User talk:Eggs Aldo

Welcome!

 * }

Adding references
Hello Eggs,

I'm sorry I don't have much time at the moment but hopefully I can get you started with the referencing.

Firstly you need to click on edit at the top of this section so you can read what I have typed because that is different to what is showing at the moment.

To add a reference from a website, you need to type the following at the end of the sentence you are referencing:

So referencing the following sentence is done thus: 'Christchurch is a popular tourist destination, with one-and-a-half-million annual visitors'.

At the end of the article you need to type this:

The references you have used will appear automatically beneath.--Ykraps (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting help
You can get help with anything by:


 * Putting on your talk page, and ask your question - remember to create a new section and 'sign' your name by putting ~ at the end;


 * Talk live, with this or this.

Also you might like to consider getting adopted until you become more familiar with how things work. Click here to find out how.--Ykraps (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Good day Ykraps,

Thanks yet again for your reply and assistance. I've selected a profile from the Adopt page and await reply from them. I hope that in time, with help from an adopter that I will pick-up the ball here on Wikipedia, get my head around all the reading and referencing and sort out the issues that plague me currently!

Cheers and thanks again, as ever,

--Eggs Aldo (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike?

As much as I appreciate your feedback Mr. Orangemike, and I have agreed with your observations largely on the structure of my entry on my subject Peter Jarrette, I think the reference to abusing class A's is going slightly far as the persons you suggest this being done with would very much be offended, now and in the past. The subject matter may be of little or no interest to you and that I can understand but as a new editor trying to do as best a job as I can given my limited familiarity with the set-up of Wikipedia I can't help but feel slightly attacked for my efforts and writing style. Still, that said thank you so much for assisting me in asking for more direct help with my efforts.

Best,

--Eggs Aldo (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I fear that the subject matter as you have presented it is of a nature so alien to anything I find simpatico that my reactions are likely to be excessively blunt and candid. The subject of the article may be a decent human being; but you portray him as surrounded by the vilest and most despicable parasites of human society, and portray this setting as if it should be somehow seductive and noteworthy because the coprolites are gilded and mounted in 22k gold. Take a look at the articles about Gore Vidal or Tom Wolfe or Vidal Sassoon or Truman Capote or Andy Warhol, to give yourself a better picture of the tone we expect in a Wikipedia article. (And the idea of offending an A-list celebrity [I am hypothesing that this is what you mean by "abusing class A's"] certainly fails to fill me with trepidation.) I apologize if I have insulted you in the course of my criticisms of your writing; such was not my intent. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike?

I've been through a re edit as suggested. The class A reference is about the "who cares about the coke he snorted in the crapper with the grandson of...." comment you left for me somewhere. Class A drugs not A-list celebrity. In my description of a time and place that existed as the subject found his way into his role as an artist and social person I was in no way trying to defame the persons/names mentioned (now removed). There were positive events that occurred in that very mix of names you so dismiss as vilest of the vile or what have you. Careers, some very memorable ones and deeds, some very desirable ones took place in NYC in those days and I find it so dark that you could speak to candidly and directly of times, names and places that you say in the same breath that you know nothing about and describe as alien to you. Very queer fruit indeed. However this is your opinion and I must regard it as such. Thank you again for the directives to the site, profiles, pages that you have supplied for my review and study and certainly I will continue to follow your advice but please...I am new here and already I feel quite uncomfortable and somewhat intimidated by some responses I am receiving. Having said that I have also had some more warm and nurturing responses form your peers. My subject is a good person and always was such was his onwards path of achievements based mainly on his person skills in getting his talents seen and credited(now called into question by another of your peers as decades old pages/interviews with him from various cites/countries do not seem to be easily found online by the hit of a key at a website as I've been informed). Wow. I wonder if this Wikipedia site is the kindest forum in which to represent all people from all walks of life no matter how alien and vile the some of the site's editors find them for whatever reason known to the individual? I'm sure you will let me know in a direct tone where to go next?

--Eggs Aldo (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)--Eggs Aldo (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike?

Is that you cleaning up the sections as you go? Thank you for this and well done. I have left a note with QwerpQuertus regarding fixing my dual nationality details for Jarrette. It still somewhat incorrect. So sorry to harp on.

Best,

--Eggs Aldo (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, of course; I'm not hostile to you, only to the tone of the article, and to the crowd he is described as hanging out with. (Studio 54 is still a byword for decadence, degeneracy and conspicuous consumption by the parasitic classes and their toadies, all these long years after the place shut down.)
 * Your style is the killer here. Gossip-mag gush, society-column brownnosing and red-carpet-interview blather is never going to fly here; and that's true of all of the editors in this project, from the most flamboyant self-described queens to a boring old hippie/Quaker like myself. Praise not backed by clear statements in boring old matter-of-fact publications has to go. If a fact cannot be attested, it doesn't belong in the article. If a name is ambiguous, it needs to be disambiguated. If a reference is unclear, it needs to be clarified or deleted. If something "everybody who is anybody" knows cannot be verified by sober references to reliable sources, it should be excised forthwith. Have you read any of the references we've been trying to get you to look at? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've read Joel Resnicoff and those entries of folks I do know so far to be honest. I can more clearer see the straight tone you refer to in these profiles. So whatever changes you feel be needed I can but wait and see. I've been trying, probably quite kak handed to insert refernces for Jarrette's affiliations. There are some that i cannot get details for such as the Talent Plus i know he was signed to in the dark ages and their affilaition at the time to NYC fords but there is nothing showing there that can truly be used as a citation i'm afraid. What say you I do? Also I tried to edit in the backroung box with links for Queen's Royal College (it's there on Wikipedia and also St. Anthony's College-I called it "Boy's"...incorrectly. I'm not 100% sure of the names of these places so excuse if it makes more work for you and whomsoever is assisting with this...is that QwerpQwertus? I'm trying too to get details on his Grandad. Once I do how do i edit them in if the box won't allow? Also i see that once a thing is referenced once you tend not to do it again, even if the name etc is repeated for any reason. Perhpas i'm making more work for the edit here by filling in things?

--Eggs Aldo (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can't verify it, it goes. If you can't document the grand-dad's rep, that goes. If you can't verify his work as a model, it goes.
 * If it doesn't matter, it goes. Even if you could document that Bill Clinton bought his art, so what? Notability is not contagious; you don't "catch" it by selling to or hanging out with notable people. A lot of what is cluttering up this article and making it harder to figure out in what manner he is alleged notable, is the line after line of undue emphasis on the unimportant. At times, you come dangerously close to a fangirl tone: OMG! He wears hats and bleaches his hair! He's just so... kooooolll! (I know that's a bit catty, but the gush is there.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And when a wikilink is correct (i.e., it shows as blue rather than red; I've had to create three new articles so far just trying to help with this article), we don't wikilink again for the duration of the article, to avoid what is sometimes called the "sea of blue" effect. -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. Hold on for the granddad thing as I have to trawl time zones and Jarrette's relatives to get the details and I think the subject will appreciate the inclusion. Clinton, well he Jarrette won't care really. Take out what ever you feel is cluttering and let's see the bones of it. Please also remember that I am building this too, although I imagine you will say so what, because of details I have yet to bring forward. There are TV appearances here, a pop single and publications of more novels pending. The sea of blue thing I will look at but don't expect me to understand. I'm well thick when it comes to the simplest of jargons as you must now realise. However, if one cannot verify things like Sir Norman Parkinson through a link (we can once we get ahold of Jarrette's press clippings from that era etc) will that too be left out? How does one, in the end, enter subjects from the distant past...unless they sunk the Titanic and they were named after and or pictured on the iceberg...if you get my drift? I must say, this process is difficult for a reason, no? Funny, there seems still to be more milage in generic gossip mag forms of exposure (hard in your hands or eyes or ears formats) to place and keep people where they can do the most good with their relative importance or capabilities. May I ask Orangemike, am I wasting your and my time with this well intended exercise? I have read some entries of individuals who have not changed the lives of anyone or made a mark beyond their similar works in art etc from Jarrette's time who have long since died of some topical disease of the early 80's. Also missing from this site is a huge swathe of established and yet to uber function people who have a large life experience and world overlook. Somehow this site seems unbalanced and incomplete. So it's down to those who know its here and reckon on its own relevance, no? I'll wait for your feedback and I'm sure you've got priorities way ahead of my scant attemtps. I am disillusioned but still would like to see this to its obvious end. Thanks still. Manners will always out...as Jarrette would say. Imagine.

--Eggs Aldo (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

--Eggs Aldo (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike,

I have found out more about the people that Jarrette circulated with and also his Grandfather. As for his grandfather He was appointed Head of the Port of Spain General Hospital and in base department was Radiology. He was highly respected with the family's "servants" of the day adopting his surname "Jarrette" with his permission. I have rerad some of the profiles you listed and see that birth and death dates are included in some. Shall I try to secure these. Jarrette's grandparent and parents and their peers were the considered "socialites" of the city and his great uncle Andrew Carr, whom Jarrette knew well has a book now released in part by the government there on his works both social and quasi political. Jarrette also knew Warhol socially and professionally when Warhol and several of his peers including the artist Antonio (Bloomingdales) who Jarrette admired reviewed and directed Jarrette's style and application of his illustrations. Again, there are tear sheets of his works from listed publications to load as images. Now, as for the name dropping....Jarrette worked with some of these persons or had work bought by these persons which directly benefited his career in the US amongst private collectors. The Esquire Art director, Jean Paul Goode, who created the image of his partner Grace Jones also worked with Peter in developing a series of illustrations called Amazing Grace and one set based on Tina Chow the wife of Restaurantuer Mr. Chow (LA, NYC, Lon). I was thinking again of your opinion of Studio 54 and that is fine for you to hold but by the same token, except more widely held and even more dangerously current is world opinion on the evils of America and Americans, both at home and in their foreign policy. Sensitive issues that are best kept to one's self in a emotionally fluid world and for my sensibilities I would prefer, ask, if you did not keep stating these opinions when working with, helping me as you see, my mother was a famous model turned actress who herself was a cornerstone of the Studio 54 Days. Your comments, although not intended as you say as insults, are extremely insulting to me. Did you think for a moment that as I am an admirer of Jarrette that your words, even if only aimed at the "tone" of my article might hurt me? It is a common opinion in the USA that some ethnic groups are lesser contributors to the good of society than others or greater as the case may be but spouting these opinions are offensive at the very least and can ignite great emotion and do great harm. As you suggest, Studio was always a den of eniquity and still is considered so. So what? Opinions. Usually outside of your own social circles strong and damning opinions are best kept to oneself.

I have also asked for Jarrette's dual nationality to be stated clearly. Citizen of Trinidad and Tobago (please include both it is a dual island nation) and the United Kingdom. His residencies, if really need be included in the outset should read, 1. Canada 2. USA 3. Sweden

Jarrette was signed to Talent Plus and I would care to keep that in the body of the article and Ford may be dropped as discussed earlier if you deem it so. Jarrette also modelled for the designer Scott Barrie, as runway escort for Barrie's girl models, in Trinidad with his cousin Miss Trinidad Alicia Sealy, on greeting cards in NYC for Nobleworks....he was also headhunted for his designs by the companies founder Christopher Noble...and he modelled in Sweden for the Afton Bladet title, Ung. Jarrette also did promotional modelling in the UK for a company I have yet to source. Trust all these things can be added by me shortly?

Jarrette was also the youngest Trindadian, at that time to have had worldwide circulation of the children's books referred to in the article. There was a feature on him too as up and coming author/illustrator at the time in NYC's Hit Parade. It was that magazine that Jarrette often brought to the attention as a representative to interview subjects like Minnelli and the scores of celebs he met with so his hobnobbing was actually work you see. I understand your point about being friends with someone does not make you notable but if he has been recognised over the years for his achievemnets, fast and furious in his late teens (alot of this started when he was 16) then surely he is notable enough for his inclusion in Wikipedia? As I've stated since he was that young age he has been the subject of long interviews in three countries and worked even more in related mags and media. So, shall I get craking or do I await response? One question, what would make Paris Hilton notable? Her father's money, her famous friends, her work in media/recording and design? Then what is the difference with Jarrette except his personal worth is nowhere near that of Ms. Hilton's.

--Eggs Aldo (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't even get me started on Hilton! As to the tearsheets: there is no need to upload tearsheets, especially since scans can so easily be tinkered with via Photoshop, etc. What I keep harping on is the need for properly formatted citations, as explained at WP:CITE; citations not just to a vaguely-identified publication, but to issue#, date, page, etc. of reliable publications (i.e., not gossip mags and local society tattlers) discussing Jarrette. If you look at the other articles I cited as examples, then you'll see how the references are formatted. Stuff like being signed to Talents Plus or modeling for famous designers is not notable; mannequins come and go, but that doesn't make them notable. Likewise: writing even for notable publications, or modelling for them, doesn't make you notable; just as interviewing a notable person doesn't make you notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol! Gotcha then. Right, I'm trying to get my hands on these interviews in leading mainstream newspapers, magazine and such both US/UK and Caribbean on Jarrette. I'm hoping that on the actual pages I'll have those issue/ date details needed. I'm having little success accessing some older things like the St.Louis Post Disptch archives for instance go back only to 1988! This deosn't bode well. And I need to sit down and figure out the process laid out in this WB:CITE directive....but man. I feel that Wikipedia could be simplified...now talk about long and drawn out. So many varied talk forums, reference pages, etc. I see a number of people seem to share my confusion and eventual frustration. Do you think modification may make this a better known site and more widely used globally? Just wondering.

--Eggs Aldo (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Older articles may require visits to actual physical libraries. We know editing here is complicated; but that's inevitable when you're creating a planetary-level project which aspires to become reliable enough for everyone to use as well as edit. As to becoming "a better known site and more widely used globally" - are you aware that Wikipedia is the 10th-most-visited website on the planet Earth already? Any greater success could kill us. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Kool but may need a verification on that fact. Chuckle. 10 is not top and beyond that who are the visitors? 80% American and a disparate 20% from the rest of the much, much larger world may not break eggs in some quarters aye? Anyway...listen...physical libraries? I'm afraid that I cannot now devote my time to flying around the clutch of cities and countries that would entail. You see, because of these stringent counter productive measures a swathe of people will not engage with wikipedia and even less will have the time, patience or concentration to jump through these difficult hoops. To be frank trying to succeed here and meet your, in theory, simple criteria is more like a war of attrition and a battle of wills. I fail, really fail to see how this site can ever become a top user friendly site when the majority of the "instant minded" world cannot sit through a half-hour sitcom and eat pizza at the same time. I'm actually enjoying talking to you here more...that is easy enough and straight forward. No, Oranmgemike I'm afriad I cannot fly to Port of Spain, Stockholm and St.Louis in order to complete this to Wikipedia standards so I must think of other methods yet. I'm not sure that I could even interact online with an individual in one of these libraries. For instance, and I'm not being funny...obviously not but the USA is the onkly place left on earth where you can expect them even to pack your groceries and even then it's because they're paid to do so. "Lift an finger" and "help"...you don't see those words in the same sentence anymore I'm afraid. Now, how long is one permitted to keep an article up on a user page again? --Eggs Aldo (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I deal with libraries professionally all the time (was in one last night), and the eager-to-help ratio is still very high there. As to sandbox drafts: a draft obviously being worked on is pretty much protected, since that's just what sandboxes are for; so not to worry there. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the sandbox. Have you been trying to liase with one (library) in the West Indies? Face to face exchanges there are neigh impossible in most situations such is the truculence to a man almost and Sweden? Although the majority have at least two languages, as does alot of the world outside the USA there is no guarantee that they will be using their attributes to man a public library but I would not be true to my aim if I did not try. Understand. I am not in the USA. Jarrette has not been either since 1989 save for hoildays and even then he seems to prefer European destiantions. As one person trying to corrolate information from the career trail of a heavily travelled multi talent (with various things scattered to the four corners over since the 70's) I'm finding it rather difficult. This is not a stay in Hollywood-do-one-thing person. This is directly what makes this platform seem oddly unstable and unreachable and I dare say you and many of your number know it. It seems to be treated really as some sort of frequent users editor's "club". Being here is like being a newbie in a school where everything is made as hard for you as is possible. No, wrong book, get the book with the green cover. It's in a bookshop somewhere. Here is our school map wriiten in Latin use this to find it. Now if Jarrette wrote the next Sex and The City type media blockbuster I imagine every other accomplishment would still be of no interest to Wikipedia, although who is to say that his Jarrette curious people would not be interested? They won't find those human making things here. Are you giving the public what it wants? Yes, but wholly on your terms, in your style and to your standards. Whole sections of developments that serve the whole of a person's make-up/noteriety are expunged in an almost fascist style way of "Oh really? Prove it." "He's older than Moses? Can you get me a DNA to support the veracity of this?" Are you getting this? Prove it. Right, I'll be back in the next day trying to carry on. In the meantime am i able to access all sections of my article?

New Section
Hello again Eggs, When you leave messages on talk pages, such as the one you left for QwerpQwertus, It is best to click on the 'New Section' tab at the top of the page. This will allow you to give a title to your comment and place it at the bottom of the page (as is the custom). The only time you wouldn't start a new section is if you were replying to an existing comment on the same page. Also it is usual to keep conversations in the same place, so your comments to OrangeMike belong at User talk:Eggs Aldo/Peter Jarrette. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi I have long forgotten the protocol for conversing here about my subject Peter Jarrette. It all became so unweildly trying to follow suggestions etc that quite frankly i gave up but now Jarrette has a series of high profile novels and TV projects beginning in the UK with Brighton Babylon (Dynasty Press) and the adaptation to TV of said novel as well as, by now, in the last two years some very high profile interviews in international magazines on subjects like Lady Colin Campbell and her royal biographies. Alos for communication purposes my email is now beverlydials@ntlworld.com.

I would like to alter and complete further entry to my subject's information here but again i fear that I'm not up to all the required details so with the hel of a dedicated assistant here I'm willing if they are to give it one final go?

Will this make it to anyone's attentions? Eggs Aldo (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)