User talk:LaVidaLoca/Archive 1

Re: Oh dear
Yes, apparently that is en vogue. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles are tagged every day. It is the exception and not the rule that issue tags result in such hoopla. Don't fret it, I looked at the pages and have no gripe about the tags, they seem appropriate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your input on what you feel needs additional references in the Jacob Truedson Demitz article. I hope I didn't misunderstand what you wrote about that and hope thus that you will have time to advise me today about it. Sincerely, EmilEikS (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I hope you noticed on the discussion page there how much I appreciate your input on the Demitz article. I look forward to your continued guidance as soon as you have time and will do my best to get everything up to par. I really am sorry if you feel any of my previous messages have been tough on you. Please disregard them if you can! I have had a hard time landing on my feet all over at English Wikipedia, and I don't react very well when I feel I detect unfriendliness and/or condescension. But what I had planned to do (a few articles and a lot of images) will soon be done, and done well thanx to the help of constructive people like you and a few others. Found some new references today at the main library here in Stockholm that I will put in later or tomorrow. We are rehearsing a new cabaret act right now so a lot of time is also being spent on that. EmilEikS (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Hi LaVidaLoca, I have posted an incident report regarding User:EmilEikS, which is located here. I know you have had contact with him regarding improvement of the Jacob Truedson Demitz article and invite your comments. Best regards,  mo   talk  03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Anonymous" edits
Hi there, I spotted your note here when I was looking at the contributions of the two IP addresses that made the "Anonymous" edits to Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz. I left a note for Wildhartlivie here. Thanks!  momoricks   (make my day)  00:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation your input, and have a request
Thank you for your polite note at Talk:Sean Penn. I need to ask, because my experience with WP:FILMS discussion has painted a different picture, but where is this policy/guideline about the reliability of IMDb coming from? All I can find is a non-binding essay, which really isn't enough justification for removing a legitimate, good-faith request for citation. I've asked another editor as well: With all due respect and genuine sincerity, where are you finding a policy/guideline about citing IMDb? -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cher
the article says "Every decade of her career"

cher's career has lasted five decades, i think the article should say "has had hits for five consecutive decades and is the only female artist to do so."

Rolling Stone does NOT have an online archive for the issue that stated cher's net worth. however, multiple websites confirm thisincluding the biography channel, which is 100% reliable. those facts are taken straight from the documentary that cher herself was a part of. i don't know why you consider than unreliable.Excuseme99 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Doris Day's birthdate
Please do not keep changing the birthdate back to 1922 until verifiable sources are used. The 1930 Census alone is NOT an irrefutable sourse for age, and is not generally accepted alone by geneologists without additional back-up. Your failure to understand what the Verso system is and why the Library of Congress does acknowledge Day's birth year as 1924 for their own reason, separate from the contents of any book, further weakens your case. That is the reason the Verso page in Kaufman's book differs from the contents of his book. Additionally, the MAJORITY of sources do NOT say 1922, as the verso page of any book about Day will confirm. Please provide hardcore proof from verifiable sources, not unproven statements from former employees and the anecdotal evidence of the 1930 census.

An additional piece of info to remember about early 20th Century Census was how the information was gathered. It was taken down by a field repersentative and later transcibed by a different person altogther onto a different form, which was then transcribed by a third persob months after the fact onto the sheets which we see on the microfilms. The information did not go from the parents lips to the printed page. That is why hardcore proof is always requested as back-up, such a birth certificate.

Your profane and belittling post on MyTalk page is against WP policy and will be reported.

Xanderville (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"removing infobox parameters no longer used"
I would have thought it to be prudent to leave that information in the Infobox Actor templates until it is transferred into the body of their respective articles. After all, the removal of those parameters was not without controversy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed response on my talk page (I thought you preferred unfragmented discussions?) — much appreciated. There were one or two awards for one or two actors that I checked which hadn't been transferred. I'm no expert in the significance of those awards, so I don't know whether that is detrimental to the article or not. As for Jeremy Irons, I transferred all his awards from the infobox to the list of awards in his article, and frankly, I think the old collapsible infobox was a much less intrusive method of showing that information, but I suppose that train has left the station. Regards, Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil warning message
For your edification, when a consensus has already determined how something is presented in an article, it is not "edit warring" for editors of that page to revert arbitrary changes that occasionally occur by passing editors who have no interest in anything other than sticking in their POV and moving on. This is not the first time you have inaccurately called such an action "edit warring" and it is not the first time you have removed the hidden note in Angelina Jolie that was placed to alert editors to that. That someone changed something in March and someone else changed it again in April and both occasions were reverted most certainly does not qualify as "edit warring" per Wikipedia policy. Hidden notes are placed in articles everywhere, for many reasons. Passing by and removing a hidden note and calling it a run around discussion is incorrect, inappropriate, incivil and ignores the fact that it has been discussed on the talk page. Perhaps you'd be better served to pop into the talk page of the editors who change a word while ignoring the note and educate them on consensus. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

LavidaLoca, I can take this message only as uncivil and insulting.

I have not called reverting arbitrary changes as "edit warring" - this rather referred to the back and forth between "actor" and "actress" in that artcile.

It is not the first time I have accurately (!) called edit warring edit warring. That you don't seem to bother about the context of my words is uncivil, that you post such messages on my talk page even more so. The peak of audacity is to direct me to the talk page when I have long been there.

If you can't grasp the reasons for my actions and the context of my words, stay away from my talk page.

Good day, Str1977 (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox parameters such as Awards no longer in use
Hey, I noticed that you have been cleaning up actor and actress infoboxes from the removed parameters. Do you know why these parameters were removed? Can you point me to the discussion about it?

I mean, I feel that those parameters were very beneficial -- they saved readers time in not having to read through the article to see what awards an actor or actress was nominated for. Or was this decision made because readers can simply look to the Filmography section or some type of other section which discusses awards? Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talk page, thanks for answering. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Alyssa Milano
Hi. I have a concern with your edits to the Alyssa Milano article. The problem your efforts to remedy what you think is clumsy writing and overuse of the word "also" has resulted in changing the content and actual meaning of the passage as well. Before your first edit, the article conveyed that: (1) Milano writes a baseball blog; (2) Milano started the Touch line in 2007; (3) Milano began selling Touch through her blog and the MLB website (4) Touch later (in 2009) also became available at a store in Citi Field. Your first edit seems to state that sales of Touch began in 2009 and that the boutique was the first means by which the line was sold. In addition, it turned a complete sentence into a fragment. The timeline is that Touch began with online sales in 2007 and then the "brick and mortar" retail store was opened in 2009 as another means of sales. Your second edit totally omits fact (3) - that Touch is sold through her blog and the MLB website. It's unclear, but it may be read to state that the first sales of the line were in 2009 and at the boutique. I used the phrase "also began selling" that (A) the boutique sales began in 2009 but (B) they were the second means of sales. Removing the "also" without making another adjustment makes it seem like the boutique was the first avenue of sales. I'm going to edit it again. If you choose to change my version, please take care not to change/delete the four facts that the passage should convey. Thanks. --JamesAM (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Dahlia
My edit regarding her leg wound is not linked to anyone's "version", it is documented fact. The source was chosen at random. Thedarxide (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Personal attack" by 75.56.215.113 in Talk:Rudolph Valentino
I have reinstated the section which you deleted from the talk page and, as an uninvolved observer, I must say that I can see nothing that I would describe as either "personal" or an "attack". 75.56.215.113 complains of modes of behaviour and his complaints appear valid. He expresses his frustration but does not threaten or intimdate. Nor does he identify whose behaviour is complaining about; his complaints are generic in nature rather than directed at identified editors.

Can I suggest that if you want to respond you do so by answering the legitimate concerns about the deletion of material supported by citations. Please bear in mind that even if there is opposing information in other sources, the only justification for deleting this material would be that there are no reliable sources to support it.

(In the foregoing "he" and "his" do not apply an assumption of gender.)

Best regards -- Timberframe (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on my talk page, it helps me to see the issue in context. The trouble is, as I see it, that suspicions about who the IP might be aren't really sufficient grounds for removing their contributions. (Contribs from editors evading bans and blocks can be removed per WP policy, but you say she chose to stop editing without mentioning any community sanction.) The danger is that you are inadvertantly gagging and offending an innocent user, and we should avoid this. Even if you have suspicions, I'd encourage you to assume good faith and address the issues raised by the IP objectively. All the best -- Timberframe (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Rex Harrison
Interesting - I hadn't come across HarveyCarter before, but it looks like they have previously used a sock called Granville1? I'd guess you're right, and Granville/Redwood == HarveyCarter.

Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

problem?
Hi, I did post a citation to the magazine - from a newspaper. I thought it was common knowledge that her family are from scotland/england and ireland. I posted it originally without the citation and then he asked me to post the citation. I did this and now it has been removed by you.

Can I ask why? Apologies if i am not leaving a signature properly. Ralf whiggum1 (talk) 8:40, 17th October 2009 (UTC)

I spoke to the chap - all sorted! I won't update any more articles.

Cheers for letting me know. Ralf whiggum1 (talk) 12:00, 17th October 2009 (UTC)

Ed Gein
Hi your opinions and discussions are still needed at this article if you are still interested. It has gotten a bit heated so a calmer head could be helpful. Thanks in advance,-- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I thought you might be interested in responding to Sockpuppet investigations/LaVidaLoca when you get home. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)