User talk:Downtownstar

ЈWelcome!

Hello, Downtownstar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! karmafist 12:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Bacall images[edit]

In case you are interested, if you have any Lauren Bacall DVDs from before 1964 that have trailers, the trailers are pd and screenshots from them can be inserted into commons and used in the infobox. --PhantomS 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna article[edit]

Hi there, thanks for all your hard work on the Madonna article. I am having issues with user "Israell", especially over the "Confessions Tour" blurb in the opening sentence. I do not feel this is pertinent to a quick overview of her life but he seems to feel it is necessary, whereas I feel, like I said, it isn't and is shallow info and fan glorification. Could u please add your two cents? Thanks! PatrickJ83 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say except that I agree with you. And you're definately not the only one having issues with Israell. By the way, I hope my edits stay for the time being. The article runs waaay too long as it is and there's a whole lot of unnecessary POV there. Oh, and thank YOU for having some sense.--Downtownstar 00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do about that "Queen of Pop" rubbish. You remove, I remove it, Patrick removes it and we all discuss it, but next time I look it's right back there. At least Israell will discuss his opinion, and I respect his sincerity, but these anonymous IP edits are a bit too much like a drive by shooting. I wonder if it should be semi-protected. If people don't care enough about Wikipedia to actually take a moment to register, I don't think they deserve the right to hijack situations like this. What do you think? I used to edit the Madonna article quite a bit but I took it off my watchlist for months because the craziness started getting too much, now that I've put it back on my watchlist I notice that the craziness has not changed. Rossrs 13:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm all for semi-protecting the article for now. Not just because of the Queen of Pop thing but to tone down the recent hoopla a bit. If that doesn't solve the problem, I guess the only way is to put it up for voting, which is ridiculous but necessary in situations like this.--Downtownstar 16:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bloodalley.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bloodalley.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Please note the manual of style for biographies under the section for Pseudonyms, stage names and common names states that "For people who are best known by a pseudonym,, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym." There are numerous examples where this is followed (see Anna Nicole Smith, Doris Day, Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) and Carmen Electra). Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Thanks. Yankees76 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blanking sections of Marilyn Monroe. This can be construed as vandalism. If you disagree, discuss the issue on the Talk page. Wjhonson 17:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Misfits movie poster.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Misfits movie poster.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna[edit]

I did not add QOP on top. Just wouldn't revert it as I'm not into revert wars. As for the numerals, there was no problem with them -even though not necessary-; Michael Jackson and Shania Twain's articles does mention them. Israell 13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but just because some other articles mention something doesn't mean it's

the right policy. There are way too many numerals in the Madonna introduction, seeing

as these figures are mentioned in the article itself anyway.--Downtownstar 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonyms[edit]

Something about the Marilyn Monroe comment. When legally changed, a name is no longer a stage name or a pseudonym. It becomes the person's true, real or legal name. I noticed that different styles are used throughout the article.

I think that the legal name should be put first, like in Marilyn Monroe and Courtney Love's articles. Marilyn Monroe is her legal name, just like Courtney Michelle Love is her legal name.

Eilleen Regina Lange is Shania Twain's legal name. Maybe it should be put on top of her article? The problem with Wikipedia is that changes are often reverted, which causes inconsistencies. Israell 14:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got it. You're absolutely right, except for the fact that you misspelled

Shania's name. As for the reverts, they can always be re-reverted - it's just a

click away.--Downtownstar 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it right, Eilleen Regina Lange. http://shania.rackhost.net/bmi.htm Israell 19:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. So sorry!--Downtownstar 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson[edit]

Seems like there is a KOP battle there. lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson Israell 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: MMONROE1.jpg[edit]

Although the earrings she is wearing were used in "How to Marry a Millionaire" we cannot vouch the reason of the shot was as a publicity still shot. Most such shots at that time with few exceptions were shot in black and white. It comes from a set shoot where she is wearing a variety of outfits and more likely was shot for a magazine cover and we doubdt it was ever used. I will have to see if there are any dates on the chromes.--PersonalityPhotos 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bloodalleyposter.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bloodalleyposter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Designing woman.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Designing woman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn[edit]

Hello, why did you remove what I wrote. The citation is from Britannica. It is an important citation, so please do not remove it.--Octavian history (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Downtownstar, there is a citation (Encyclpoedica Britannia) and I think most people in the world would agree that she was the most famous female movie star of the 20th century. I think the sentence that you took out and I added back in explains her fame a lot more than just "a measure of success". Just "a measure of success" in not accurate in my opinion and has no wiki citation.--Octavian history (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downtownstar, I have noticed you always remove most of what I write on the Marilyn Monroe page. I do not appreciate this and do not wish to have a war with you, but try to control yourself before it gets ugly. I try to stay away from your posts, and I strongly suggest you do the same!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavian history (talk • contribs) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have consistently explained my edits and my reasoning makes sense. Please refer to Wikipedia guidelines in order to justify your edits. This site cannot be improved by simply removing other people's edits with no explanations or references. It isn't personal.--Downtownstar (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Hi, I don't understand some of your edits, with the edit summary "NPOV". I appreciate that you've improved on the grammar and readability in some areas, and have fixed some errors (Ladies of the Chorus, Betty Grable etc) but I don't understand how describing Gentlemen Prefer Blondes as a "breakthrough" is against NPOV when it's part of a discussion of her growing career which is demonstrated by the sections that follow, it's sourced, and it's followed up by statistics all in support of it. If we're both contributing to the same article, it's going to be beneficial to the process if we have some understanding. Can you let me know why you feel this (as an example because there are others) does not comply with NPOV. I think it complies, and I think it's gives a degree of depth and context to the article. Also the bit about her not wanting to play another "dumb blonde" in "Millionaire" and needing to be convinced. I don't see that as a NPOV problem, but I'd like to understand your opinion. thanks Rossrs (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also about Betty Grable... it's interesting that she has top billing, and yes my edit was clearly incorrect. Have you noticed the original poster shows the three women from left to right: Grable, Monroe and Bacall, but the names are listed Monroe, Grable and Bacall? I wonder if that's where the source I was referring to got it wrong. This is just an aside because I find it interesting - I can't think of another example of the film billing being different to the film's poster billing (except obviously in DVD re-releases where it's much more common). Rossrs (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe and uncredited extra work (IMDb sourcing)[edit]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Marilyn Monroe about this issue here and thought you would like to participate. Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lauren Bacall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North West Frontier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lauren Bacall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ocean Parkway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Downtownstar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Downtownstar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Downtownstar. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Downtownstar. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]