User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 5

Gertrude Lawrence
hello. i'd be happy to explain my thinkology on that. to be consistent, it was much easier to remove the existing table than add another one, and it seems a table is bit over-kill for so few entries. the award succession matrix is redundant and was replaced with the navigation box footer. the rest is just standard housekeeping. hope this helps. cheers! --emerson7 05:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My, my
Geez...I didn't even notice that wee farm sprouting up. Where's my head? Thanks for writing that up. Pinkadelica 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Shakira
Hi Wildhartlivie, what exactly were you changing in this edit? By reverting to that particluar past version you've re-added a load of unsourced information/POV that I had to remove earlier. Would you consider reverting yourself, and then fixing whatever you wanted to fix manually rather than with Twinkle? Thanks in advance. Acalamari 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, no need to apologize. :) It's just that I didn't know what you fixed, and I had no intention of getting into any revert-wars or anything like that: in all, it was easier to ask you. Thank you for reverting, and then fixing the problem manually. Thanks also for the explanation. Best wishes. Acalamari 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting situation. :) See you around! Acalamari 23:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Figment1/diaday.com
Thank you for bringing that issue to the point. Great speak. Have a nice day! ► robomod 09:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Lowe of ModaRazzi
Before you go about editing my links maybe you should go to the links where you would see acess to the entire collection for that given season. Please do not remove valid links without looking at them. It took me nearly an hour to fix what you had ruined. My link to show collections is no different to style.com or fashionwindows.com

Additionaly I have as much right to a link there as they do so please stay away from them. I am not promoting any product simply giving wiki users acess to pictures of the given designers collections so unless you plan to upload those directly to the designers page then please... hand off. Chris Lowe —Preceding unsigned comment added by ModaRazzi (talk • contribs) 06:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: your message
The fact that I am assosiated with the site has little to do with conflict of interest. In fact the links placed there lead to pictures of the full and entire collection IS in fact relivant. Comming from a person who works in the fashion industry I can safely say that pictures ARE what people are looking for. You refer to etiquette yet you call me a spammer and say things like big bad Wildhartlivie. These actions are just as rude as my initial post.

Funny that you are so much older than I, and have so little self control. I WILL continue to post these relivant links to collections and I WILL be reporting your behavior to Wiki along with copies and screen shots of what you have said in my talk page. I am sure they would love to see than one of their older editors is hiding behind a tos to be condensending to a younger editor. I am not a spammer I am not "selling" anything. Modarazzi has as much of a right to show pictures on these designers pages as style.com and other sites that ARE doing it. Sites in which you left their links there. After this I am done speaking with you, I am done arguing with you. Removal of edits that you do will be placed back in that position and reported.

Maybe before you decide to edit things you will contact someone with something more personal than a tos quote. Maybe next time that you have a problem with me or someone else you will think before you act. Maybe next time you contact me you will show a little common respect for another human being and when and if that is the case I will be willing to work with you.

ADDED: This is found under the section showing what links should be included: two of these apply:

1 Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. 2 Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

For number two please dirtect specificly to copywrite issues. These pictures have a right to be included in the external links section. Furthermore if you knew anything about google rankings you would know it is good for wiki to have incomming and outgoing link. My site has had a link pointing to wiki for months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ModaRazzi (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ModaRazzi
Again if you please refer to the following guidelines that apply to the links I placed that you removed.

1 Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

2 Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

Please note that these two rules can be found under the guidelines for external links that ARE considered acceptable. I have placed the link to these guidelines below.



The Material included on my site IS copywrited this includes not only the photography but the article as well. I feel that these pictures do deserve to be included but can not due to copywrite issues. I do not need to drive any traffic to my site from wiki. I have plenty of my own traffic and I do not need to steal wiki's. I do see that style.com has doen the exact same thing I am trying to do and yet their older external links to the very same type of criteria is left in place.

Please explain to me why it is considered acceptable for style.com to share this information but not for me to share information with wiki. I do make other edits that are meaningfull to the contributions of this orgination. If anything here the external linking MIGHT help with page ranking but this is not my goal. I have to be honest I changed what I said because initially I was angry that I had put so much time into sharing this information then only to have it wiped without any real consideration, or with any real information to help solve the problem. Instead all I got was an impersonal quoting of a tos. I have in the past heard nothing good about wiki but this is an idea that I think could be more accurate which is why I fact check these articles before adding external links that I believe people would be interested to see.

I am not running about Wiki posting links to randomized sections that have nothing to do with the section I am editing. If this is a wiki where people will edit things out that actually have to with the article then I am very sad that eventually wiki will die. I am not a spammer. This is among the most rude comments that has ever been made to me via the internet. I am a journalist who takes his craft seriously.

If there is a process I can undergo to resolve this issue, to include my publication to cross link back and forth for the purpose of journalism with credibility I will certainly take those measures. However at this point none have been shown to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ModaRazzi (talk • contribs) 07:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Added
Oh my! I see a very busy edit history there! It's an interesting situation. The current version is substantially larger than the promoted version - if it was up for nomination now, I wonder if it would pass? I haven't read it all, but it's common to see opposes based on too much detail, and maybe it's heading in that direction. I agree with your opinion that it needs to be kept clean etc. I don't know that a particular form of citation is favoured but consistency is the key. A while back Anne Frank was put up for review and SandyGeorgia commented about the cites "pick one and stick to it". So as long as the same style is used, it's OK. I've added it to my watchlist and by all means, contact me any time. Rossrs (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read through some sections, and I agree that linking to the parent article would be beneficial but it's a hard call. I honestly don't know what would be for the best.  I'll give it some more thought.  Rossrs (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ma'am, I Am Alright With Your Request
I agree that maybe Wikipedia is still not developed enough to handle so many megabytes, and therefore it may not be wise to make the pages 100 megabytes long. Me, I've never really felt that specific reference names mattered so much, because some names I have used now-and-then have been rejected on the reference sections because the ref names were used too much on different pages. I try to make it unique, but I am okay with your requests for using similar ref names on the pages too.Kevin j (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse
Is it really that hard to read my freakin' edit summary?! I'm only changing the genres per Wikipedia's rules! Big T.V. Fan (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1st off,I apologize for my outburst,I have anger manangement issues. 2nd of all,I understand. I thought before that soul was just a slower form of R&B,but now I see your explanation and that it is R&B mixed with gospel/jazz. And I also see that instead of vocal jazz,jazz itself is correct,per your explanation. Thanks for explaining. Big T.V. Fan (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?
Hi, I was wondering if you might be interested in being an administrator on Wikipedia. Having looked through you contributions you seem to have a good idea of how things work around here and get on well with other uses. I think you'd do a great job and would certainly be willing to nominate you at WP:RFA if you were interested. WJBscribe (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack Warner
Hi Wildhartlive,

Thank you for taking steps to protect this article. I became concerned about this editor's contributions shortly after I nominated the piece for promotion. Among other things, he added sensational details that were inconsistent with the article's encyclopedic tone. At this point, I wouldn't mind if someone were to put Jack Warner up for review--if only to make it obvious to this editor that his contributions have threatened its status. Meanwhile, I'll do what I can to restore the article. I regret that I wasn't able to maintain this piece over the past few months. Real-life responsibilities intruded in an unexpected way. Your help is much appreciated. Thanks, again, -- twelsht (talk)=


 * The piece was worse than I imagined. I did manage to restore the article, though at the expense of some legitimate contributions. This article might be a good candidate for protection. Thanks,--twelsht (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading the article more closely, I agree with you that it will take a good deal of work to bring it up to FA status. As you pointed out, this editor targeted the article around the time it was up for promotion. During the FA review, one member of the committee (an administrator) made me a rollbacker--a gesture that suggests he could see this sort of disaster coming. Unfortunately, my dissertation kept me away from Wikipedia for several months; and during my absence, this editor (following a long sabbatical) made up for lost time. I'm confident that the article can be restored, but it may be a while before it approaches FA status. Again, I appreciate your help! Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article is in decent shape, but I'd certainly appreciate your feedback. At this point, Jack Warner is about 50 percent shorter than it was yesterday, though I did try to preserve some of the editor's contributions. He added relevant material about Warner's early career, management style, and final resting place. Less useful were his detailed descriptions of Warner Bros.'s financial ups and downs. Much of the material on Warner's private life seemed extraneous. And the loosely connected anecdotes about silver screen stars didn't exactly push the narrative forward.  I hope these changes strike you as appropriate. Feel free to restore any material that seems relevant. Thanks, again! -- twelsht (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Wildhartlivie, Sorry.  I didn't make any contribution to Jack Warner.  I looked at it several times, but I was overwhelmed by the mass of additions and edits and I was daunted by it, and kept thinking I'd try again later.  I stopped by again today... and thank heavens Twelsht has come back and worked on it.   It looks really good in my opinion, and I'm glad that the original nominator has been able to revise it.   I notice a large chunk of anecdotal material about Bogart, Cagney, George Raft etc has been removed, and for what's it's worth I think that the article is better without it. Rossrs (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde
Just becouse someone is a University Professor does not mean they are credible. A case in point being Milners' work on these degenerate animals. A grossly inacurate rehash of the works of other authors which is an assault on history. Sorry, but according to all other accounts, your "University professor" is as inacurate as Milner. Anyone can write a book, our librarys are full of fiction that passes as history because fools like you believe anything they read. If you were offended by my reference to inbread bible thumpers thats to damned bad, go hang around "down south" for a while and see what I mean....Kaltenborn (talk)

I see your point. in reviewing my comments I realize my tone was out of line. It appears Darby was present, although I could never understand how he got from Ruston to Arcadia in the time it would have taken to do the autopsy. You have my apologies.....Kaltenborn (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I read Milners book and was unsettled as to the inacuracys-Buck stood and fired from the windows at Joplin, etc-How is it that certain authors can quote conversations without having been in the room? They interviewed a few very old People, they were able to remember verbatim conversations that took place? doubtfull. While this might add journalistic flair it tends to detract from the authors credibility. Treherns version seems to be more interesting in that it was written by an Englishman. The scratch the surface phychological profiles are interesting. Kaltenborn (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Anthony Burgess
Hi, Wildhartlivie. I've addressed some of your concerns on the Talk page for this article, and made the request that you give us (or just me, perhaps) a chance to substantiate these passages before you delete them again. Much of this stuff is actually quite relevant to his life and work. -- P L E A T H E R talk 01:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

using |nested=yes
I know this is 3 months late, but when you incoporate WikiProjectBannerShell into a template (like here), don't forget to use |nested=yes as well.--Rockfang (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cher
Sorry, I thought that sentence refered only to the Hot 100 chart.Alecsdaniel (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim Jones Comment
Hey, Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I have no problem with the veracity of Flavor Aid, but I couldn't find reliable sources for it any more than I could for the Kool-Aid. The History Channel video showed that Flavor Aid and Kool-Aid were available in Guyana, and the investigator mentioned "cool-aid" packets. There are no sources cited for Flavor Aid being there, though I do not dispute it. Wouldn't the lack of sources make Flavor Aid the original research? My contention is that in the light of the fact that they had both drink mixes, and investigators said the generic "cool-aid" it is presumptuous, and there is no good reason to assume that they only had Flavor Aid. Thoughts? Leenunes (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter
The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hag2 request
Hi, Wild... I want to clean my Usertalk. I thought that I would ask you to delete everything of yours first, with the exception of the Reference Guide. I will then delete my own comments. I do not feel that our correspondence is necessary to be kept around as archive material. Thank you. (p.s. you can delete this ASAP.) Hag2 (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Wild...It was nice to see your addition with the Checklinks tool. That is a fascinating tool!  I am glad that you brought it to my attention.  I have been obsessed with the darned Danny article because of its content.  Consequently I have not been able to abandon the project.#$%^&! Rather, I have attempted to organize the citations, the notes, and various other things e.g. find pictures and add them in.  I ran into a discovery about the first sentence (which I am sure that you have noticed) and I have explained myself on the talkpage.  Actually, whoever began this article years ago did a fairly good job of information gathering (and writing, I suppose); and so now that I have added my meager attempts to help the article along, I think it is beginning to shape up.  I certainly appreciate you input from time to time, and look forward to seeing a remark or two on Danny's talkpage.  Hag2 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you mentioned the GAR. I had the same thought too.  I will let you know when I am prepared.  Until then...I am battling with footnote citations inside explanatory notes: very tough stuff on one's mind...%^&(?) Hag2 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wildhart, I am at a bit of a quandry on a specific issue. I would like your input. If you access, the article and go to the "Explanatory Notes 2,4,5, and 7", you will see that they would be better presented as the example "Footnote citation no. 3", because they are really footnote references, not explanatory notes.

On the other hand, if they are presented as the example "Footnote citation no. 2" (e.g. "a,b,c,d,..."), the specific explanatory internal citation details of each are lost.

As I recall in the document on citations, it shows an example for this kind of thing, but I think I recall believing that the example made the main article look like a wild bunch of heiroglyphics, or a Christmas tree with ornaments. I really prefer to avoid that. With all the "overlinking" and "footnoting" and "explaining", I think most average readers would walk.

Do you think that I should leave "Explanatory Notes 2,3,4,5, and 7" as is, or should I alter them as I have done for "Footnote citation no. 3". (I hope this is not too confusing; it is to write it.) My personal opinion is to make all the references to HR 102-857 like "Footnote citation no. 3"  This would mean then that the "Explanatory notes" would be what they are: explanatory notes. Hag2 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note: I was going to move the books into the section called "references". But you mentioned "For further reading".  I like your label much better.  Should I change "references" to "further", or are you saying that I should make a new section called "further"? I am digesting your other remarks slowly.  I'll get back on those too, but the "ref/fer..." is easy if you answer nne way or the other....  I prefer the "further reading". Hag2 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I performed a "reorganization" of the details we discussed above. Please look it over for me, keeping the following in mind: The title-labels can be renamed to whatever we determine is best, and the "External links" contains both websites and books which ought to be organized to reflect the difference, and which could be relabeled "For further reading". I'm still contemplating your other suggestions. Thanks for taking the time to oversee this mess.  (Somehow I wish I had never stumbled upon the main article in the first place.)  Hag2 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Wildhartlivie, I think that I am finished with editing Danny Casolaro (at least for awhile). I removed duplicate references from "Further reading" and  "Footnotes" subsections, organized (or collated) the "duplicate page reference citations" in "Footnotes", and removed my "comments" regarding the  references to the Sheraton Inn etcetera.  I have, however, left the first "dubious-discuss" because the fact is dubious, and I have attempted to find an explanation from several different sources.  Unfortunately, to date, no one has returned any email inquiries. (No big deal; the entire argument can be resolved by simply stating: "hotel" as several 1991 news reports in reputable general circulation newspapers did.)  With respect to your suggestion about not referring to Casolaro by his first name, I eliminated as many of those references as I could.  The remaining ones fit into two categories: (a) they exist in quoted material, and (b) there are several instances where it is grammatically necessary to use his first name in order to eliminate confusion e.g. ["Casolaro's brother Anthony met Mason later and said that Mason had remarked to Danny, "You look kinda tired." Danny had replied, "I get these calls in the middle of the night sometimes and it's hard to get back to sleep." Anthony insisted that Danny had claimed to have "been getting odd telephone calls for about three months."] Since there are three people involved in this passage (two of them Casolaros), it seems less chaotic to leave it as such then to rewrite it using different langauge.  Anyway, as I said, I believe that I am finished with the article for awhile.  I plan to leave it in your capable hands at this point and move on:  I am more interested in the various sidelines of the labyrinth called The INSLAW AFFAIR.  There are just too many Wikipages referenced in the Danny Casolaro article which need more help, as well as more detail.  In closing, drop a remark on Danny's talkpage where you and I can continue our discussion.  That seems to be a better place for general viewing of details.  (We ought to consider moving some of our own talkpages  over there too.  If you know how to do that, feel free to move whatever is located on mine at any time.)  Thanks for your help.  Oh...in regards to the GAR, I would hold off for awhile.  I believe that the article needs several more images.  I have attempted to secure some relevant ones.  Hag2 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

novel
So it's called a non-fiction novel, as other books are, but that phrase is a contradiction in terms. Novels are fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.64.190.41 (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the Insensitivity.
Thank you for correcting me in my insensitive post on the Jonestown issue.

If I had a tail it would be stuck between my legs. since I don't have a tail I can only feet embarrased about my post and continue to remember this admonishment. Gilda Rules! Jaxdave

Why did you remove "probably" from the Ryan White article
I don't understand. Do you have documentation that AIDS was known with 100% certainty to be non-transmissible via vectors other than blood and semen in 1986? My point wasn't that AIDS is "probably" not transmissible via saliva, just that it was not certain at that time.

Marlon Brando
Please ask for page protection on Marlon Brando. There have been 16 attacks in the last 100 edits, over a one month period, by 92.x.x.x. or 16%. There have been 39 (39% of the time) reverts (rv, undid, delete, reverting) in the last 100 edits. Thanks. 207.69.137.35 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) (aka Zoro)

Talk:Political Alliances of the People's Temple (copied from Mosedschurte)
I was hoping you'd jump into this discussion. My perspective is that no one will be satisfied until there is no mention of Harvey Milk and Peoples Temple on the same page, but that's probably not entirely fair. I'm not sure what else to say about this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I generally agree, except "no one" is really one editor. The Rfc he started demonstrated that his feelings were not that of everyone.  In fact, many wanted a fairly extensive section to stay in the Milk article.


 * I did jump in the discussion.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You probably do not want to re-enter the craziness of the Milk talk page, but for a laugh, you should go check the history of the Milk article now on adding literally a SINGLE SENTENCE on Milk's support of Jones and a link to the new article.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

hi
was a mistake. I am a multiple partner in many languages. and at that time was putting images that were not used. command him greetings and I apologise--Argentumm (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Gia Carangi
Hi Wildhart! Thanks for the note about Gia Carangi. When you left your note I realized that I had heard of her as just Gia. Having never heard the last name before threw me for a loop. (Like saying "I've never heard of Madonna Ciccone.") I wondered why I'd never seen the name in any of the reading I did for Ryan White...  Anyways, I agree and took her out. Should have looked into it more closely when the IP added it to begin with. --JayHenry (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had never heard of this movie (I didn't have HBO back then). Is it any good?  You know, beauty is a funny thing.  When I first looked at that picture of her I thought she was unexceptional looking.  But like an aftertaste, I've found myself unable to shake the image from my mind. --JayHenry (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse Note
I did not know about that policy. Thank you for telling me Edkollin (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A matter of priority
Happy to. I just wish there was a standard usage, 'cause other projects are using importance.... TREKphiler  hit me ♠  07:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia Stone
Yep...I'll give it a go. Pinkadelica 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits
2. All of my contributions were removed yesterday - Eve Ensler, Al Shean, Arletty, Lydia Thompson, Ada Rehan, Elizabeth Short. All were researched with the appropriate references. Did someone dislike the fact that I linked them to my site, which posits possible reincarnatory links with the various people named. Even if whoever it was didn't like the links, the information was solid and enhanced each one of the articles, while I feel my editing improved them. I feel very disappointed in Wikipedia for doing this. Getting rid of the links would have sufficed. Getting rid of my contributions seems malicious. Seems like a very prejudiced editor slashed all my contributions. I'd appreciate hearing from you as to the motivation behind it, or putting me in touch with whoever did it. Gracias OrlandoMaroro (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)OrlandoMaroro

Madonna and her truly amazing film career
Hi, I just noticed that Talk:Madonna (entertainer) is appearing in the Category:Top-priority biography (actors and filmmakers) articles and I can't remember how to split the project listing in the talk page. I'm sure that it's probably a link from a music related project. I can't remember what to do, and I hope you can. I did a double take, reading down the list.... Rossrs (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'll keep note so that I know how to change it in future. I remember changing one back when we were working on that list, but I couldn't remember who it was. You don't suppose Madonna is secretly editing here, do you?   Boosting her sales figures and boasting about her acting career?  And Eminem?


 * I've gone through quite a number of actress articles, made a list and tried to group them according to the content, style or completeness of their leads, and then with the ones that are more than a mere stub of a lead, I've tried to suggest what I think is needed.  I've gone through numerous articles and found less than 10 that I think are complete and needing no further attention.  That's pretty terrible, isn't it?   It's all here :User:Rossrs/Sandbox2.   I've listed every actress nominated for a Best Actress Oscar, every female from the Top Priority Category, I've started Best Supporting Actress nominees (working backwards from the present) and have added random names as they've popped into my head.   It's obviously not going to be a quick fix, but any effort directed to it can only be an improvement.  It would be great if Pinkadelica also took part.


 * As for a rule of thumb, I think that can be easily determined.  I guess kicking around some ideas will be the way, but I've noticed certain things as I've been reviewing, and have made comments.  It's interesting that some leads look quite good until you read them and see that they are a stream of hollow praise, or they focus on trivia, or place undue weight on one thing while ignoring some other aspect that is also relevant.   There is currently no uniformity.   Maybe if we can agree on the ideal example and then use that as a model.   I think we need to look at uniformity in structure, content and language/tone, and also determine whether it is a true summary of the article or if it contains unsupported assertions.


 * What is your view of "Award-winning" in the opening sentence?  I have to admit, it sets my teeth on edge.  Katharine Hepburn, Maggie Smith, Helen Hayes, Judi Dench, to give a few examples, have/had absolutely stunning,  noteworthy careers that have enriched their profession to a high degree, but here it seems that they are measured by the number of awards they won, and nothing else is relevant.   I think it does them (and Wikipedia) a disservice.  To me, that's a major problem to be addressed.   Awards are fine, but in context.  Rossrs (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been a bit sidelined by the Olympics too, but it's been great.  I think you've suggested a good approach.  How about we pick 2 or 3 leads that we think are of the required standard, compare them to see if they are similar in style, and then identify their key points.   Then if we can have a guideline that is a simple 1, 2, 3, 4...., we can start bringing them into line.   Which do you think we should be looking at as models?  Rossrs (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Michael Phelp is amazing isn't he? I wouldn't like to be paying his food bill, and on a selfishly personal note, every time an Australian gets in the pool with him,  I hope for a silver or bronze, because it's pretty certain there'll be no gold for the Aussie.      I'm happy to host this discussion over at my place, and then archive it when we're finished discussing the basics.  Ideally, I'd like to see a list for both female (which is just about complete, I think) plus males, and a general idea of where we're heading, and then start project pages, and continue the discussions on that talk page/s.  I've never started a mini-project or a project-spin-off or whatever this is, so I'm a little unsure about the protocols.    The four choices you've given sound fine to me.  Rossrs (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've replied on my page as per our previous comments. It seems that we were both working on the male actor list at the same, so I'll merge them together. Michael makes it 8! Rossrs (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's no problem. It's the sort of thing that can be just chipped away at, and it doesn't need to be constantly worked on, so I've been content just fiddling away with it.  It's really disturbing to find yourself being stalked, and it's happened to me a couple of times.   On one occasion I remember going to someone's talk page to leave a message, and saw someone else discussing me... that particular episode wasn't stalking, but it's not the best feeling.   I don't even need to know about the issue to know that you have right on your side.  Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that says a lot. Not exactly a safe subject. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Charge
Thanks for notifying me about the charge being incorrect. (70.244.58.103 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks so much
Hey, thanks for the nice note of encouragement. I think I was being a bit over-sensitive. Ah well, 99 percent of the time this is a fun hobby, and 1 percent of the time you run into something like this... Anyways, thanks for sticking up for me, it's sincerely appreciated. Back to the happy 99 percent! --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ehh... sorry for the rant. No need for all that.  On to more interesting subjects:  I got Gia on Netflix over the weekend and gave it a watch.  Interesting film.  I generally dislike Angelina Jolie, and I've never been terribly impressed with any actor in a crazy role.  I tend to think crazy is the easiest acting to do.  Like, even easier than being Bruce Willis in Die Hard.   But I did enjoy the film.  Especially the portrayal of the mother -- extremely flawed but still very sympathetic too.  Think there's enough good information about Gia out there to fix her article up? --JayHenry (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, well I'd actually ordered it back when we first discussed it, but didn't get around to watching it until this weekend. I have Netflix but don't really use it that much.  I might fish around and see what's out there on Gia.  Of course, it's no fun to work on highly visual topics and not be able to use any images... so we'll see.  I dislike how some articles get really, super long.  But I'd think the perfect Gia article would still be pretty brief. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
for fixing my user page. Pinkadelica (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dōmo arigatō! I found it odd because I've never reverted them or anything. Eh..trolls. No rhyme or reason I guess. Pinkadelica (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to have stopped for now. The last one they did was a revert of yours that they labeled vandalism. I wasn't online and I caught it as soon as I got on which was about a minute after they went on their last tangent. Maybe it was someone I po'ed before because I'm seeing zero connection to me and that IP. Very weird. Pinkadelica (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Response Letter
Dear Wildhartlivie, This is in response to a response you posted on my talkpage, for OrlandoMaroro. Sorry about the slow response, but I've been traveling sans computer. There isn't any copyright infringement, since 4dbios is my own site. OrlandoMaroro is the Spanish translatin of my name. I didn't add references to my own site, since it's large enough already, but for each submission I made to Wiki, I scrupulously referred to its source. Maybe I should have put the references higher up in the articles, instead of at the end of the paragraphs I edited. Everything on 4dbios is from biographical dictionaries, biographies or newspaper or magazine articles. As an External Link, my site gives complemetnary information on all the lives, including their projected life themes, their ongoing storylines, their inner lives and how they possibly link up with other his'n'herstorical characters. It's biography taken to the 4th dimension, hence its name. It certainly adds more than Find-A-Grave or IMDB, which don't even list sources, and are merely repeats of Wiki-info. I hope you reconsider my contributions, and reinstate them, along with 4dbios as a viable and valuable External Link. I feel I can be an excellent source for bringing to life a lot of Wiki's half-realized bios. I have thousands of saidsame on my site, and can augment many of Wiki's bios with the info I've gleaned over decades of research, since each of 4dbio's bios is geared towards giving the reader a strong sense of the person from birth and early family life right through to cause of death, rather than just a collation of random facts, as many of Wiki's stub and semi-bios do. I'll abide by whatever you decide, but please give it a little thought. Gracias for allowing me this forum. OrlandoMaroro (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)OrlandoMaroroOrlandoMaroro (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agnes Ayres
That looks much better. I've noticed that when an image is changed in Commons it takes a few days before it starts linking correctly in en.wiki, so when I first clicked on her article, I thought your changes were quite subtle. Then I remembered and clicked on Commons, and there she is all clean and sparkly. Previously, she looked like she'd been in a bar fight. Rossrs (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand how to fix image problems. I learn like a monkey, someone shows me what to do and then I copy it, and remember which buttons to click.  My understanding is not that great.   I wonder if it's something to do with the program you're using?   I've uploaded some images, such as the one currently in the Rita Hayworth infobox and it was all distorted, and I didn't know why.  Someone else fixed it, but I didn't ask how.    I'll let you know if I find any similar but most I've been finding are just in need of cropping.  I get frustrated when I see that whoever has cropped them has just neatly sliced off whatever is superflous but hasn't bothered about actually trimming off the weird stuff.  Patrick Swayze is my favorite (there's a part of me that doesn't really want to fix it).  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated question out of left field
"She was a crisp, opulent blonde"? (In my head I'm hearing this as a Jeopardy question.)

Answer - who is ..............?. :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely appreciated your comments.   Especially Broadway trying to remove Angela Lansbury.  I'm not sure how to get rid of her; she's all over Polly Bergen like Diana Ross blocking a pair of Supremes.   I think keeping this light and fun is a good way forward. (But I wonder if some of my comments would be appreciated by people who don't know that my tongue is in my cheek.)   Do you think this project is a kind of Field of Dreams?  Build it and they will come?   Fingers crossed. Rossrs (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you notice a touch of the bizarre surrounding a certain well known actress? She had 3 children, Barbara, Margot and Michael, but not a Susan or an Edward. I'm glad you're keeping an eye on the article as well. Rossrs (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read through the talk page, of which I have been a contributor and there is a lot of copyright abuse, and a fair bit of Wikipedia as a work of fiction. Marilyn Monroe and Joan Crawford have only fairly recently left us, Marilyn earlier this year, it seems.  Image:Adrian.jpg is supposedly a GNU image, but obviously it's not.  I'm not sure how to tag for speedy.  Can you please let me know how to tag it?  thanks Rossrs (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. OK so there's a reason for all of this.  I'll be more tolerant now that I know. Rossrs (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By tolerance, I meant that I won't start comments with "Listen here pal, you seem to be missing the point", which I tend to do when I'm convinced of my own rightness.  I will try to keep firmness and consistency in mind.     Here it's 7.50 am and I'm reluctantly starting to get ready to go to work. TGIF! :-) Rossrs (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha, not so much looking forward to spring as bracing myself for the inevitable hot, balmy summer that will start almost as soon as spring does.  We've had such a beautiful winter.  This morning, for example, the sun is shining and it's crisp and bright and lovely.   Well, gotta go and spend this lovely day inside at my desk (looking out the window).  Rossrs (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Have replied on my talk page. Just keeping it together.  :-)  Rossrs (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your kind words about the Michael Johnson article. Also, thanks for helping in reverting some of the vandalism that was occurring on the page. I am afraid that I do not have the time to edit right now, but indeed, most of those times and achievements can be referenced to the very same page that was used in the previous citation that you fixed on the article's page. If you feel the need to add in citations there and have the time in the meantime, feel free to do so, although I think it would look much more sightly if we just put one general citation at the end of the list rather than a little mark next to each individual time posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.31.140 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Depp page
The reason why I put down the category "American tenors" is because of his singing in Sweeney Todd. I know that is a lame source, but I'm just letting you know why I put that down. Tribal44 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

Oops, I made the same mistake on the Amy Winehouse page. I'm not good on relible sources, lol. Tribal44 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

Thanks for sending the "Guide to referencing" page. I just added another source/reference on the Annie Lennox page. Was the source good enough? Lol. Tribal44 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

Ok, I've added two sources so far today. Hope I did good this time around, lol. Tribal44 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

In use
Hi, I just spent a fair amount of time assessing from the actress list, and then I realized there could easily have been edit conflicts. I'm working on the actor list for change, so I'll put an in use tag on it. Maybe we should do this, as we seem often to be online at the same time. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not at all. There has been no problem.    I intended to only spend a few minutes, and then I became absorbed and lost track of time.  I don't plan on staying around for much longer either.  See ya Rossrs (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * oh my god, that's a lot to deal with. I remember the Johnnie Ray thing, but I didn't realize it spilled over into so many other areas, or that it was still going on.  As for finding your name and email address, that's crossing the line.  How does someone even know how to go about that?   I would imagine it would take some time and effort, not to mention a considerable degree of premeditation, and that's disturbing.  Rossrs (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That would give me the creeps too. It's bizarre isn't it?   However she went about checking, it's just wrong that she even thought about doing it.   Obviously there are two posts deleted from IMDb, so I don't know exactly what "mstyn" was replying to, but I must say "mstyn" sounds like a complete moron.  I'm assuming the "what a winner" comment is about you?  So she's telling her children not to trust Wikipedia, but she's taking someone's word at face value on an IMDb talk page.  Is that clever?


 * On a more serious note, the name "Cindytrells" is very like a name I've seen on Wikipedia at Anne Frank and Talk:Anne Frank (example).  I mention this only because the name is not one you listed on your sock puppet page, and her recent edits have been on the Marilyn Monroe films Something's Got to Give and The Misfits, and Marilyn comes up in the sock puppet edit histories.  Maybe it's no more than a coincidence, as I can't see any other connections in article subjects, and I hope I'm not being unfair.  Rossrs (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up
Hi, I posted a follow-up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers If you could, please respond. Thanks. Broadwayworld2 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi, I asked you about a month ago whether you might be interested in becoming an administrator and you said you'd give it some thought. Sorry I've been mostly away since then - I was wondering whether you'd come to a decision? WJBscribe (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your decision and I don't wish to pressure you. The offer remains open, do get in touch should you change your mind the future. WJBscribe (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

More crazies
I should stop it! How dare I removed someone's interpretation of the bible! Speaking of POV, I see your friend is back and using more IPs. I guess the lithium is running low. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw it, but you may have sent it to me. I noticed someone else made a suit and tie comment. Can't remember where, but I laughed. Did you do some recruiting? Pinkadelica (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I request like I would regular page? Pinkadelica (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have Twinkle. I use Huggle to patrol. It's fast! Those IPs hate it...obviously. Thanks for the tip. Watch me get denied. lol Pinkadelica (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is nominated for deletion. The guy who created it kept removing the tag. Don't tell me he created more. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not pissed. lol Was I snippy or something? I didn't originally tag the article, I just saw the guy removing it without adding the thingy. I always thought that even if someone removes the tag, an admin can still delete it if it wasn't notable. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, disregard my last comment then. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It sounds like a Doodlebug rant, only religious. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Burgess
Kudos for your efforts to fix up Anthony Burgess. :-) -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I second that. I've only had time for a very quick look at the article, and it has multiple issues to be dealt with. I'll have a closer look at it when I have a little free time.  I'm unexpectedly (and unwillingly!) working this weekend, but I will find some time in the next couple of days. Rossrs (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. It was worse than I expected, but what shocked me was the attitude. Ignorance really is bliss!  Let's see if they care enough about the article to sign up and work on it.  I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for that to happen.    ;-)  Rossrs (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

TimothyMok
I guess so - perhaps a checkuser first to 100% establish the editors are one and the same? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Note
Thanks for the heads-up... I would not have noticed otherwise. Darth Panda (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

MTV VMAs
I didn't watch it but someone seems to think he was being harsh. Anyone that makes fun of the Jonas muppets is ok with me. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Featuring .....GENE WILDER!
I feel pumped this week, wanna try and make Gene Wilder a Featured article with me?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your note
I responded on my talk page. I will drop you a line, I need a bit of help to work up a checkuser case. Ta. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, love. I'm not fussed about a minor producer for a crap film trying to hussle up my address. I'm not so easy to find and there's nought to use against me anyway. ttyl. LaVidaLoca (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse
Nope, in light of what was said, I think you were quite restrained. Looks like there's a bit of backpedaling going on anyway. Hmmmm.. Pinkadelica (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh...it seems Ryūlóng protected due to the amount of reversions tonight. I'll drop him a note. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Criterion Collection essays
Hello Wildhartlivie. I noticed you checking the link at the Grand Illusion page and I wanted to make you aware that I started this thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films at the filmprojects talk page to try and find out what is going on. Collectonian has already replied with a thought that may be of some help. I am not very web savvy so I don't know how to check on his suggestion but I thought that you might know what to do so that is why I am leaving this note. If this isn't of interest to you please disregard this message and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Many many (and a dozen or so more of those) thanks for your reply and the links that you provided. You are helping and old wikignome learn a few things that will be useful in the future. I will try to learn how to use these tools (which may take some time). In the meantime I know that many of the films that the CC released have links to these essays here at wikipedia so if you come across them in your editing please feel free to fix them (I think that Ed F is already on this case). Wikipedia takes a ton of flack (some justifiable) but I think that this is one of those situations that shows its strengths and you are a big part of that so thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 08:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

re:Nyannrunning checkuser
Hi, sorry for not replying earlier. Unfortunately RFCU is often patrolled by the most busy people on the project, and they often don't have the time to do extra work (they often don't block sockpuppets themselves). This is why the bureaucracy there is so big, and we have clerks trying to keep an eye on the pages and assist the people needing help. If you find yourself in a similar situation (serious, and possibly needing a follow up), don't hesitate to post a thread to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where the is enough traffic for someone to do what is needed. I hope this helps! :) -- lucasbfr  talk 17:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Danny Casolaro
Got your note, Wild. Thanks. I noted my remarks at the WPBio talkpage, and wanted to follow up. I inserted a few details into the Danny template. Check them out. I hope you will agree. My basic intent is to see if whatever notice we have inserted will spark some sort of movement, comments, etceteras on that article and push it further along. Simultaneously...if you are interested: I have done another major revision (on Inslaw) and intend to post a similar template for that. At the moment, I am trying *sadly* to figure out which one *sigh* i.e. WP-template. I believe that I can get away with "WPProject" but I haven't found anything like that... yet. Hag2 (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Me again. Thanks for your reply.  I gather that you think that I am the author.  No.  I am just a reader.  See my explanation on that Peer Review page (which you drew my attention to; p.s. this was an important element that I wanted to add) in about three minutes or so (I'm rereading and editing my own remarks).  And do a review.  It will help things along.  Ask a handful of your "best-quality-minded" friends too.  Hag2 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay okay I'll accept your interpretation of "authoring" *grin*. Go over here for my explanation on the Peer Review input page. Hag2 (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's the difference between and a -template (or -template) and a peer review.  It is my impression that an "assessment" merely provides a "stub, start, B, or C" kind of classification.  Whereas a peer review presents editors' reactions to an article with input for furthering along an article's development. Then there seems to be something other such as the GAR nomination which I stumbled into several weeks ago.  Hag2 (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to writeout that very detailed explanation. I will read it over and over again until I grasp its full descriptions.  I am finished now with Casolaro for awhile and moving into Riconosciuto. He needs a great deal of work.  I have been nibbling on him during Inslaw.  Inslaw also needs time so I am not going to peer review it until I completely understand all the details you have provided.  Thanks again.  And until we meet again...remember M I C see ya real soon K E Y why? because we love you M O U S E.   Hag2 (talk)

NEED HELP. Hi, Wild. Would you take a look at the and help me understand how to comply? I am baffled greatly by Wikipedia requirements. I imagine it may take me awhile to understand the correct procedures. Please answer me there. Hag2 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You Have Been Mentioned In A Neutral Point of View Discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Political_alliances_of_Peoples_Temple

WP 0.7
Hi, Thanks for letting me know about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Wikipedia 0.7 article review. I will get involved as this is obviously an issue with a deadline. I don't really know how to approach it or where to begin, but count me in - and if there's anything that needs doing that you think I could help with, let me know.

Thanks also for the "obtuse" comment. I went to the talk page to see if he'd written anything in reply to me, and I thought you'd summed up my feelings precisely, although I didn't think of the word "obtuse" which is the perfect word. All that ranting, and I sincerely have no idea what he's on about. I regularly delete things for a whole lot of reasons. Always within guidelines, sometimes because they are otiose, but never purely for fun, despite the smart-alecky tone of some of my edit summaries. I'm probably guilty as charged, but he's too obtuse to realize that my intuitive powers don't stretch to knowing what he's edited when he's not logged in, any more than knowing what he ate for breakfast. Bananas maybe? I guess if you put a lot of monkeys in front of a lot of keyboards, one of them will come up with a novel, but another of them will visit Wikipedia and rant like a lunatic. I suppose that's still quite remarkable. Rossrs (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll have a look at the work groups.  I started going through some yesterday and changed a number from a&e to filmbio.   There were so many people on the list I hadn't even heard of, but I picked out a few obvious ones and I'll keep going through them as time permits   Some of the pages that needs improvement are daunting.  I looked at Cyndi Lauper and then as I was reading it, I thought... I know next to nothing about Cyndi Lauper.   That gives me a better idea anyhow of what you're doing.  Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that sounds OK, I guess.  Although I quite like "Lauper married Thornton on November 24, 1991  but now they're divorced".   Cuts to the chase.   Have you ever seen The Vicar of Dibley?   Alice (the village idiot, to put it bluntly) dressed like that for her wedding.    That was after 1991, so I assume it wasn't Cyndi's inspiration.    Cyndi is the guest-mentor on Australian Idol this week.  I'm looking forward to it.  Rossrs (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

re: edits to User talk:Rossrs
Thank you for that. Either you are friendly with Rossrs and are standing up for him, or you simply did not like the manner in which I spoke to him, but I think you should check what you are saying, and you will find that you are the one in the wrong. Rossrs has made a change to an edit I made within the last year, and I find it very doubtful that you actually checked this. Are you saying that you checked each of my preferences individually against his? If so, it was a comprehensive waste of time, as you didn't even check properly. However, it seems very likely that you are simply making this up to defend Rossrs.

By the way, next time you are trying to make a point, don't think that by using language you believe is "fancy", that it will make your point any stronger. All you have done is simply make a completely superficial and unjustified argument, made to look more eloquent with what you think is "fancy" language. You may be interested to know that words like "thusly" have not been accepted since about 200 years ago. Next are you going to write, "I see thy Wikipedia edit not, yet I see thee still, art thou not, sensible"? If you did, it would make you look the fool, and hardly "fancy". Perhaps you should actually form an argument to support Rossrs, rather than throwing false accusations around. Tkma (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So there ! ;-) Rossrs (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? What a ridiculous thing to say. If I posted my message on 21 July, wouldn't it make sense to end on this day, not to start then? Of course it will not show up if you start on that day. Any logical reasoning would justify that. Obviously you did not find it for that reason. Why don't you just rewrite all of Hamlet, while you are at using archaic language in a bid to strengthen your argument? You have still provided no evidence to substantiate your point of view, merely used words that are irrelevant to society.Tkma (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's funny that isn't it? Rossrs recently realised that he in fact had altered one of my edits, and that it was in my edit history. Who is being "purposely obtuse" now? You are. I find it very difficult to believe that you missed it, when you claimed so certainly that you checked, and that I was being "purposely obtuse". I just don't think you checked it at all. You are the one who looks the fool now.

I will translate that in case it didn't make sense, "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes, or to take action against a sea of wikipedia edits." Thank you for the waste of time. Tkma (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wildhartlivie, yes I noticed it was copyrighted material. Well that certainly overrules any discussion about it's relevance. I've only just logged in and I think my visit will be brief. I've had a taxing week in my real life. Rossrs (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You've Been Mentioned in the |Harvey Milk Talk Page
The prior section on Milk and the Peoples Temple to which you commented upon has been deleted. A short sentence was re-added. That has since been deleted, by two of the same editors as before.

SandyGeorge stated that you made prior comments. I noted your prior quote ("I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant.")

Because both SandyGeorge and I raised your name, I thought I'd inform you that the discussion is occurring |here.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To submit to copywriters
Cyndi Lauper, Anthony Burgess, Cybil Shepherd

Serial killer-related Wikipedia 0.7 articles
Hi, I was wondering whether you've had a chance to take a look at the serial-killer related articles selected for Wikipedia 0.7 listed on the Serial Killer task force talk page. You and I seem to be the only people posting on that page lately, so I thought I'd drop you a line. Maybe we can collaborate on it. Thanks, --*momoricks* (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really know your stuff. I'm a newbie to the expansive greatness that is Wikipedia, so please bear with me if I ask any ridiculous questions. Copyediting is my specialty, so I'll have a looksy at the "touchable" articles. Thanks, --*momoricks* (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the list. I'd be happy to add notes to it when I'm finished looking over articles. Do you want me to cross them off as well? I'm copyediting Aileen Wuornos right now. Despite its lack of cleanup tags, it's a big 'ol mess. Multiple unsourced, inflammatory statements; POV out the wazzoo. Have you seen last meal information in any executed criminal Wiki articles? The Wuornos article has that, which I find bizarre. I'm considering removing it. Would you mind taking a look at that and the Post-mortem section and letting me know what you think? Thanks! --*momoricks* (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice/opinions, and no, you don't sound too bossy at all. I view this as a "Mr. Miyagi/Danielsan" collaboration. :) You're the veteran and I'm the rookie. I appreciate all the help. I'm going to finish the citation cleanup (if possible) on the Serial killer article then dive back into Wuornos. I'll let you know once I'm finished with each. Thanks again, --*momoricks* (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at this
Hi Wildhartlivie. More messages on my talk page including this. The site has a GNU tag on it under "credits" before the copyright notice, and it says it uses material from Wikipedia. This usually means a mirror ripping off Wikipedia by copying an article and sure enough.... I decided to see if the chicken came before the egg and this is what I see. Can you please tell me if you agree. I think the site is mirroring our article of 27 November 2007 approximately - I don't have the inclination to check every comma etc. The dancing bit was added 29 September 2007. The 29 September version of the WP article does not mention an appearance in a soft core porn film which appears on the mirror but which was not added to Wikipedia until 1 October 2007, although the bit about her genitals isn't on the mirror version. The section was removed from Wikipedia and restored 3 October 2007 sans the genitalia reference, or in other words, exactly the same as what appears on the mirror site. The Wikipedia version of 29 September contains 2 quotations: one about rape, and another about her incoherency with English. The rape quote does not appear on the mirror but the English one does. (Although the mirror can't "read" quotes so it actually says "When Diaz was asked if she can speak Spanish she said" - readers of the mirror will never be privy to her pearls of wisdom, but that' another story.)  The rape quote was dropped from WP sometime between 20 Sep and 27 Nov. This is the exact point at which I became bored trying to nail the exact version, and I won't bore you with it any further either. It seems clear that the information was added to WP before the mirror uploaded the article, and therefore it's not a copyright issue despite the nonsensical permission comments, which are at least in character with the previous nonsensical comments. I want to let this lie, but I also want to be ready for what comes next. Does this look right to you? Thanks Rossrs (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it might be over and done with but see this  Someone who doesn't know the story is going to answer and say, "yes it's fine".  grrrr.  Rossrs (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts.  This is such an inane thing to be disputing. I should never have responded but once I did, I felt compelled to continue.  A mistake, as it turns out.  Rossrs (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: I'm sorry!
No problem at all. I happened to look at the page history and saw that you'd been working on it, but figured you had finished because it was about 15 minutes since your last edit. When I got a edit conflict note I realized you were still working on it and skaddadled off to the Serial killer article. Ugh, trying to find sources for all that uncited info is a real pain in the arse. The beautiful bibliography is useless without page numbers! How goes your editing? --*momoricks* (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits to the Wuornos article look good. I'm going to expand the Victims section and find sources about her legal adoption by Arlene Pralle so I can add that back in. As I'm sure you saw on the talk page, the original info was uncited and ridiculously inflammatory/POV. *sigh* Oh, and I read the note on the Zodiac page...ack. Have fun with Andrei! ;) --*momoricks* (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the murders section. The article is starting to look really good. Have a great weekend! --*momoricks* (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note
Yes. However, some comments aside, I'm rather hopeful that he can be logically argued to be a more productive than disruptive influence. From the link you gave to this (which I like to hope is a genuine thought); from outright removal of (possibly) spuriously-sourced comments, to asking for sources. That's progress... I hope. :o)

Basically, I think there's hope, even though the memory you evoke was not a pleasant one (and, frankly, somewhat bemusing at the time). If you are aware of the pre-history to that, though, or even if you read between the lines of the BLP-points raised, it becomes clear that "A.K.A.S" did have initial cause for serious complaint against Wikipedia. Not against us, nor against many of the people that ire is being (mis)directed at, but certainly cause for very serious complaint. I absolutely disagree with many of the methods by which he seems to be addressing those complaints, and certainly feel that more constructive contributions would go a long way to helping heal the harm, rather than simply fighting fire with fire. I tried to point that out here, and hope that some of those thoughts reached home.

Ultimately, attempting to "unmask," ban, block or otherwise hinder him at the moment is, clearly, going to bring about precisely the situation you mention all over again. If possible, I would like to avoid that. If on this occasion we can all calmly and rationally have a meeting of the minds (and, again, I hope this is possible), then I think there will be a massive positive reached from a pretty nasty negative. I prefer to hope that careful handling, rational discussion, a lot of crossed fingers and some understanding will be a help; while I would pretty much guarantee that any submission/referal/complaint of puppetry (or similar) will swiftly degenerate back into an identical situation, and we'll all be worse off.

I would advise caution. I would prefer everyone to 'let it go' (a little, at least) for the time being, and just think positive thoughts..! I don't want this to escalate further, and I don't think it has to, so...

If this makes any sense (or even if it doesn't!), please comment further. :o) And thanks for mentioning it. ntnon (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Appreciated, and as I say: 'fingers crossed'. The threats and stalking are totally beyond the pale, I agree. But there's some mitigation (some) to be had from the deeper history of the issues. Conflict of Interest is also an issue, but not one that's particularly high on my agenda - unless it's overly self-serving, un-'notable' or misinformation. And frankly, I can think of few people better to start certain articles than those involved... so long as they maintain a proper degree of attachment and non-bias.


 * I broadly agree with your old school approach, but there are two obvious flaws: second chances (although the multiple number of second chances some people seem to get with simple things like 'good faith' - there's somebody heading through the Archie Comics articles at the moment randomly erasing details without a thought, comment or edit summary, who seems to just be allowed to continue! That is more of a problem; at least here we have engagement... not always entirely civil, and sometimes downright nasty, but still. There's a dialog.) or the chance to turn over a new leaf, and trying to do what's best, or right. In this, fairly sensitive, case, it would not do anyone much good to go for a puppet-branding and banning, and would likely do ill. That is, I realise, not a million miles from tacit scare tactics, but it's also hand-in-hand with kid gloves and red tape, both of which have some history to them..!


 * Luck will be helpful. Politeness will be a must, and I may change my hopes shortly, but in the meantime... optimism isn't an inherently bad thing, is it..?! :o) ntnon (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Manson articles
Thanks for the alert re the sock puppet.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinton/Palin
Yep, that would've actually been insulting! Pinkadelica (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Myspace
People really aren't pulling your leg. Validated Myspace sites can be used as being statements from the people that own them. It's subject to the normal problems of primary sourcing: you can't take primary sources as being truth, you can only take them as truly reflecting the statements of the source (i.e., if Lindsay Lohan claimed she was the Queen of Senegal on her Myspace, an article could say "Lohan says she is the Queen of Senegal", not "Lohan is the Queen of Senegal").

As for validating the page, look at http://www.lindsaylohanmusic.com/. It redirects to the Myspace page in question. A whois on that site shows that it is owned and maintained by Motown Records, Lohan's record label. Validates all the way through. Kww (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)