User talk:Catgut/Archive1

August 2006
Please read Vandalism for a definition of vandalism. A n d r e a s   (T) 22:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Andreas! Thanks anyway, but I thought vandalism was the right term in case someone removes information from an article... How would you call it? --Catgut 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the edit was done in good faith and in an attempt to improve the article, I would not give it a special name. I suppose that in the present case the deletion of information was done with the intention to avoid infringing on N.K.'s privacy, a valid reason, not only according the the WP biography rules. Such a deletion might be interpreted as being hostile to the person who provided the information in the first place, but differences in opinion occur, the important thing is to deal with it in a civil manner.   A n d r e a s    (T) 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, check out the article on antihaitianismo and let me know if the changes are better now. EYDrevista 06:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Austrofascism


Out of curiosity, where did you get that information from?

What I added was roughly translated from the German-language article.

It seems credible to me, and I thoroughly enjoy being corrected when I've posted something inaccurate, I was just wondering if you had a particular source or if this just a topic you know about personally. Either way, I welcome further correction / edition.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear  (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for your kind words -- I appreciate it greatly.
 * Yes, I'd noticed a lot of things that looked problematic -- that's why I left out large passages from the last few sections I translated. It's my feeling that POV is condoned at a slightly higher threshold on the German-language Wikipedia.
 * However, I must say, despite having studied modern European history -- and fascist movements in particular --, my knowledge of Austrian history in particular is not what it should be. I'm very happy to see your additions to the article, as they've greatly improved some things I was very unsure about. It's nice to have someone who knows something about the topic look at it.
 * Cheers, and happy Wiki'ing! - User:Revolving Bugbear 17:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are not appropriate
The reason why i have been removing content from Macgregor State High School is due to the fact that the part i am removing is not sufficently sourced. Sure there is an article that suggests that a fight took part at the school but this article does not 100% confirm that it took place at the school or involved school students therefore the article is not a sufficent or notable source.

It is also appreciated that you explain the reason in the edit summary.

As a result i will be reverting your edit. Thank you

220.239.85.96 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please use the article's talk page. Thx. --Catgut 05:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for December has been published.  January's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Catgut (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

About Rollback
You're welcome, just remember it's for vandalism-reversion only. For more information on rollback, you may want to see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature if you haven't already. Good luck. Acalamari 22:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, well, I normally like to respond on both pages talk pages, unless someone else's talk page says where it's best for me to respond. :) I'm glad to see that you'll be using rollback for it's intended purpose. :) Regards. Acalamari 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 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 any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits without reason
It is not polite to do that. You should read about good faith edits. 24.85.132.54 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. Btw, do you really think Gemma Ward dated late actor Heath Ledger? I guess he was quite alive then. --Catgut (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Scarlett
It's a proven fact that she is sexy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness backs this up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.112.172 (talk • contribs) --Catgut (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sexy" is in my view not synonymous with "physical attractiveness". And it's quite possible that Johansson is physically attractive or, as you say, sexy. But this must be determined by others, an unsourced statement contradicts WP:NPOV. --Catgut (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse
As an editor involved in the recent content issue regarding this article, please see the talk page for discussion of the article and the events of the past 24 hours. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse
As a regular contributor to the Amy Winehouse article, you are invited to join the editing process of the article's personal life and controversy sections, temporarily located here. For discussion on recent issues, go here. For current discussions, go here.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Norman Bettison
Sir Norman Bettison - Reverted Back to Official Neutral Version This page has once again been changed back to the official version endorsed by Sir Norman Bettison. I am requesting that this page is now "locked down" to prevent further unauthorised malicious alterations which compromise Wikipedia's own policies on Living Person Biographies. Biographies should be factural and neutral, not drawing on negative and tabloid assertions. We have now fully complied with the Moderator's requests to provide a factually, objective version, instead of the official CV initially lifted from the West Yorkshire Police website. Again, we appeal to the Moderator to allow this version to remain as the official version, and further proof of the validity of this claim can be provided on request. Thank you for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webteam3 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Norman_Bettison" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webteam3 (talk • contribs) 05:54, February 26, 2008

Priority assessments
The criteria is the same for actors, directors and producers. At the moment, User:Rossrs and I have been debating who belongs on the top priority list, which is still ongoing. If you want to propose Leone (or anyone else for that matter), drop by this page. I've had a bear of a time sorting the other parts out, so if you would, just leave your comments and suggestions at the bottom. Thanks!

By the way, as you can see, the Amy Winehouse page has settled down, but for my migraines and blood pressure, I doubt I'll be doing much on it anymore. There were far too many admin games and reluctance to weigh in fairly for my taste. The person who started the uproar is a former administrator, and I noted he was multiply admonished over the weekend about other behavior but no one seemed prone to dealing with it as it would have been had he not been a former adminstrator whom they knew. The double standard really bothered me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved the discussion to a subpage of my userspace because we realized the discussion was probably going to be quite involved, and we wanted to have the freedom to say what we wanted without having to be quite so formal as one would be on an article talk page, plus we were free to make tongue in cheek comments. Bear in mind that one or two of the suggestions are jokes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you are unsatisfied with some of the choices that were made. We opened the door for comment over a week ago, and I asked you specifically two days ago. It is unfair to charge that the list is primarily Hollywood and that we've ignored the rest of the world, especially given that between the onpage discussion and feedback I received through e-mail, decisions were made multi-continental (US, Australia, France and the UK).

The criteria for top priority names is: ''Core topics about actors and filmmakers. Generally, these are people who are extremely notable to the common person. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members.''

The criteria for high priority names is: ''Actors and filmmakers who are well-known in the film industry, to film buffs, and others. These people can reasonably be expected to be included in any print encyclopedia.''

Names were drawn from the already existing top priority list, AFI and other top 100 lists, and several other lists and compilations that are located both on Wikipedia and on the net. A lot of factors were discussed, and choices had to be made regarding the relative importance of different groups, the effect the person may have had in the early development of filmmaking and the process that created films, innovations that were contributed, and sometimes considering the longevity of a career, perhaps awards won and over how long a period, be it actor/actress, director, producer, the medium worked in and the overall contribution each made in his/her own discipline, in the past, today, and also, for past accomplishments, whose influence and contributions still are felt today. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with every person on the list, which is why it, like most things on Wikipedia, was a consensus-driven process. Also, the discussion at the time was not to determine who was on the high priority list, only the top priority list. I had personal favorites I'd like to have seen on the list that didn't make it, as did others.

Regarding non-Americans on the list, including Ingmar Bergman who was already on the list, some include Ingrid Bergman, Charlie Chaplin, Cate Blanchett, Sean Connery, Judi Dench, Marlene Dietrich, Federico Fellini, Greta Garbo, Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, Vivien Leigh, Ernst Lubitsch, Béla Lugosi, Helen Mirren, Laurence Olivier, Maggie Smith, etc. etc.

One of the factors considered was who was already on the top priority list from prior consensus, and only a few were removed, due to decreasing prominence. Thus, the list as it already existed included all of the following (with the names consensus determined to be removed crossed out):

Michelangelo Antonioni Fred Astaire Richard Attenborough Lucille Ball Ingmar Bergman Humphrey Bogart Marlon Brando James Cagney John Carpenter Charlie Chaplin Joan Crawford Bing Crosby George Cukor James Dean

Cecil B. DeMille Walt Disney Henry Fonda John Ford Clark Gable Greta Garbo Judy Garland Katharine Hepburn Alfred Hitchcock Akira Kurosawa Bruce Lee Joseph L. Mankiewicz Marx Brothers Marilyn Monroe

Jack Nicholson Laurence Olivier Aishwarya Rai Amália Rodrigues John F. Seitz David O. Selznick James Stewart (actor) Elizabeth Taylor Spencer Tracy Andy Warhol John Wayne Orson Welles Mae West Billy Wilder

The list doesn't have to stop at 100 names, that just happened to be how many names were on the list when we had finished discussion, and I'm quite certain Rossrs would be happy to discuss other names. In any case, the other primary person who was involved in developing the names for consideration is gone for the weekend and so any discussion regarding other suggestions will have to wait until he returns the first of the week. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note in passing for you to consider. One of the most salient points regarding top priority assessed actors and filmmakers is that, as you sort of emphasize, this is the English Wikipedia. It is probably beyond the scope of any given project to be so comprehensive as to cover every aspect of its subject in every country/language/culture. It is natural that a project will predominantly reflect what is representative of its subject matter as it applies to the language and location in which it appears. There are Wikipedia versions in a large variety of languages (see List of Wikipedias and multilingual portal).


 * Rightly or wrongly, any of the various language Wikipedias will favor articles, people, and issues that are most germane to users who speak and use that version. Thusly, contributors who primarily, or perhaps only, speak English may look at a list containing names such as Heinz Rühmann, Toshiro Mifune, or Sharukh Khan and say "Who?" Who is notable or famous in time and space is frequently going to be specific to location. That can't be helped. So yes, by virtue of where it exists, those assessed as the greatest priority is going to reflect English language filmmaking and what is top priority to its users.


 * Just offering food for thought. I don't think anyone is upset, angry or insulted by your comments. The attempt to assess articles in regard to this specific project is to reflect whose work had the greatest influence or effect to those who predominantly use that version of Wikipedia. A billion Chinese may not know who anyone is on the list that is generated, but then the rest of the world may well not know who is of the greatest priority there. I wouldn't presume to second guess decisions of a project for the Chinese Wikipedia regarding what is higher priority to them. The assessments aren't meant to be a list of the greatest filmmakers and actors in the world, they are meant to reflect those articles which are top priority as it pertains to this specific project on this specific Wikipedia. That may sound like "hair-splitting." One point to consider is that assigning top priority to a given article is to say that the article in question is important in regard to making improvements and pushing it up in article quality assessment, on the way to featured article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll also post this on Wildhartlivie's page. Firstly, Catgut, I welcome your comments and hope you always feel free to offer them.   I think that this list is always going to be subjective, and only open discussion is going to provide the best result.   I think Wildhartlivie makes a very valid point in addressing the limitations and "key audience" of this project, which is the English speaking world.   Going back to the definition/criteria for inclusion : Core topics about actors and filmmakers. "Generally, these are people who are extremely notable to the common person. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members".  I think 100 is just an arbitrary number, and I think we should agree that it should be viewed as a guide rather than a rule.   The most important point is "extremely notable to the common person" and in this project the "common" person is someone who predominently speaks English, and it would follow that the interests and backgrounds of the great majority of these people would be related to the culture of English-speaking countries in whatever field they happen to be looking, whether it's music, literature or cinema.   I would expect that the average Chinese cinema-goer would be unfamiliar with almost every name on the current list, but if you were to go to Chinese Wikipedia you would rightly see that their articles are skewed with a Chinese perspective.   I don't think that adding names that are best known within their own non-English language industries would balance this list.   I think it would actually "unbalance" it by adding a number of names that are unfamiliar to the people who most often use these pages, and whose culture is supposed to be reflected in the ratings given.   Someone such as Sharukh Khan, to choose one name at random, is undeniably a significant figure but from the point of view of English language Wikipedia, and the English language experience of most of its readers, would have much less relevance.  I agree that this requires further discussion, and certainly individual names should be discussed, but I think to provide a completely balanced world-view would be beyond the scope of this project.  I would also like to echo another of Wildhartlivie's comments : one of the main results of tagging these articles should be that they are spotlighted by the community at large, as articles that merit elevation to good or featured standard.  It's saying "these articles need to be fixed first" rather than "these individuals made more startling contributions to world cinema than anyone else", although notability and influence are crucial to identifying the subjects. Rossrs (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)