User talk:Rossrs/archive8

re: Anne Frank
There are a lot of reasons why the website is unneeded. Per WP:EL, this page would qualify for exclusion based on: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". (Possibly) 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

Beyond that, it is a mess. I see no need for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a brief look at the history of the person who added the link, and it isn't all that. Perhaps th issue should be brought up on the article talk page. I know all pages should be dealt with equally, but in my mind, featured article content, including external links, should be held to a higher standard for inclusion for anything added. If you want to open a discussion on it, I'll be glad to comment on my opinion of the quality and validity of the webpage.


 * Now for something completely different: Happy new year to you as well!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did comment on the link. I was perusing her talk pages and history and found that there was a similar situation regarding an alleged death photo of Abraham Lincoln a couple years ago. Apparently the photo showed Lincoln with a beard, although he did not have one at the time of his death. She claimed the photographer retouched the photo to add a beard so he could be more easily recognized. A bit of a conspiracy theorist, it seems to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ever thought of being an Admin?
Sorry to bother you just letting you know I've mentioned you here as a possible admin candidate. If you're interested then please do consider running. If you're not interested then I apologize for bothering you. RMHED (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sharon Tate
I always look when someone edits this page, even you. I just wanted to reiterate something I've said before. This is a really good article. I'm impressed by how you managed to treat her death in a way that doesn't just mimic everything else that's been said. It's an excellent tribute, even if it isn't really supposed to be :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's sincere. You managed to show her as a human being, and Polanski as one as well. He rather got a crappy deal just after her death and what you've written helps dispel that. No comment on his later exploits, I actually have none. A tribute is fine if it isn't worshipy or fannish. I really liked the part discussing what her role in films could have been/was developing to be. Kudos. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have compassion for him as well. I watched Tess, I saw the dedication, and yeah, I cried. So I'll make a comment about the later stuff - I think he was somewhat set-up by the girl, I have my doubts that he knew her truthful age. I find it sad that he can't come back to the US because of that. This seems to indicate that things weren't above board in the case. The girl involved doesn't even seem to want him to spend the rest of his life being punished for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

continued
I suspect that there are people who, when they hear a news report or read an article, immediately run to Wikipedia to see if they can be first to add it to an article. I admit that if I am already here, and an item comes on TV, I might check the article. What I hope that I don't bring to it is a tendency to inflict my personal biases and prejudices (we all have them) into what I'm editing. For instance, not tonight, but tomorrow, I will more than likely do a major revision to the Polanski filmography section. I've never seen such a biased table. Is the Oscar the only important thing to his filmmaking career? He has made some good films, I must admit, but I'm thinking his awards history extends beyond his (admittedly rich) Academy Award past. Meanwhile, there are other issues. "Rape and other sex offenses"? Was there more than one? When? "Using Wells' own claims from the film, Polanski and Dalton are investigating whether the prosecutor acted illegally..." Excuse me? That's not what the source says. I reworded that. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also
This would be the sort of thing that gets an article protected very quickly. (One minute later). Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a tragedy. There have always been issues about the boy. A lot of sources say he was autistic, something the Travoltas would never acknowledge. Had they sought treatment for it, that would have contradicted Scientology teachings about it. Whatever its etiology, the behavioral symptoms I've read indicated that his behavior was quite autistic in nature. It doesn't matter now, but my heart certainly goes out to them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey
When you have a chance, take a look at the top of my user page and see if you notice something new... :))) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you. Yeah, the holidays really slowed it down. The guy who closes the FL nominations made no edits for about 3 days, so I think it's still a fete. I don't think I went through nearly as much as what I've seen other articles put through. It shocked me when I saw it, I was expecting more issues. I was busily trying to keep crap off the Kelly Preston page when it came up. Tonight, someone's raised an old gossip item that claimed she had a child with her first husband that was disabled and we were accused of "cleansing" the article of it. This sort of thing drags out all kinds, doesn't it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * People love to see others falter or fail, and if they don't, they seem to take some sort of sick satisfaction out of trying to bring them down. Do I wish I had make over $125 million in 30 years? Well, YEAH. Do I begrudge others from making it? No. Do I like Scientology? Well, not much, but then I've tried not to judge what others choose to believe. Did the Travoltas deserve this. F**k no. I feel for them and hate seeing others do these things. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was amusing
A picture is worth 1000 words, and a 1000 words more. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they're cute :-) Rossrs (talk)

Half of what I say is meaningless...
I do not recall having said the picture was awful. I recall saying her teeth were even bigger now. In any case, that is much better. Someone put up a new Mahky Mahk image tonight and it was actually pretty decent. I switched out the old infobox image for it. What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely Hottie Hot was amongst the likes of other musicians? Sheesh. Although he has/had a formidable chest, this would have to be in the music world, nothing outshines Brad Pitt's formidableness. Mark, what a guy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks more like her than the other one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Julia Roberts
Well it was better but it affected the quality. I've added a simple crop cutting out the grabbing. Eventually we should be able to get a higher quality image of her but that will do for now. The Bald One      White cat 10:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to lobby for one without big teeth. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything substantially different in the quality. Isn't the sole purpose to show what she looks like?  I'd rather see her head straight and not leaning into someone's shoulder. Also, I have to say that I can't help but feel offended by the tone of your message particularly "that will do for now".   I thought we were discussing this, but that reads as dismissive and final.    I change it and ask what you think, and you change it back and say "that will do".  I was asking you for an opinion not a decision.    Rossrs (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think you are worrying unnecessarily about it. I just happened to come across the article and found a huge close up of her face which was overpixated. Think what you like and do what you like if you disagree. "That will do for now" is clearly not offensive, givne that I cropped the image anyway, It is in reference to the fact that a higher quality image will soon enough become available to replace it anyway and it isn't worth worrying about. You could of course always use the full image and then you don't have to worry about odd look arm movements. The Bald One       White cat 13:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I;ve cropped File:JuliaRoberts90.jpg too. Take your pick! The Bald One      White cat 13:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ...it doesn't show her teeth... Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, seriously, that barely looks like Julia. We must persevere. Something nice must be out there in the PD, somewhere. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There must be something better. She looks like Molly Ringwald, but she does not look like Julia Roberts.    I don't see  resolution and image quality as the determining factors.  We should use the image that best conveys the person's typical appearance for primary identification, and if the most appropriate image is not of the highest resolution, so be it.   Sorry, I don't like any of the options and I think the one I used was the best of a bad bunch.  I was never pushing it because I thought it was good.   I thought, and still think, that it is the most representative one that we have of her and it doesn't have the crazy arms and bobble head that is distracting in the other crops.   It was in the article for 37 minutes so it's not like the community at large had the chance to see it.  Rossrs (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:KylieMinogueFever493x493.jpg)
You've uploaded File:KylieMinogueFever493x493.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 17:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn
Hello Rossrs. I just wanted to drop you a note saying thank you for helping in protecting this page. I also wanted to let you know that I have filed a request for protection here. If accepted we should get some peace for a time. Otherwise I know that you will keep up the good work of protection. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ballet lessons/training
Hola! I didn't leave the original message on the talk page, but I did leave the 5 REFERENCES. I couldn't change the article because it is semi-protected. Also, I left all of those references for you to pick through to see if there were any morsels you wanted to work into the article. I found some of them to be interesting and also having multiple sources one can be a more complete picture with a stronger footing. - 4.240.165.138 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:MariahCareyEmotions(Live).ogg
Thanks for uploading File:MariahCareyEmotions(Live).ogg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kate Winslet
On my to do list for the weekend is trying to tame the beast that is the overabundance of weight on her awards. I mean really!!! They are touched on in the filmography, in the infobox, they have a list, they have an awards table and then... as if it wasn't hammered home enough, there is a separate article for just them. I am going to remove the list and the separate awards table and put those into the filmography. Sheesh!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Wood
Thanks. I found the proper license tag, but I can't correctly insert it on the image description page. I keep trying to re-upload it in different ways, but its not working. Now commons won't let me upload without selecting a license. How do you properly insert a license tag?Excuseme99 (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:CelineDionThinkTwice.ogg)
Thanks for uploading File:CelineDionThinkTwice.ogg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

From Here To Eternity
i will try uploading it again later.

here is the link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/33938985@N02/3166319014/

Excuseme99 (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tyrone Power
Hi, Rossrs, just wanted to let you know in the Talk section, the sock puppet you banned is back with another IP and has undone one of your edits in discussion. I undid it but it won't stay there for long. Happy New Year. Please, what is happening with the dog?Chandler75 (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's OK. I keep it on my watchlist, so when that particular sock puppet edits, I eventually notice it. It's annoying but it's not likely to stop.  Thanks for drawing my attention to it.  I see that it's stayed reverted for the time being. Rossrs (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider the most recent comment in the Tyrone Power discussion section, reverted by some compassionate soul, very inappropriate. There has to be a way to stop that kind of thing.Chandler75 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Audrey
Oh, admit it. I've heard about that velvet Audrey painting you have over your bed. :) BTW, those weird comments to Wild weren't from me...I was joking. I hope 2009 is treating you well.  momoricks   (make my day)  02:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no clue about this. I was much appeased when I thought it was Momo. I can't think of who I've encountered somewhere who would associate me with Audrey Hepburn. Like I said, I've made one or two small edits to the article in my whole time on WP. It's a bit freaky. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP Crime/Criminal
Someone (not sure who he is or why it is important to him) wants the WP:Crime project to combine its project banners into one (we use WP Crime and WP Criminal) and I've explained why it seems to be important to have separate ones. Would you look at the talk at Template talk:WP Criminal and give an opinion. My view on it is there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in. I moved an explanation I left for Pinkadelica and a comment left on the project talk page by Momoricks over to that page. I think we're all on the same page (well, you, me, Pink and Momo). I'm trying to fix up Meryl Streep tonight. It's a chore and at the moment, it is -14F (-25.5C) here. Wind chill makes it about -38F (about -39C). It's a little chilly tonight, the house is making noises I have never heard before. But... I have on a flannel nightgown, a light robe and a heavy robe, a pair of sweatpants, and wool socks. Ain't that sexy? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I KNNOOOOOoooooowwwwww. I've got everything heat-creating going and at least I can't see my breath, but my nose is a little cold. I'm willing to sacrifice sexy for comfort. Oh, and they got the dog yesterday so I don't have to worry about him freezing to death tonight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He can leave the motor running, Angie and kids will stay warm enough, and I have a nice nightie in the closet. Maybe it will be Johnny Depp... Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cagney
And, after months of only working on it in fits and starts, I've pretty well finished the James Cagney article. I've added the personal and political life sections which hopefully give a bit more insight into the man. I've also updated all the references to the standard wiki templates. I'd really appreciate your comments on it, and what you think might be needed to improve it further. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very very much for your comments! I knew the lead section needed some work, I've barely done anything with it, so I will work on that next. I will also attempt to make it more detached from me, as it were, though I suspect that that may be difficult for me to achieve! I've been on Wiki over a year now, and this is the only article I've worked on with anything like this level (though I have several others planned!), so I don't really know the processes for getting it listed somewhere for assessment. What are the actual practical steps? --Ged UK (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alice the maid
Well, you know I'm not afraid to wade in head first. And Oh. My. God. This is so not staying in that article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the power of the cabal, you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kyliefirstalbum.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Kyliefirstalbum.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. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Magda Szubanski
Hi, I noticed that in early December you edited the Magda Szubanski article. I've now added a little bit more and left a message on the talk page asking for opinions. If you have time, please take a look and make a change or add your opinion, whatever. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while and am still on a learning curve, my skills are a bit rusty. Thank you. Roaming27 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dietrich
Hey there. I'm having some trouble tracking (visually) today and wondered if, when you have time, you would look over these changes and see if they are accurate or valid or what. I just can't find the changes very well. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all right, just sometimes the blood in my eyes gets too stirred up to let me see things clearly and tracking back and forth between the two versions made me dizzy. No biggie. Well, it's a biggie, but not new. It's why I spend a lot of inactive time messing about on Wikipedia. Just sometimes, it also effects that. I downloaded the Wikipedia toolbar and kind of like how it does some of the more mundane tasking I do. It's cool enough. Anyway, re: Marlene, I was concerned that he'd removed content about her sexuality also, but I guess not? I took care of Ann B. and left a note on the newest IP talk page about unsourced content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I deal with vandalism a lot. I've complained enough about Adam Sandler that the protection is now up to three months and Charles Manson is, I believe, up to six months, which will be expiring soon. The problem with the Ann B. article is that I'm not sure an administrator would see it as a protection issue as much as a content dispute. The best to do, I think, is just revert it and hope that they either get tired of it, or escalate to getting blocked. Is that a bad thing to say? Ah well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the link to the Wikipedia toolbar is here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your efforts on Ann B. are appreciated you know, and Ched Davis, who is a newer editor, has taken up the battle as well. Ann's dignity will prevail! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad you saw it. I work on the actresses when I feel the compulsion, which I have a bit tonight. I'm going to do a couple more and stop, I'm ... what's the British term?... knackered. Sheesh, but I sometimes learn the silliest things. There are some links in the toolbar that go to some unused pages, but mostly it's the format and styling tools that are the ones I use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Geez
I wonder what we are supposed to use then, if we crop something? I've used that upload many times. I know you didn't intend to offend him, hopefully he will realize that. He's a fairly reasonable guy. I wonder why he didn't contact you and explain why it was the wrong upload? Sorry that this happened, but don't let it deter you from the work, dear. It's all good. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I had to package and ship my Ebay sales before I did anything else. What do you do to ensure you're uploading the higher resolution/quality image? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure when I started I did that too, but I've been using the full size image, mostly because it's easier to pick out a better crop. Meanwhile, I'll be going off to bed soon, want to get some sleep before I get back up to watch the US enter the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Jane Fonda
I know that the images are trailer screenshots, that's how I got mine. Are they copyrighted from 1963? I thought it was 1977: the template for trailer screenshots says "published in the United States between 1923 and 1977". Aquila89 (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Unfortunately, I don't know, whether the Barbarella trailer was published without a copyright notice. I assumed that if it's before 1977, it's free. Aquila89 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

File:SharonTateandRomanPolanski.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SharonTateandRomanPolanski.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 15:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oscars
Yeah, I have to admit, I went ahead and had the additions at the ready to hit "Save" as they were announced. How stupid and lonely was that? But I was right in all but one case. I predicted Robert Downey, Jr., Meryl Streep, Marisa Tomei, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Mickey Rourke, Angelina Jolie, Penélope Cruz, Brad Pitt, Anne Hathaway and Heath Ledger. I had put in nominations for Kate Winslet ‎on both films, so I had to remove the nom for Revolutionary Road. I didn't presume to know them all, but I do know there is work to be done on Sean Penn. (later note: at least now, Sean Penn has had more awards activity beyond Academy and Golden Globes. Took me FOREVER!!) My early predictions are Kate Winslet, Mickey Rourke, Heath Ledger but I'm not sure on supporting actress. That one is always tricky. Marisa Tomei and Cruz seem good, but watch out for Viola Davis. Then again it might not be any of those.

What's been even worse tonight has been what happened in the wake of 30 Rock having a bit about vandalizing Janis Joplin's article. Sheesh, people jumped on the chance to add that she speedwalked everywhere and had a fear of toilets. Geez oh Pete!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I would love to the see the best song booted out. I don't think it is one of those categories that should have to have nominees each year. With the way so many films go after a huge recording artist to record a theme song, it just becomes another Grammy type of thing, not like when there were actual musicals all the time. I'm a bit that way about animated films too. I am quite sure WALL E will win, but honestly? I hated it. It was not a Finding Nemo, which was one of the rare animated films in the past few years I really liked. I dunno. Where did you read that Sharon Tate "passed away"??

Orphaned non-free media (File:PussyfootTheWayThatYouDoIt.ogg)
Thanks for uploading File:PussyfootTheWayThatYouDoIt.ogg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow
I had a list of ones that needed done, and I see this!!! One less on my list, I'm working on Frank Langella. He had a list, but it was a little sad looking. Not for long! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Spencer
You're a bold guy. I've looked at Tracy many times and decided later would do. I am firmly against a partial filmography. The article is about Tracy as an actor, his body of work should be included, highlights and possible flops. There are 76 film roles and 10 "self" appearances on IMDB and those can all easily be included. I hate, hate, hate that awards table and the following BAFTA/Golden Globes, it leaves out a few minor awards. My preference is for all of it to be included in the filmography table, and I see that the one on Julia Roberts needs to be updated. I don't like the separate awards tables, I think they add undue weight and are redundant to the awards listed every place else on the page.

And for a personal bias, I think the Razzie awards have no place in these articles. They are a mean-spirited, unscientific, unsanctioned smear that have no relevance to the biography of an actor. Anyone who pays $20 can vote on the Razzies and they are completely unrelated to any awards received in the course of an actor's work within the film industry by legitimate organizations that weigh the merits of a person's work. (Getting off soapbox now). Hope this helps.

Oh, yeah. I started to do this earlier today, and accidentally closed the page (argh, I hate it when that happens). I'm going to make a page in my userspace that has a complete listing of the actors/director/cast links that can be copied and pasted directly into the filmography from all of the awards events so that I don't have to go searching for them each time I add them to a filmography. This is what I've done so far: User:Wildhartlivie/Award and nominations templates. Do you think that would be helpful to you as well? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you find the awards templates helpful, I realized how much time I was wasting looking up the wikilinks for them and decided it was time to do something. Of course, I have to look up each award to be sure the link is the right one, but once it's done, it doesn't have to be done again. AND I used an emdash instead of the hyphen! I'm finding some horrible messes on the awards pages, some I've cleaned up a bit, others I've left for now. Maybe later... maybe not.


 * I'm astounded at your efforts for poor Agnes. She was an interesting woman and she had a vast career that most people don't know about - they just see her as Endora on Bewitched. A product of the ages, I suppose. As for Spencer, I agree, that big green check mark is a bit much. I was noticing our filmography template, do you think we should change "Other notes" to simply "Notes"? What other? lol. I know, but it just occurred to me. I've spent a lot of the last couple of days watching coverage of the US Presidential inauguration. It's kind of wonderful. I know this is a stretch of a comparison, but I've wondered, is this how people felt when Kennedy first became president - hopeful, excited, optimistic? Meanwhile, the talk on the TMZ television program was whether or not they "did it" the first night in the White House. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A few year ago, I was working on my family genealogy and discovered that my maternal great-grandfather had a farm in Kentucky. In an 1860 pre-Civil War census listing, there was a listing in the family group for three people designated as "B", which designated black. There was no last name given for them. In the 1870 census, the designation was still there, but now they were listed with the last name "Kelley". No one seems to know if they were some unspoken family, if they were slaves (although Kentucky wasn't a slave state), or simply workers who took the family surname. I reflected on this during the election and inauguration quite a bit. In any case, it's a remarkable thing that has happened here, I haven't spoken to anyone who has said bad things about this. My niece who was born in 1984 is biracial and it occurred to me that in our family, she was the last generation who would grow up in a time when not everyone could be elected President. It's certainly a time of great black pride in the country, but it's also a time of just... great pride. Pride that we've overcome the impression of racism in regards to our country's leadership, and that we had the fortitude to choose the man who best offered us a hope for the future. One of the first things he did was freeze salaries for his staff and another was order the closing of Guantanamo. I've shed a few tears the past few days over this, it's a monumental time in our history. I marvel at the experience those girls will have - I've looked at the White House tour website and such a rich history is contained in that mansion - there is the desk Abraham Lincoln used to write the Emancipation Proclamation, furniture bought and used by presidents from James Madison on. What a chance! In any case, I have to admit, I did kind of wonder, watching them dance on inauguration night, if they would "do it" too. I knowwwwwwwwwwwwww!! I actually have never considered whether Ron and Nancy, or George and Barbara or George II and Laura ever did it at all in the White House. heh.


 * Wasn't that Twilight Zone episode with Agnes Moorehead just creepy?? I saw it decades ago!! She was quite good in Hush... Hush, Sweet Charlotte too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Even before I write this, I admit I'm not as educated on Australian history as I might be, so if I sound ignorant, pardon me! I think this is such an emotional and monumental time because of our country's history. And it's ugly - the slave trade, a civil war where one side was fighting to keep their slaves, Ku Klux Klan, rampant racism, lynchings, civil rights riots, oppression - it seems like the rest of the world has looked at us and said "Yeah, but what about you?? Hoe your own garden first!" These things brought such acrimony and it didn't seem as if we'd ever get out from under it. I know every country has some kind of skeleton in the closet, but ours were full of such hate that we're less for it. I'm not naive enough to think that based on the election that we're through the fire, but at least we've finally called the fire department. (Oh, look, really bad analogies.) And you're right, it wasn't enough that it was a black, but that it was the right black man. That wasn't the only battle he was waging in the election - there was a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment at work, too, ignorant as it was. I think it helped that we have a man who is multi-racial, multi-cultural and yet, so darned frank and convincing. History will tell if this was the best thing to happen to us in decades, but for today, it certainly feels that way.


 * One of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes was about a man (and I can't remember for the life of me who) who finds himself the last person on the face of the earth and is delighted because now he has time to read all the books he's ever wanted to - and then he breaks his glasses. And the one with the woman undergoing plastic surgery to become as attractive as everyone else, and she turns out to be Donna Douglas (Elly Mae Clampitt) and the doctors and nurses have pig faces. Do those ring a bell? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh geez, I should have remembered Burgess Meredith. We must be around the same age. Don't forget The Outer Limits, it was usually even more bizarre that Twilight Zone, although they didn't carry it in repeats like they do Serling's work.


 * I had forgotten that I'd read about the stolen generation, and although I was aware of Aboriginal issues, I didn't know much about it. American history had its own past with native inhabitants. Have you heard of the Trail of Tears? The white man had a heyday eradicating tribes here, or at least driving some tribes into Canada. Native Americans still live on reservations, but they are no longer required to live there. Then we started allowing the immigration of Chinese, but that was mostly for cheap labor as well. I suppose that I try to keep in mind that, eventually, all discrimination against minorities and native peoples goes away and hopefully that happens in other parts of the world. Tibet, Darfur, it's not gone yet. Ah well. I also try to keep in mind that this country was first founded by a group of religious nutcases looking to escape scrutiny, so we're not that much. Then again, wasn't Australia first founded as a penal colony, or is that where my ignorance comes in with too William Bligh and Mutiny on the Bounty? Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My ancestors escaped from Ireland too, but I'm not clear why. I know why my maternal g-g-g-grandparents left Prussia in 1854, though. My g-g-grandfather shot a deer on the King's land and the entire family left on the lam, so to speak. But that was well after the g-g-g-grandfather fought with the Prussian army against Napoleon at Waterloo. However, there were a lot of soldiers who were there, so that's no big thing other than being interesting. That part of my family at least that far back is well-document - Christian Bachenfelder and Louisa Wilhelmina Stroher married about 1817. Wish I knew more.
 * I knew Bligh was in Australia long after the Bounty mutiny. My impression was that it was sort of an unspoken banishment, but I have no foundation for that. Ah well!! Meanwhile, I'm trying to straighten back out our dear Kate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Very nice, I'd say it rates a big ✅!!!! Did you realize you'd left in the wikilinking for the dates? I took those out. Hope the awards templates helped. There is a discussion opened at Talk:Angelina Jolie, based on my comment to EnemyoftheState, about the separate awards table, if you would like to comment on it. I had just commented to him that it was redundant, I'm not invested in it either way, although you know my opinion of the separate table. Hey, isn't this Monday? Isn't Monday a work day? :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * Heh, I was using the image instead of the template. We have a developing WP:ACTOR problem. Dispenser, who wrote and manages the checklinks and reflinks tools, doesn't like our table and took it upon himself to write into his tool coding to change the table formatting when the tool is run. He then left a note on the project page suggesting we use a template for filmographies. Meanwhile, one adminstrator Ed g2s (who doesn't much work here), came in and changed our project table example to a plain one and stealthily goes about changing them on bio pages when he notices. I don't know nearly enough about coding to writing the table to suit them and they obviously have no intention of offering assistance. This all is annoying at least, and I've mostly just ignored them and changed back when I find it. Any suggestions? Oh, and rub it in, it's frigging 8 degrees here tonight with a snowstorm coming tomorrow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing with Dispenser was that he wasn't willing to discuss what needed or could be done to work on this when I approached him about the tool problem. I started to approach Ed g2s, but saved the note to a draft email instead of leaving it, mostly because I don't want to take on the dragon until I'm armed. (more bad analogies) I'm as clueless about CSS as you are, which is why I asked Dispenser about it. I am adamant about not approving a template for filmographies. (Did I type that with enough disdain??) However, I suspect that now I know what has caused the proliferation of templates for everything imaginable. ("How would I do this?" "OH!! Make a TEMPLATE!!") Yeah, I know that the table won't update across the project, but then again, how often would one update the table once the style is approved? I'm for taking a wait and see approach on this and see if anyone bothers to come back before I charge in on it. I asked for assistance in fixing our WP Crime banner so the "listas" would work and because the project didn't want to combine the WP Crime and the WP Criminal banner, the guy who does that hasn't bothered to get back to us on it - he said "it's coming" with no other explanation, so I dunno. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there are those of use that try to explain clearly and we get accused of being hateful. You know what the Beatles said, don't you? "Be Prudent, it's a brand new day..." From the little I read on CSS that made sense to me, the table could be used with that in mind and incorporate color. Besides, converting to something else would severely be counterproductive simply in light of the sheer number of filmographies that are out there. It simply would never get done. From what I can tell, the main objection he raised as a response here was the color change, or at least that's all he addressed. Nothing changed from the original table coding from the time it was instituted except the background color and font size. Whether it is what the project wants used, or if featured list criteria includes using color as a standard, or that colors are used in tables all over the project, isn't for the guy who runs checklinks to decide and then re-write his coding to undo that. But I just want to wait. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Matty
Would you look at this and let me know if you see this as something notable at this point? The first time the person put it in, the source was a blog, so I removed it. I see this right now as something some out-going columnist would like to make a big deal about and I'm hesitant about it's worthiness for inclusion. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm going to remove it again and note that it isn't significant enough to merit inclusion on other articles at this point. One site I found on Google said it wasn't even sure that Damon was aware of it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And a very nice retort on Angie. I notice that none of the new commentators on this bother to watch the page and deal with the ridiculous and the mundane, although I do. This all started because it looked like EnemyOfTheState had put the more minor awards into the filmography and I thought he was going to do away with the awards table and told him I supported that. I didn't mean to start a big thing about it. I don't really care if they take it out or not. Gimmetrow guards featured articles against any changes. Ah well. I don't know if you noticed my conversation with Edison on my page about or not. He thinks the paragraph on Kate Winslet that says In 2009, Winslet earned her sixth Academy Award nomination for Stephen Daldry's The Reader. The Reader was also nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, marking the fourth time that Winslet featured in a Best Picture nominee. The other films were: Sense and Sensibility (1995), Titanic (1997, won) and Finding Neverland (2003). is important and my point was that it gives undue weight to the Oscars. I don't think you can validly say that the Oscar is the most important or significant, especially to a British actress. My point was also that is covered elsewhere in the article. I haven't taken it back out while I'm talking with him about it, but I think it's redundant. Then again, I keep insisting on a source that says she's the youngest to ever get six nominations, which no one has come up with yet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I will backstep very quietly - I just put that shopping list in the Tommy Lee Jones filmography a couple days ago because before it had a listing in the body of the article of only Academy Awards and a handful of his awards in the filmography. I can't make an emoticon that looks sheepish. His is one of the articles I'd like to expand upon when I find sources. He's had a long career. My main goal is to get the US-centricness out of a lot of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's very different. never mind. But I'm fairly certain it didn't say tap dancer and all around good guy. It does say later on that he was Al Gore's roommate at Harvard. Now, talk about trivia!! I learned that first on Jeopardy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Were you tired of seeing me reverting? Very nicely done. By the way, we had almost 9 inches of snow overnight.  I couldn't get my front storm door open to sweep the walk at first. I threw the cat at it and he clawed his way to getting the door open. Then he swept the walk. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:SharonTateValleyoftheDollswithheaddress.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:SharonTateValleyoftheDollswithheaddress.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 15:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

File:GeorgeBushwithTateFamily.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:GeorgeBushwithTateFamily.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 15:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Think about this
Would a picture of a rare meeting of two important people, if it were not a historically significant image, help you understand the fact that they met - or could you easily understand that without the picture? ViperSnake151 22:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have thought about it many times, and you're right.  The same thing could be said of just about any unfree image used on Wikipedia.  The fact that German Wikipedia thrives while excluding unfree content, proves that unfree images are not essential.   Part of the difficulty is that the terms of use of unfree images is open to interpretation, and while some editors take a lenient line others are more stringent in its application, but it still comes down to interpretation of the policy.  I assume you're referring to the picture of Doris Tate and George Bush in the Sharon Tate article?  Personally, I think that are comprehensive featured article such as Sharon Tate can hold a limited number of unfree images as part of its comprehensiveness, if they are chosen for a specific purpose, as these ones are.   That's not to say that the text would not be understood without the images, but the images make it stronger.   The images in this article address points in the text and so they serve a stronger purpose than many decorative images that are tolerated and, in some cases,  even endorsed by the community.  For example we could understand most album articles without an album cover illustration, and yet they exist in the majority of articles - we even request them when they are not added, and this is despite the fact that the album cover is almost never discussed.   Same with films and film posters, books and book covers etc.  I think the images in the Sharon Tate article are used with more care and more relevance, but because they don't sit neatly in a little box, they are questioned.   But yes, I could easily understand most articles without a picture. Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Memories
How funny. I had actually added my opinion on the images before I read your post to me. It's already done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Space camp
I am simply scandalized that you disagreed with me!!! Seriously, I'm not much bothered by what you said, I'm not convinced Spacey is sexual at all, there are people who are functionally asexual, maybe he's one of them. I'm maybe in agreement more with your comment that all of it be removed and leave it at that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's in the nature of people, it seems, to out even those who have nothing to be outed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Meagan Good
Sorry to bug you, but could you possibly weigh in over at Talk:Meagan Good when you get a few moment? It's not that complicated of a matter and should only take a minute. Thanks!  Pinkadelica Say it...  05:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I replied also, but someone else recently said of me "Editor Wildhartlivie gets emotional, if I may say, but... you will find her a valuable workmate, I think." The whole argument just annoyed me to no end and I responded in a bit of a different tone than you. Then again, the girl whose ethnic makeup I described is actually based on my sister's grandsons and no one can figure out their makeup. Some see black, some see "some Asian type", some see the Cherokee. The truth is, who knows? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very, very much. The whole thing is just irritating and petty. Between people from Stormfront threatening to infiltrate Wikipedia and the whole CAMERA drama, I really can't believe this is an issue.  Pinkadelica Say it...  09:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think they're kind of gorgeous myself. :) The younger one, Tylin, was born 31 August 2007, so he was just a bit less than 1 1/2 in the photo, and older, Brevan, was born 5 May 2005, so he was over 3 1/2. My niece, who was born in 1984, so she's not so old, took on the task of raising her husband's first child, who is somewhere around 7. She has her hands full, but I think she handles it fairly well. The interesting thing is that my niece was the first biracial child in our local school system, which is quite small, and she was never called a derogatory name until she was going to gymnastics class in a nearby city, with a mixed population. That was where my sister thought she should send my niece when she first started school, and the avoidance of name-calling by other kids was why, but I encouraged her wait. It turned out that since they had always known her, it was never, ever an issue. She was popular. I've wondered if she hadn't also been pretty, if that would have made a difference. But it opened doors and now the population is more mixed. I'll post her senior picture and wedding picture with the ones of the boys, but I'll take it down soon so my niece won't get annoyed at me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Brooke and the family before the youngest was born. Well, he's technically in it, but... Let me know when you've looked so I can take them down. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's one of those "Twin Sons of Different Mothers" things that Dan Fogelberg and Tim Weisberg wrote about all those years ago. I have always thought the step-brother and the oldest boy looked a lot alike - and both a lot like their father. I think they are happy enough, though honestly, one never knows for sure, do they? My goddaughter and her husband have a stormy marriage, but they are still together. I think sometimes it's all because of Cari's complete stubbornness. She just won't give up and with time, it seems like it's a lot better than it was once. Popular kids can be very quirky and as long as they are accepted by the whole, the quirkiness doesn't count much. Our little town took a lot longer to come out of the white ages than most around here, but I think you're right about the self-confidence. Brooke does have a fair share of that. Since our parents were long gone before my sister had Brooke, I've always thought it was interesting that our aunt (mom's sister) was much more upset about Brooke's unexpected condition before she was married than she was that my sister had a biracial child. But my aunt is 83, so that may be a factor, too. She is in the hospital right now, she nearly lost a toe after she stubbed and broke it and it became infected. Sometimes you've got to drive to the doctor with a whip and chair! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Imitation of Life (1934 film)
Would you kindly take a look at some BS edits there? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also check out his "better version" of a poster at Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also here. Apparently, he's decided to go on the offensive. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?
I've addressed a vendetta sort of issue on the image editor's talk page, which of course was removed with no response. This person essentially pops up on articles Ed has edited to raise a stink over things about which he or she doesn't really seem to care. Replacing a questionable image with another questionable image, removing a free image under the guise of removing non-free... this is contentious editing and at some point it would seem it is going to need to be addressed. There is little that I that is of interest in improving the article's quality, just annoying Ed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you both take a look at this? Feel free to edit it, or comment on my talk page. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BLPs
I'd like more input on Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer), Talk:Rihanna, and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard if you are interested. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tina Turner
Would you mind looking at the edits over the last couple of days, the talk page note I left, and just for shits and giggles, what finally pissed me off. There has been a lot of effort put into this article since October, this new editor shows up Thursday night and suddenly, it's hateful. The editor did not work on this article prior to Thursday and just seems to be supporting the changes made by one other editor - changes that frankly, to me, sucked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even know about this anymore. This editor has told me I'm basically ignorant and gave me instructions on how to find sources about her frigging legs, then reinstates the dead link to the White House and a fanpage. I'm seriously thinking about removing the article from my watchlist and submitting it for delisting from GA. I've dealt with this article since October, trying to get it fixed from losing its GA status and this just sets it back further. FAs and GAs are crap, I hear. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I KNOOooowww!!! I could not believe just how much she talked down to me on her talk page, and yeah, it made me get snippy back. I still don't know what brought this up on her radar, but it was certainly worst case scenario. She mostly works on food articles, and yeah, I shouldn't have thrown up our FAs or GAs (acknowledging that you have the corner on that), but still... it means we've dealt with it and know what is required. I plan on nominating it for delisting tomorrow (Sunday afternoon for me) and I'll stop watching it. I wish I'd not watched Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome last fall. I'd not have looked!! By the way, I did think about you when the fires were on the news last week and am quite glad you are okay! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You may consider a request at Requests_for_comment/User_conduct with Wildhartlivie (talk). This goes beyond regular rfc because the user involved ignores all outside input in order to build consensus and is beginning similar arguments on other talk pages: talk:Michael Jackson. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  23:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this needs monitoring, before it disrupts the stability of our GA/FA articles. — R  2  00:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping, he/she want the Jackson article reassessed. This is becoming tiring. What can be done about this? — R  2  00:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you be around at all during the next week? This Tina Turner thing is getting out of control and has now spilled over onto Michael Jackson. Bookkeeperoftheoccult has suggested a RfC for user conduct and I suspect Realist will be doing one anyway. Hopefully, it can be dealt with that way. Let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about having mentioned FAs, I was on my way to doing that when you posted them the other night. This is a straight POV editor issue and now that she's rolled it into a FA crusade, it will not be long until something happens with it. She went to the head of the FAR group about it, so it's as much my fault, I told her to take it up with them. Shopping for support like that and circumventing the dispute resolution process won't be tolerated long. If I need to, I'll link to you. I hope you have a good holiday and bring me a rock! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Colman and Cooper filmographies
Thanks for the comments on the Ronald Colman filmography. I'm currently working on one for Gary Cooper, which I hope to have done in a few days. I've given up numbering the entries for filmographies as it tends to cram up the web page. I've had some debates about whether or not a listing of directors and co-stars should be added. I'm in favor of them as I think provide a ready reference to the subject's career. That way, for instance, you can see how many times John Wayne worked with John Ford, or how many films Clark Gable made with Joan Crawford. Care to add your comments on this?

By the way, your page says you live in Australia. I hope your not in any danger from the fires that I've been hearing about. I live in the United States in Southern California and have had seen some fires that came within a few miles of my home. &mdash; Jimknut (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary Cooper filmography
Yup, I went and created this page. Take a look. Make any corrections or suggestions you see fit. A thought to ponder regarding some other actor filmographies: Many only list the year, title, and role the actor played. If this is all that's listed then why make the page at all? Why not just provide a link to the IMDb? &mdash; Jimknut (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn
I was looking at this page today and was a little dismayed by the image that was in the infobox. I looked and saw that at some point, you had uploaded the original image, but sometime in 2007, someone cropped it, which from just looking, seems to have rendered quite fuzzy. When I looked at all the Stage Door Canteen images you'd uploaded, the same guy had either cropped them all, or uploaded a different image in the place of the one you had. What I'm wondering is if a better image of Kate can be found that is free use and also at least in focus. I know my eyes are bad, but surely... :) And have you heard the word "archive" before?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in again. I, too, thought I was not going to respond again, but whatever it was that she said (and I admit I don't care enough to go see what it was) triggered that. And then she got shitty (yes, that's what it was) on my talk page and then lectured me about being free to remove to content from my talk page but I should archive it. When I removed that note, my edit summary said "pls do not lecture me on my talk page about what I choose to delete and what I choose to archive." Anyway, I just thought I'd mention the Hepburn image to you because you had originally uploaded the one being used. I thought it was quite cool when Hepburn answered me that time, and thought enough of it to pay an exorbitant price to have the letter museum quality framed with a photo of her and Spencer Tracy, from Sea of Grass.


 * How dare you take a month long holiday! Or did I misread that? Where are you going? Didn't you just take a holiday last year?? :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong... Wales... Cyprus... these are not nearby countries. This is a world tour. Wales? I want your job. Actually, it's interesting to me - the people I talk to online either are well-to-do business types, OR travelling abroad is a lot more common elsewhere than it is in the US. The Englishman I write to goes to Australia a lot, the guy who runs the Four Word Film Review site took a honeymoon that was a world tour, the couple of Aussies I know go all over the place. I go to New York, New Orleans, the Smokey Mountains, the northeast coast of the US, or to Arizona. I want to go out of the country! Actually, some places I'd love to go include on a glacier cruise in Alaska, the Galapagos Islands, Ireland, Italy and Greece (I treasure and expect antiquities)... etc. etc. You could do quite a bit with a Europass and a month in Europe, I would think. Or I used to think. I'll miss ya. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Meryl
Thanks for reverting the last edit on the page. This guy is waging this battle to remove the descriptor "American" from both this and Haley Joel Osment. I didn't catch that he'd changed Meryl's again. I'm quite sorry, but I'm certain that if you ask nearly anyone where it is that people are referred to as "Americans", no one is going to say Canada or Mexico. Sheesh. I've asked him 3 times for policy, guideline, RfC result or precedent for his change and he's given links to talk page arguments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i gave you links to articles on the subject of usage of "american", talk pages for those articles, & wikipolicy, be fair Lx 121 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Sorry Rossrs, tht this spilled over to your talk page. I will respond to the above and then encourage the editor to carry out one conversation on one talk page and not continue a discussion here.)


 * You gave links to an unassessed page, therefore not checked for validity, to pages that discuss the word, which clearly gives the statement I quoted above, which do not dispute the use of the word, and in fact, verify that persons from the United States: in modern English it more frequently refers specifically to people or things from the United States... In adjectival use, it is generally understood to mean "of or relating to the United States of America"; for example, "Elvis Presley was an American singer" or "the American president gave a speech today;" in noun form, it generally means U.S. citizen or national (see names for Americans). and in fact, as I have stated more than once now, the order that the short list is given on the dab page American makes no reference to the use or meaning that you are implying. I also have told you that there is no point in reading through an extensive article talk page wherein no consensus was formed, no determination was made, and were in fact only ongoing arguments that have no relevance. You absolutely have not given any Wikipedia policy, as I asked, that specifically addresses this issue, nor have you given a guidelines, a request for comment outcome or a precedent despite the fact that I asked three times. How can it be unfair to say you have not given these things when you in fact have not? As I stated, editors from three different continents have disputed your changes and that is significant. At this point, I have to suggest that this is a matter of your point of view, unbased in any determination in policy. As you've been told on your talk page and in more than one edit summary, this is the normative convention for describing people from the United States and it has not been an issue on any of the thousands of biographies that I've looked at on this site. I have given numerous examples and rationales for why your change is wrong and all you've given me is an unassessed article - not a policy - and a couple of incessant talk page arguments. When everyone around you disagrees with your edit, perhaps it would serve you to actually consider that they have been here a long time and understand the conventions that are used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

american
well i won't fight this battle here, i have better things to do, but you should find it telling that "american" is a dab page, & your chosen definition is second, not first, on the list. if you had chosen to keep the link, you'd have needed a redirect; that says something too. i disagree, but i'll fight it on the WP level; anything else would be a waste of time. cheers :) Lx 121 (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nutbush madness
Does this person think that people are fooled? I put the curious comment up there intentionally to alert this person that no one would be inclined to believe that this was a spontaneous agreement. This is the sort of thing Dooyar used to do to back her position. Sheesh. Meanwhile, you do realize it is winter in the northern hemisphere? Won't you be cold? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a huge fan of hot weather myself. The upside of all the Turner hoopla is that she's backed off of it and Michael Jackson for the moment. Then again, the IP has taken up the battle. Maybe by the time you're back, it will be settled. Sorry about the "American" thing this morning. I honestly don't go looking for those things, they just fall into my lap. But you will get to see the Oscars won't you?? Heath Ledger fans the world over will be waiting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's a huge time differential and it must be frustrating. I will be plastered to my television, absorbing and appreciating each and every moment. My definite predictions are: Heath Ledger, Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle. My probable predictions are: Kate Winslet, Viola Davis, and Sean Penn. However, I think Kate will have a strong rival in Meryl Streep, Penelope Cruz has done quite well and could upset my Davis prediction and I think Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn either one could win. Mickey Rourke won the Independent Spirit Award tonight. I had more extensive comments that I posted at post #5 here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I read an interview with James Cromwell, who was talking about advice he gave Josh Brolin regarding the Supporting Actor category. He told him to just sit back and relax and have fun. He then said it's unfortunate for Brolin that he was nominated in the category this year, because everyone knows that Ledger is a lock. I've watched that bloody movie about a dozen times the last 2-3 weeks. His performance is mesmerizing. So then last night, I watched Brokeback Mountain and yeah, I cried like a baby. It reminded me of Daniel Day-Lewis last year, saying that the final scene with Ledger and the shirt was the most sublime piece of acting he'd ever seen - or something to that effect. Made me cry more. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was kind of pleased that I could predict it that well. Best Supporting Actress has always been a bit of a crap shoot for some reason. I'll be glad to watch Penelope Cruz's article while you're away. I'm just happy for her to finally win an award that means something (we all know those Goya awards mean nothing, I guess). It's kind of funny to me that I've written so many times that the Academy Award is just one of many, I believe when I first came here, I was adding "Academy Award-winning" to a lot of articles myself. I never doubted that Heath would win, I'd have demanded an investigation had he not won. I'm just glad that he also deserved it. I also think his family showed the right amount of restraint in avoiding all the lead up ceremonies and just appeared at the Oscars, since it was really the last of the lot. It was a fitting way to come and say thank you to everyone for all of them. I cried. Why not? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)