User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 10

Manson
I definitely didn't see any BLP violations, which is why I encouraged the other editor to cite specifics. It struck me as a strange deletion request, but I didn't want to assume there weren't some real facts supporting the arguments. . . somewhere. I guess you never know what's going to go helter-skelter these days!--otherlleft 09:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lisa
I got the image from this website: http://www.northplattebulletin.com/utilities/genThumb.asp?path=D:\inetpub\northplattebulletin\uploads\newsImages\240.jpg&width=175 Anyways, thanks for helping me out (regarding the image), that's very nice of you! P.S. It's the first image I have uploaded. If there are problems with it or you want to tell me ANYTHING that may help in the future, keep in mind that I won't be offended or anything, and in fact, will be very grateful to receive assistance. ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothica36 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Stipe
I fixed much of the article during a previous dismantling of the page; according to the current page comparison it hasn't changed much since (althought that overlooks any edits that were subsequently reverted). I definitely have resources to greatly improve the page, but it's all a matter of interest. I usually find it hard to muster enthusiasm to work on biographies of individual musicians; it's far more interesting for me to work on the band articles. However if you feel like working on it, I'm up for helping out. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Memories
Ah yes, what a couple of crazy kids we were ! ;-) Rossrs (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Petition to Free Child Rapist
Why did you revert all my edits to the people mentioned in the CNN article that signed the petition to free the child rapist Roman Polanski? Those were important edits and they were cited. Please explain, your edit summaries are non-sensical. Faethon Ghost (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And secondly, how are you going to give me a vandalism warning when I did not commit any vandalisms? I would like this explained as well. Thank you. Faethon Ghost (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that these highly visible people signed such a controversial petition (to free a child rapist) is very notable and it is irresponsible to not note those facts on these individuals' articles. It is so notable that it made major media outlets' headlines. Unless you have some personal bias to keep these facts (these people support child rape) hidden, please re-insert my edits. Faethon Ghost (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have Monica Bellucci on my watchlist, and I removed this little snippet yesterday... so... I noticed there had been more of the same. I've also commented at User:Faethon Ghost's user page. I think there's a huge amount of personal interpretation regarding what signing the document means, what the document says, and the fact that they are supporting a person, rather than condoning the act of what he is accused. As far as leaping to conclusions go, this is taking the Grand Canyon in a single bound. Aside from the BLP issues, it's just not relevant to each of the 140 people. If we're gonna report this, we'll have to report everything they sign or every time they represent a viewpoint or a cause, because it'll be sure to be of interest to somebody. There is such a witch-hunt mentality hanging over this case - it's very disturbing. Rossrs (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Wildhartlivie, I didn't see that coming. Leaping over the Grand Canyon and back again.   It's pretty vile, and it's an easy sort of cop out - smear whoever disagrees.   I've removed the personal attack from the user page.   Personal attacks don't belong anywhere, and I'm not going to allow to sit on a user page.   The page belongs to Wikipedia - ie all of us, so it's still subject to the same community standards.  Rossrs (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately yes, I can believe it. It's a bit scary to think that there are people with such flawed thought processes.   Rossrs (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's OK. I removed it from user's talk page because user has to know that I'm not going to tolerate that kind of comment being made anywhere.  If it had been less vile I may not have minded so much.  Yes, let's see what happens.   "I read the petition, they aren't defending him against the charges, they are protesting the manner in which he was arrested and where it happened."  Yep, that's the point I made on user's page.   Do you suppose user has read the petition?   I suspect not, user would be at grave risk of learning something.  Rossrs (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bundy is just yawning
Hi. Not that I really care much, but Ted Bundy is yawning in that picture. He never acted violently in court. --James599 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Gilda
Coincidentally, I saw a little of Gilda this morning, watching Es "20 Most Tragically Sad Hollywood Deaths" or something like that. I think Gilda's was the 11th saddest death. Sad, but not as sad as Phil Hartman's death which was 10th. John Ritter's death was even sadder, but not quite as sad as Bernie Mac's, while Steve Irwin's death was the 3rd saddest Hollywood death. I think he went to Hollywood a couple of times, so technically his was a Hollywood death. I can't remember who the second saddest death was, and that's sad for me. Heath Ledger's was the saddest death of them all. Sadly, the deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Carole Lombard, Jean Harlow and Rudolph Valentino were not sad at all! I thought they were, but there you have it, clearly I was mistaken. I watch some crap, I really do. Rossrs (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And Sharon Tate! Her death was ....... sad. Don't you think it was sad? I do. E don't.  Yep, we'll have to give her article some work. If you ever find anything that can go in my amusements page, please let me know. I'd kind of forgotten about it, until it was mentioned today and I read through it again. I much prefer that to the some of the other nonsense I get myself involved in. :-) Rossrs (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!, but at the risk of sounding slanted, I, as the biographer of Peg Entwistle, have to say that her suicide from the Hollywood Sign when she was just 24, ranks up among the saddest Hollywood deaths...um, not to take away from all the rest mentioned here, mind you!Jameszerukjr (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim Jones & Signatures
Hi Wildhartlivie! You were right about that last revert. I should have manually added back in the maintenance templates only. Thanks for adding the reference as per WP:LEADCITE. While I only came upon this article doing recent changes patrol, I did read an article some time ago in The New York Times Magazine dealing with Jones’s sole surviving son who was away at a basketball game the day of the mass deaths and it discussed much of what was in that particular paragraph. So, I knew it to be true and was not doubting you. My only concern was that, to the uninitiated, it’s a very dramatic statement that is all the more forceful when it is supported by a verifiable reference/citation. Plus, with the footnote, it complies with WP:LEADCITE, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE.

By the way, the anon that you reverted in that introduction came to my talk page to yell at me for reverting him! I explained to him that he had his gun pointed at the wrong man. Oh, and I also put a Uw-npa3 on his talk page!

As for my signature, thank you for pointing out the problem. I was trying to create something that looked like the chops I and my spousal unit collect. Since you have special insight into these difficulties, do you think that any of the following would be easier to read/perceive:


 * 1)  SpikeToronto 
 * 2)  SpikeToronto 
 * 3)  SpikeToronto 
 * 4)  SpikeToronto 
 * 5)  SpikeToronto 

I would very much appreciate your input. Also, would a lighter shade of blue be better perceived? I have a whole raft of test edits here. Any input you would be so kind as to provide me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Wildhartlivie! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Viagra-based edit summary...
Don't worry about your summary -- there aren't many laughs in a Barrow page, so it's good to get one!--HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men
Please address the issues raised at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured list criteria--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hey. Remember this stupid idiotic interesting article? It seems someone took it upon themselves to restore the content even though there was an AfD to redirect to Britney Spears. Now, here's where the question comes up - seems after it was restored, it was put up for deletion again but there was no consensus. Should the original AfD be upheld (which I think I opened but can't find) or what? I'm confuzzled.  Pinkadelica ♣  05:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn it! I was still psyching myself up to "just be bold and redirect it!" Ah, screw it, I'm a scaredy cat. I'll keep it watchlisted. Thanks.  Pinkadelica ♣  06:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's cool. I'll go throw my weight around on the Audrey page to make myself feel better.  Pinkadelica ♣  06:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James mediation
Hey there -- I've opened the mediation case on Jesse James and your input is appreciated in advance as you're an involved party. Thanks! [Belinrahs &#124; 'sup? &#124; what'd I do?] 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle mention on actress Phyllis Cerf Wiki
Hey stranger! Sorry to hear of your health issues...I hope and will pray for you. Anyway, if you get a min, I was wondering if you could stop by the Phyllis Cerf Wiki. I was rewriting a chapter from my book and wondered if PC had a Wiki, I was pleased to find she does and added a small something in her "Hollywood" sedction....just wondering if it is okay? Be well! Jameszerukjr (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Adam Sandler POV
Oh, I'm sorry, this does appear to be okay then, you have cited correct wiki codes and they appear to be correct... It does appear to be an 'opinion' of a critic none the less... Maybe you would like to include a sentence in his popularity, regardless of what critics would then... those films are debatable on what reasons people like them, regardless of what people are into...

But yeah, everything seems to check out... I was mistaken...

YOu may want to add some neutral or positive statements on those early movies....

--DavisHawkens (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the comments in question are still trashing his early movies just because their silly... And the article is Bias towards typical critical Commentary POV, And I legitamitely believed that Wikipedia rules meant it wasn't supposed to be balanced to either side... But the Wiki Policies you quoted show people can sway it how they want, that thats acceptable... I understand... Its just from what I read it appeared you weren't supposed do to that sort of thing, But apparently it is quite acceptable, according to what Policies you cited. It is a bias type of Encloypedia, I kinda get that now...

Sorry again, but I still i'm grasping the rules and from what I seem to always read... they're are numerous contradictions... In what Wikipedia is supposed to be... And how its meant to run....

So i'm assuming you can actually add other critical info... At least from what i read... I'm sure theres other critics who would disagree... Still I thought this was supposed to avoid that sorta thing....

Not trying to fuss. - --DavisHawkens (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda, but the comment, it is basically saying 'Screw these movies, these ones are better because of these reasons'... Again those inclusions are insults about the characters, and are obviously open for interpretation depending on what your into.... its saying 'This is why you should or shouldn't like it', It does have that lame critic type of opinion pretention, Screw Sandler-comedies, attitude... I'm not really getting worked up about it, i'm just saying i figured this Wiki thing was supposed to be different.... But it appears to be written just like the rest of em'... What i'm sayin probably sounds "retarded" to you, but i hope you understand what i'm getting at... never mind.... Forget it... I won't alter it again unless i'm adding another review... --DavisHawkens (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

List of overweight actors in United States cinema
You edited this article. This is a friendly notice that your input would be welcome at Articles for deletion/List of overweight actors in United States cinema. This information is provided without any request that you support or oppose the deletion of the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Imposing ordnance
Couldn't I get my "imposing" back in the "Buck joins" section of B&C? Plainly, imposing is what they had in mind when they took some of those pictures -- particularly the ones where Clyde stacked several rifles upon each other and held them all. Thanks!--HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)--HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand about POV; as you might imagine, I'm now scouring for references to support "imposing." Wouldn't it be ironic if it winds up being the detested Geringer piece where I find it!--HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback: Hard-to-read Signature
 Spike Toronto  01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ElijahBosley, in re: Abraham quote on Paul Newman page
You have a point. That is, about the Henry Abraham quote about Paul Newman as his Kenyon roommate. Professor Abraham has repeated that anecdote to me and to several others including recently Supreme Court Justice Scalia, and he verified it just three days  ago. He stands behind it. But it is not written down anywhere (yet). This shows a weakness, not a strength of Wikipedia policy. Lawyers consider writings, whether books or newspapers articles or what have you, to be hearsay and untrustworthy unless you can cross examine the author. There is a lot of bunk that's found its way into the papers, and what's more important for present purposes, what is left out is usually the good stuff. Consider reconstructing your own life history just from letters and e-mails and what has been written about you. Still I will defer to Wikipedia's rather foolish policy until I can get Henry Abraham to write down his anecdote in a letter to me, and then I will cite the letter. As if that makes it more credible.ElijahBosley (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

B&C photos
Thx for the compliment and the cropping... size 'em however you think is best... I just want to get 'em up, and put this page to bed... I think we're close to that... Thanks for your help and patience!--HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right: the WD photo looks much better scaled back -- it's such a close-up. I have a few more to put up, I think. Thanks for the help--HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I moved the video player to the right in Bonnie and Clyde. I like the way it tightens everything up there (and gets rid of annoying whitespace), but if you don't like it, I won't be offended if you revert it.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but why did you revert my caption edit?--HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I think we're looking real good in there now -- thanks for your help and patience.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

IPA for swank
If what I added was not an IPA pronunciation can you please add the correct one thankyou--Anthony morgan peters (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Get Well
Get well soon. :)--Anthony morgan peters (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I had not heard
What are the odds of a unicycle-riding bull, a baby grand piano and John Travolta all being on a cliff at the same time? A unicycle-riding bull, a baby grand piano and Wile-E-Coyote perhaps. But John Travolta? Rossrs (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I love South Park and I love that episode, though I have not seen it for a long time and can't remember all the details.  I don't have a favourite episode but the one that sticks in my mind is the one where Butters goes missing and is assumed to have been abducted and murdered.  Also the Saddam in hell segments.  I'm OK thanks.   Nothing much has changed since I last wrote, but I am exhausted.   Jobwise, I'm tired of dealing with people, you know.   I could write a book about them, but that would mean reliving my interractions with some of them, and with some of them I definitely think one excrutiating episode is enough.  I seem to attract difficult people like I'm wearing a great big "difficult people" magnet, but that's the nature of my job and nothing I can do about it.   (Today I had a doozy, and I have to speak to him again first thing in the morning.  I'd prefer to be sticking needles in my eyes, but I'm not that lucky.)   It's the not feeling exactly well, that makes it harder to deal with.   I think I need a change, but at the very least I need a rest, and we're having a week away in 2 weeks time.   Looking forward to it.   Nothing earth shattering - just a nice relaxing beachy week, and I want to sleep, read, sit in the sun, dip in the water, stroll aimlessly, watch TV .... and that's about all!    I'd be happy to have a week of lying on the couch watching DVDs.  I don't need to be entertained or stimulated,  so you see, I am easily pleased.  :-)  How are things with you?  Rossrs (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi there WHL, VASCO from Portugal,

Thank you very much for helping Crohnie after this "argument" (to call it that) about some edits i made in Death of Baby P, nice teamwork! Speaking of that, i went to the page again, to "behold" your work, and found out one extra [ in REF#18; i tried to remove it, but cannot. Could you help me out? Ty again.

Keep it up, cheers,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind, upon a second glance, found it and removed it. Thank you very much anyway, mate! Keep up the good work, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

GAR
I am not a good person to ask about Sweeps protocol. Talk to someone like or .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway (actress) GAR notice
Anne Hathaway (actress) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is going on with the Anne Hathaway (actress) GAR. It is very close to passing, but no one has come by to finish it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP
Hi, I removed this. I thought about taking it to BLP, but I decided it was a no-brainer considering that a very vicious accusation is made against the person, on the basis of signing a document that may or may not have been read by the contributor. In any case, the context is not supported by the mere act of adding a signature. I also thought the personal attack, though not specifically aimed at one editor, was still enough of an attack to justify removal. Not sure about the rest though. I think it's valid for someone to ask whether something should be included, but when "rapist" is used as part of the naming of the person, I can't see anything but an attempt to inflame and agenda with a capital "A". These side issues have probably died down enough now that it's not likely to escalate, but I'm interested in your opinion. Rossrs (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * absolutely.  I don't see much logic in his comments.  There's nothing to address the usefulness of keeping the template, but more a disagreement of the reasons for removing it.   That's not how to sway people.   Rossrs (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was anything wrong with it, but I think it's a double edged sword.  While it could perhaps alert other editors to wider concerns, it could also be a "foot-in-the-door" for him to steer the discussion, so... not wrong, but a little risky.     On lighter note WhoTF is "opera"?   Laughing, but not for the reasons intended. :-)   Rossrs (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think people would see that too. Rob Thomas is fairly rationale too, isn't he?    You can't beat "shitmydadsays" - and the photograph is just perfect.    I love that he has 556,145 followers, but he follows only Levar Burton.   Levar Burton?  Rossrs (talk) 09:10, 16 October 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)

-

A reply to your post you send me. With thanks for replying of course. I must be a liar. Just forget it. Thats the thanks you get for trying to get involved - I will email wikipedia with my thoughts after "one attempt" to update a listing. I have the magazine itself but I was planning on scanning it in and putting it online for the entry but wasn't given a chance to. Won't be now thats for sure.

Looking at the wiki page for her, a number of things on the page cannot be verified so i may weed them all out later. Got to keep it accurate haven't we?

Ralf whiggum1 (talk) 9:10, 17th October 2009 (UTC)

--

No - you are looking for proof - nobody else - just you.

I am not spiteful - One one hand you are saying things should be cited then you are telling me I can't be removing things that aren't cited? I want to make the article accurate - by removing things that are not able to be verfied. You told me thats the case. I won't do it until i read all terms/conditions and hear a reply from wikipedia with my thoughts.

I can see hundreds of articles that have citations but are to magazines and newspapers, none online. So why are they accepted?

I think the system of wiki is wrong and now I see first hand why. Not reliable source at all if things that are true are deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf whiggum1 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

--

Hi, I've decided I'll not bother editing/updating/adding articles. I'll take it up with wikipedia about the scenario. I will see about deleting this account as well. Thanks for making a new member feel welcome by the way! Ralf whiggum1 (talk) 9:40, 17th October 2009 (UTC)

--

OK I hear what you are saying. I will email my comments to wikipedia regardless.

I apologise to you if I seemed a little het up - I hope you accept my apology.

I will not update any articles in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf whiggum1 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

--

Hi, looking over the mag - I wrote down the wrong publishers name. I hope you havent asked them as it was incorrect. I was all het up and rushing because it kept getting removed, that led to the mistake. sorry again for putting you to all this trouble. I think we should now just forget it. I do feel rotten for putting you out. I hope you accept my apology. Ralf whiggum1 (talk) 15:47, 17th October 2009 (UTC)

Heath
I'm not sure it's the best source, but in this particular case, I think it's correct. I think it would be worth looking at http://www.nla.gov.au/ however their online database is down for maintenance this weekend. I've done a little bit of searching, but I can only find bad sources. They're easy to find. :-(  I'll keep thinking though.  Rossrs (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny. I haven't read everything, but I love the bit where Heath has (uncited) problems with paparazzi in Sydney, so he sells up and moves to New York, where...... there are no photographers?  None of the three cites deal with the privacy issue, just the property value.   I'll reword it sometime, but I know you're working on it right now, so I won't edit conflict with you.  Rossrs (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

mind weighing in on this?

 * User_talk:Tedder

Thanks, tedder (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Milano
No problem. I caught the tail end of a little "current affairs" snippet yesterday, that said that celebrity obsession was becoming recognised as a genuine medical disorder. (Accompanied by video footage of various stars being trapped by a posse of paparazzi even though they're doing nothing more notable or newsworthy than walking along a pavement.) In my own lifetime I've seen celebrity interest grow to a point where there is almost saturation point disclosure on just about everything a celebrity says and does. They say TV brought celebrities into our living rooms - we didn't have to go to a cinema to see them - but where does Twitter bring them - into our private mind-space? It's no wonder that someone raised in that kind of culture would believe it all needs to go in an encyclopedia. There is so much inane detail in so many articles, and the scary thing is that most of it is added in the best possible faith. Just thought I'd share that because I thought it was interesting and I wonder where it ends. It looks a bit like a rant, but it's not meant to be. :-) Rossrs (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say most people would be level-headed enough to take Twitter as a bit of fun, and maybe a chance to learn a little bit about the thoughts of the celebrities who interest them. I know you and Johnny are a special case, so I won't comment further about the two of you, other than to wish you both all the best.   I was thinking more of the Robert Bardots of the world, who may feel even closer to the Rebecca Schaeffers of the world, if the Rebeccas are all pouring out their thoughts on Twitter and the Bardots are reading them almost as soon as they are thought.  I think it's just part of the cycle that brings the celebrities into a closer orbit, and it isn't always going to be healthy.   I guess every parent has to be making a judgement call about what films they take their children to see.  Wild Things obviously has fairly dark moments.  Likewise Harry Potter - even the first one which is aimed at a younger audience than the later ones, has some very disturbing moments.   Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and The Wizard of Oz are quite dark too.   I'm not a parent, but I wonder if carefully exposing children to a degree of darkness isn't a necessary part of their education and development.   As a child the most terrifying story I ever read was Hansel and Gretel and I had nightmares about the witch coming and taking my mother.  I can't recall anything else that was supposedly  a children's story, having a greater impact on me.  I wonder if the lesson learnt was more important than the fear.   I equated it with "stranger danger".   I had a friend that was very sheltered and his parents vetted everything he did, everything he saw, and he was a very "soft" child, and incredibly naive.   There are limits though - my 12 year old great-niece recently announced that she'd watched Wolf Creek during an (unsupervised?) sleep-over with another 12 year old.   My sister (her grandmother) hadn't seen the film and asked me if I thought it was appropriate.   Ahhhh, no.    There's obviously a line somewhere between Snow White and Wolf Creek.   Not sure exactly where it is for me. Rossrs (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What a world, indeed! I quite like slasher films, but only when they take me out of the real world.  For example, I can't buy Michael Myers as a real person, the violence is stylised and heightened, and to a degree is a kind of lampoon, so the film (and others of its ilk) doesn't take me out of my comfort zone.   The plot devices are cliched - the young, vulnerable girl will always go to the abandoned house/dark and scary dungeon/lonely forest/derelict insane asylum.   Whatever.   We know she's going to end up there one way or another, and we know that at least one of the pretty blondes will prevail, until the sequel.   Which is why Scary Movie etc can turn it into comedy without needing to give it more than a tiny twist.   Those I like.  Wolf Creek, I'm guessing you aren't going to go and see anytime soon, and I don't recommend it.   It stays within a real world, the characters seem real, the violence seems real, the blood and gore looks real.   It doesn't offer the roller-coaster thrill ride of the average slasher film.   It's like someone is following a serial killer with a camera, and not trying to save the victim, and it's unredeemingly unpleasant.    There's another Australian film Jindabyne that I would recommend.    Some elements of the serial killer are similar, and it stays within a real world, and yet nothing is shown of the killing, because it's clear enough without showing it.   Wolf Creek is murder-porn in a sense of presenting brutality as entertainment, while Jindabyne is about the people affected by a murder.   That's my pick of the week - Laura Linney, Gabriel Byrne and Deborra-Lee Furness, (the under-utilised-by-the-film-world Mrs Hugh Jackman) - you could do worse. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope some of Obama's money heads in your direction. That would certainly help, wouldn't it? So keep me posted. I've never seen Before and After. It's one of those films that I've considered but it's always lost out to something else. I hadn't read the plot summary for Jindabyne until you mentioned it, and it shows how much POV goes into movie plot summaries. I look at what's written, and I think if I'd written it, I would have emphasised some things that aren't even mentioned in the summary. It's sincere but superficial. One of the things I like about the film is that it doesn't deal with absolutes, but rather it shows the different viewpoints of the various characters as shades of grey. Much like real life. Anyway, I won't bore you further with that. Another one I'd recommend, while I'm wearing my movie-review hat is another Australian film, Lantana. Don't read the Wikipedia plot because it gives away too much and spoils the suspense. (If you're interested, the Ebert review doesn't reveal the resolution to the mystery). Whoever wrote it may as well have transcribed the script. It's similar to Jindabyne in that a lot of it is about dealing with consequence. It has Anthony LaPaglia, Geoffrey Rush and Barbara Hershey (we love importing "names" for our little Aussie films), and a fabulous actress Kerry Armstrong. She's had a good career in Australia, but her U.S. endeavours kind of failed after a stint on Dynasty and a Murder, She Wrote. She deserved better. She reminds me of Jessica Lange. Oh, nearly forgot... I noticed the recent revert you did to Sharon Tate. It's bizarre that someone who probably doesn't really give a damn, would make such a moronic display of moral outrage. Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Game
Eh...I wouldn't worry about it. The content/blog link which the IP was trying to get in is now removed because it's outdated (do we really need to say that the show is being shopped to BET now that it's already been picked up? Nope!). If they want to complain about that being removed, the talk page is free and clear. Unless there's a new policy stating that established editors can't edit a semi-protected article, they're just whistling in the wind as far as I'm concerned.  Pinkadelica ♣  02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress)
I have begun a new discussion on this talk page concerning our most recent edits. I would greatly appreciate your participation. &mdash;Major Seventh (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

TFD
Unfortunately I can't do much either. I'm just waiting for it to be closed. I commented myself (a few times...) on the tfd so I can't close it myself. I did closed a bunch of other tfd's so that this one will be one of the few remaining. I also saw some of the other issues you have with this editors. I was really tempted to remove the over-tagging on that article but thought it's better to first have this tfd closed. Garion96 (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. :) I also posted a message here asking for someone to close these two tfd's. Garion96 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And they're gone. Garion96 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious
Check out the infobox image. I mean, really, why bother? :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * and this (and I love that it's a "retouched" image, so this is the improved version.) Rossrs (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL winning ip
LOL great title....I was thinking the same no real use...but a log of messages might be usefull in the future to get him banned if need be....Tks for talking the time to write to me ....someone of your stature typing to me makes me feel important. your new follower Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Leslie Van Houten
I could not find a citation for the last edit, though the wiki article Most Evil shows this information. I want this to be noted that Van Houten was not Psychopathic, how else can i prove this? The Most Evil documentary is a reliable source. It can't be a BLP violation if another wiki article has the same information.PhilOak (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Hamer photo at Bonnie and Clyde
Hi! I see your (superior) crop of the Hamer photo at the image file page, but my old crop seems to be what shows up on the B&C article itself. I don't know enough to fix it, but I'll bet you do.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you ever get hate mail like my meanfrank posting? Gee, I got him so mad, he forgot how to spell "you're"! I found it funny he signed and datestamped it. Wonder if he has anything to do with Frank Hamer... or a certain ursine B&C editor?--HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know!
About Tom, or that Sarah Jessica Parker has also had some work done. Looking good! Rossrs (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was hilarious too.  I think what makes it more amusing is that the image caption wasn't changed, and is very "matter-of-fact".    I've added it to my amusement page. Rossrs (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Michael Jackson's work is being reappraised, and there is more of an effort to focus on his talent and overlook his weirdness. While he was alive, the opposite was the case.  I heard that So Ya Think Ya Can Dance was wanting to do a MJ night, but it didn't happen.  Next season, perhaps.  I'm interested to see This Is It too.   I saw Moonwalker a few weeks ago.   I had never cared much about seeing it, and if not for my sister showing up with the DVD and insisting we watch it, I might not have bothered.  I enjoyed it, but I don't feel any need to watch it again.     I can remember reading something about Yoko's childhood experiences.   Imagine having something like that as a childhood memory?  Sheez.    From various things I've read, I have the impression that although Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney don't get along, Yoko has always separated the person from the art, and has been respectful of the Beatles legacy.  Rossrs (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lansbury, tables & awards
I just wanted to reiterate that I am quite willing to continue working on the tables and incorporating the awards into the tables. That will allow you to concentrate on the other points raised in the peer review. I have a user subpage that several people use when adding awards to filmographies at User:Wildhartlivie/Award and nominations templates. With this, all one has to do with most all film awards is copy and paste the templates. This keeps us from having to look up all the correct awards pages. I'm going to a little league football game this evening to watch my goddaughter's son play in the semi-finals of the "Super Bowl", and planned on finishing up the tables when I got home. Hope the peer review notes help and some of the housekeeping I've already made to the article were helpful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would highly appreciate any additional work done on Angela Lansbury. I am not going to begin editing it quite yet (I am in fact searching hastily and without any luck for her biography) and am collecting valuable information in the meantime. Your comments at the peer review will definitely serve as a good set of guidelines. I am attempting to fashion the article after Anne Hathaway (actress), and featured article content, notably Katie Holmes, which I believe is more in-depth than necessary (but hey, who's complaining?). Have fun at that game! Thanks again. &mdash;Major Seventh (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser
I didn't know there was even a way of checking how many users were watching. I'm a bit disappointed that with all the watching, so few stop by to say "hi". Mind you, a lot could have been added long ago and never removed. I have a bunch on my watchlist that I've never bothered removing. Now from the curiouser to the downright bizarre. I have just walked in the door from spending a couple of hours in the shops. Among my purchases, I brought home This. Is that an obscure kind of coincidence or what???? I thought I'll just check in here while I'm adding it to my iPod and ..... I'm just a tad gobsmacked. Rossrs (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do find coincidences interesting. I don't think they are anything more than that, but the more obscure they are, the more they attract my attention.  "Curiouser" is a very odd word ... (isn't it used in Alice in Wonderland?) .... and to be sitting with a CD in front of me at the same I'm seeing the word appear in the title of a message to me.   I noticed too, that you sent the message about a minute before I saw it, so the timing was something.   I always mean to go back and take a pelican picture of my own, but it's not the sort of the thing I think of at the right time.  One day.   I'm listening to Curiouser now, and I've decided that "The Last Day on Earth" is one of the most beautiful songs I've heard.  Very Kate Bushy, very "This Woman's Worky".    It's amazing what one can do in a kayak but I don't think you can do that!!   I tried it myself to see ... and it's very weird.  It gives me very definite directions "turn left into Edward St", "turn right into Alice St" and it even knows that to get on the Riverside Express I need to "take the ramp" and it seems to assume without saying that I am in a car.   I was kind of expecting that once I hit "Myilly Terrace" in Darwin there would be an instruction "Buy a kayak".   But no.   That seems like an incredible oversight.   I'm amused no end.  I love Google Earth, so I will forgive it for its utter ridiculousness. Rossrs (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Annoyeder and annoyder
I'm annoyed that my email account has been disabled. Every 2 or 3 weeks it asks me for my password, and every 2 or 3 weeks it tells me my password is wrong, so I go through the nonsense of updating it. I shouldn't have to do that, but it only takes a few minutes, so I've gritted my teeth and done it each time. Now, for the first time, it's told me my account has been disabled and in 24 hours I'll have a new one. WOW, thanks. 24 hours. Take your time. Anyway, we'll see. I will probably have lost my folders, so I'm not happy. Rossrs (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There is so much horror in Port Arthur's past and it seems jarring because the place is so beautiful and so serene.   The memorial, at what was the cafe in which most of the victims were killed, is very sobering.  I was just looking through my photos.  I didn't take any at the cafe, because that seemed disrespectful.  I suppose if people have been dead longer, I don't have the same moral anguish, because I did take photos of the Isle of the Dead and the gravestones are amazing.  They do brilliant Ghost Tours in the main part of the complex (you wouldn't get me on that island at night) and .... talk about creepy, going through the prison, the mortuary, the chapel, the asylum, all in the dark following one volunteer with a lantern.   EEK!   I was very rattled.   We went back the following day in glorious sunshine and it was a whole different place.   I'll let you know if my email is dead and gone, and if I've lost my emails, I'll start again with hotmail.   Stupid Yahoo!  Rossrs (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're probably not alone in being spooked by old hospitals. I can think of a few that pop up in horror films so maybe the filmmakers are inspired by them.   The medical profession has a fairly gruesome past hasn't it?   Although in a hundred years they may be saying that about our current level of care.   The appearance of this killer caused discussion here when it happened and when he was tried - he was referred to either as a baby-faced killer or a surfer dude.   I see more of the latter in his appearance, and if memory serves me correctly, surfing was one of his interests.   I think he may have been more successful in his aims than the Columbine guys by luck rather than anything else.   The geography and "openness" of Port Arthur, its isolation, the large number of people, the sheer incredulity that they must have experienced.   Did you read that a number of them heard the gunshots and thought it was a re-enactment and actually walked towards the cafe to see what was happening?  There was also a woman and her two children who were trying to escape on foot some time after the shootings at the cafe, when he came up beside them in his car.   They thought he was there to help, and walked towards him too, and of course, he killed them.   Not that running would have helped, but actually thinking they were safe and heading towards him.  God, how awful.  I don't think he planned it to any degree, but was more opportunistic in reacting to the situation as it unfolded.   He was probably "lucky" that there were no real obstacles for him in the early stages.   Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Murphy template
Yep, I got them all. The template is now orphaned. Technically it could be added to the individual album articles, but since I don't like templates (to say it mildly) I think I'm skipping that step. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet
My ownership – or your ownership, that’s the question. Once I removed ALL reviews, in the other case I tried to balance out the negative reviews with positive statements on the other side. Never cherrypicking, attempting to balance out; you posted negative reviews and  posting the other side was necessary to reach a neutral point of view. You forced it, take a look at the history. I never removed negative reviews, take a look. Posting negative reviews in a gossip-like manner in fact violates the policy of WP. WP is a encyclopedia, not a second-life-reviewing. Would be good to come to a consensus without menaces. My suggestions are: Either 1. no reviews. or 2. reviews in a neutral point of view. the worst and the best review and one roundup for both productions respectively seems fair, without highlighting one. The current editing isn’t neither fair nor neutral. In this moment initially, I would prefer to delete all reviews and starting the new edits. Tell me your decision, please.Wik4 (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No changes made, can't see any cooperation, what could be the cause for further communication? Wik4 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Elfman
Your input here would be greatly appreciated.  Pinkadelica ♣  01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question
Yes, all Scientology-related articles are subject to article probation - "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT.  See Category:Articles on probation." You can look up general sanctions such as this at General sanctions, and if you feel some sort of enforcement is needed, you can make a request at WP:AE. If they're new to the area, you may want to just try to explain things to them. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Billy the Kid
Why have you reverted back to the original after I changed these sections to accurately reflect the information in the sources given? I have all of these books beside me and the person who quoted them did so improperly.We had discussed most of these changes in August and no one had objected to my information. You yourself said: "In fact, I'd more doubt the person who put in all the references than the Wallis book itself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)" Thank you --Gordontaos (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jude Law
I see the editor responded. I will add the article to my watchlist at least to keep an eye on it. I wonder if I could re add the red links on the Donald Duck filmography. It does look like consensus (although not unanimous) that red links aren't evil. :) Garion96 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in no real hurry, I can wait till Erik shows up again. I can't say it was a delight in having a discussion with that editor. See User_talk:SlamDiego. One of my weirdest discussions ever on Wikipedia. :) I reverted my lasty edit to that discussion, it was pointless. Garion96 (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wildhartlivie. What is the reasoning for the undoing of any commentary mentioning Jude Laws affair? The comments made are factual and backed up by multiple sources. I would think this is an important aspect of his "Personal life" and better explains his separation from Fiancé Miller? Is there some valid reason it is edited within minutes every time a reference to this incident is mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.141.162 (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Janis Joplin
Okay. But I don't udnerstand why one picture is, and one not with copyright. Is there any better picture (I think that it should be picture where Janis sings). --Ogggy (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. Yes, I know that it's cover of "Farewell Song" etc, and that new picture is her passport, actually, but if there's no other picture with law, okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogggy (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes!
Thanks for your recent edits!!

Re: Anthony Hopkins
Most of the news outlets Ive seen today seem to be sourcing THR and it seems like a easier leap of faith to omitt the part about him being in negotiations rather than including it. However given the credibility of Variety and the other sources you mentioned makes this difficult. So if you or others feel comfortable with adding this info, I will not object.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Return of the HarveyCarter sockpuppet
Hey. I tried for the first time to maneuver through the request for a sockpuppet investigation but couldn't make heads nor tails of the instructions. So I thought you might have a handle on this. The HarveyCarter sock has returned, or, I should say, has reverted to pseudonyms again after I publicly busted him for using ISPs starting with 92.. His current ID is LouisWalshFan, and he's making trouble on Steve McQueen, Christopher Walken, and the usual suspects. What to do? Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Razzie template
I saw in your removal here of the template for the Razzie Award for Worst Actor at the Bill Cosby page that in your edit summary you said that WP:ACTOR "concluded long ago that these are bad faith parody awards, not legitimate industry awards and wouldn't be listed thusly on articles." All I could find in the project's archived talk pages was a discussion about awards in the infobox, not templates down at the bottom of the page. The project concluded only that the Razzie should not go in the actor infobox; it did not conclude anything about the Razzies being bad faith parody. What is "bad faith parody?" I thought a parody was free speech, and that good or bad faith didn't apply.

If the template is considered such bad faith, why not get it deleted so that it is not an option?

Can you point me to the project discussion and conclusion? Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment by . Cirt (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Razzies
Hey, thanks - I didn't know the Razzies were discouraged. (It just appeared to be an inadvertent deletion when the image caption was reverted by Durova.) Any thoughts on the caption itself? I'm inclined to leave the photographer's name, simply because it is confusing in the Shatner infobox, but would welcome other opinions. --Ckatz chat spy  08:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, sorry to disturb then. I presumed you were just watching the William Shatner, and didn't realize you were doing a mass removal. (As for the image question, it was to do with having the caption mention the photographer's name. Arguments for focused on the notability of the photographer, while my concern is that it looks odd when the image is the portrait in the infobox as opposed to an image elsewhere in the article.) Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  08:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tfd
In response to your request for help. You started out ok. Put a new Tfd template on the templates you want to delete. Then go to Templates for discussion. See the explanatory text, where it says "Follow this link to edit the section of Tfd for today's entries."? Press it and follow the instructions, namely add a Tfd2 template to the list, while filling in the name of the template you want to have deleted. Write me on my talkpage if you need more help. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. But there is a section for 1 November. Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_1. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It also might be that in your time-zone it was already 1 November, but the Wikipedia page is created according to UTC. Or perhaps you just didn't recognise it because it is called on wp:tfd not "November 1" but . Debresser (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom courtesy notice
Just to advise that you have been named as a party in a request for Arbitration: Arbitration/Requests/Case.

It is actually a requirement that the filing party of an ArbCom request personally alert anyone who was named, however this appears to have not occurred. Manning (talk) (ArbCom clerk) 12:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dylan Klebold
People don't put hammer and sickles on their boots while killing people just to look good. Just like the WRATH Shirt Klebold was wearing, it was symbolic of his motivations. And for your convenience I put placed a reference to the autopsy on it. And it the word Intrestingly disturbs you, I will be more than happy to remove it just for you.

Eric Harris drew Swatsikas on his papers and people don't ask "oh who says that has anything to do with Nazism?" See, the idea of questioning that if the symbol people use has anything to do with the ideology it represents is stupid. Just like the argument "who says The Hammer and sickle has anything to do with communism" is ridiculous and holds no weight because it is the International Symbol of Communism. That has been established for about 90 years now. The hammer and Sickle has never at any time was used to promote anything other than communism. And i'm pretty sure that Dylan didn't wear it to promote world peace, or for finding the cure for AIDS.

Besides, I said that "besides this, no other evidence been found suggesting that his motivations were related to communism". And that is not original research because it is a fact.Rezashah4 (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

inre this
Thanks. I knew that was the case, but have recently crossed paths with others who need to hear it from someone else. Being able to point to the diff will be helpful. Appreciate it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince and the Razzies
Hi Wild, I noticed reverted a reference to the Razzies on the Prince article recently. It has since been re-added by another editor (not me). Please see the Prince talk page before deleting it again. Thanks so much and I wish you good health and happiness!-- — Kbob • Talk  • 20:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Jenna Elfman
Couldn't it just be called Scientology or has that been tried before? -- Stillwaterising (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Love
I do not understand why you reverted my recent edits - except that I should have left in the part about the burnt script. But even that was in the wrong sequence when I deleted it. You have reinstated factual errors and sophomoric writing. Watch the movie again. Ronstew (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will give you a point-by-point reply on the weekend. Ronstew (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibson's new baby
See here. Apparently, the daughter's name was misreported (or rather, most likely satirical since Eva Mauner is Hitler's ex-wife). ★ Dasani ★ 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

August Coppola
Thank you for your advice, I think I heeded it.Jimbosil (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Template question
Found your TFD on a similar template and wanted to get your opinion on this one, thanks! Dreadstar ☥  19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The last TFD was here. I imagine I can speedy delete this new one...let me know if you agree...Dreadstar  ☥  20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For shame, titillating contains one of the seven deadly sins...er...words..and mine virgin ears doth turn red in shame at having mine eyes connect with such tit-language.! I must be on my way to speedily delete the rascally and titillating (oops! Did I say that?) template... :) Dreadstar  ☥  21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jane Fonda GAR
Looking at the review page, I don't see any statement by the reviewer saying that the article was passed/failed/put on hold. The reviewer linked the page to the talk page in late 2008, but the article history records it as April 2009. If the reviewer determined that the article did pass/fail, then it does not need to be reviewed again as we are only looking at articles before August 2007 for Sweeps. Let me know if you need further clarification. I'll try and comment on the Razzie issue later today. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Final Run" section of Bonnie and Clyde
We had built up considerable flab -- and commas -- in the first two paragraphs of "Final Run." I trimmed 'em up. Hope you're well.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references on Fort Hood shooting
First of all, I find nothing on the article talk page where the odd formatting was first proposed, widely discussed and agreed on before it was used. What I find is discussion after the fact and comments that it is an odd reference style, but again, no consensus to use it or keep it. I do not see that particular style recommended in Wikipedia citation guidelines or policies. I do not see an imbedded note on the article page indicating that a new style of referencing is being used, or that editors agreed on it. So when someone comes into the article and discovers reference links that are dead, and finds something entirely odd and slightly insane in appearance while trying to fix that, it is not unheard of for it to be changed. I'd be entirely grateful if someone would point out the Wikipedia reference guidelines or policies that suggest that this odd style is now accepted for referencing. Frankly, I don't care if it ruffles someone's feathers, why would anyone try to institute a format of referencing that isn't used here and do so without notating it somewhere in the article, especially since no one had a problem with imbedding notes not to use photographs not related to the shooting or that this isn't technically a massacre. It seems to me that a mention of the reference style being used from another version from Wikimedia but not this one might come to mind to someone. If you don't like it, then by all means, change it back. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't post complaints about my having changed the referencing.


 * Whether you agree, accept or whatever, this is clearly a discussion about the refs. style where the originator of the format and others discussed the proposed use the style. No substantive argument was raised against it, just incorrect comments about it being old. This was very early in the article history and changing it wholesale after nearly 3 days was unneccessary and possibly disrespectful to the original author, although I'm sure that was not your intention. You are quite correct that any style can be adopted, but the method adopted and widely accepted subsequently should not be turned upside down - per the bold bit here . We all make mistakes so free to help revert your changes if the original proposer requests it. It was Rich Farmrough and I have left him a note so that he is aware of the situation when he returns to the article. Regards.  Leaky  Caldron  17:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wasn't expecting a further reply.
 * We all learn from experience. For example, I wasn't aware of the requirement for an editor to stipulate the type of citation style they have elected by using an embedded note in the article or to get his preference approved in advance. I don’t think such guidance exists but correct me if I’m wrong. You have over 40,000 edits, 70 user boxes and over a dozen barnstars but as you’ve acknowledged elsewhere, you’ve spent 3 hours undoing changes which had become custom on practice for this article and to which WP:REF therefore plainly applies. The format the editor chose is clearly recommended here: WP:Footnotes encouraging its use by suggesting that whole footnotes tend to reduce the readability of the article's text in edit mode, which makes finding specific parts of the text when editing tedious.
 * I fully understand your frustration at discovering that you had undone a settled schema that had been agreed 2 days ago. I certainly was not offering you a lecture as you suggest. I was simply pointing out the background which you were evidently not aware of when you embarked on your edit foray today. It simply isn’t my fault, either that you did it or that it was pointed out to you by an IP, by the time you had almost completed your work. I can only repeat what it says here WP:REF, that editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. There may have been no consensus 2 hours into the article, but I believe that there has been a managed consensus since, so making wholesale changes 2 days later (albeit accidentally) cannot be anyone’s responsibility other than yours.
 * I would point out that I became involved only because I saw an editor trying to improve a fast moving article who did not need the additional hassle of dealing with inconsistent footnote methods and his valuable work being undone. I would have done the same if anyone else’s approach to citations was being undone while he was trying to develop the article. We all have our preferences and although his approach is recommended in certain circumstances, there are several alternatives. But once it had become distinctive in that article he was clearly entitled to maintain it. Regards. Leaky  Caldron  20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just a quick, hopefully final, update. I can see that you favour precision in your arguments about style etc. as well as in your excellent article work and didn’t want to leave you thinking that some sort of novel, hybrid, unapproved approach was being used. I have seen this method in use in many mainspace articles. However, it has not yet been promulgated into WP:FN guidance, which is regrettable. The background is here:  here. It’s clearly down to editorial judgement – so GA & FA reviewers should have no concern. Regards,  Leaky  Caldron  10:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Razzie discussion
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers, it appears that there is a majority of consensus not to use these templates on WP:BLPs. I think I will close this discussion, and nominate those particular templates for deletion. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't know
From March to November seems like a long time between drinks, doesn't it? I've had a read through some of the comments. It's amazing that some people try to jump on Wikipedia as a vehicle and with a small number of edits to a small and select group of articles, think they can claim ownership of it. I hope it doesn't develop into something more, but that doesn't look likely. Rossrs (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be cryptic.  Looking at the edit history, the last edit to an article was in March, and then, seven months later, the mediation listing is made.    Seems odd to me. Rossrs (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Valeska Suratt
Hi, I hate to say it Wildhartlivie cause I thought we had an understanding, but here you go again, deleting an edit of mine without relevant cause. And an edit that I made(added) on April 28 2009. So that's six months that the post has been in the external link section. The 'Forget the Talkies' link was relevant because it helped and discussed an ongoing search for any of (Valeska's) films. Why would that link be removed and not everything else in her External links section? The link is not in the text as I explained to you by WP:EL YES. I spend a lot of time digging up this information, especially on Suratt and don't appreciate uncalled for deletions. I wager if and when the article stops talking about Valeska's films, THEN it should be removed. Perhaps it should be moved to the Reference area, should it not. Help me to understand why this particular link gets reverted by you, so as to avoid a tug of war of revert-and-delete between you and me. Thanks. Koplimek (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about in concern with ForgettheTalkies website. I find no 'Spam' on this page. As far as a blog, it's a very bad blog if that's the term you want to use, as the Valeska article was entered on March 23 2009 and there have been no follow-up entries since the original posting. The adds to the side of the website are for the most part Google Ads. Well yes!, thats how you pay for and maintain a website. I don't tell somebody else how to run their website. If you look at IMDb, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc they are festooned with adds. All of these sites and their like are used as references or links on Wikipedia. As for Maggiedane, I dont know who that person is and I dont care. The person who owns ForgetTheTalkies is LalaPickford as far as her email goes. But this is the net. Can't tell who's who based on wordage. My issue remains with the link and its useful contents. If you have a personal beef with the Maggie person, that's your problem and not the text of the article. If you do a Google search there's almost nobody devoting any time to such an obscure person as Valeska Suratt though I've been familiar with who she is for over 25 years. The ForgetTheTalkies website even linked a recent Indiana newspaper that did a profile of Valeska. You say the website was not about preservation? that's because NONE of her films exist to preserve. That's kind of what the page was asking; where are her films?

The #11 your refer to is in WP:ELNO not WP:ELYES. The WP:ELYES has three criteria of which #3 allows the link and it's content: ''#3 Sites that contain neautral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amout of detail(such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online text books) or other reasons. ''

Doesn't mention anything about something having to be professional. Though the ForgetTheTalkies site is quite professional as well as informational. Going back to the article. The writer makes references to aspects of Suratt's filmography that are knowledgeable and lends she knows what she's talking about. In the third paragraph the writer says Suratt never made a film called "The Kreutzer Sonata". She's correct. That 1917 film was made by Nance O'Neil. She also makes reference to the fact that Suratt's film "The Soul of Broadway" was still playing in 1919 four years after it was made(which in silent films was an eternity). Sources are back issue newspapers that are digitized for internet consumption. Also published sources that I've used to verify are Daniel Blum's "Pictorial History of the Silent Screen" c. 1953 and the American Film Institute's Catalog 1911-1930. It's almost pointless to quote 'some' Wiki rules because they themselves are subject to WP:Vandalism or ludicrous alterations. So who's to say, as far as the rules go? I'll give it a shot. Example: In the WP:LINKSPAM, the paragraph "External link spamming", EVEN STATES SPECIFIC LINK SPAM IS PERMISSIBLE. But suffice to say the ForgetTheTalkies website is not spam.

You are the only person I've had a reasonable dispute with oover content on Wikipedia. My edits and contents are welcomed and appreciated all over Wikipedia. I had actually rewritten much of Valeska's entry based on what I knew and had uncovered, but as I can see much has been edited from the way I had it. Not all but much. Too bad, I thought I'd done a great job and spent much time doing it. But alas I can't watch every single thing. I sometimes find myself doing the job of a newspaper copy editor or journalist. And I, much less none of us, get paid for editing WP.

(PS: FYI the Corbis link you deleted a while ago is not a 'sign-in' page per se. It's only a login if you want to purchase or view pictures unwatermarked. The Corbis site photos can be viewed like ie GoogleImages. you have to have your Javascript enabled.) Koplimek (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just read your response. A much better response than previous ones and saves me from taking this issue to the Admins noticeboard WP:AN even though I havent ruled it out. Yes my major concern was with the Spam, which is why I looked for it within the confines of the site and was really the only thing I had a problem with as far as admitting the link. Im not privy to the previous issue/history with this website, (how could I be?). But Im familiar with 'blogspot' sponsored websites, Im not crazy. If this person Maggiedane or LalaPickford(I was suspect of this name to begin with) is a spammer or whatnot then they've seemed to have gotten their act together for better or worse cause much of the info on ForgetTheTalkies is accurate but I digress. Too bad that history with their previous website/s. The websites such as IMDb, IBDb, silentera are FULL of errors. And yes, I've done my share trying to clarify info on those websites. It's a vicious circle and really kind of thankless. Koplimek (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

David Friedman vs. Christopher Masterson
Nice job on the David Friedman article; think you can add Christopher Masterson to your "to do" list? trezjr (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

re Harriet Frank, Jr.
Made a note of it at the GA review subpage. ;) Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User compare
It's at http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/User_compare.htm, but you have to e-mail Betacommand and ask him for a key. He isn't too picky, just doesn't want to give it out to obvious vandals and probable puppetmasters.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the context to this is, but I have a "permanent alpha" script doing something similar: User:TedderBot/WikiBacon and User:TedderBot/Bacon Results. tedder (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Lucy Liu
You see what is right with the image but no longer expresses so rude, i just wanted to add the prize table filmography and organize the article and respected because my edits are not completely useless, did some research that was never true, and really bothers me because the image is old and liu is not very well, contrary to LucyLiu.jpg is only color adjustment, as this very dark and opaque, also had widened a little information and I say again got the awards and nominations at the table, taking as example the articles Sean Penn, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson and Kate Winslet, about not is useless because he called editing. If you have any questions contact me the message. Gellar55 (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In what you say is right, we note that uest knows what he does, because it goes up another picture of Lucy Liu to commons with valid license and good. Feel free to respond: On the other hand, my English is bad writing because I was born in a country of English language (USA) but was raised in Mexico, which is why my English is not fully developed. Thank you. Gellar55 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
I have been lurking here for a while, but I am a beginning editor. I just wanted to say thank you for "cleaning up" Moira Kelly's page after I added some information. It didn't even occur to me to organize it, add "Early Life", etc. I was going to do that later. It looks more organized and easier to read. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ewww
I have to wonder who keeps volunteering for all these body images. That's one ugly photo! Rossrs (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be Bruce, although I'm not too sure about the venue. Rossrs (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin Filmography
Could you take another look at the Charlie Chaplin filmography? I'm looking for support to make it a featured article. Jimknut (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Razzies
Knowing your appreciation (not) of all things Razzie, from The Jazz Singer (1980 film) : "Neil Diamond was praised and panned, nominated for both the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor and a Razzie Award for Worst Actor for his role, of which he won the latter." Can someone win a Razzie? It looks weird and awkward to me, but I can't think how to reword it. Rossrs (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Have updated per your suggestion.  I rearranged the whole paragraph and reworded it a little.   Rossrs (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Socks
Both blocked and tagged, as well as a third one that I stumbled upon late last night. :-) If you see any others that might fit the pattern, let me know. Cheers. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 15:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Watson article
Thanks for the message. I'd noticed that you'd "tagged the stuffing" out of the Watson article, and I figured your reaction to the recent additions was rather like mine. If Wikipedia's Manson material were still primitive, I could almost understand the shabbiness of the new Watson passages — but to add such a poorly-organized mass of inaccuracies and half-accuracies to the article at this point, when the Manson article presents much of the relevant material clearly and with adequate citation is loutish. I'm also not surprised that you've advised me not to "bait her too much." As I was typing those posts, I was picturing you reading them and shaking your head: "John — really."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well — I'm asking for wiki-trouble. The woman comes in, deletes one of the article's few sections that had a footnote or two — and then adds a hodgepodge of semi-factual, unfooted something-or-other that will supposedly leave the world in no doubt that Tex Watson is a bad person (a minority view, she apparently fears). All of it executed with a choice attitude. I have to admit I was laughing when I saw you'd plastered the piece with "citation needed." Anyway — I should be drummed out of Wikipedia any day now. Been nice knowing you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I hadn't noticed the blog remark about Manson. — Oh, well — you're probably right that the unpleasantness will fade. Hope so.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes — I'm glad things worked out. I hadn't seen the Manson-article edit you undid — the one about Col Scott's family member. Yes — he was murdered, I think.  It's mentioned in Helter Sketler.  Somewhere on the internet, I saw a scan of the story that had been printed in the local newspaper, at the time of the killing.  Whoever posted it had also gone to the murder house and taken a picture of the place.  I have no idea where I saw it. — By the way, did I have an hallucination?  Did someone actually add material to the Manson article — and include a footnote?  I mean the editor who added the info from Taming the Beast.  I can't remember the last time someone added material to the article and bothered to provide a citation.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was strange — that you were posting to the newpaper article about Col Scott's brother just as I mentioned it. I don't know whether this is worth adding to the Wikipedia article — but Manson in His Own Words offers a brief description of Col Scott, as "a young drugstore cowboy ... a transient laborer working on a nearby dam project." I'm not sure what "nearby" means.  It might mean "in the area of Cincinnati."  The description comes after Kathleen Maddox has run away from home (in Ashland, Kentucky); it is part of a paragraph in which she is said to have given birth to Charles while she was "living in Cincinnati, Ohio."  In case you're inclined to add it to the article, I'll mention that it straddles pages 28 and 29 of the edition that's already cited therein.  The passage is striking because it's quite different from the "colored cook" reference that's in Helter Skelter — but nobody seems to have noticed it.  If you'd like to read it for yourself, it's here.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Filmography credits
If Julian McMahon doesn't have enough TV credits to support adding under it's own tittle, then Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't either. Right? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 08:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. There's sometimes not information about "how" some policies work for articles -- so I try and go by FA and GA articles and see how they are done (although sometimes they look worst than the stubs! lol).  I'm not trying not to do them the way *I* want them done and I don't mean to just re-do what someone else has done, but like you said it seems policy evolves regularly.  I was told to change them if it had the years wiki-fied (see above for that discussion), it appears consensus decided the best way to write a "Television movie" is  "TV film".   So when I see a table that has all that done (and over wiki-fied), I do change it.  Also if there's credits left out, no table, typos, etc -- I try and "fix" that too. I've done about 18 (Actor filmography) pages, mostly start/stub classes.  Again thanks for you reply. :) -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tex and stuff
Thanks for the thanks! To be honest, I don't know much about Tex Watson and I can't actually remember how that article ended up on my watchlist! But now that it's there, I try to help however I can, and it seemed that the best way I could do that was to try to calm people down. :-) --Stormie (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince's Trust
Greetings, and thanks for noticing! I had the same questions. Fortunately, the same photographer took the images- they are on the pages of Ringo Starr, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, and Tina Turner. Because they're from the same batch, I found in the text of George Harrison where and when there was the performance. However, I just emailed the photographer to confirm that it is indeed the same year. I can't recall whose discography it was-- I saw a recording referring to this. What a pain in the ass just to find the information that surely must be somewhere since the photos are untouched and don't lie! Oh, one last thing, this is a new photographer from Flickr. These aren't his best pics, but even so a couple were slated for a book deal. It's not the first time I've had this problem, and I try to keep the attribution --the credit for the photographer under the photo for as long as possible; till it reaches GA or FA evaluation, but since this is his first time, please keep his name under the photos, OK? They give up so much; I've uploaded close to 300 photos mostly using an upload bot but you can check my userpage to see just some of the photos I've uploaded and placed. I'd appreciate your help in this if possible. Tomorrow I'll also try to find text for the photos outside what's on Harrison's page already, too. [sigh]. Thanks for your help! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Scott
Just wanted to let you know I had a brief exchange with Catherine Huebscher, on her talk page. It started with a comment of mine — one she was good enough to hear out — about what I saw as the sharpness of her response to you on the Manson talk page. I mean her response to your argument against inclusion of the Colonel Scott info in the article. She and I went on to speak about the info itself, and I told her that this was a case in which I disagreed with you — as you have sometimes disagreed with me. The information is clearly in Helter Skelter — and she has presented it not only accurately but with full footnoting. Bugliosi obviously takes it seriously — and he had access to the newspaper report of Darwin Scott's murder. In sum — I think the argument in favor of its inclusion is sound. Also, it's a good contrast with the info from Manson in His Own Words.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well — first of all: Don't take the article off your watchlist.  It will disintegrate quickly. — Really — Wildhartlivie — she heard me out, as I told you, when I told her I thought her tone was off in her reply to you.  She's a good egg.  Her psychological comments about Manson were pretty much what Bugliosi said, valid or not — and as for the question of race in law:  Well — Bugliosi, who might very well have seen the newspaper photo of Darwin Scott, entertained the possibility that Colonel Scott was black in some sense of the term.  That's really all that matters.  The info that has gone into the Wikipedia article is simply a statement of what's in Helter Skelter.  That's fair enough.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * PS I just noticed something.  After I told Ms. Huebscher that I thought her tone with you hadn't been quite right, she changed her post — to remove the sharp edges.  C'mon — you have to give her some credit for that.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

David Friedman vs. Christopher Masterson
Nice job on the David Friedman article; think you can add Christopher Masterson to your "to do" list? trezjr (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince's Trust
Greetings, and thanks for noticing! I had the same questions. Fortunately, the same photographer took the images- they are on the pages of Ringo Starr, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, and Tina Turner. Because they're from the same batch, I found in the text of George Harrison where and when there was the performance. However, I just emailed the photographer to confirm that it is indeed the same year. I can't recall whose discography it was-- I saw a recording referring to this. What a pain in the ass just to find the information that surely must be somewhere since the photos are untouched and don't lie! Oh, one last thing, this is a new photographer from Flickr. These aren't his best pics, but even so a couple were slated for a book deal. It's not the first time I've had this problem, and I try to keep the attribution --the credit for the photographer under the photo for as long as possible; till it reaches GA or FA evaluation, but since this is his first time, please keep his name under the photos, OK? They give up so much; I've uploaded close to 300 photos mostly using an upload bot but you can check my userpage to see just some of the photos I've uploaded and placed. I'd appreciate your help in this if possible. Tomorrow I'll also try to find text for the photos outside what's on Harrison's page already, too. [sigh]. Thanks for your help! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
thank you for your note and your objectivity. I trust that you also added and EDIT WAR warning tag to the other user's talk page as well? Please note that he was the first to violate 3RR; I simply responded.166.205.130.225 (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:AN/I thread
I want to apologize for not notifying you about that thread mentioning you. I thought about leaving you a note, but after looking at the matter & the interaction between the two of you, I felt that the matter was, frankly, trivial if not silly (as well as not appropriate for that venue) & decided my response to Koplimek was sufficient. (If another Wikipedian I had never heard of left me a note saying, "You're being discussed in WP:AN/I. BTW, you should not have labeled that 'duplicate information' not 'linkspam'", I would have thought the person was a kook & decided to stay far away from him! ;-) In any case, I hope K. follows my advice, which was to move on & edit another article, so you can devote your attention to more important -- & less stressful -- matters. -- llywrch (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By "duplicate information", I was referring to the fact that almost every film listed in that blog is also listed at IMDB: there is no reason to have an external link to a site which duplicates information at IMDB. If that hadn't been the case, then one could argue that a link to forgetthetalkies was necessary -- only to then face the issue that if a performer doesn't have a film list somewhere more reliable than some film fan's blog, is that person notable to begin with? IMHO, Suratt's filmography appears to be a topic for which there is no reliable, single source: one as well provide a list with footnotes to the sources which state she appeared in them. In situations where this is the case -- & no one has the time or interest to fix this -- I believe an external link is the best place to point the reader for this information. And a link to IMDB is probably the solution: although people have pointed out in the past that is not entirely reliable, it is arguably better than nothing -- & is a way to hint to the reader that we haven't found anything we feel is reliable about this movie. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice?
Hi. I'd like to ask your advice, if I may. The 166 IP has now ratched things up by accusing me of "outing" User:Sorrywrongnumber in the course of my posting on COIN, and has posted a complaint on AN/I abut it. I am having an increasingly hard time believing that 166 is a neutral third party in this issue, and not one of the COI editors -- he or she certainly seems extremely exercised about the issue, and has repeatedly accused me of violating practically every policy in the book. I begin to get the feeling that the only way to stop this nonsense is to file an SPI report and see where it goes. My question to you is -- do you think that's a good idea? Thanks for whatever help you are able to render. Sach (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, which I pretty much agree with. I understand about your health from your user page, and would not want you to be subjected to the kind of attacks that seem to be part and parcel of this situation, so I wasn't really asking you for anything but moral support.  I've pretty much decided to go ahead with the SPI, if only because it's the only way I can see to get some closure -- the COI process is, as I feared, completely toothless.  I started collecting the information that I need, but won't be able to finish tonight.  Perhaps when I've put it together, you would be good enough to take a look and offer your opinions and any changes?  Many thanks. Sach (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, meant to say that while I still think I tend to disagree that what I did was "outing", I'm fully aware that it was nonetheless a very bad tactical error, and I'm more than willing to let it go by the by. Sach (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

News about the photos
Hello, I didn't know if you saw that I replied last on my talk page. I heard from the photographer, who said of the 4 photos: One more thing. Can you take a look at the Robert Cray page, and see if you think it's been over-wikified? I can't bear confrontations, and for the first time, Derek R Bullamore has disagreed with me, and I don't want to respond until I get some feedback, as he has been editing as long as I have, and I respect him, but wikifying words like record album, and United Kingdom, and much much more seems overdoing things. I could see it in the Simple English Wikipedia, but usually when people read biographies of musicians, they know what a record is. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The Eric Clapton with Tina Turner was in June, 1987. Tina Turner was on tour, and I've just responded to the photographer again about whether Clapton was a one-off guest or on the same bill, or what. It was just before the Prince's Trust concert, I'm told.
 * 2) He says that the Prince's Trust 1987 Concert was held December 13, 1987. However, I also checked You Tube. Someone had uploaded a video of the concert, which had both George Harrison, and Eric Clapton together on stage with the same clothes as the photos, and Ringo Starr was also present, along with Elton John, Jeff Lynne, Phil Collins, and Ray Cooper. The person who uploaded the video though, didn't know when it was, but someone left a note on their "channel" that the concert was on "June 5- June 6, 1987". Perhaps you have more information. I'm more inclined to believe a photographer over a zealous fan,but unless there's a reliable reference, I believe the three photos other than the one with Tina Turner/Clapton should only have the year, 1987.

Re: Heh
You saw that, huh? Too bad that kind of idiocy does little to intimidate me.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  13:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My eyes are not as good as they used to be.
Hi, could you please point me to the actual comment and citation from the body of the article. I can't even see a personal life section. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC) OK, I found this... I have been reluctant to lobby on other issues I most care about - nuclear weapons (against), religion (atheist), capital punishment (anti), AIDS (fund-raiser) because I don't want to be forever spouting, diluting the impact of addressing my most urgent concern: legal and social equality for gay people worldwide.

I suppose it is some kind of declaration, these are some of the things I am bothered about but didn't want to say. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much, best regards.Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to explain, one of my pet hates at the moment is the way people get stuffed into cats, without support in the article for the cat. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Final info re: photo dates
'Here's the information from the photographer for those photos, again! AAAGH! It's here: ' hi leah i have just checked my ticket stub book and the george, eric and ringo prince's trust was june 6 1987 (sorry about date mix up) and tina was june 18th 1987 you can use any photo in my stream that is mine no problem just ask i will start to change them over and put more info on them for you i will be posting all the ticket stubbs and you will be able to see all of them as you are listed as a friend. i will also get involved in updating and suggestions. tina was on tour adn eric guested but robert cray was in the band. ''... finally! Whew! I think this clears it all up! We can date them now! Thanks for your help and patience!''--Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob Hope
If you have some reason for re-inserting "English-born" into the lede of Bob Hope in contradiction to Manual of Style (biographies), I would appreciate it if you would discuss on the talk page or at least leave a comment in the change log instead of trying to start an edit war. Rees11 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I am sorry I accused you of trying to start an edit war. Rees11 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup
I think it's a good word. We'll see..... :-) Rossrs (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there are two issues regarding that article meeting GA standard.  One is fairly simple - "Family and personal life" should go after the career section.   The second is more difficult and I suspect would be highly contentious, but the article is overwhelmed by discussion of his death and the aftermath.   I think WP:RECENTISM should allow for it to be trimmed somewhat, but I honestly think there would be some editors who would not stand for it.   Too soon, too fresh, too sensational.   Failing that, the career section would need to be expanded to create a better balance, albeit it artificially.   It looks difficult to me.  Rossrs (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Those ideas sound good to me. I think part of the problem is that when something is developing, especially in such a high profile case, the details are updated as they happen, and then when time passes nobody goes back through it to determine that some of the details are no longer especially significant.    It currently reads almost as being exhaustive, rather than a summary of events.   I still think that you'll only need one person to kick up a stink, and in this case, I think it's fairly likely.   Splitting it off to a "death of Heath Ledger" article may work.  Michael Jackson (FA) could be given as an example.   The section relating to his death is quite brief and the article Death of Michael Jackson goes into further detail.   I don't think Ledger's should be split, but it may be a possible compromise.   I think it will be good to check some of the sourcing.  For example  "Ledger's relationship with the press in Australia was sometimes turbulent, and it led to his relocating to New York City." - sticks out to me because I know that Australians must venture to either the U.S. or the UK if they want their careers to advance, and it's often more convenient to be based where the work is, even termporarily.  So that sentence looked odd to me.   Sure enough, if you look at the external sources, they both discuss his problems with the paparazzi and both mention his relocating to New York, but neither say the relocation was the result of his media problems.   Someone decided to synthesise that.   I also had a look at that National Library site I mentioned some time ago - nothing helpful there, I'm afraid.   At least not that I could see.   Google books might have some reference material.  Rossrs (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. It is very well written and sourced.  I have it watchlisted, but I haven't been monitoring it much.   You're probably right - enough time should have passed.   It's funny how people jump on an article when it's topical, like it's the most important thing in the world, and then kind of drift away.    Rossrs (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. ;-)  Rossrs (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A question regarding cats
Hi Wildhartlivie. I am looking for a neutral opinion fron an experienced editor, and you came to mind. The issue is about Athiesm. Basically a subject of a blp was asked the question a few years ago ..do you believe in god, he replied, no I don't believe in god. Do you think that this is enough to add the subject into the cat Atheists? Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been some discussion here regarding this issue that if you have the time could be of value, no worries, no pressure. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's David Milliband this is the actual citable comment...

In answer to the question, "do you believe in God" raised in a 2007 Mail on Sunday survey, Milliband said that he did not believe in God. here This comment is all that we have from milliband, a few years old and not a topic where we have multiple comments from him, just this one. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is just it, 3rd opinion... you are the one, go on .. make a choice...in the cat or out the cat? Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an add, the fact that his father was a Marxist should not add weight to millibands position. I would dispute the, his dad was a Marxist so he must be a Marxist too position... Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmmmm. you don't seem to support adding the cat from the cited comments, thanks for your input. It is a funny point and thanks for commenting, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found request for comment one of the weaker processes that we have here at wikipedia, your comments are appreciated even if not conclusive they are valuable, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Template for deletion
Thanks. Yes, I do use that one quite often, and I like it. I've commented that I think it should be kept, and the discussion seems to be leaning heavily towards keep. Rossrs (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please leave my contributions alone. They are not trivia! I find this sort of thing totally unfathomable. I am adding valuable information that is relevant and useful. Leave it alone. Sbzipper (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How is anything I've written construed as "harassment" and why are you so quick to threaten me? I sincerely do not get it. Surely, there is someone who arbitrates such things? I am not attempting to add "trivia" nor am I promoting myself, the items listed or anything else. How is listing works ABOUT someone as famous as GG not relevant any more than certain aspects of a filmography of any sort would be? Without going into great detail re my bona fides, I do know something about bibliography, editing and information gathering and retrieval. In closing, I am not trying to insult you, but trying to communicate with you (although I do admit that I find this process rather difficult and not a little bit arbitrary/subjectively-judgmental . I believe that this information is relevant and useful and would ask you to rethink your edits in that light. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbzipper (talk • contribs) 23:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Category
Audrey Hepburn's father was Anglo-Irish, this fact is widely known, so please do not remove information that is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.38.14 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmm Wildhartlivie... a widely known fact that is not contained in the article. Widely known but not sourced.  Perhaps not so widely known after all.  Rossrs (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New message
Just so you know, I've responded to you on my talk page. I saw the note at the top of yours; I'm happy to give you time to look over my response, and I hope you're doing well. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed Gein
Why did you revert the entire article to an inferior edition. You have taken the article back to its C level when it had just been kicked up to a B level. At your C level, the article has a "sensational" tone picked up from its trashy sources. Please discontinue such ruinous conduct. Tre=poi (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you suppose
this is where gay cowboys go for a cut'n'dry? Rossrs (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony winward
Hi there; yes, I have posted to him on 2 or 3 occasions, and I had noted your comment about his inappropriate changing of images. The last time I looked he had not done so since being warned; I will check him again after making this post. It is not clear to me what he wants to do here; he initially created a large number of articles about non-notable persons, which were deleted (mostly by me, so I have to be a bit careful not to appear to be wiki-stalking him) and now is putting large amouints of data onto his user page. I am sure several of us are watching him, and are alert for any overt vandalism. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification if possible
Hi Wildhartlivie, I hope you are doing better. I was just reading the Talk:Ed Gein page and the controversary regarding edits.  Since some of the comments are lengthy before I read through it all can you tell me if a SPI was filed against any of the editors? The last comments about socks says an SPI was being filed and at least two editors pages are listed as possible socks, the one I list above and an IP account. Also, what is the comments about it being a rated C article with his edits bringing it to a B? I looked at the top and the article is rated a high B and was at one time either a FA or GA article in the past (forget which one and didn't open another tab so that I could see the article as I write this). Is there still a problem going on that I should look at or has it been resolved now? Sorry about all the questions but coming in a bit late on this the talk page is a little confusing to me. :) Again I hope you are feeling better.  I've come a long way since my surgery but still have a way to go but I'm working hard at getting my strength and mobility back. :)  Take care of yourself and thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, please ignore my question and feel free to remove it. I didn't notice your comment on the top of your page that you have retired from crime related articles. I'm really sorry to hear this. You do wonderful work with these kinds of articles. I don't know what made you decide to discontinue working in this area but I will respect your decision. I sure hope it's only temporary. I hope to see you around still. Take care, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I made a response but I don't know if it will do any good to be honest. The comments made by the other editors are against consensus and the sources.  They want to remove sensationalism from an article that has sensationalism written all over it because of the type of crimes that were done.  I suspect that they won't be there long.  I did make a request to refactor comments about editors and to comment only on the article though.  I really had trouble putting my thoughts down well I think but it was hard to say more than what you or LaVidaLoco said about everything. Plus, I hate to waste time on socks and since there is a question about this that hasn't been refuted and just ignored well, you know.  I thought the two of you said enough to explain things there.  All I could really do is back you up and say that consensus and RS did the talking.  I did as you requested also on my talk.  :)  As for the Manson stuff, don't let an editor get you frustrated like that.  You do really good work.  I have trouble remember my own name most of the time, :), you keep track and get articles ratings up.  Just continue to do what you do.  I didn't see the problems at Manson's article or I would have dropped in there too.  Take care of yourself, feel free to email me if you feel like it.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well a whole thirty minutes was allowed before a decision was made to protect the page and close your AN/I report. Not one word about behavior that I saw.  I am totally astounded that I didn't even have a chance to say anything.  I still posted though how I should have been allowed the time to make a comment since I was active on the talk page.  I don't know what is going on.  Well I'm off again.  No sense hanging out here with this kind of behavior ignored.  Maybe tomorrow I'll see if I can get the page unprotected or we'll have to request changes like two year old to have an administrator add corrections.  Can you libel a dead person?  Just curious since that is one of the last commnets made.  Well take care,  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
Geez...you're awfully popular today. I also took the liberty of reverting the re-addition of the link to Valeska Surratt.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  02:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The ANI thread
Looks like someone else archived it before I got to the page. Without taking sides in your content dispute, may I link you to this conversation? If something of that nature arises again, maybe it would be a good idea to go ahead and start the WQA and let it stand or fall on its own merits. In the big picture it's better to keep admin board threads about harassment focused on the serious stuff that requires immediate blocks. The sooner an unactionable thread closes and gets archived, the better. Best wishes in finding a resolution to your dispute. Durova 369 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add my agreement to Durova's sage advice. As insanely difficult as it is to actually DO this, it's often best, when faced with what you believe to be horrendous misinterpretations, misquotes, word-twistings, out-of-context-takings, and the like, to disengage even further from the dispute. When you go through a paragraph from another editor, refuting line-by-line every fact they've misrepresented, phrase they've misquoted, etc, you open the door for that editor to say, in the words of some guy, "There you go again". Which, in essence, is exactly what Sift&Winnow said--and which puts you on a lesser footing in the debate. You could be as right as rain (not saying you are or aren't; frankly, I haven't the foggiest notion of who's got the more defensible position in the Gein debate) but no matter how correct, verifiable, or policy-based your edits are, if the other guy can make him- or herself seem like the more collegial, more clueful, "better" person, you can find yourself on the wrong end of a decision. That would be a shame, as you seem to be a good editor with the best interests of the project at heart. Sometimes we really do have to remember that this is, when all is said and done, a part of an electronic world which is dwarfed by the physical one. The world will not end if someone inserts an incorrect fact into the Ed Gein article--nor will adding a different fact bring back any of his victims. Think about YOUR best interests once in a while, and don't expend valuable stress on an online argument. That's my advice, speaking as a person, not an admin. Hang in there. GJC 02:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cross postng from my user talk: not sure what Moryak is saying, except that I certainly don't mean to dismiss you as ranting and raving. Not specifically validating you either (fwiw), so much as endeavoring to keep the big picture foremost.  As much as one's wiki reputation is hard to build and sometimes feels imperative to defend, the specific issue of harassment is one where the best interests of the site are served by reserving administrator attention for the things that really do need immediate remedy.  Posts such as I know where you live and I'm coming to get you take hands-down priority over misinterpretations of policy.  Fortunately that isn't the type of situation you're facing right now.  So here's wishing you the best working out the current dispute.  Durova 369 03:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm
I'm thinking something along the lines of a generator or maybe boiler? Am I warm? More to the point, in your wintry part of the world, are you? I hope I'm right. :-) Rossrs (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I was completely wrong. A rather clever achievement on your part and in this day and age, who would be wanting to watch black-and-white television?  Do you remember what a big deal color TV was when it came in?  Rossrs (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy Mug Shot Caption
Right you are in changing the caption of the photo I added to WP; seriously. My only question is this: if an editor is "Retired" from all WP: Crime related articles, why would an editor continue to work on them? Was it a forced, unwilling retirement? Are you not "really" retired, and just kidding? I really mean no offense, as I see you are a very accomplished editor. But please, expound, as I have yet to understand a "Retirement" tag from an active user... Doc9871 (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Kate Winslet
(moving to own section - sorry, should have done that from the beginning)

Kate - I've had a skim through it. There are a couple of things I'll ask you about seperately, that I think don't look quite right, but maybe there's a reason for them, but I'll leave that until I've read it through completely. I'm surprised how many of her films I've seen, and yet so many I haven't.   I'm stumped by the alt text. I can see the value of it, but I hope it's not a GA criterion, because in some cases, I don't think it serves much purpose. "A young woman with blonde hair and cleavage looks to her left smiling" and ""A young woman with blonde hair and cleavage looks to her right smiling." Why couldn't she be doing something interesting in one of the photos, like stilt-walking or smoking a joint?   Smiling, waving, looking left, looking straight ahead.   Four pictures painting far less than a thousand words.  She even seems to be wear four variations of the same dress.   I'lll give it some thought.  Maybe the banal "blonde woman" bit will be enough to satisfy...  my thinking cap is on.  Rossrs (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a crack at the alt text, but the image in the infobox doesn't appear here - EEEK!. I'm not good at remembering how to do things, so I copied and pasted it from Kylie Minogue, thinking I couldn't go wrong that way, and then changed the text. The alt text works for Kylie's infobox image - see here, but not for Kate's.  No idea what I've done wrong. Do you know? On a tangent, I learnt on the weekend that "Kylie" is from one of the aboriginal languages,  for a boomerang that won't come back. So said Stephen Fry on QI. I didn't know. It was used to "herd" birds into a confined space to be killed, rather than killing them where they happened to be, with the other type, that comes back. Mothers all over Australia thought "hmmm, nice name for my little baby. I'll name her after something used to help kill birds." Many aboriginal people must have laughed and laughed. Rossrs (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to Kate: I think it should be successful when nominated. It depends on the reviewer but it seems to be miles ahead of some. If Joan Crawford is a GA, then this has to be. Not sure about these points, which are each fairly minor.

1. "Early work" is a too-small section, and I think it would be better to have "Early work" included in the following section and change it to "1991-1997". It's only one year, and minor though those TV roles were, they aren't distinct from her acting career.

2. "Winslet's first effort in 2000" - I don't know why it's written that way, and there's no second effort in 2000. I would rewrite that sentence.

3. From "Music" - "Winslet has enjoyed a brief taste of success as a singer" is the kind of language that would fit an actress who attempts to branch out into other media and with one minor exception, fails. "What If" was an anomaly and part of a single project. It probably surprised everyone by becoming a top 10 single in the UK. Also "She filmed a music video for the song." is a bit superfluous. Of course, she made a video. Nobody releases a single these days without a video. The section is awkward and it looks like it's trying to connect several unrelated side-projects, place equal weight on each of them, and create a context that shouldn't be. The section could probably go, and its contents merged into the article. What do you think? I'm honestly not sure what the intentions were by whoever started it, but it doesn't read well, in my opinion.

Otherwise - super dooper. Rossrs (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem.  I find alt text difficult, and I wonder if it's truly helpful to someone who is visually impaired to the point of not being able to see the images at all, to say "it's a young blonde woman".  If someone's been blind since birth, does "young", "blonde" or even "woman" really impart anything to them?  I don't know.    Sometimes I find that looking at one article for too long makes me miss little details.    On another tangent Susan Boyle's album has gone in at number one on the Australian chart.   Not the style of music I usually go for, but I've listened to a few samples and it's quite amazing.  She does "Wild Horses" of all things, and beautifully too.  Rossrs (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Our IP friend
Pretty sure that User:Doub95, who I saw you dealt with, is the same person as well. Working on the SSP case right now. Check it out when it's up a bit later, and add anything if you can. Cheers. Erzsébet Báthory(talk 00:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS November Newsletter
The November 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Edward Norton
You changed my entry about Norton running the NY marathon. You didn't use the talk page. I'm going to change the entry back to what I put in. If you were so interested why didn't you do something earlier? I will add David Blaine. Please don't make any further changes without first using the talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I did not "simply revert". I moved the content to the appropriate main body article section. The lead section of an article should not contain content that is not already included in the article itself. Per WP:LEAD: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. I also corrected citation format style rather than the blank links with no appropriate identification, title, date, publication or author. Yeah, you're right, it does take a lot of work. It takes even more work to correct errors in citation addition, verify citations, some of which did not, in any way, support what you said it did and for which I had to find proper sourcing. Let me remind you this is designated a good article and thus, the style, citations and content that you added does not pass good article muster. The rest of the content you added to the lead isn't at all supported by a stark link to the Writer's Guild, which, when his name is searched, states simply "Sorry, this member has chosen not to publish any details." This content would not go in the lead unless it is already contained in the article. I note also that you were told here that the content should go in the personal life section, which is not where you put it. When you make an addition to an article and click save, it is no longer your addition. At the bottom, below the edit window, in tiny letters, it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I did not simply revert your addition, I moved it and cleaned it up. Please be so good as to return to the personal life section the cleaned up content regarding the marathon and remove the unverified content you added to the lead. Otherwise, in this case, I will simply revert it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh snap! Did I do something wrong? I was just trying to help. I saw that the user undid your edit and I wanted to see what that was all bout. If I did something wrong, then by all means revert my edits, I was just trying to make the article concise. I agree with you that the marathon thing does not belong in the lead. I apologize for my edits. I haven't been active in the article. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. I didn't know how to interpret your message, I assumed I did something wrong, hence why I was kinda panicking about my edits in the article, but I'm glad it got straightened out. :) I've seen you added the sources back, that's good. Agreed, I was looking all over the Maasai website for the 1 million claim, but I didn't find it, until now, the user provided a better link for the amount raised. Sure, I'll be glad to take a look at Kate Winslet's article, got nothing more to do. Do you want me to tell you if I see something "fishy" or would you rather I "get it"? Well, now that you've explained yourself, I've gotten the hint of your message. ;) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. I just went through the article, looks good, though I did notice some stuff that I can get. The Music section wasn't really a big deal when I looked it over, but I may also be wrong about it, so. TBH, I would have them stay linked, don't know why, but I would have them linked. Don't worry, you'll have the article done by today, I guarantee you that. :) Hey, do you still have plans on working on Heath Ledger's article? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm done. I got the stuff that stood out. The only thing that comes to mind is the quote in the lead (should be mentioned somewhere in the article), and Refs. 5, 10, and 64 are missing Publisher info, that's it. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I was just saying that the article was almost done, and that you'd have it ready for nomination. :) To tell you the truth, after awards season, I wanted to work on her article, but I saw that both you and Rossrs had it "under control", so I didn't want to interfere. Hmmm, in the chronology section? Maybe if you have it as Kirsten Dunst... maybe... just a suggestion... IDK. Likewise. Activity in the article seems to die down. I just did a ref. check, and replaced some dead links, and removed one, but there's two dead links still, just letting you know. Agreed, there's too much info. in the Death section, and of course the will controversy needs a trim, too. Yeah, you have the will just in case, but you never know when your time is up. Yeah, two or three refs. max, IMO. Having four is just overboard. I can help out with the British English spelling, if you'd like, I'm kind of experienced there. I'd love to help; What would you like for me to do (of course when you finish with Winslet's article)? --  ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I hope you feel better. Migraines are a killer. Well, I'm glad I "aspired" you to finish your work. :) Yeah, the link has been dead for months, I tried replacing it with other sources, but the reports never included Us Weekly in them, hence why I left it in the article. Well, I'll see if I can trim down the Death section, don't expect a miracle, but do expect me dropping a note on your talkpage regarding it. Will you be needing help on the lead? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, well that explains it. Maybe it's stress or something that triggers the migraine. Though, I'm hoping you feeling better. We might have to make a note of this ---> "...casting a shadow over the subsequent promotion of the $180 million production" in the article, we can't just leave like that, you know. If you'd like, I'll try to make a consistency with the refs., having them properly formatted. Ex: nytimes.com ---> The New York Times. I'll keep that in mind, just want to prepare you for the "worst" when I ask you if this is significance or not. Before I forget, I believe you have to add this ---> "[US]$" to the Winslet article. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Edward Norton Redux Redux
I noticed you deleted the entry I made to explain what I did on the Edward Norton page. Fine. But here is the reference to the marathon total so far. Norton and his team raised over $1 million. .Malke 2010 (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * also, Norton wrote the script for Incredible Hulk. He first disclosed this fact at the San Diego Comic Con in 2007.  After filming was completed, there was dispute about who would get screen credit.  Zak Penn, the original writer, filed a complaint with the WGA.  Norton lost.  But Norton did write the script, it was part of his deal.  Here is the citation. .Malke 2010 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If my citations are not correct, I would appreciate your letting me know how to fix them.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I will fix that.  Please check to make sure I get it right.  I would also like to know how does an editor get an article up to Good Article status?  Also, I thought it might be good to make a separate article for the Maasai Wilderness thing since as I look around the internet, this thing is becoming a model for other conversation groups.  Still small, but will get big, I think.  Interesting model there.  Yes, I see about the Incredible Hulk thing.  Will do a better job with that.  Norton was mad about it, shame they didn't give him credit. Also, I mentioned the Twitter thing because Norton is so famously private that he made a big change in his life to accommodate the Trust and I thought that should be mentioned since it's so unlike him to share info like that.  I read where he always held this socialite type dinner parties and events for wealthy people to donate, but with the economy he couldn't get the funds from this old source, so he decided to go public.  The website I read about too.  He went to a professional fund raising group and he helped design what is up there, all the videos he did, and also he put up things on Youtube.  I just thought mentioning Twitter would be nice.  If you don't think so, okay with me.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Got this for you to show I am of good cheer. Here ya go  Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked the flowers.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tegan (the dog)
This made me laugh. From John Barrowman:

"According to David Tennant's video diary of filming Doctor Who Series 3, Barrowman had a dog named Tegan after the Fifth Doctor's companion Tegan Jovanka, as well as another dog named Lewis. Tegan (the dog) was euthanized in October 2007."

At first I thought "(the dog)" was a bit "stating-the-obvious" but read the sentence again without it... :-) Rossrs (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe when you're feeling really dog-tired, you can think of Tegan and realize you could be worse off ;-) Sore leg, or no sore leg.     I noticed the flowers, and I thought they were lovely.   Tegan the dog reminds me of an email that came around work yesterday:   "Somebody has borrowed a tall, metal ladder from my section. If you have it, please return it."   I wondered, how many ladders would one need to borrow to make a description necessary?     Mind you, the person that wrote it is an idiot, so I was more picky than I would usually be.   Hope your knee starts feeling better soon.  Rossrs (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not a late shift. I phoned in sick, which is more or less true.  I slept very badly last night and woke up with a horrible headache.  I had a little nap with the puppy for an hour.   That is to say, I lay down and she climbed onto my chest and went to sleep.   I felt a lot better after napping, but still not great.   On the bright side, I'm better off than Tegan.  Rossrs (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think one can function even more than "somewhat" and still fade into the background.  I think that's one of the more insidious aspects of it - it can be camouflaged when necessary, even though it's still there.  I'm feeling a bit that way today.  I don't know why, but it'll pass, like it does.    I'm lucky to have the puppy, and I wonder how we ever managed so long without her - we've each grown very attached very quickly, but she's extremely playful and affectionate and that's a winning combination.    I had a beagle about ... 20 years ago, and she was euthanized, poor thing.   She had a brain tumour.   I was always worried she'd be hit by a car because for all their good qualities, beagles are not road-smart.   They put their noses down and are oblivious to all else, and mine was much like that.    Gotta feel sorry for Eddie Murphy.   As if being the recipient of a worst actor award isn't bad enough, he's got a terrible infobox photo.  I've never won a worst actor award either, though I have won a "worst golfer" award two years running.   As part of an annual charity thing that my previous employer used to run, I played in a tournament and two years in a row got the highest score of over 200 players.  I even have a trophy (in a cupboard somewhere).   After the first two years, I improved enough to not be last, and came home empty-handed, which only proves there is no reward for mediocrity, but sometimes there is recognition for being truly bad.  Rossrs (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmm not too shabby. And I may be higher if all those "former" featured articles were removed and the list wasn't alphabeticised within each numerical tally.  I may change my user name to AAAARossrs.   I am feeling more cheerful.   I watched The Pianist today, not that it's exactly a feel-good movie, so I might have been better off with some breezy comedy.   Sami sat next to me and watched it for a while.  She enjoys quality cinema and I think she might enjoy Chinatown sometime soon.   Well, she enjoys movement and sound effects, and sitting next to me on the couch, most of all.   I did think you were being somewhat candid, but I think you make a good point.  If you can find a simple way of conveying your viewpoint to the doctor, that must help, and that seems like a way that is very clear.   I'm not much into sport either, particularly team sport.  I love watching the Olympics and there are things I do find interesting, but the big team sports in Australia are football or cricket and they both bore me senseless.   I don't understand the fervour with which so many people approach them.   Rossrs (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I love Happy Feet, and Sami would have enjoyed the sounds and movement.   I know someone who has a daughter who was about 4 when Happy Feet came out.  One of her aunts asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she said "A penguin".   I wish her all the best of luck, but when I saw the film, I wanted to be a penguin too.  Hasn't happened.    I hadn't heard of Louis Vito but I've Googled a picture of him.   I'm looking forward to the Olympics, and we tried to sign up for a special viewing package earlier tonight, but for some reason it wouldn't go through.   I'd heard about the White House gate-crashers and it amazes me that something like that could happen, especially there of all places.  So much for security, but that blonde woman sure looked like she was having a good time.   We had a fairly major episode during the APEC Summit in 2007 (it doesn't seem so long ago), where a group from a TV show breached security by posing as Canadians, and were only challenged when "Osama bin Laden" emerged from their motorcode.  They also upset a lot of people after this with a skit about terminally ill children, not a traditional source for TV "comedy".   They don't amuse me.   Unlike Happy Feet.  Rossrs (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

White
Thanks for pointing that out! I've completely lost touch with all the technical advancements and style changes this past year. I'm sorry to see the note above about your health and the note about the crime project for that matter. In theory this hobby (wikipedia, that is) would be such a perfect distraction from the troubles of real life; in practice it's often nothing but a gigantic fount of frustration. Ah well, what can you do? --JayHenry (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hey
Hey you! I've been meaning to send you an email to catch up. Yeah, I'm in the mood to edit today. Don't know how long that will last.

On a totally different subject, I noticed today that Werdnabot is now inactive, but I don't know how to replace it with another one on the WP:CRIME talk page. Would you mind doing that? If you don't have the time or don't want to touch anything related to the project (which I'd totally understand), I'll sleuth around and see what I can do. I hope all is well with you. momo ricks  00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Kate's page is looking good. Lemme know if there's anything this grammar/usage/MoS Nazi can do to help. I'll look at the other archiving bots out there and see if any will work. momo  ricks  00:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! Even got to use a uw template other than "vandalism". :) momo  ricks  03:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Image Kate Winslet
hello, i really congratulate you, just made the site Wikipedia a reliable and better without the people who vandalize and disrespect to others through their own edits, about the picture, I thought I had to change, and you notice in the record that leads Image long time in the schedule of actor, and I liked the image that place, I will not change if you just tell me. Thank you. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the formatting
Wildhartlivie, thank you for formatting the awards table for Up in the Air (film). It look so much better. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:
If you're starting a new section, I might as well do the same, hope that's cool. Funny, I was gonna ask your opinion about it. But, the more I read it, the more I didn't get it being in the article. That's good, you have the article already done. :) Yeah, that backlog is a big problem. I'll fix the ref. settings, don't worry about it, I did it in a couple of articles. An FA for Ledger would be great. I don't mind helping you, I kinda wanted to work on the article, [again] after awards season, but was sidetracked with other tasks. That's good, we need you to help revert vandalism and all that stuff. ;) Hey, cookies and a Coke are a sure for a sugar high. Need to be sure, do you want me to start work on your sandbox or the article? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See, I'm starting to annoy you with my questions. :) I'll promise to ask "important" questions. That's fine by me (the FA concept). Okay, sandbox, check, and section-by-section, another check. It works, you can totally deter that... at bay. :P -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you're not receiving those types of messages. I know I have received them, though it's been a while. Yeah, we can do that. You know, we could use the subpage's talkpage to ask questions for Ledger's progress. Oh, that's cool, you trust me. :) You know you could've asked me to help you with Anne Hathaway, I wouldn't have mind. When I went to WP:Actor, I'd seen the thread about her article's reassessment, but when I clicked on it, the article was delisted. You want to add that to our "list of projects"? I got three FAs on my resumé. You go and take a nap. I'll start working soon on your workspace. Also, no need to apologize, I've had my share of spelling errors. Yes, this MTV stuff is kinda bugging me. Yes, we do. I believe an Emmy or Oscar has much popularity than an MTV award. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, we'll use them, so we don't create a backlog on our talkpages. Oh, okay. Well, somewhere down the line, you'll get Anne Hathaway back. Hey, you got very good accomplishments. I don't think my accomplishments compare to yours, you've done more than I have. I'll leave a comment, but I gotta first pay attention to my professor saying something. We sure are, I hope. Go, take a nap, relax, and come back when you're feeling better. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agnes
Do you think Agnes is having fun promoting whatever it is she's promoting, or do you think it's more a contractual obligation? I guess she can't look enthusiastic every second of the day. And Denzel. You gotta watch out when he's around, especially if he's walking away from something. Rossrs (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Size of pictures
Hi. I tried a bit larger on the Uma page, but not as large as your last deletion. I would think many of us like larger photos, and I'm using a laptop and the images fit fine. On a larger screen the tiny ones almost vanish. What would a good midpoint be? My preference is full size, but that would take up whole pages! Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not computer savvy enough to know the terminologies. Will take a look at the discussion, and maybe pop the question in there, although the copyrighted images, I think, can be used in appropriate places, such as the film itself and the actor's page, as long as they are labeled properly. As for the size, my last change was at about 275px, maybe a nice mid-range. Thanks for the discussion. As for movies, I've been rec. "Schendetdy, New York" (sp wrong but you know the city). Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Will leave an erasable message here. Don't know what illness you have, but if it's one curable have you ever looked at Watercure.com and related sites? Almost 100% of people admitted to hospitals are dehydrated, it seems to be the number one health problem in the world. People just don't drink water. I drink a little over a gallon a day, more with the water in food, and that works out fine. If this helps, good, if I'm butting in, at least pass it on to someone else. You know, I've never even looked if Watercure has a page on wikipedia. Will do so now. Aleister Wilson (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC) They don't, but the .com site works well. I can't spell the doctor's name from memory, a long Iranian name. Thanks again, will address the other stuff on the talk page. Aleister Wilson (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Edward dating thing
Saw your edit of the Shauna dating thing. I agree. Seems more like an item for the National Enquirer, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Susan Hayward
I've restored and commented on the talk page. It probably does look like it's too detailed, in relation to a lot of articles, because the leads for many articles are so inadequate and do not address WP:LEAD. The aim should be to bring the weak ones up to the standard of the strong ones, not cut the strong ones back so that they resemble the rest of the herd. Rossrs (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. I noticed those things.  We'll see.  Rossrs (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dolly Parton
Hi, Wildhartlivie. As an avid Dolly fan, I check out the edit history of her Wiki page frequently and try to correct things when factual errors show up. Following your edit, I noticed that the article had an incorrect number of Grammy nominations for her, so when you updated it with her most recent nomination this week by simply increasing the total by one from the previous number, the resulting figure was still incorrect. I corrected the error and provided a citation for source material, but you undid my correction and returned it to the erroneous figure without citing any source. (I undid your undoing of my correction tonight.) Please visit the citation page I had provided and count the number of credited nominations. The total will be the 45 I had corrected it to earlier. (The cited page also lists two nominations on which she performed but was not credited by the Grammy folks as an official nominee, so its combined total shows 47 nominations, of which she was credited on 45.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.147.1 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tina Turner
The reason I replaced the cite you wasn't the title; the cite/link I added directly accesses the referenced article, which I presume makes it an upgrade. The link in the previous cite goes only to the Wikipedia article on the magazine. Or did I miss something? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Amy Adams
You are right in what you wrote to do the editing, but this cost me time and work. Add references, double staff, awards, and many more things. Please do not change my edition. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But did not understand what marriage template, I am new to wikipedia, I have a lot of learning about it, but I thought that it was a lack of respect for me. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

mmmm
cute photo !! :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Adams
I'm new to Wikipedia, but from some of the subject of the article of Amy Adams. Seems unnecessary to have an annex for the prizes if they are on the table?. For this reason it is redirected to the main article. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But in both articles is the same information about the awards. This would not be unnecessary. Saod053 (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comment?
Hi there, are you talking about the "In Film" subsection? I forgot to get the dif to show you. I think I have the right spot but I want to be sure. I think that IP isn't passing the Duck test for some reason. Also, the last thread about the judges words to him is verbatim from one of the TV movies. I'm almost positive about this. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  18:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Would you mind taking the time to comment on my comments about the 'judges comments' section.  I really don't think it belongs or at the minimum it needs a citation now in order for it to stay in the article.  I am pretty sure that this was part of the closing comments the judge made on one of the movies.  Of course movies are 'based' on the real life circumstances but are also subject to enhancements by the producers of that movie.  I think this might be what is happening here.  Thanks, I'll try to look at the couple of books I have about Bundy to see if this is in them.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I found what the judge said in Ann Rule's book. Please see what the difference is to what is in the article.  I really don't think it's needed but will go with what everyone decides.  What is written in the article isn't correct at least I don't think it is.  I think that was the ending of the movie called Ted Bundy.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Arithmetic
Thanks for picking up my Annette Bening error; I can't think why I thought the difference between 1958 and 1990 was 42 - nice catch! Little grape (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Middle
I just watched the first episode of a new sitcom The Middle with Patricia Heaton, and thought of you, as it's set in Indiana. ("the place you fly over when you're on your way from somewhere heading for some place else") Have you watched it? Loved it. I like Patricia, and I was disappointed with that awful Back to You series. I endured about two episodes of it, before I gave up. I know Frasier and Everybody Loves Raymond are tough acts to follow, but Back to You?? I like quirky, and The Middle is quirky. Rossrs (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean you Indianans aren't all kooky and crazy and whisper to yourselves? Well, that's disappointing.  I hope your numbers do speak for themselves.  Perhaps she didn't need to touch you or examine you because it was so obvious.  I think doctors are less hands on than they used to be.   I went to see one a few months ago and he didn't come within 3 feet of me and sat at his computer.  I told him a few things, he did a bit of clicking and then said "It says here to try ..... " If I'd known what site he was looking at, I could have stayed home and done that myself.  It may have been Wikipedia for all I know, or he may have been looking at porn, and just taking a wild guess. But, I digress.   Your numbers are really bad and anyone can see that!  So there ! Hold that thought, OK?  Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi u2
Hi. Yep, was away for a while. Ever so often one needs a break from this place. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hilary Duff
Hi, I've initiated a discussion involving the Hilary Duff main infobox picture, and I was wondering if you could provide reasons as to why you disagreed with my addition of the April 2008 picture, which is more close-up and thus more distinguishable than the current image. I was wondering if you could comment because this way, I can see why you did that, and consensus may be easier to form with other editors. Thanks.  Chase wc 91  04:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Werdnabot replacement options
Well, it looks like there are two bots that can replace Werdnabot: MiszaBot II and ClueBot III. Lemme know what ya think. momo ricks  05:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mind swapping the bots when you have the time? I'm not clear on the setup and don't want to royally eff it up. Thanks! momo  ricks  22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Got an expert editor in copyright to come by
Hi, I asked Moonriddengirl to come to the Ted Bundy talk page and give her opinion on the quote. I don't know where that quote came from to be honest. It's not what is in Ann Rule's book but seems to be a mix from the other source. This too was commented on. Anyways take a look at the new comments under Judges comment. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote is a mixture of what Rule included in her book and what Cowart actually said (as seen on the video) *that's* where it "came from". The first portion wasn't included on the video but in Rule's version from her book.  The references include both, however, it's wrong to quote Cowart as saying something he didn't (as the Rule book did, and the Bundy article did before it was corrected after viewing the video) and that's why I have changed it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I just saw this and need to respond. You say this is mixture of both Rules and the video.  Do you mean the youtube video?  The youtube video cannot be used like has been stated for copyright problems that Moonriddengirl talks about on the talk page.  If you haven't seen her comments please do take a look as she is considered one of the best editors knowledgable in copyright.  If the youtube is part of the quote then I will take the words of Ann Rule and use her comments which she says the judge said.  I do have a question for you about this at the talk so I won't go any further about it here.


 * Wildhartlivie, I also want to bring to your attention comments I made today at the talk page. I contact EdJohnston for clarifications about the 3rr report.  You can read the thread also.  I have left a notice at User:SkagitRiverQueen also about my new comments.  I am trying to calm everything down if I can.  If I am missing anyone else in the conversations I apologize and don't mind if anyone informs them of the new comments I made.  I am going off line for now.  As you know I get tired easily and my hands don't work great yet.  Talk soon, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wildhartlivie, admins will probably do whatever is needed to settle down the dispute at Ted Bundy. It would be a good sign if everyone would move to the article talk page and start negotiating. The longer the back-and-forth continues at AN3, the more the admins will be tempted to take further action. It is surprising how annoyed people are at one another, because the article itself seems to be making progress. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Owen Wilson
Hi, I have posted the following on the Owen Wilson talk page. Please could you let me know what it was about my changes that you were unhappy with.


 * My changes to the suicide attempt section have been reverted but I am not sure why. There is some very contentious information in there that is not supported by the sources. Particularly the line


 * 'In 2007, Wilson was taken to St. John's Health after attempting to overdose on drugs and having a slashed wrist.'


 * The only mention of this in the sources states that this is what was reported by a couple of tabloids, there is nothing to justify stating this as a fact in a Wikipedia article. Please could the user who reverted my changes either correct the section so that it matches the sources or find further sources that back up what is written. As the article stands I believe that it violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. I will check back in a few days and see what has been done, I am happy to try and find a compromise between the current version and my version if you think my changes went to far.


 * Also, please note that it is generally considered bad practice to revert changes without an explanation except in the case of vandalism. As my changes were clearly not vandalism it would have been polite to give your reasons for the reversion either here, in the edit summary or on my talk page. I'm not accusing you of bad faith just letting you know for future reference. Mah favourite (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Russ
Hi, that is WP:UNDUE to the point of being ridiculous. Whatever the intent is, it gives far more detail than is needed, and is about twice the length of the section covering his Hollywood career, which is the key to his notability. I don't think it needs it's own sub-section, the header sensationalises the issue, and a paragraph that briefly addresses the issue as it relates to Crowe, is all that is needed. It's pretty bad. Rossrs (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

GAR
According to the guidelines on the GAR main page, anyone is entitled to start their own individual GAR if they believe it doesn't meet the criteria. Although, if an editor has already significantly edited the page or has an open issue with the article to begin with, it's probably not a good idea for that editor to initiate the GAR. I'd figure at that point, the editor would be more interested in just bringing up the points on the talk page, and if no progress was made, then a GAR could be opened. In addition, if there is an issue with how the editor has run the GAR, then it can always be taken to community GAR which will allow others to become involved in the outcome of the assessment. Based on how you think the editor is handling the situation, you are able to decide if it should be heading on to community GAR. If it's only a few points that need to be addressed, it's better to fix them and move on. Consider whatever is the best option for further improving the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I would take it to community GAR, pointing out how the editor is not providing a fair or unbiased review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography
Hi. I noticed that you archived Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography today. However it is not really necessary as MiszaBot II automatically archives old discussions every few days. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde
I agree absolutely with your comment that before people undertake wholesale revision of a good article, it shnould be discussed. I apologize for not discussing my (single) change, which was trying to restore some of the even handedness you had worked so hard to achieve in the article. Pv86 (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I only just saw the currently retired box above — hope you're feeling better real soon... --HarringtonSmith (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there
Don't remember whether we have actually come across but I left some poointers at Talk:Hilary Duff/GA1 which would be really helpful for consideration of the article and make it ready for future FA. And don't worry about Chasewc91. The user has a habit of making such dubious edits like that and is probably a sock. (my guesses) If you are not happy with the GAR, positively take it to the community GAR as Nehrams said. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 11:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problems. Even I just happened to be browsing the article and saw the citation tags. Hence checked the talk page and found out about Chasewc's drama. You can check User talk:Pokerdance regarding the sock thing, however my concerns are regarding his inability to provide a review and point out the areas where the article is failing, but nonetheless open a GAR. Regarding his comments, they are merely a tool for his biasness to evoke and make it fruitful. He can be right that Digital Spy and some other websites addressed in the article are not exactly WP:RS (Digital Spy has time to time been accused of plagiarism) however he doesnot know what is the reason and nor does have any clue as to why veteran editors avoid them. Keeping his biasness aside, do you want me to do a thorough review of the article? In that case Chasewc can step down. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup! I'll be happy to do it. In the meantime Chasewc has to step down, else I can't pass or fail it. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked him repeatedly to step down or recuse himself and he's to date, consistently refused. What next? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A community request, if still inpersistent then administrative actions. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, a community GAR request is effective in cases like this. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya I saw it. So do you want me to open a review page or you want the community to do it? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw the above discussion and i am glad that I wasnt the only one who was fighting for this article....I had nominated the article for GA status 2 yrs ago and had worked really hard to get it to GA status (see this). ...So it felt really bad that some editor would just swoop in and set a deadline to delist it....I have already addressed some genuine concerns raised by Chasewc....However, my busy schedule doesnt permit me to devote more time so it would be good to get a community feedback....Being a major contributor to the article, I wanted it to be a Featured Article but it failed twice....I would be glad to get some feedbacks and comments on improving as well as trimming the article before pushing for FA ....I hope other editors too wud chip in...Thanks... Gprince007 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Janis Joplin
Hi. I notice that you reverted the sourced change I added while servicing a semi-protected edit request. The reason I made the somewhat dubious sounding change was that the current text is unsourced and obviously speculative ("possibly combined with the effects of alcohol") and the requested change was sourced and did not conflict with the existing text. An internet search yields this death certificate which appears legitimate and confirms the OD but does not mention alcohol or uncut heroin. The cites which mention alcohol look like mirrors of our content and the sites that talk of uncut heroin include "Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination, The FBI’s War on Rock Stars" which adds to the doubt of the requested change. For now, I'm going to remove the speculative portion of the existing text. Feel free to add it again if you find a reliable source. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine then, but I have a little trouble with calling that the "official" cause of death. I think it would be better to separate the two facts, as Ms. Friedman did. Something like "The official cause of death was an overdose of heroin; there was also alcohol in her blood and her liver was marked by long term heavy drinking." (Would "chronic abuse of alcohol" be a rewording, or a distortion?) The requester came back with more information about their source, so I'm going to try to work with them on how to add it. I'd appreciate if you could join in. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Doris Day
I was shocked and stunned to find my work on the lead expunged. May I ask why? I noted a banner at the head of the article asking that the lead be developed and I did so based solely on the contents of the article. May I ask what I've done wrong? It took me some time to construct the lead and to find it reverted is disheartening to say the least. Please communicate with me. SoniaSyle (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if you might respond to my post. I don't understand why you are reverting my work. It is disheartening. Please respond. SoniaSyle (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Anne Hathaway
If rumors and speculation, even in a "verifiable" site, are sufficient to maintain that story on her page, then we are no better than IMDb. This is why I stick to sports pages; we don't make the change until the contract is signed, no matter how close negotiations may be. Anthony Hit me up... 00:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add that I was the one that added it to her page (and have been fighting IPs since).  I certainly wouldn't have added it if it was not verifiable.  Furthermore, if in a rare case she does not play the character(s), it can simply be removed as fast as it was put up.  -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 04:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for "getting snippy". What you perceived as getting snippy was in fact general frustration with the site and some of its rules; sadly, tone doesn't carry well over black and white text.  I was merely commenting that there is a big difference in editing a sports page, where the contract signing is usually publicly announced, and entertainment, where oftentimes rumors and speculation run rampant (not that there's no rumors in sports).  I hope you understand where I was coming from. Anthony Hit me up... 14:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dorothy Dandridge
Please respond to this post. Would you please tell my why you've reverted my work? I don't understand. I developed the lead to summarize the article with some mention of DD's professional accomplishments and her personal life. What have I done wrong? Please respond so I can adjust my approach. I'm mystified. What am I doing wrong? Please communicate with me. SoniaSyle (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Precious awards
Hello there. Is it normal procedure to list such an excessive list of awards in a table, like this? Thanks for your input. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 04:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Doris Day lead
I've completed the lead and have rigorously followed the Angelina Jolie article lead in form, content, and style. I think the lead is now of an appropriate length and "covers all the bases" with no digressions or unnecessary details. SoniaSyle (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow
I'll take a look at Garner's page in a minute. I was wondering what you were talking about for Murphy (something related to her page), but I just saw her death date after clicking on the article. Very surprising thing to see. I believe I was looking for a new image of her a few weeks back too. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw the talk page and it must have at least ten sections related to her death. I guess everybody wants to be the first to report a celebrity death. Looking at her filmography, I think I've only seen Just Married and Sin City and her voice work in Happy Feet and Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs. It's always unfortunate to see the young celebrity deaths as there is always potential for future works. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They both died at the same age too. We'll have to keep an eye out and see. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the images I've uploaded have now been used for other websites after the person died. Those include Ed McMahon and recently Roy Disney. After some deaths, I rushed to get images such as for DJ AM (fortunately I got several images up within a day) or Bernie Mac (that took weeks). I try to get images for everybody so that we have at least something for when people flock to the page for large events or in unfortunate cases, deaths. I do try harder for older celebrities, but images are much more abundant for younger ones. Fortunately I continue to build new relationships with authors who are willing to provide more and more images whenever they take them. This month has already been quite successful, getting new images of Tom Hanks, Anna Kendrick, Mary Steenburgen, Paul McCartney, and Taylor Swift to name a few. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I can't comment on the Twilight films, as I haven't seen them, and hopefully I can continue to put that off. However, she was great in Up in the Air. I think finding the images is the easy part, your work in maintaining hundreds of celebrity articles is admirable. I can barely maintain a few of my own, and even then, you usually get there before I do! That's the great thing about Wikipedia, people of various skill sets and interests able to contribute different elements to articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Alec Baldwin edit
.....well, there probably was some juicy bits, but I hadn't read the article (very much) just yet. Thanks for the help of formatting the ref.Buddpaul (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Pamela Courson
Hi, Wildhartlivie! I agree the References section needs to stay – we just need people to add at least one forsaken footnote somewhere in this article. Glad to see someone is paying attention… As for reverting back to the “Music Sales Corporation” publisher and removal of the ISBN… iiiiiit’s story time!!! There are actually three separate books of this title by three different publishers and three different sets of ISBN’s – all by Patricia Butler. The original hardcover was by Schirmer Books; I got the year and the ISBN wrong. It was published 2000-10-01, 233 pages, ISBN-10 0-8256-7153-1 / ISBN-13 978-0-825-67153-1 – its information is on this site here, and here. The second release was the paperback version you are referring to, published 2002-01-01 by Music Sales Corporation, 234 pgs., ISBN-10 0-8256-7270-8 / ISBN-13 978-0-825-67270-5. Its information can be found here. The third version was another paperback published by Omnibus Press on 2007-12-01, (with a different picture on the cover and a longer content of 256 pgs. than the previous two). Its information can be found here. So, we need to have an ISBN for the book, and I believe that the original hardcover version is the one that is proper be listed, not subsequent paperback releases. What do you think? Hope you’re feeling better :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again Livie! I hate adding to old talk page subjects, but I didn't want to create a new one for such a small thing.  Just wanted to give you "props" for recently shutting down the editor who tried to add a "Trivia List" to Gacy's page.  I despise these lists, and when they get established and out of control on pages, it's a truly sad thing for WP.  Happy Holidays, and thanks for keeping it real :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting other editor's contributions
Please don't revert other editor's contributions without an edit summary or discussion as you did here. []. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Ping, incoming email. Have a happy holiday too! -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also happy holidays. Nice picture btw. Garion96 (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And a bit late response, but I did added Hilary Duff to my watchlist. So far it seems to have quieted down again. Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's a Public Domain image. Who cares? :) Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

 Mike   Allen   is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mary Pickford filmography
Hi. I'm looking for some support for the Mary Pickford filmography, which is currently a featured list candidate. Care to weigh in with your opinion? Thanks and Merry Christmas. Jimknut (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
-- momo  ricks  02:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Rossrs (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
Just calling your attention to this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, from behavioral evidence, it seems likely that Betty Logan is a sock of blocked User:WalterMitty, aka User:Melody Perkins. They have specific interests in common: snooker, Jenny Agutter, and bikini waxing among them. See here, an SPI that does not seem to have been carried as far as necessary (i.e. checkuser declined because data was stale, but the report was apparently not relisted for consideration on behavioral evidence). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the AN/I report; I plan to do the same. There is nothing grievous about our conduct; AN/I is for the truly disruptive, especially in a far-reaching sense. Let us move on from Betty and do what we do best -- make kick-ass contributions. :) Erik (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Bela Lugosi Revision
Re: 19:47, 23 December 2009 Wildhartlivie (talk | contribs) (30,630 bytes) (blogspot is not considered an acceptable source) (undo)

I would agree with you that blogs are not acceptable sources (as stated in the Wiki guidelines), however, this source is not textually unsubstantiated, but source video and supports the previous reference to the Texaco Star Theater episode. If the source was a description of the incident or otherwise, it would not be valid; but being a source video (which would be non-viable to duplicate) and mirroring the description from the Texaco Star Theater reference, it stands up to the test of reliability.

If you choose to maintain the rejection of the revision, so be it. I will submit another revision when I locate a more acceptable source.

Thank you and Merry Christmas!

Mwcantwell (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Dolly Parton Part 2
Merry Christmas, Wildhartlive. Wondered, however, why you reverted an edit I made to the Dolly Parton page. Someone made an erroneous reference citation on a claim that she and her husband are the guardians of a child whose parents both died close to each other. Someone copied the previous citation -- for a couple of paragraphs above (which is from her autobiography and references her first meeting with her then-future husband) -- and applied it to this claim that originally had a citation needed stamp on it. I own the book that was cited and checked that particular page in it to verify it had nothing whatsoever to do with the claim it was purporting to confirm, and when I so verified, I removed the citation and returned the citation needed stamp. However, without stating any reason, you reverted my edit. Please explain your reasons for doing so. (I, consequently, reverted your revert.) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.150.147 (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Good morning, this popped up on my watchlist today. I don't know if editor's are supposed to be informed so just in case you should be told, here it is. I didn't respond about this for obvious reasons, but I started my day with a good laugh. Have a wonderful holiday, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, with all the socks you are supposed to have in your drawer, I hope you had time for a fun and wonderful meal! :) I think things there have spiralled into the realms of Alice in Wonderland.  Don't let it get you stressed out, it's not good for the health.  Seriously, I hope they do or close that down already.  No good can come from something like that sitting around.  It started with two names and now there are, 6(?).  I feel abused, my name was left out.  I figured for sure that I would be added after User talk:B. Fairbairn.  It's starting to look like a list of editors who have disagreed at some point with these editors.  It's ashame that no one is stopping this already.  All that is occuring is making a lot of editors angry.  I know I am.  Well it should be done with soon, so keep up the good work you do and just ignore it now.  I think it's showing itself to be a ridiculous accusations all around.  I don't know if editors are supposed to be informed about these reports but I let Fairbairn know his name was added there.  I feel editors should know when they are being discussed officially like this so they can say something if they want to.  Have a good holiday and please don't let this upset you, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I see it's been shut down finally. I have to say though that I was surprised that nothing was said or done about the whole thing being done in bad faith.  I think frivolous reports should be discouraged in a major way, with sanctions if necessary.  Oh, well, at least it's over now. I hope it wasn't too stressful for you.  Have a healthy New Year, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed
I saw it earlier today, and was considering commenting, but then I thought it's up to the accuser to offer something more than suspicion and ill-feeling and I decided not to dignify it with a response. This edit pretty well sums it up. The ball is in the court of the accuser and he/she needs to state their case or move on. Nasty and pointless, isn't it? Rossrs (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good morning Wildhartlivie, or should I say MisterSoup or perhaps Equazcion or B. Fairbairn or Betty Logan or Beyond My Ken or Epeeflece. :) Garion96 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this, MisterBeyondMyWildBettySoupLoganhartlivie...... you must have been bored within an inch of your life as you dutifully made 40,000+ edits, got a couple of articles to GA status and fought vandals at every turn, all so you could have the pleasure of choosing exactly the right moment to unleash your multiple selves on the unsuspecting populace of Wikipedia, with the sole aim of causing mild consternation. I raise my hat to you, your stunningly wicked hench-people and the successful implementation of your fiendish scheme. What flair! You're that good! Rossrs (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're missing something, all that effort for mild consternation. There must be something more diabolical happening here. But don't worry Watson, we'll figure it out. Garion96 (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your continued silence only conclusively establishes your effort to design new, more sophisticated, and as-yet unidentified sock puppets. Three of six have been "officially" eliminated thus far; how many more cruel incarnations must we suffer?  Stop weaving your twisted web, and speak up! Doc9871 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It begins with mild consternation and ends with... (sharp intake of breath).... utter confusion. Yes Watson, we may have another Moriarty, a Lex Luthor or perhaps even a Mr. Burns hatching nefarious schemes to conquer Wikipedia.... and then the world!  Rossrs (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Release the hounds! Doc9871 (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockmaster
I like how you "used" two of your "socks" (Betty Logan and Equazcion) to argue extensively with each other on the SP accusation page! You may think this is a clever ruse, but your sophistication in sockpuppetry only incriminates you further! ;> Seriously, this is one vindictive and "conspiracy theory" oriented witch-hunt. I've said too much... I may be next to be accused... Doc9871 (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Betty Logan
Hi. I'm afraid I can't tell you why it wasn't relisted, but I'd guess the user probably didn't file the report properly. I haven't been following her activity since the SPI case was closed in August, but I filed the report after reading comments made by Betty Logan on the Jenny Agutter talk page and realising she had an unusual combination of several articles in common with Melody/Walter. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Morrison
Hi. Why did you remove my contribution in the Influence section? Would you please explain. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy
My editing for the article was not disruptive, especially considering everything I added was kept after I "did it correctly." Please do not ever speak to me via wikipedia that way, for everything I wrote is true information. The information that I edited was false, and needed to be fixed. Isn't that more harmful? Thanks for your input! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpo90 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement
You clearly will not listen no matter what. Fine, keep incorrect information. You may be an editor, but you are making me feel personally attacked with your extremely rude comments, and I do not appreciate it whatsoever.--Mpo90 (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)mpo90


 * Uh, Mpo90, have you bothered to look at the most recent entry you made about Wildhartlivie on your own talk page? And "extremely rude" comments were made to you?  I predict you will be blocked before the day is though if you keep it up, and your editing pattern gives you the life expectancy of a fruit fly.  Just because you were given a welcome cookie doesn't mean your "brand" of editing is for WP... Doc9871 (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Mpo90's comment from his/her talk page, Wildhartlivie. Completely unacceptable. Rossrs (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Peg and Beatriz Michelena connection
Hey, Wildhart! Hope your holidays went swell! Gosh, for a moment I thought I stepped into the past during one of my old Peg-Wiki-battles! Listen, I was doing a rewrite of a chapter and came across a photo in my collection of Beatriz Michelena's old film company, California Motion Picture Corporation. This photo was given to me by Peg's brother Milton. It was taken by Peg's Uncle Harold in 1914 when he played a role in the film Salomy Jane, which starred Beatriz Michelena. Harold also worked as a director for BM in two other films for her at this studio. It is a fabulous shot of the studio taken from a hill. Do you think it is acceptable to use on Mechelena's Wiki article? There is quite a bit of information about the CMPC there. I think it would fit nicely into the article. So that you and others can review it, I'm going to add the photo but not post it as I'm a bit rusty on which permission symbol to use. As I said, though, this was taken by Peg's uncle and given to me to use in her book. I spoke with them and they are delighted to also have it on the Wiki. Thanks!

Darn! I thought I knew how to link the image to BM's article, but I blew it! However, the image is here:

Jameszerukjr (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

California Motion Picture Corp
Hey! I did it! I was able to add a thumbnail of the company photo to the Beatriz Michelena article...I just copied the text layout from, what else, a Hollywood article. :>) So, I guess the only thing now is to get the right permission logo in place? I talked to Peg Etwistle's brother and he says this can go public domain. In fact, I am going to send it to the Library of Congress and other public institutions which have similar digital collections. History is fun! Thanks, W! Jameszerukjr (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Miranda
If you're still interested in the Carmen Miranda question, there's a new discussion at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-29/Carmen Miranda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ed Norton
Weird edit over at Ed Norton from an IP. Is this a troll? Malke 2010  01:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, I'm learning lots about vandals these days. Hope all is well with you :D Malke  2010  01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm good, thank you for asking. At the moment I have a crazy person ranting on my talk page about an edit summary were I wrote "added comment" when I should have written "deleted comment." This is why the dramaout can't come soon enough. XD oxoxox Malke  2010  01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, the word Dude in an edit summary? aaaahhhaa XD.  I love that. Malke  2010  01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are hilarious. DUDES. . .priceless.  I haven't been engaging this guy.  Coldplay Expert has taken him on.  Coldplay and I were in the middle of yakking about something and this guy came along.  I think sometimes people use Wikipedia as scream therapy.  Sad to say, but probably true.  Thanks for the laughs with your edit summaries. Malke  2010  02:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Russ
I'm pleased to know he formed the group with a sexy friend. The last thing we need is for him to be forming a group with unattractive people. Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG! That is hysterical, Rossrs! Happy New Year Rossrs and Wildhartlivie! Jameszerukjr (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, there is a new discussion going on to see if there is a consensus one way or the other about the video or the Ann Rule book on the judge’s comments. This note is to let you know about this discussion so that if you wish you can voice your opinions. It’s time to put this dispute to rest so hopefully a real consensus will show up for one or the other of these references. If not interested, please feel free to just ignore. I am notifying every editor that I see on the talk page who has been in the recent discussions. Thanks for your time, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I know you like Cher so here is a Happy New Year smile for you. And here's another :-) Rossrs (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen
I noticed that you reverted by recent edit to the Charlie Sheen article. Your revert was inappropriate. The clearly inappropriate revert can be found here: Inappropriate Revert. However, someone came along and removed all references to Brooke Sheen's claims and I agree with that removal. It was getting too indepth with what she might have said or did not say. At any rate, TMZ.com is NOT a reliable source and if it used to back up a claim that she "recanted" her statements to the police then I will remove it again. Also, she has an attorney now who is speaking on her behalf and that attorney is very clear in his statement that she did NOT recant any of her claims against her husband. Please use your ability to revert with care because you clearly did not in that particular situation.--InaMaka (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I did look at what you said in the edit summary, and based on the WP:RS/N links provided to you two days ago, I reverted based on your personal opinion regarding TMZ. The WP:RS/N thread above disagrees with your assessment regarding this source and your edits were done based on it not being a reliable source. Please exercise discretion in the future when you attack other editors' reverts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, it is clear that TMZ "recant" story was false. Also, there is no concensus that TMZ is a reliable source.  Clearly, as we move forward if you decide to revert me by citing TMZ I will revert your revert.  Best Regards,--InaMaka (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it...
Hi and happy New Year! i really don't understand. The check user says probable sock account getting around a ban but sees no reason to block and wants more proof of disruptions. Just the moving of others posts like what just happens, and by the way is what started all of this, should be enough to show disruptions. Why block anyone if it's not going to be upheld? Like I said, I don't get it. :( Well have a very happy and healthier New Year.  Hopefully 2010 will be kinder to us both in regards to our health.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I haven't commented but if I were you I would make a final comment showing the difs. The case about you being a sock and her bringing in a half a dozen names to say it was you when actually it was a laundry list of editors she was in battle with, is good for starters.  I mean, didn't the clerk even look at the evidence there?  Socking is a big problem in this project.  Now we have a clerk saying it's probably a sock working around their previous block but if their not doing anything bad then let's just ignore it.  Well, sorry, evading a block or ban with a sock account and having involvement in two separate sockpuppet cases, what am I missing here that doesn't scream quack, quack?!  The more I see stuff like this the more agrevated I get.  I don't know, but maybe this clerk needs everything that you and the others have said laid out in a pretty, tight post so there isn't a lot of reading involved.  I know you'll do the right thing.  I don't have to worry, not yet at least, because my path doesn't cross with them. I've been watching all of this unfold so if you take it to AN/I pop me a note, please.  Happy New Year, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do me a favor if you would and check out this at my talk page. I am extremely tired but I am also getting frustrated with all of this.  My request for the actual link to the documentary, I received this comment back.  The youtube.com is not usable, yet I am told to go there to see what the documentary says.  My head is going in circles right now.  Geesh, I think I need to take a break, I am getting really cranky, sorry, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Howdy, boy am I starting to feel like a pest. :) Anyways, I thought you should be made aware of this.  I suspect there will be some more said about this so I thought you should see this so you know what it is all about.  Have a good one, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA report
What outcome would you like to see, from the WQA report involving yourself and SkagitRiverQueen? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see her stop deprecating Crohnie. She is in bad heatlh and apologizes profusely when she feels she is asking too often. I would like her to stop dropping comments about people being bullies and filing sock and other noticeboard filings against me and I would really like her to stop treating those who disagree with her as a conspiracy of bullies who are all against her. With apologies, that's fairly the "p" word you don't want me to use down to dictionary definition. It is going to end up with a WP:RfC/U being filed against her before long, and not filed by me, but by someone she denigrated at the board. And I would really like for her to stop popping in at the Ted Bundy article to pick a fight, though I don't expect that will happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If SkagitRiverQueen is not able to separate commenting on the content from commenting on the contributors, that's something we can work on. I agree that there is no reason to be calling others bullies, etc. Whether an editor seems paranoid to you or not, saying so doesn't help anything. Unless you can show a benefit to the encyclopedia (one that really happens) when you call someone paranoid, it's an inappropriate use of this site. If it were helpful, I would encourage it; it's unhelpful, so I discourage it. The idea is to stay on-topic. If someone says you're bullying them, that's one step off-topic. If you explain how you're not, that's good, because we don't stray any further. If you say they're paranoid, they'll reply to that, and now we're two steps off-topic. See what I mean? I can help keep the conversation in line at Ted Bundy. Just help me help you, by restricting your comments to edits. If someone is calling other people names, let's take care of that, and not by calling them anything. We've got better methods, that keep the mud off. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm mostly defensive of Crohnie, who was partially paralyzed following neck surgery a few months ago, often states she is a little loopy from medication when she posts loopy questions and sincerely apologizes for what was characterized as "obtuseness". She doesn't need that from anyone and has been very candid about her health issues. The real problem at Talk:Ted Bundy is that everyone tends to agree on how to present the content, except SkagitRiverQueen. Since we don't agree with her, we're working against her. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm watching the article now. I'm not oriented to whatever disputes exist there, so please feel free to clue me in. :) It looks like there's a video in dispute... but perhaps we should be having this conversation there, not here. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a documentary included court room testimony and the judge's statement, which everyone seems to feel should be included. Getting the correct words is the bottom line issue. The talk page is fine with me. FWIW, SkagitRiverQueen used her rollback to remove the notice I left for Crohnie on her talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's resolved now (at least the Cowart quote)? Doc9871 (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)