Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:03, 15 November 2008

Archives

Through 2007 1/08 through 3/08 4/08 through 6/08 7/08 through 9/08

Referencing

{{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB.

Re: Bundy

No problem at all. I was editing it at work and had to pause now and then. Thanks for clarifying those sentences. --mo 07:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin

Yeah, I got the feeling there were some personal feelings mixed in there. God bless the POV warriors. Are you still having an issue with that section? I haven't even bothered to do a follow up. Pinkadelica 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I figured a block would be issued at some point when I saw the IP adding content. I came close to reverting, but I didn't want to add to the drama. I did see the version you added last night when I added a few refs and the awards chart, but I didn't check back to see if you had been reverted. As an aside, I had no idea Baldwin even wrote a book. I'm so out of touch. Pinkadelica 01:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew about that stuff (Basinger is agoraphobic or something?) and I vividly remember the phone call, but I knew nothing about the book. Maybe I was aware and just blocked it out. I tend to dismiss those insipid autobiographies geared towards showing what a good person someone supposedly is. I think Baldwin is funny as hell, but he's probably insufferable in "real" life. Pinkadelica 01:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt Damon

Oh - I'm having trouble with this 'short' edit scenario. Is there some special alarm that goes off in Misplaced Pages headquarters if you cut a link or a paragraph in half? Am I doing something wrong in the way I'm describing it? Am I expected to write a thesis on my decision and rationale? This is the second time in two days I've been done for small edits.

In the Matt Damon page I shortened several paragraphs. The only 'fact' I removed was a link to a documentary about a book for which Matt Damon was supposed to have done the voice over before he was famous. The connection was that the author of the book was a neighbour of Matt Damon's. It seemed spurious and irrelevant. It was badly written. To quote it says: "Damon grew up near Ben Affleck, a close friend since childhood and future collaborator on several films, and historian and author Howard Zinn, whose biographical film You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train and audio version of A People's History of the United States Damon narrated." I cut it out the bit about the historian. While I concede with effort there may have been a more elegant way of including it than the cutting, but these fan pieces get so long.

So that was my rationale - in light of you reverting my edit - what should I have written in my 'edit summary'.

Also the paragraphs in Misplaced Pages generally are getting really long and hard to read. Is this a style choice? Julius Caesar is almost unreadable it's so convoluted and dense. And in your reverting my edits - have the tiny cuts to streamline grammar gone as well?

Anyway - I went to the sandbox for a check up - and there's no answer to this question.

Best wishes 124.170.219.171 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Manson

No worries, my dear. Glad we're on the same page this time. BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

People will say we're in love... :) BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Selected filmography

Hello, Wildhartlivie ...

Regarding this edit from last week, and this thread, I would like your opinion on the {{Selected filmography}} template ... since you appear to represent a more inclusionist view, I would welcome your perspective ... you may be bold and modify it (within reason) without discussion ... I know that although I gave it birth, I do not own it, and "It takes a village ..." :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)}

Pathology

Has your view of Whitman's pathology changed?Victor9876 (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"ill-defined fad category being deleted"

I think a couple of these edits didn't do you intended them to do, ie and . Regards, Siawase (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to let you know so you could look into it. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter

The October 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. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hayden Pantyairs

My guess is boredom or just plain fu*kery. I gave up on that article eons ago because of that kind of crap. I see nothing has changed much. Pinkadelica 19:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

One step ahead of you :) Pinkadelica 19:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know my thoughts on the matter and I don't blame dougweller for tagging it as a content dispute because it basically boils down to that. I too hoped we could wait until the sockpuppet report that I stupidly forgot to post comes through, but locking it for now is fine. I think we both know by now that the truth will come out....eventually. Pinkadelica 23:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too

I say : "Oh my god, add me to the list immediately! I'm an expatriate of New Zealand, having spent 3 weeks there in 2002. And the US, and the UK, and Denmark and Poland and Germany and Finland and Hungary ......." The logic is faulty, the "oh dear" edit summary is cringeworthy, but no I haven't noted this editor before. I would have remember edits like those! Rossrs (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:

The reasons for me changing the formatting in the references is because of the past/current discussions at cite web and cite news. One, being that the dates are not supposed to be linked, per the new Manual of Style. Second, I take example of adding Publisher info. to the refs. from Heath Ledger's article, as User:NYScholar formatted the refs. there and in The Dark Knight film article, and citing that because its a manual from Wiki, see The Dark Knight talkpage from previous discussions. Another reason, I'm trying to make aim the article to FA status and I'm trying to properly format the refs. correctly so a problem won't ensure at the FAC. Hey, I may be wrong, and I'm pretty sure I am or not, but reverting the edits in the article will cause some information to be removed, and quite frankly re-adding the info., will take up my time. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mae West/New Zealand expatriates

First...Mae West. The picture adds nada but that seems to be a trend on that page (seriously, have you tried reading it?). I keep putting it off, but the whole page needs a total overhaul. Someone seems to think it's a West shrine and not an encyclopedic entry. I also left a comment on the expatriate RfC on Cate Blanchett. I think all these situations are giving me Wiki burnout. Pinkadelica 05:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mae West is a doozy. I don't understand why the grave photo needs a date, unless the grave changes in appearance from day to day. The grave seems to be the secondary subject matter in the photo. It looks a bit like someone wanting to get their face on Misplaced Pages. You know, their connection to West is such that they appear in her article...... that kind of thing. That's how I see it, anyhow. If I'm ever photographed with Kylie Minogue - I'll be uploading it so fast I'll have blisters on my fingers. Same logic. Never mind the relevance. On a serious note, do you know if Mae ever visited New Zealand? Rossrs (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a number of tendentious editors refusing to engage in discussion lately across several articles. I have commented too. I think you did the right thing - if an editor is given the opportunity to discuss, and fails to take advantage of it, that's their right, but it's also their mistake, I think. It reeks of bad faith on their part, and I for one would be less likely to take them seriously in the future. So, now you've got something to refer to in reverting any future edits, not only for these three actors, but for any other that may fall into the same category at a later date. Rossrs (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree about the Mae West picture. That was my initial thought when I saw it especially after the whole image credit thing (that evidently seems to be ongoing). I just know that when I cut the original research and POV out of that article, someone is going to come crying. If that happens, it's quite possible I'll go bananas and rip someone a new one. I think the main reason for my Wiki burnout is the tendentious editors floating around lately. When I started getting burned out before, I could retreat to television articles for a break, but even those are being invaded by people who just can't wrap their mind around WP:TENSE. Maybe I should start editing my sandbox and leave the main space alone. Pinkadelica 05:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, well just don't turn into Gwen Stefani, with the whole bananas thing. You're at least a zillion times better than the tendentious editors, and they'll come and they'll go (what with their limited attention spans and all). If you need to take little breaks sometimes to cool off, you obviously should allow yourself that respite. It's sometimes hard to deal with all the negatives without being distracted or discouraged, but here's a positive for you : you're a valuable editor and you make a real difference to people like me who value this project. Ultimately you are part of the process that makes this a better place, even if it's a battle sometimes. Rossrs (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Aww...sweetness. If it weren't for you and Wildhartlivie, I would have totally lost faith in this place. I think the whole Kylie/YouTube clip thing pushed me over the edge the other day. I'm cool now. Pinkadelica 04:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Brad Pitt, Wildhartlivie? I'm sorry, the name isn't ringing any bells. He must be on American Idol or something we don't get in Australia, but if he works hard he may reach Kylie's stature. It's unlikely.... Anyway, I think the image caption is a question of redundancy, and the photo credit is part of the redundancy. There are also issues of relevance - in the previous picture, according to the caption, she's wearing "diamonds" - and yet we still don't know what type of fabric was used to make her dress. I think the diamonds, aside from being bleedingly obvious, are completely irrelevant. There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Captions for photos in infoboxes which relates mainly to infobox images, but I think the basic requirements are the same regardless of where the image is placed. Rossrs (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pauley-perrette1.jpg

Can you tell me why this image is "Possibly unfree"? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • November 6, 2008 @ 05:29

If there is a template I can use to bring this image "up to code", please let me know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 6, 2008 @ 06:01

Monty Roberts

I am not a Roberts family member nor associated with their operation in any way. I am an admirer of Monty Roberts, and have endeavored to present a factual, objective description of his work. I feel that there are no grounds for the conflict of interest notice attached to the Monty Roberts page as a result of my edits. Lllmrpvk (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Mickey, what a pity, you don't understand

Hi, the first comment on the talk page says something about him being "batshit crazy". I'd be careful not to describe him that way myself, but god knows he tends to rant and ramble during his interviews. I've been thinking about this more, and coincidentally, I was formulating another comment, when you added yours, so I have reworded it and posted. In addition to the problems I see with context as mentioned, I can also see that the timing (1998) was right at the middle of the Ellen-coming-out-on-the-Oprah-show-jamboree when everyone had something to say about it and her sitcom was being cancelled etc. Mickey loves to talk, maybe he was jumping on a bandwagon, which brings us back to context and relevance. Rossrs (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The elderly... my mother recently referred to Ellen as a "lezo", which greatly surprised me, as she is as far from homophobic as you could get. It's not part of her upbringing or her vocabulary, and she's led a far more sheltered life than Mickey Rooney, but she's done her best to "catch up" on what she didn't learn as a young woman, and she thinks everyone should live their lives and be happy. Nice philosophy. So I told her that's not exactly a good word to use. She said "well you know my friend Jean is a lezo and we've been friends for years." "Yes, I know, but you shouldn't refer to her as a "lezo", try lesbian". "Oh, for goodness sake, I don't see what difference it makes". "Fine, ask Jean." "OK, I'll call her a lesbian". "Do you have to call her even that?" "If I want to, she's MY friend". So I guess the point is Jean IS her friend. And my mother was oohing and aahing over how beautiful Ellen's wedding photos are, and don't they look happy, and isn't Portia de Rossi gorgeous? Yes Mum, she's lovely. Mickey's probably like most people, you ask them a question and they'll give you an answer whether they're informed and qualified or not. My mother has had less experience in giving interviews so her lack of sophistication is more easily accepted than Mickey's, but they're of almost the same era, if not the same attitude. It would be interesting to see what Ed and Pink say - I have great respect for both of them. It will also be interesting to see if our comments attract any reply or rebuttal. Rossrs (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left my comment about Mickey "I steal other people's scabs" Rooney and his alleged homophobia. I wasn't as eloquent as you and Rossrs, but I think my point is basically the same. I don't think the guy is homophobic, I think he's a victim of overzealous born-againess with a dash of (sorry Rossrs) batshit crazy. Pinkadelica 04:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, we've got that out in the open. I think it needed to be said, however I was only alluding. Rossrs (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's what? 114 years old? Senile dementia isn't out of the question. They didn't use him in the second Night at the Museum film, maybe he forgot his lines? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You know all those scenes in the first Night at the Museum where he looked like he was getting ready to kill Ben Stiller? I don't think he was acting. I think he may have disapproved of Ben and everything he represents. Rossrs (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It would fit the profile. I hear they patterned those two old cranky guys on The Muppet Show after the future cranky old Mickey Rooney. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Side project

Ooh, I love projects and am happy to hop on that. I recently joined WikiProject Persondata, so this will be a good way to do two things at once.

On a different note, I just ran across the Lucia de Berk article and noticed that it needs MAJOR help. It appears that one or more editors are using it as a soapbox to convey the opinion that she was falsely convicted. One editor even removed all serial killer-related links from the article because "...it is generally understood that Lucia de Berk is a victim of a miscarriage of justice, and not a serial killer". *cringe* The talk page has all the goods. I know you're good at whipping these kinds of articles into shape. :) --mo 09:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then good. Content disputes are a total pain, aren't they? --mo 09:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

The transcript of the 2004 ABC Primetime interview is not available online free of cost. Nevertheless, the transcript can be verified if you are willing to buy the transcript or use a library to access a database such as Lexis. I added a web archive link to an excerpt of the American Primetime program that played on Australian television.Claisen (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actors and filmmakers

Yes, it's a lonely place. It surprise me, considering how many actor articles there are and how frequently they are edited. Rossrs (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Archives

I posted a response on the Help desk (User:MacGyverMagic, not logged in) - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Can you be specific about the pages that were moved? - Mgm| 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bingo

I did a Google search for Lucy de Berk and found a treasure trove.

Thank you for the advice. I'm getting better at being bold. It's the discussion part that can be difficult, because, as you know well, some editors find it difficult (or impossible) to be rational. --mo 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Atkins

I can't imagine anything more appalling than Sharon Tate's final moments, and I also can't imagine what would inspire even the most disenfranchised cretin to pay tribute to one the perpetrators of that horror, in a "punk" song. I know they all suffered, but for Sharon Tate to be left until last, and to fully comprehend that there was no way out for her or for her baby, and to be met with such indifference - how must that have been for her, and what kind of creature could participate in such an act? I'm angered that it would be trivialized in such a brainless manner, and offended that it would be put into the article as if it was something of note. I understand your passion, but I'm a little worried that the way it's worded, someone could see your passion and call it POV, and try to negate the main point you are making. I think it might be worthwhile to have a discussion on the talk page, and even though it may not attract much comment, it would be something to refer back to in the event of any further nonsensical pop cultural references being made. Also... if a pop culture reference is made within a tiny element and is not seen or acknowledged by a more mainstream audience, is it even a pop cultural reference? Doesn't the reference have to have made a statement or made an impact in order to be so considered? If not, isn't it just the random doodlings of someone with a minor platform to state their view but not necessarily the audience to receive it? ie the thing could also be deleted on the basis of its insignificance.

If you want to see a serious subject trivialized, you need look no further than this crazy mix of the appropriate and the asinine. It is jaw-droppingly awful, but its survival prevents these "interesting" factoids from creeping into the article of its subject. Rossrs (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be under control. I added a brief comment, not because I had anything different to say, but just to add to the numbers of editors saying it. Rossrs (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Trivia section in question

I agree with all of the points you made and added a note to the talk page. If Misplaced Pages policymakers would grow a back bone and just say "NO" to trivia instead of the current wishy washy "avoid" policy, many editors' lives would be a lot easier. You may want to reword the note added to the article itself. You don't want to start sounding like our Richard Mallory lover do you? :)

I'm hoping you can lend me some support as well. It turns out our Lucia de Berk "soapboxer" has returned. Soapy, as I'll call this editor, removed the serial killer-related categories and infobox, saying that de Berk has been released from jail and is no longer convicted. I found this article (in English, thank gawd) that verifies de Berk has been released pending re-examination of the case; however, Soapy doesn't seem to antsy to actually ADD that information to the article. In addition, this pissed me off as much as the Atkins trivia issue irked you, he/she gave a winded description on the talk page (actually, on my talk page first) regarding the sources from which the disputed entries came, THEN removed the POV tag from the article without adding citations to those sources. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --mo 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexy Sadie

I take the Atkins situation is under control. If not, let me know and I'll weigh in. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a clear rule on pop culture/trivia sections? Anyhow, when you get a chance, could you take a look at David Winters (choreographer)? I did some (big time) clean up but I only scratched the surface. I still left some POV and other problems because what I thought would be any easy clean up turned out to be a project and a half (think Mae West lite). Methinks the film poster should probably be removed and that Emmy box is perplexing. I have never seen that on a bio before and considering the guy was only nominated for that "special" Emmy, I don't understand why it's there. Regardless, could you take a look at the article and let me know what you think? Pinkadelica 05:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Emmy box. I still have no idea why it was there. Weirdness. You should look at the previous version, it's a hoot and a half. Loads of misspelled words (like 'and'), sentence fragments, repeated content (someone really wanted the world to know he had an affair with Linda Lovelace), half filled citation templates, and the list goes on. As for the POV, I know it's there but after fixing so much, I was getting bleary eyed and tired of the guy. I'll fix more tomorrow and you can bet that I'm removing that "notoriety" section. I suspect the bolded quote was pasted from the Space Mutiny article and I guess making a crap movie makes one notorious. As for the Thrashin' Incident, I don't know what the hell that is either! I'm guessing it is in reference to the movie he made with the same title, but as far as I can tell, there was no incident. I'm telling you, I find the worst pages. Pinkadelica 06:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lucia de Berk

The situation makes a lot more sense now that we know who Soapy is in "real life". I was so distracted by his actions that I didn't look at his user page. I don't know about you, but I don't trust him to be completely forthcoming about her current status, considering how deeply his bias seems to run and his blatant disregard of Wiki policies. Like you said, we'll see. mo 09:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag Restricted - No Way for Mae?

Though I agree about a tasteless overuse of flags, I was shocked to learn of English Misplaced Pages's exaggerated flag icon restriction through your recent edit. Two comments: 1) For the first time, I feel Swedish Misplaced Pages has a much more intelligent and educational policy in this detail than English Misplaced Pages. 2) Mae West is about the most appropriate kind of subject there could be for citizens of the Unites States of America (are you one?) to be proud of, and the inference that it could be inappropriate to use the the Star Spangled Banner in any context to honor her is absolutely ridiculous. For over 50 years West did more more to further a good impression of America in the rest of the world - though her world famous sense of humor - than all the U.S. sports stars put together. You made poor old Mae turn over in her grave, and it's a sad day for English Misplaced Pages. Please put the flag back, in this case, regardless of your interpretation of policy. Sincerely, EmilEikS (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I (and my organization that is contributing valuable material to the Public Doman at this time through me) shudder from the very thought of your being "a bit put-off" at me? Given the obvious power you have and that huge amount of badges on your page, I take even your being "a bit put-off" as quite a threat. This makes me quite fearful for the future, and I am not being sarcastic. Please stop that, kind sir! Don't throw your weight around in my direction. It isn't going to do any of us any good. It just makes me want to quit. Talk even or up to nice people who are trying to do EnW some good, not down! Please! I was trying to give you some straight and honest talk from the heart to reply to. Sorry if you were offended! I am objective, so please do not be accusatory about that, and I stand by my opinion about the flag policy in this case. Facts about bascially good people automatically honor them, no matter how you want to twist that around. Facts about basically bad people give them their just deserts. Too many editors (and administrators?) disregard the template on top, the most important one, that we should edit with common sense regardless of the rules. Rigidity hurts what we all are trying to accomplish. Very badly. Please respect these thoughts! Thank you in advance or being empathetic. EmilEikS (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is rather odd, if you'll pardon my saying so sir or madame, that you claim not to talk down to people. The only way you can get away with that is by removing a lot of your lecturing all over this English Misplaced Pages project. The kind of stuff - pages and pages of it by you and other zesty teachers - that is going to make it hard to find the financing this project needs. I doubt you will be financed thus. Foundations and others that might be able to donate are not likely to be interested in that. A very educational Swedish expression for you: Högmod går före fall. This organization has no further comment to you than this one, after your preposterous and highly offensive "please do not imply that policies and rules should be bent because you don't like them" on my talk page (where the comment is very gênant for you - c'est Français). That is how you reply to people who try to express an opinion that doesn't agree with you and yours. We actually have some rules of our own. One of them, minuted at our Annual Membership Assembly last year, is that the Board is not under any circumstances to correspond with anyone anonymous. You are anonymous to us as you choose to work here under an alias. I now regret having bent that rule in your case, as we are so offended by your behavior and don't even know who you are. We find you 95% unimpressionable (deeming from your input all over), so what was the use of writing to you? To round off, I now see that Fiandonca has suggested you do some constructive work, real editing that is. At risk of some insults from you, like you wrote to her about seconding opinions, Southerly Clubs and I wholeheartedly second her suggestion. Good-bye, Wildhartylivöie! EmilEikS (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Copied from my talk page. Please do not write there again! EmilEikS (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah...

Would you mind looking at the Bobby Driscoll article and telling me your thoughts on the References/Further reading section? It looks...umm...comprehensive and all but very muddled. My first reaction was to 86'ed it altogether, but it looks as if there are references (to what, I don't know) buried in all that. Judging from the edit history, I'm gonna guess my helpful (ie bold) changes will probably not be greeted warmly. While you're pursuing the article, check out the talk page. Pinkadelica 10:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't read that message but when I did, I got a distinct "you're a Commie Pinko" vibe from it. Sheesh! I guess commenting on content rather than the contributor is just an old rule that these new users who know it all don't need to abide by. I just know the proverbial poo is going to hit the fan once I get to hacking that mess. Thanks for looking at Sad Bobby's article. As you can see, I tagged it for inconsistent citation style and I was thinking of cleaning up that section, but I'm getting tired of cleaning up complicated messes I didn't create. I probably will need some backup so remain on stand by. Pinkadelica 11:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)