they think is certainly germane to the issue at hand. No one is claiming ownership, but adherence to style guidelines governing a given article simply is important for article consistency. That you were persistent regarding the "mo-betta-icky-colours" issue speaks to maintaining one's own preferred state. When someone plunges in and *just changes* such things, there is a concern. However, it is my experience that when someone objects to such changes, an accusation of ownership is sure to follow. Perhaps you don't much care what the governing wikiproject thinks, but I'd suggest that they don't much care what a single editor, making a change in passing, thinks, either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikiprojects do not govern anything; they're just clubs. And the coding I've put in place hews a lot closer to what they prefer that what you were reverting back to. Given free-rein, you would seem intent on making articles consistently improperly formed. Jack Merridew 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
And given free reign, you seem to be following me around after my edits, making contentious reverts. The Jane Fonda image is at least 15 years old and does not look like she does now, which is true of the other image you removed. I'm not in the least bit interested in your denigrations, nor your contentions about wikiprojects. Go over to WP:FILM and repeat your bad faith comments. And stop following me around to hit each and every article where I just edited. Such wikistalking is unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You were putting bad code back into articles, so I've looked at some you edited and have fixed them, too. If you were less focused on your-way, you'd start fixing them yourself. Jack Merridew 01:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've grown quite tired of reading your dismissive, arrogant tone and am beyond tired of being talked down to. There is no valid reason for your restoration of that 15 or more year old photo and removal of something taken this decade. Please save your talking down for someone else. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You need to change your approach with Jack Merridew in this matter, immediately. He's wikignoming and has a very good handle on what formatting changes should be applied. Your tone with him is completely unacceptable. Start over, assume good faith, and engage in discourse with him under the assumption that he's trying to improve the article and that you may not necessarily have all the answers. "dismissive, arrogant tone" ??? I see it all right. But not from Jack. Hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
About the category "Shakespearean actors"
Hi there. I noticed that you reverted some of the edits I made concerning the category "Shakespearean actors". The category description is "Actors and actresses specializing in the works of William Shakespeare." And if you look at the names in that cat., they're all veteran stage actors with extensive Shakespearen experiences. I honestly don't think these movie stars belong there, and I restored my edits accordingly. Hope you don't mind, :) --Artoasis (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the detailed report at AIV on 63.65.18.74 - it really helps when you provide a clear run down on odd situations like that... Kuru(talk) 02:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
ANI
You've done a good job of crafting an extensive summary of your view on the situation and collecting diffs to support it. I suggest using it at WP:RFC/U, where it'll probably be more valuable. That's the more proper venue for running down extensive issues of editor behavior. Equazcion(talk) 03:20, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Neither Imdb nor WP is a reliable source to cite, Itemirus. You see, any unreliable editor can insert content into either site, and that content is constantly challenged and removed as it is in need of true reliable citation/sourcing. If you can find the text in a printed book, and provide the page numbers, copyright information and ISBN, the information will have to stay. You've got some reliable source work to do, I think. Look on the internet for book citations about her birthplace. I can't "hold your hand" through this citation process, and neither should WHL be asked to. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Reply about Possession and how use of Amazon as source is acceptable
Leaving this notice here now since page is currently not archived which is reason why I did not leave it here at time of posting as explained in my talk page edit summary [16]
Responded, the website for the film DVD release company is fine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ryan White photo
If you would, please look at this: [18] (6th photo down from the top in the left column), and then this: [19] (2nd photos from the top in each column). The photo shown here [20] you claim to have taken "at a fundraiser in 1989" is actually a Hollywood 8x10 glossy used promotionally for the made-for-TV movie about Ryan White's life starring Lukas Haas (in fact, the person whose hand we see on White's shoulder in the picture is Haas). They are, obviously, the same photo. Yet, you stated in the file description "This photo of Ryan White was taken by me (Wildhartlivie) in the spring of 1989 at a fund raising event in Indianapolis, Indiana."
Yeah, Haas was at the fund raiser for the establishment of the Damien Center location buildng along with Judith Light, George Dzundza, Peter Scolari and lots of celebrities and about 3 dozen people took pictures of the same poses of the same stars at the same time, some were amateur and some were for the newspaper. Secondly, I asked you to stop posting to my talk page. STOP posting to my talk page and let go of your obsession to try and discredit anything I do. It's really unbecoming to you. That this is the third thing you did after returning from a block is completely disturbing and indicates to me that you just continue to stalk me. I think that's great content for a WP:RfC/U. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It's clearly _not_ the "Ryan White Story" picture -- the expression on White's face is noticeably different. However, it does appear to be a cropped version of the autographed picture. I've nominated it for deletion on Commons -- if you uploaded the same picture to both sites, you should go explain that at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ryan White.jpg. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Not. You are looking at the wrong photo in example #2. The SECOND photos down from the top in both columns is the same photo that is in the WP Ryan White article. Look closely at them - they are both from a page in TV Guide that is an advertisement for the film. She not only lied when she uploaded the photo two years ago about who the author is, but she has lied again above when she now claims she took the photo of Haas and White. The photo was clearly NOT taken by Wildhartlivie no matter what she says. Unless, of course, she was a professional photographer who sold her photos to Hollywood as well as TV Guide. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I _did_ look at them, and you're wrong. The picture on page 3 and on WP shows a squint -- the pictures on page 2 don't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
She's asleep right now, how long does she have to show it's her photo? Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, she's not asleep, and she's answered the question to my satisfaction on Commons, so I withdrew the deletion request.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
SRQ, you were formally told to desist in posting to my talk page. Your comments are not welcome on this page and you are clearly aware of that. That photo I uploaded to this site was in fact cropped from the photo I took at the fundraiser and then later mailed to Lukas Haas to sign. There were also photographers there from The Indianapolis Star and various other newspapers and magazines. It's no surprise that other publications picked it up. There is a color photo on one of those pages taken at the same event with a slightly different pose that isn't used. I would further note that this is absolutely the last time I intend to stand for you posting all over this website that I am a liar. This is just the latest in a long series of posts that you have made that are designed to harass me, or harass my friends about me, and it is clearly another of your personal attacks which you have posted everywhere, a fair number of which were posted to the AN/I thread about your behavior here and many of which occurred when you were blocked for ... making personal attacks and were admonished not to post to me or about me and how often you violated that. This was the third thing you did after your block for personal attacks expired. All that is left is to wonder when an administrator is going to take steps to stop you from wikistalking my edits and harassing me and launching personal attacks. Sarek? Enough is really enough. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I guess I'll have to yell at her because she is supposed to be. :) Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. You removed a picture of Edward Norton I put on his page, claiming that the other pictures which were on there were more recent. However, the image I placed on the article was the only one from 2010, all of the others were from 2009. I'd like to reinsert my picture as the most recent representation of the man. If I've missed something please let me know. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Wanted to say...
Thank you. This is the manner he has addressed me for a while now and when I complained about the manner and tone of what he says, I was rebuffed [21][22][23]. I have a totally unrelated issue, may I write to you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please feel free (via my talk page or e-mail if you prefer). —David Levy 03:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The user, who has been pushing the schmoes award, seems to be missing why a citation back to their own websites is not a third party reliable source. I've explained it on her talkpage and now on the article talkpage. In time, that award site may gain notability ala the tomato etal sites. However, at this time is very questionable at this time.--Morenooso (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you'd picked up a few of these; have been following you around doing same - but there's quite a few out there. Seems to be one editor who's made it his passion to tag every photo with Warren's name. Also all the commons photos have been uploaded/renamed with his name in the filename (e.g. xxx xxx Allan Warren.jpg). One senses an ego at work here, which might be harmless enough except that in his determination to plaster Warren's work far, high and wide he's removing much better photos and replacing them with horrible ones - ibid Hermione Gingold - thus:[24]Little grape (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I do not come off my talkpage but felt I should in this case. Please review this article, JoBlo.com, - if you feel it is not notable, please nominate it here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you follow the procedure, I will see the edit to JoBlo.com and second the nomination. --Morenooso (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Good job with this nomination. Let's keep the discussion here on your talkpage versus mine. --Morenooso (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, like I said, I'm not confident of its success, but it's a try. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Think positively. That's why I asked you to review that article. Your concurence should be a sign that others will agree with you. --Morenooso (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Table work
Hello, I was wondering why you would make this edit (especially without an edit summary) while the discussion is taking place? It is a bit hypocritical to me. Erik (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, I replied to you about succession boxes. Lots of discussions going on! :) Erik (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Stiller
Yeah, I saw the multiple edits by random editors adding the appearance, and finally I saw this, so I re-added it. For the caption credit, WP:CAPTION says wikilinking is allowable if the author is notable. This one actually is notable enough to have an article, so I figured it could stay in. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't care either way if it was included or not, but on the side of the guideline, it's alright to keep it in. I figure it'd be better to appease one of the authors who has donated some great celebrity images to Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Pitt
Do you mean this ---> "After Thelma & Louise, Pitt had a firm following among female audiences, but was at this point regarded more for his sex appeal than his acting chops"? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The user, who has cited with an oppose in Pitt's FAC, mentioned that stuff like that, of what he added into the article, should be there. I disagree because at the moment it reads as POV, and quite frankly this was what I was afraid of. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 00:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, they've been removed. I've replied to your queries, though I've replied to some of them that I didn't get, but the ones that I did get can you look over the changes in the article? At the moment I couldn't find anything on why Redford decided to cast Pitt, except for one that says that he liked his style or something, IDK. I'll look for info. regarding his casting for Legends of the Fall. Anyways, thanks for looking over the article, I know your so busy, and giving comments towards it, I appreciate it. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll do a follow-up tomorrow, right now I need some sleep, so good night, Wildhartlivie. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Susan Atkins Motivation section
Hi. I'll copy and paste here what I've been writing on the Atkins discussion page. I'm not convinced by your reason for reverting that the Motivation section in the Atkins article is appropriate. Can you help me understand why that paragraph is about Atkins?
Here are my contribs to the discussion page. We can talk here or there.
New to editing, but the Motivations section doesn't seem to be about Atkins at all. Is is appropriate? Katiedert (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm deleting the Motivations section because it isn't about Atkins. Katiedert (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: Wildhartlivie: "motivations are for the crimes which she committed, whether it was specifically hers or the overall." Doesn't that mean it's more appropriate on the article about the crimes? This article is not about Atkins. That paragraph is about Manson and the trial. The information in the paragraph is good and appropriate - but not in this article. Katiedert (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
As you and SkagitRiverQueen both agreed in principle to an interaction ban, I have gone ahead and logged it at WP:RESTRICT.
Wildhartlivie and SkagitRiverQueen are interaction banned on each other. Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards. They may, however, participate in RFC/U or arbitration discussions involving the other, including as the filing party.
Hello Wildhartlivie, I've noticed that you and I follow many of the same articles. I having a problem with the anon IP that you tried to explain Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph. This is a big discussion open on Nelly's page that another senior editor is lending intrepretations to. I've tried my best to tell him to stick to MS BIO but he keeps opening a can of words saying dual citizenship I think should be recognized. I am trying to quell this with him so as to quiet the anon IP but the senior editor is getting on his high horse. --Morenooso (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
If you have time...
Hi, if you have time would you mind going to here and give your opinion on the images? I'm talking about my comment starting at the outdent. I went there since he does a lot if not most of the images on that page. I really would like to have your opinions. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy St. Paddy's Day
Happy St. Paddy's Day, Wildhartlivie, from your friends in beautiful downtown Santa Monica.
Have a Happy St. Pat's Day, Wildhartlivie, :D Malke2010 23:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: neither of us edits any table of any sort on actor bios until that RFC finds it's way to a stable state? —JM
I accept your proposal. —WHL
where we both would refrain from editing the tables on actor bios, and I see that you've not been honoring it, the most recent example being this edit to Anna Kendrick. In that edit, you expanded the amount of hard-coded markup in the article which is exactly what I've most objected to in the discussion at WT:ACTOR. There are outstanding questions for you in that discussion and I would urge you to make good faith efforts to abide by our arrangement and to work to assuage the concerns we have about your future intent regarding these tables. Regards, Jack Merridew 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, bullshit. What that previous edit did was introduced other coding, but most importantly, and what I was addressing, was simply an undo of all the spacing mark-up that had been done and the introduction of now deprecated [[2009 in film]] linking and what amounted to a mixing up of the codes that had been addressed earlier. I am aware of the discussion at WT:ACTOR and have been considering a response, but right now, I'm just letting you carry on to make unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry by editors who are in good standing as instigated by an IP who is no longer blocked. You're just looking for reasons to complain, I did no code changes there except to revert it to what was already there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
We can cuss? Bullshite right back at you. The agreement was to not edit tables on actor bios during the RFC, yet you *are* editing tables on those pages; it matters not what the edits are. I had not seen that your edit was a revert (an edit summary would have helped; they're encouraged so that others have a better idea of what you've done). That it was a revert matters not a bit as the other sentence in my proposal was:
Don't fret that your articles need you; it's fundamental to the wiki-process that things take time and you should trust that others will cover in your absence. —JM
Are you going to abide by our interim arrangement?
As to the troll-IP, all I said was that he misled the other participants on that page. Regards, Jack Merridew 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
These are plainly canvassing and contain bad faith mischaracterizations of my comments; I in no way implied that these editors are meatpuppets:
She didn't add any "new code". She just separated the tables and removed the years in film, which is overlinking. But if she wanted too, she could, as current consensus is for the tables. The ongoing discussion is not consensus yet, or ever. Just please stop trying to find any little thing to discredit her. That is disruptive and quite creepy. —MikeAllen 01:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
See the arrangement on my talk page; we had an agreement that the two of us would not edit tables on actor bios at all. She's not abiding by it. Why should I expect her to abide by any major agreement on the WT:ACTOR if she will not honor this interim arrangement? As to the so-called-consensus in that archive; it's not one, it's merely what that project espouses. A local-consensus is not a consensus site-wide. Jack Merridew 01:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Jack, if this is the best you can do, kindly stop posting on my talk page. I reverted a crap edit that introduced mass problems and you have no grounds to grouse about it. It was a revert, get over it and stop coming here to cast your own bad faith aspersions on me. You've worn out your welcome. Oh, and explain your accusation to the editors you cast bad light on. An accusation of canvassing by notifying the editors whose comments you questioned? Pfft. This coming from the guy who was guilty of canvassing on the whole question. It is fine to notify an editor whose opinions were called into question? Pfft. They have a right to know and in no way did I encourage them to say anything except to comment on your statement. Now go away like a good guy and stop posting here like I asked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Excuseme99
That's an old one. I'll research in the morning. It's bedtime for me.—Kww(talk) 05:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What caused you to doubt it? Natalie Wood/Sophia Loren/Kirstie Alley is a pretty strange locus of common interest, and I'd put it in the "dead giveaway" class.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you misread me: of course it's Excuseme99. No doubt about it. Go ahead and open an SPI. I'd block if I could, but, despite popular misconception, I'm not an admin.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, undoing all the new text on Haim's page made the article really boring doncha think?
In including more pop culture and personal references, I was trying to show his personality -- none of which now comes across in this dry list of films without the experiences of the people behind them.
Anyone reading it would think 'The Lost Boys' was just some 'mostly well-reviewed film' instead of something popular and influential that made $32M.
It was pretty tough to find those 80's articles, and paraphrase them in their briefness.
Your revisions made me remember why I can rarely be bothered contributing to Wikipedia -- everyone seems determined to make sure it's dull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarrant on Wiki (talk • contribs) 22:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, everyone seems determined to avoid copyright infringement. Like I said, most of the content was just too darned close to the original source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Okey-doke... May just be misplaced nostalgia, but article seems to need anecdotal texture and life to it rather than the litany of direct-to-video.
Perhaps, but it cannot resemble copy/paste. That's the issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
'Morning. I've looked at the page again. I hope you agree that it has been enriched without compromising the sources. If not, please consider not reverting the whole edit (as it was a lot of work); let me know any problems and I will work on them immediately. Thanks and best.
Tarrant on Wiki—Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC).
Hi. Can you are somebody else help copyedit this. It was recently expanded today from barely a stub but I think it is already close to GA. If you search online I think this is pretty comprehensive... I'm hoping to GA propose it shortly.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating your interaction ban with SkagitRiverQueen here. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|I did not revert her edit. I removed the addition of unsourced genealogy content inserted by someone else and at the same time corrected the birth name of the article subject, I also explained the rationale for doing so, which was to cite the inquest testimony that was already present wherein she stated her legal name. My understanding of the restriction was that explicit reverts were prohibited, not the correction of incorrect information that is clearly cited after a period of nearly two hours from the change during which no one else corrected the error.}}
(block has expired. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC))
She actually didn't revert the edit, but her edit did correct SRQ's edit. That probably does still violate the spirit of the interaction ban, WHL. I'd be careful about that in the future, and state your understanding of the mistake in your unblock request. If you need to correct something SRQ did, it would probably be best to post the proposed correction on the talk page, explain that you're restricted from making the edit yourself, and wait for someone else to implement it. Equazcion(talk) 21:54, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to block for a clearly correct edit, but it was pretty clear to me that it violated the interaction ban, and called for some kind of block. SRQ's edit summary was "rvtd - and corrected birth name to Lizbeth".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
But that is what happened here. Someone came along and inserted a rambling, unsourced genealogy section and the next edit changed the birth name, which is fully and properly sourced already in the article as "Lizzie Andrew Borden", a fact thoroughly discussed on the talk page and now archived. I corrected the birth name to the sourced name, which was a clearly correct edit. I accept and acknowledge that you see it as a overt revert, however, I gave a rationale for the correction, citing the source and I suppose, understanding that is how you view it, I wouldn't do it again. As I said, it was nearly two hours later, no one had corrected the error, and I explained again on the talk page that the inquest testimony clearly gave the name as I corrected it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No one's arguing with the correctness of the edit. An edit can benefit the article yet still violate the interaction ban. Equazcion(talk) 22:21, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but now making an edit that is correct by proof of the reference and commenting on the reasons for the removal of the other information and stating the name was corrected because of a named source without stating the other editor in anyway is a blockable offense? WHL didn't refer to or comment about who made the edits, she just fixed the article which is the best thing to do for the project. Everyone is aware that the two editors are now editing 26 articles together. I believe this was one of the concerns that WHL brought up at the discussion about this sanction. If what WHL did is against the spirit of the sanctions then the comments made here are also against the spirit of the sanction. Please note this comment especially "She saw that there is an interaction ban between another editor and myself, ergo, she jumped on that bandwagon thinking it would solve what she sees as issues between the two of us so she can be free to edit articles as she wishes." This is an exact quote, I added the italics, taken from a response on the AN/I about another request to stop interactions with this same editor. I'm sorry, but I had to say something here because I find this is wrong and not at all good for this project. One editor makes a clear edit to an article that removes unsourced commentary and corrects an error in the name in the article which is seen in a proper ref. She then goes to the talk page and explains her reasons for her changes, only talking about edits not editors and she gets blocked. The other editor makes a long post at AN/I bringing up the ban not to interact with "another editor" and nothing happens. Where is the assuming good faith? You agree that there was an error and also agree that this editor did the proper thing and brought it to the talk page. I'm sorry but what am I missing here? --CrohnieGalTalk 22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see that SRQ violated the ban there. She just referred to the fact that she is under an interaction ban. The ban doesn't restrict the editors involved from announcing that they are under a ban. The problem with one correcting the other is that it's potentially the first step in starting a conflict. I don't see that SRQ's comment has that same potential. Equazcion(talk) 22:48, 20 Mar 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree that the edit had the potential to start another conflict. WHL made a correction with removing unsourced material and then corrected the name stating where the reference was that showed the proper name. How could a conflict be started when the reference showed that the correction was just that, a correction? Maybe SRQ should have read the reference prior to making her correction, anyone think of that? Oh well the block is almost over. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You're still basing the argument on whether the edit was proper, ie. sourced etc. That doesn't matter, and how "proper" (ie. whether it can be considered a "correction") is in the eyes of the beholder. User A "correcting" User B could lead to B "correcting" A back, and so forth. The fact that we agree, after the fact, that the edit was indeed a "correction" in this case doesn't really change the fact that one banned user was imposing their version over the other banned user's. The users should be discouraged from "correcting" each other thusly in the future. Interaction that might normally seem innocent for most editors may not necessarily be taken that way for pairs that set off easily. That's why they're interaction banned -- even under the best of circumstances, any interaction leads to conflict, so they're not allowed to interact at all anymore. Equazcion(talk) 15:43, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Equazcion's reasoning. It will be hard for interaction bans to work unless they are enforced in a mechanical manner that doesn't consider the value of the edit. Even though SRQ changed Lizzie Borden's first name to one that appears incorrect, Wilhartlivie was not allowed to fix it on their own, per the interaction ban. "Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards." WHL's action was clearly a revert of a change that SRQ had made, since they changed Lizzie Borden's name back to the original spelling. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for explaining, I understand. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back
Hi, just popping in to welcome you back. I hope you got a lot of reading and other RL things accomplished. ;) See you tomorrow I hope, at least I hope to be able to pop in. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Easy to explain. I cut and pasted the cast list for Mabel Normand for the sake of accessibility since it's quite superior to the one in the body of the article and I doubt that practically anyone goes into archived Discussions. By the way, I hope that your health issues have been happily resolved and that everything is going well for you. Wikichump (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Please
Don't clutter my talk page with nonsense. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No. Couldn't find the same info in English (I've been looking for it), so the foreign-language sources are acceptable, especially since they come from reliable media (which exist outside the United States, you know). If you happened to look at historical articles, you'll see that a lot of these use foreign-language sources. End of the story. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The CITE section you're quoting specifically says that non-English sources are acceptable, and Google Translate should be able to easily verify that the print references say what they're claimed to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ummm, Jean-Jacques Georges, do you plan on notifying WHL that you have reported her to the AN/I board here? "You must notify any user that you discuss." Doc9871 (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the CITE section I'm quoting quite clearly says "When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate." Do you direct the reader who wishes to verify the source to go to Google Translate to verify the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildhartlivie (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2010
While there appears to be no reason to remove the English language sources, neither is there a good reason to remove the foreign language ones. Yes you are both edit warring. Please stop. LadyofShalott 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
filmographies
If you don't want me editing filmographies as I see fit, respond to the open questions on the wt:actor page. Jack Merridew 04:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do not issue ultimatums to me. You agreed not to edit the table headings, and yet you did so, In fact, you used deceptive edit summaries to hide the fact that you were doing it. Basically, you are making pointy edits. I asked you to desist from posting to my talk page. More importantly, please stop posting to my talk page in order to elicit a disagreement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wildharlivie. I looked at the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:ACTOR#Filmography and am considering whether to make the effort to close it. I might do so if my participation enjoys both your support and that of Jack Meridew. You may be aware that, while the opinions expressed in that RfC lean in one direction, they don't do so by a large margin. It is not clear to me just what is at stake in the RfC. Can you give me the names of some articles where this dispute has come up before? Have any reports been made on noticeboards about it? If Jack Meridew agreed not to edit the table headings, where did he do so? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As I say at Jack Merridew's talk page editor's are still commenting about this. There are three more editor's who have commented since this request to close it. Jack is aware of two of them since he moved them. I think it should stay open as long as there are still editor's interested in commenting. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Black Dahlia
You seem to be pretty involved in the Black Dahlia article. I noticed a couple of references in that article to Air Force officers in 1945-46. Since the Air Force was created in 1947, I assume these gentlemen were either with the Army Air Corps or were fliers with the Navy. I have not done any independent research to know which, and so am not comfortable editing the article, but someone should, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey.weber (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look into it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
How to find consensus for the 3RR issue?
Hello Wildharlivie. I saw your comment; can you say what this is referring to? The complaint at the noticeboard, WP:AN3#User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: ), is about the Albert Fish article but I assume that the same dispute may have occurred elsewhere. That is, people are disagreeing about how much data is reasonable to put in a citation template. If there have been any RfCs or past attempts to sort this out, can you let me know? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter
The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Given by what you wrote in your edit summary...if that's your reasoning, I suggest you read the Activism article. What Charlize stated about not getting married until same-sex marriage is legalized should be enough to add her to that category. And like I said before, there is no consensus (or even a discussion) on any related talk page determining who should or should not be included in the category. Erpert(let's talk about it) 00:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Norma Shearer
Hi, we seem to have gone through a bit of a back and forth over the pictures on Norma Shearer's page. I think that the picture I had put there from Commons was of pretty decent quality, especially at the size it is in the article. You also said in your last edit that the main picture is sufficient. However it looks to me like the main picture does not show her face very well, whereas i feel that the picture from the marie antoinette trailer shows her face very well, particularly when smaller. I understand that the larger version is quite blurry, but the picture is not used at even one quarter of that size in the article, and in the article it appears pretty sharp. Finally, I think that having one picture makes an actor or actress seeem less important (to the average reader, it could look as though that is the only picture of her), while Shearer was one of the most famous actresses of her era. Thoughts? Givememoney17 (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but is it actually wikipedia policy that no image is better than a low quality one? If that is the case, there would be a lot of actor pages with only one image. So many actor pages have only low quality images, but ou can't easily tell because on the article they are generally no bigger than 250px. Anyway back to my original point, is it actually wikipedia policy (and if so please direct me to where as I would like to read it) that no image is better than a low quality one, or is that just something that this NYT article has suggested?Givememoney17 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Request
I noticed you blind-reverted the edits I made at Scarlett Johansson. One of several problems involved in this sort of thing, apart from the discourtesy it represents to another user, and the fact that it makes the article read more poorly, is that you restore errors into the text such as using "summer 2007" when seasons of the year are relative to which hemisphere you are in. I wonder if I could encourage you if this happens again to just change the edits you actually disagree with rather than blind-reverting like this. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
RE: Charlie Sheen edits and your concern thereof; if you want to add new info to an article in accepted Wiki style and know where to find a source for it, it is indeed sloppy editing to leave the responsibility to the next person who wants to take the step you were unwilling to take. This is not new nor news. Portia327 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
How rich that you take such offense then tell me *I* should be the one to assume good faith. I didn't say you were a sloppy editor, I said the editing was sloppy; don't get so worked up about something as impersonal as Wiki. We're clearly both here to make the same contribution and neither of us are vandals so calm down. I noticed you properly edited the article when you went back to it and it looks much better; well done. I consider this exchange over and will not respond to you again. Portia327 (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
WP:FILM Bronze Reel
This is to acknowledge and thank you for your participation in tagging and assessing 200 articles in WP:FILMS' Tag & Assess Drive 2009-2010. You have helped to ensure our project has a better idea of the articles under our scope. I appreciate your efforts in further helping the project! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:FILMS April Newsletter
The April 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts
Have a look at Brad Pitt. It is only selectively quoted. Many review summaries have no quotes. It passed WP:FA five weeks ago, so this is the current standard. I don't think that there is much difference between your style and that, but I am watching an active editor at this very moment trying to help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I am going to assume you are watching Scarlett now. Someone tagged a bunch of deadlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Gena Rowlands
I've been meaning to ask you about the info box on Gena Rowland's article. The spouse section seems awkward with the way the dates of her marriage to John Cassavettes is listed. I understand we want to make it plain that they were married until he died, but actually that is something that is explained within the article, so I was thinking we could delete "1954-1989, his death." Delete the, 'his death.' What do you think?Malke2010 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonathan Rhys Meyers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you did. Otherwise I would not have left the warning. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to have 3 reverts to be warned against making 4.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes that's true but the edits were to put the article back to what consensus says. Isn't that justifiable? --CrohnieGalTalk 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. That's what the talk page is for. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is a consensus about something then yes, editing the article back to the consensus version is correct. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Requesting your input
Hi, Wildhartlivie. Please come contribute your thoughts to a discussion at the Bonnie and ClydeTalk page. Thanks! -- LaNaranja (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of my talk page
My talk page is not a war zone. I'm not an admin. Please leave your disputes that don't involve me off my talk page. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree all three of them were uncalled for on your talk page. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Notice to anyone looking for Wildhartlivie
Hi, I have been requested to let everyone know that she is not available due to computer issues. She will return when these issues are resolved so please be patient if you need her. Hopefully she will be back real soon. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonathan Rhys Meyers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you did. Otherwise I would not have left the warning. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to have 3 reverts to be warned against making 4.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes that's true but the edits were to put the article back to what consensus says. Isn't that justifiable? --CrohnieGalTalk 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. That's what the talk page is for. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is a consensus about something then yes, editing the article back to the consensus version is correct. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Requesting your input
Hi, Wildhartlivie. Please come contribute your thoughts to a discussion at the Bonnie and ClydeTalk page. Thanks! -- LaNaranja (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate use of my talk page
My talk page is not a war zone. I'm not an admin. Please leave your disputes that don't involve me off my talk page. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree all three of them were uncalled for on your talk page. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Notice to anyone looking for Wildhartlivie
Hi, I have been requested to let everyone know that she is not available due to computer issues. She will return when these issues are resolved so please be patient if you need her. Hopefully she will be back real soon. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, though it doesn't seem to matter unfortunately. I don't think we are listened to there. We get drowned out. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and 
CheckUser is not a crystal ball. So when a checkuser says "
Confirmed" what is meant by that is that the data available suggests it is highly likely that the two accounts are related, and highly improbable that they are not related. Not certain, highly improbable. There is no certainty in this area. And to a certain extent it's an arms race, as we improve our methods and techniques for determining correlation, so too do clever sockmasters improve their methods and techniques for evading detection. So we often are circumspect about what exactly it is we found. (Security through obscurity never works in the long run, but sometimes it can at least postpone things).
![[11]](http://www.flowerstochennai.com/images/flowers/50white.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://www.sendflowerstomumbai.com/images/12PinkRoses.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_White.jpg){kind=link}
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonathan Rhys Meyers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)