User talk:ArielS

At Requests for comment/Media, art and literature, I suggest you read the peach-colored instruction box at the top careful and fix your entry or it will probably be removed or ignored. Use the existing entries as examples. &brvbar; Reisio 10:22, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:ST 30s-11.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ST 30s-11.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use or fairuse. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. -- SCEhard T 01:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:KH_40s-10.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KH_40s-10.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:St_40s-6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:St_40s-6.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 07:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:ST_40s-6.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ST_40s-6.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy
Why did you remove the References section of the Spencer Tracy article? — Walloon 05:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you again remove the References section of the Spencer Tracy article? — Walloon 12:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you again remove the References section of the Spencer Tracy article? — Walloon 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn
Why do you keep removing the Oscar boxes? Gareth E Kegg 08:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain your unexplained and systematic removal of infoboxes, reference sections, and other information from the articles for Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy? According to your exit history this has been quietly going on for months. Regards. 72.131.44.247 23:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

ArielS 06:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC) The Oscar boxes have been removed because they are pointless clutter. They have nothing to do with Hepburn and don't belong in her Wikipedia entry.

I omitted the reference to William Mann's book because it is trash. Hepburn wasn't a lesbian and putting it in her Wikipedia article is offensive.

The "references" I object to mainly is the one that keeps popping up about Tracy's religion not being the reason he didn't get a divorce. You don't know that at all. The comment is totally speculative.

Why don't you leave these two entries alone. You've added nothing useful to them.

Ariel S.


 * Many other biographical profiles of Tracey have claimed that Tracey did not divorce because he was Catholic, erroneously assuming that his wife was Catholic and/or that they married in the Catholic Church. But it is fact, not speculation, that Spencer Tracey would not have violated Catholic Church law if he had divorced, and I supply an authoritative source for that. It is also fact that his wife was not Catholic and that they did not marry in the Catholic Church. You also deleted the other two reference notes I gave, one sourcing the list of the high schools Tracey attended with a very good article about his Wisconsin years.


 * Regarding the Hepburn article, you write, "Hepburn wasn't a lesbian." You don't know that. The comment is totally speculative. — Walloon 07:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ArielS 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about Tracy and his divorce doesn't make any sense. The issue is whether his understanding of his religion affected his decision whether or not to divorce his wife. It doesn't matter whether you think he wouldn't have violated church law if he had divorced Louise. You don't know if that was his view on the matter. You are jumping to the conclusion that since YOU think he wouldn't have violated church law, that he thought he wouldn't have and therefore he didn't get a divorce for some other reason. There is absolutely no evidence for that conclusion.

With regard to Hepburn's sexuality, she stated several times that she wasn't a lesbian. There is absolutely no reason to include the opinion of a sleazy celebrity biographer like Mann. His book is trash.

Why don't you stay away from the Hepburn and Tracy Wikipedia entries.


 * Given that the publication date of the book is October 3, two days from now, you obviously cannot have read the book, although you seem to be pretending that you have. Far from being called trash, William J. Mann's book has gotten very good reviews. Publishers Weekly said: "This will surely be the definitive version of Hepburn's life for decades to come, as it is an outstanding example of painstaking research matched with splendid writing." Booklist said: "Mann has done his homework, digging up sources who have never before spoken, finding new facts . . . . Rich and vivid, this will garner great attention — and deservedly so." Kirkus Reviews called it an "engaging, comprehensive biography. . . . Tapping into a wellspring of sources, the author has managed to reanimate with great skill and dexterity this shrewd, sophisticated woman." Library Journal said it was "well researched and written." So, your opinion that it is "trash" is a minority view. The majority view, by people who read a lot of biographies, is that the book is serious and well-researched.


 * Pulitzer Prize-winning author A. Scott Berg, who knew Hepburn well, also gave information in his biography suggesting Hepburn was bisexual. See also biographies by Darwin Porter and Anne Edwards, which suggest the same.


 * Why don't you stay away from the Hepburn and Tracey Wikipedia articles. — Walloon 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ArielS 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Berg didn't suggest that Hepburn was gay. And you would seriously cite Darwin Porter and Anne Edwards as sources for Hepburn's sexual orientation? Do you think they know more about her sex life than she did? Let me guess. You're gay, right? Just because you are doesn't mean that everyone else is. And, by the way, his name was Tracy not Tracey. That's the problem with Wikipedia. People like you with an agenda try to use it for as a platform for your crap.


 * I am a journalist and former book editor. I also grew up in Milwaukee and attended the same high school as Spencer Tracy. The Tracy and Hepburn articles are only two of several hundred that I have edited at Wikipedia, and my "agenda" is accuracy. Actors and other celebrities never lie about their sexual orientations? See pp. 266-267 of Berg's biography, Kate Remembered, in which he refers to Irene Mayer Selznick, who was Hepburn's close friend from the 1930s until her death:
 * During her last visit to East Forty-Ninth Street, Irene discovered a young woman she did not know who had been staying there. At one moment her eagle-eyes had witnessed an exchange between the two of them that suggested a level of intimacy she had never allowed herself to believe. "Now everything made sense," Irene said to me. "Dorothy Arzner, Nancy Hamilton — all those women. Laura Harding [with whom Hepburn lived in the 1930s]. Now it all makes sense. A double-gater. I never believed that relationship with Spence was about sex."


 * "Irene, I think you might be getting carried away," I said. "I sure get the feeling that Spencer Tracy was a pretty sexual animal. and they wouldn't have lasted that long if sex wasn't involved."


 * "In the beginning," she said. "But you can't drink as much as Spence did and maintain a relationship based on sex."


 * "But like most great relationships," I suggested, "shouldn't it become about something more?"


 * Irene granted that was the case with Hepburn and Tracy; but she was disturbed by her new understanding of Kate's sexual nature. '"Irene," I said, "you don't know what goes on with all these women. I mean, Kate herself says, 'Nobody really knows what goes on between two people when they're alone.'"


 * "That's my point," Irene replied. "You're too young to have known all those other women, those single women. I knew them. I knew who they were."


 * If four different biographers, working independently, find evidence that their subject may have been bisexual, it is worth noting. And it would be hypocritical here to omit such information when the article here has no problem with mentioning her affairs with men. — Walloon 19:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ArielS 21:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC) These writers are all just hack celebrity biographers who wait until this or that star is dead to write all sorts of rubbish about them because they know that dead people or their estates cannot sue for libel. Are you incapable of distinguishing crap from quality? The reason I have no problem with mentioning her affairs with men is because SHE said she had these affairs with men. She, in fact, stated she never had a lesbian relationship with any woman. It's irresponsible to include such allegations. Why should we believe these writers over what KH herself said? Why put malicious gossip in this article?

By the way, you are taking Selznick's comment out of context. At the time she was upset with KH and they were becoming estranged. Berg should have never included her comments in his book but having done it, it's clear that she was just bitter. Also, incidentally, Selznick is one of the people that KH was supposed to be having a lesbian affair with. Obviously, Irene didn't acknowledge that she was.

I ask again. Are you gay? Is claiming that every old Hollywood star was gay your agenda?

ArielS 17:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a quest for mediation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/

Edits to Katharine Hepburn
ArielS - you obviously have an interest in Hepburn and Tracy, but your edits are naturally going to cause concern among other editors. It is generally considered bad form to remove large swathes of text without discussion or explanation. It is one of several types of behaviour that is often interpreted as vandalism. It's the unexplained nature of your edits that causes concern, more than the edits themselves, as evidenced by the edit summaries used by the people who have reverted you - "reverting unexplained edits" etc. If you feel strongly, as you obviously do, that much of the information is not appropriate, the course of action to most likely achieve the result you desire is to discuss it at Talk:Katharine Hepburn. It's also helpful to use edit summaries, so that other users don't have to rely upon their psychic abilities to understand your edits. Something as simple as "removing incorrect information" would be better than nothing, although this would only be suitable for minor edits - not for removing large amounts of text. As it is, you must surely feel like you're hitting your head against a brick wall, because every time you make an edit, someone reverts it. Well, the fact is that this will continue to happen and whatever good you may have contributed to the article/s, will not eventuate. If you take the time to discuss these issues, you will find that some people will react favourably and some won't. You will perhaps win some "points", although you will never win all, but at least you will have a chance of influencing the outcome. At the moment, your edits to the Katharine Hepburn article are amounting to nothing because they're being reverted as quickly as you make them. You know all this of course, because you were using the talk page in August 2005, but lately you've been content to just edit war over it, and getting nowhere, of course. Rossrs 09:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ArielS 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've explained why these items should be omitted. These boneheads keep putting their garbage back in. Why not keep them from doing it?


 * Because nobody is equating your unexplained edits of September/October 2006 to your comments on the talk page of August 2005. Whether or not you are a vandal is beside the point : the problem is you look like one, and you're acting like one. I  can't understand why you keep using the same tactic when it's so obviously not working. Rossrs 10:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, have explained how you might approach this, and have attempted to demonstrate this on both the article and talk pages for Katharine Hepburn. You are being disruptive and I am now asking that you stop. Rossrs 11:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ArielS 16:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are but why don't you block the people who are posting unfounded claims about Hepburn's sexuality. Is this a tabloid or supposedly an informative database of general information?


 * You don't need to know who I am, but you need to make yourself aware of Wikipedia's policies and abide by them. Please read Three-revert rule.  You have broken this rule.  On October 2, you reverted edits to Katharine Hepburn 5 times.    You might also read Verifiability - nobody is claiming outright that Hepburn was a lesbian.  All they have done is state that a biographer has alleged her to have been.  I don't particularly like it either, but under Wikipedia's rules it is acceptable because it has been published, and the publication has been cited.   This is not the only information you have been removing, however.  You are expected to work within Wikipedia's policies - even the ones that you don't like.  Both of the pages I have suggested you read, are "official policy".  Rossrs 21:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)