Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:24, 30 November 2009

Wildhartlivie is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Referencing

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

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

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

David Friedman vs. Christopher Masterson

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

WP:FILMS' Tag & Assess Drive and Roll Call

The project's Tag & Assess drive has begun. We will be assessing over 50,000 articles during the drive and we need your help! 200-article ranges can be adopted and completed at any pace. A variety of awards are available based on the number of articles assessed. Please help review whatever you are comfortable with, and if you have any questions, leave a message on the talk page of the drive. In addition, please add your name to the active member list if you have not already. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince's Trust

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

November 2009

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

Re: WP:AN/I thread

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

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

Advice?

My question to you is -- do you think that's a good idea? Thanks for whatever help you are able to render. Sach (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

News about the photos

Hello, I didn't know if you saw that I replied last on my talk page. I heard from the photographer, who said of the 4 photos:

1. The Eric Clapton with Tina Turner was in June, 1987. Tina Turner was on tour, and I've just responded to the photographer again about whether Clapton was a one-off guest or on the same bill, or what. It was just before the Prince's Trust concert, I'm told.
2. He says that the Prince's Trust 1987 Concert was held December 13, 1987. However, I also checked You Tube. Someone had uploaded a video of the concert, which had both George Harrison, and Eric Clapton together on stage with the same clothes as the photos, and Ringo Starr was also present, along with Elton John, Jeff Lynne, Phil Collins, and Ray Cooper. The person who uploaded the video though, didn't know when it was, but someone left a note on their "channel" that the concert was on "June 5- June 6, 1987". Perhaps you have more information. I'm more inclined to believe a photographer over a zealous fan,but unless there's a reliable reference, I believe the three photos other than the one with Tina Turner/Clapton should only have the year, 1987.

One more thing. Can you take a look at the Robert Cray page, and see if you think it's been over-wikified? I can't bear confrontations, and for the first time, Derek R Bullamore has disagreed with me, and I don't want to respond until I get some feedback, as he has been editing as long as I have, and I respect him, but wikifying words like record album, and United Kingdom, and much much more seems overdoing things. I could see it in the Simple English Misplaced Pages, but usually when people read biographies of musicians, they know what a record is. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Heh

You saw that, huh? Too bad that kind of idiocy does little to intimidate me. Pinkadelica 13:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My eyes are not as good as they used to be.

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

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

Yes, thank you very much, best regards.Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Final info re: photo dates

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

Bob Hope

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

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

Yup

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

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

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

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

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

A question regarding cats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template for deletion

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

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

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

Deletion of Category

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

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

New message

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

Ed Gein

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

Do you suppose

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

Tony winward

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

Clarification if possible

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

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

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

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

AN/I

Geez...you're awfully popular today. I also took the liberty of reverting the re-addition of the link to Valeska Surratt. Pinkadelica 02:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The ANI thread

Looks like someone else archived it before I got to the page. Without taking sides in your content dispute, may I link you to this conversation? If something of that nature arises again, maybe it would be a good idea to go ahead and start the WQA and let it stand or fall on its own merits. In the big picture it's better to keep admin board threads about harassment focused on the serious stuff that requires immediate blocks. The sooner an unactionable thread closes and gets archived, the better. Best wishes in finding a resolution to your dispute. Durova 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add my agreement to Durova's sage advice. As insanely difficult as it is to actually DO this, it's often best, when faced with what you believe to be horrendous misinterpretations, misquotes, word-twistings, out-of-context-takings, and the like, to disengage even further from the dispute. When you go through a paragraph from another editor, refuting line-by-line every fact they've misrepresented, phrase they've misquoted, etc, you open the door for that editor to say, in the words of some guy, "There you go again". Which, in essence, is exactly what Sift&Winnow said--and which puts you on a lesser footing in the debate. You could be as right as rain (not saying you are or aren't; frankly, I haven't the foggiest notion of who's got the more defensible position in the Gein debate) but no matter how correct, verifiable, or policy-based your edits are, if the other guy can make him- or herself seem like the more collegial, more clueful, "better" person, you can find yourself on the wrong end of a decision. That would be a shame, as you seem to be a good editor with the best interests of the project at heart. Sometimes we really do have to remember that this is, when all is said and done, a part of an electronic world which is dwarfed by the physical one. The world will not end if someone inserts an incorrect fact into the Ed Gein article--nor will adding a different fact bring back any of his victims. Think about YOUR best interests once in a while, and don't expend valuable stress on an online argument. That's my advice, speaking as a person, not an admin. Hang in there. GJC 02:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Hmmm

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

John Wayne Gacy Mug Shot Caption

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