Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:47, 3 February 2010

Main	Talk	Contributions	Useful things	Sandboxes	Gallery	Amusements

Archives
January-December 2005 January-April 2006 April-December 2006 January-June 2007 July-December 2007 January-June 2008 July-December 2008 January 2009 - February 2009 March 2009 - June 2009 July 2009 -

While we debate ...

• Remember the culture/social furor about all this - see comments at New York Times ...
• which is manifest at Misplaced Pages by often undocumented edits like this (denaturing positives) for example, but also amping negative phrasing, and e.g., reducing size/impact of the Tate murder and otherwise attempting to make sure "No excuses!" POV is embodied in Misplaced Pages.

What I've been doing for two months ... is counterbalancing that. My labors have been misperceived (for the moment, ultimately to be remedied). I'm taking many things into consideration that you've not been bearing the weight of. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

I had to revert this post to your page for being a few bytes too long. (no comment). The point of bringing this up ... is that one naturally enjoys agreement, but the concept of "tactical agreement" should be kept in mind. I.e., I did not (help) fill 7 archives of talk because it was pleasant. I did it to "counterbalance" a surprisingly heavy WP:SPA weight(ing). Not to mention dynamic ip (which had to be blocked twice). And failing to keep even the word "communism" in the article. ("irrelevant") Proofreader77 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember these 3 reverts

• Proofreader77 reverts "creepy old man" quote addition (99.x.x.x)
• 2nd revert by Proofreader77 of COM quote
• Rossrs handles 3rd revert

Now, what's wrong with this quote? Undue on one negative quote, but what's really wrong is the missing context: When was Geimer asked this? The context is interviewer is talking with her about Polanski's Vanity Fair case. And Geimer (like many) thought it was outrageous that Polanski would have the nerve to file a libel suit about such a thing. *That* is an example of why his fighting and *winning* it, is so important. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair case unseals 1977 grand jury testimony

July2005 SmokingGun When Polanski sued Vanity Fair, their lawyers got Geimer's grand jury testimony unsealed (and then was leaked) to thesmokinggun. Outraged public anger (and so worth Los Angeles District Attorney's grandstanding now) comes from people reading grand jury testimony ... released as consequence of Polanski's suit. This is so significant, I'd split sex case into two parts, with latter being after VF case section: - 2.6 A documentary, appeal, and arrest (2008+). . VF case is pivotal occurrence - and, as aforementioned, vitally connected to other PL items. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah!

You will never guess what I repaired with my own two little hands and a Phillips screwdriver. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, not that extravagant. I have a small 14" television that I sometimes move from the bedroom to the sitting room and one night last week, I dropped it. At first, it seemed fine, but then the color started cutting out. Last night, I couldn't get the color back on, so I got brave, took the television apart and fixed it. I think it had knocked one of the circuit boards slightly loose and when I put everything back into their proper slots, the color started working again. I was impressed.

It's not so cold here yet, mid to high 50s in the day time and above freezing at night. The oven, a small space heater and the heated mattress pad fight off the chills. We're looking for a new propane wall mounted heater to take the place of the old furnace. It isn't just the boiler that needs replaced. The radiant heater system is a series of radiators and some of them are so old they have rusted in certain places and leak all over the place. It would take replacing the entire system and that just isn't going to happen. It cost a fortune when it didn't leak and now that it does, it caused the boiler to run all the time and the water was constantly having to be pumped back into the system. Not worth the cost of replacement. The new wall mounted propane systems are very efficient and put out as much heat as that clunky antiquated system. I'm good with that. I have SS physical and mental exam in the next two weeks. I quite excited about that! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I impressed myself. I've taken lesser things apart before and so far, have been successful in not only getting them put back together, but made them work. Do I remember before color TV? I should say so. After my mom died and my uncle was square in charge of the household, he flatly refused to buy a color TV. The first color TV I ever had was when my ex and I bought one for our first Christmas. Cable was quickly installed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sincere request

I hope to have the Kate Winslet article ready to nominate for good article by the end of the week. What is mostly left to do is check the images, write alt text for it, and finish sourcing the personal life and awards and nominations section. Could you possibly look at it and let me know what you think it needs or maybe make any changes you think would help? It's been on the verge of GA for a long time and I decided to finish that up before I do any more work on Heath Ledger. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. I think the problem with the alt text in the infobox was just a difference in the title of the line. It's just alt= for the actor infobox. WHen I went to look at a FA in actors, I realized several of those need alt text. Angelina and Reese (who reportedly broke up with Jake this weekend). Thanks for doing the alt text, I hate to do that. I think one of those images could be removed, they are all too much alike.

I've worked a lot on the Winslet article in the past - last year, really. I had thought to nominated but put it off after the big 2008 awards season. She won too many and I thought it should quiet down. It's little changed since then, and I admit it's because I've watched it like a hawk. Joan Crawford wouldn't pass now. I'll work on the early work section when I get back up later. I noticed the "Winslet's first effort in 2000" as well, but didn't get back to it. I'll note that for work. I also agree about the music section. It can be worked into the rest of the article since it is so minimal.

Thanks for looking. I was feeling exhausted by looking. I think 3-4 days should get it there, considering the speed at which I work.

P.S. We're going to get quite cold later this week with some snow. Argh. It will pass. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wild Horses

I am very surprised to hear that. I bet that Mick is riding high on the royalties from that though. I'll have to spend some time getting that downloaded so I can hear it. (The first few seconds sound pretty good.) It is one of my favorite Stones songs. Regarding alt text, I would imagine "woman" would have some sort of meaning, but "blonde" is another story. Coincidentally, I watch At First Sight last night. It's a sad sort of film, but I like Val Kilmer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Restoring Tate murder on Polanski (to pre-arrest significance)

Just a statistical note amidst your good work on Roman Polanski ... The Tate murder section is now back up to the size it was before the September 27 arrest (when negative flows came in ... e.g., "whittling down" tragedy.) Word count is surely not a measure of quality, but it does convey significance. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we that would should always aim for making any relevant topic or subtopic complete and comprehensive without being exhaustive. The word count will be whatever it needs to be in order to adequately address the topic. If the same approach is taken to all areas, the relative ratio and weighting falls into place. It's a little step, but it's a step. My personal view, which is based on some of the vitriolic comments made on the talk page (and elsewhere) shortly after Polanski's arrest, was that anything that personalised or humanised him was diminished in favour of language that squarely portrayed him as a monster - hence the "whittling down". That does not seem to be the prevailing attitude any longer. I've also commented about the edit regarding Swiss residence. I think it's a valid point, but the way it was written, without a reliable external source, could be interpreted in a number of ways, one of which is that it could be contstrued as editorial commentary. Not intentional of course, and if it was rewritten to make it clearer, plus sourced, I'd have no objections to it. I don't know the reason it was removed. Lack of edit summaries do nothing but test my psychic abilities, which are virtually non-existant. Rossrs (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re "the reason" - This gets into why I wrote so many words so often. I think the general idea is not to characterize what people are doing. (It takes a lot of words not to state the semi-obvious.) But consider for example this edit (and edit summary). Consider that edit in the context of the whittling down in other recent edit to just "award." (I know the "balance" scorecard pretty well.) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor Tegan

Maybe we can get Sarah MacLachlan to do one of those really heartrending dog ads like she does for the ASPCA in the US. That actually is quite funny. Thanks. Did you see my flowers above your post on my talk page. I decided to stop biting the newcomer and got that for the effort. My knee really hurts. I fell off my front step (it's only one step) while I was putting up plastic on the windows in anticipation of the deep freeze coming toward the end of the week. Damn, but that hurt! And now I'm dog tired, if you'll excuse the bad pun. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I will think of that and tell the cats the story before we go to sleep. Hey, are you on late shift today? Isn't it like ... almost noon?? Thanks for the wishes - I'm a half-blind klutz. I must be turning into Bella Swan. Maybe I can find an unattached vampire. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw geez, I'm sorry. But not only are you better off than Tegan, you're better off than Barrowman. He doesn't have a dog to comfort him. My goddaughter has a new puppy/dog (she's about half grown). They had a beagle that they got between the time the 8 year old and the 9 year old was born, named Fiona. Unfortunately, Fiona was hit by a car a week ago last night. She got the new dog, which is mostly golden retriever, but much smaller, from her grandmother. She brought her over for me to meet yesterday when she brought the leftover turkey so I could make turkey salad. Sheesh, I made turkey salad, cleaned the litter box, washed the dishes and put up plastic the last two days. One would think some of my depression was lifting. Then again, there is an ad on television for for a new medication for depression. It shows people in various situations - sitting on the couch, waiting at a movie theater, sitting on the bus, and they are all slight colored by whatever is in the background. The couch is patterned with a diamond shaped background and so is the woman. The ad says "Do you feel like you're fading into the background?" I noticed I was slightly autumn leaf colored with my shoes and my legs turned slightly the color of dead leaves. I'm guessing one can function somewhat and still fade into the background, hmm? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Then again, I could have Eddie Murphy's luck. At least I've never won a WORST ACTOR award. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I should probably not say some of the things I do on here, but what the hell? I've been thinking about what I should tell the PhD who will assess me psychologically and it occurred to me that the ad is a great way to explain how I feel these days. I am SO thankful for my cats. I wish I could afford and accomodate a dog here, but I need a fence for a dog and they are frightfully more expensive than the cats are right now. Besides, they take care of their own toileting needs without my going with them to ensure they come in. And they never want to do anything besides what I do. I walked in the bedroom earlier, where the TV was running and Kasha was sitting there looking at it. How odd. Ralph actually does watch it but I'd never seen her do it before. She's a good girl - probably not smart enough not to be. You're right, mediocrity is ... mediocre. And besides, in some sports, a score of 200 is actually desirable. You just need to discover what that sport might be. In Indiana right now, the Indianapolis Colts football team, currently undefeated, is hoping for a streak of high scores. They will likely win their division and with any luck, perhaps a Super Bowl bid is in the future. I don't actually like football, but it's hard to ignore when it is decidedly the home team. As for Eddie Murphy, well, he's rich enough to take it. I sort of feel sorry for John Travolta though. I think a hit film right now would be a nice thing, but Old Dogs just ain't it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And if you need cheering up, you are amongst the top 150 Wikipedians by number of featured article nominations and if I counted correctly, which isn't particularly always the case, you are 135 on the list, which is at WP:WBFAN. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, indeed. I would probably have suggested Happy Feet. It is cheery, it has lots of movement and it's a feel good movie. You and Sami would both have felt - well - happy. I'm not mostly into many team sports either, but I support the Colts, mostly for the hometown-ness of it. I prefer a nice game of tennis on tv, or yes, the Olympics. The U.S. men's snowboard team will have a cute lil feller named Louie Vito this winter. He danced with the stars for a while this past season. He didn't have the best dance moves, but he could do double back flips from a handspring and had some bodacious shoulders for a lil guy. What would really be *keen* would be if I get the SSD started before the Olympics so I can buy whatever viewing package the cable company will offer, when I get the cable back. Sort of excited about that, I am. Did you hear about the gate crashers at the first Obama formal state dinner last week? It's our first big White House scandal! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kate Winslet

Do not you think we should change the picture, I thought that is long in the infobox. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Long in the infobox is even more reason to keep it there. I think the other image is of significantly lesser quality and usefulness. It's very poorly composed and there is more black background than anything else. Rossrs (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Really understand, but it is better to keep the image in the infobox more time would be well placed winslet image in the 2009 Academy Award. Saluds. Saod053 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Really apparently not. I asked you to please let this alone as the article had been nominated just last night for good article status. Going around to talk pages of other editors trying to muster support to use an image of significantly poorer quality is hardly meeting that. Besides which, I have no idea what you mean by "better to keep the image in the infobox more time would be well placed winslet image in the 2009 Academy Award". It is by far the best image we have of Winslet and a picture of someone talking does not serve the Academy Award article, especially when it wasn't AT the Academy Awards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Denzel doesn't blow things up for the sheer enjoyment of it, he simply moves on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. She seems to be shooting death rays from her eyes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Susan

Thanks for speaking up. While it was occurring, one of the editors who posted on that talk page left a template warning on my talk page warning me not to use the minor edit checkbox except for a template listed reason. The problem is, I don't use the minor edit checkbox. The rollback feature uses the minor checkbox automatically, I never do. This would be the same editor who will remove my posting to his talk page about it, where I told him not to leave messages on my talk page, especially templated ones, by calling it either a rant or something similar. He did this before. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm

I heard about her. Alex P. Keaton's mother! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you have the Polanski biography

You'll know that Polanski said that Gerald Azaria had urged him to do the layout, but then refused to take the call about it from Polanski after the crap hit the fan. There is a big difference between denying and refusing to confirm being involved in this mess. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There is a huge difference. The New York Post has taken the lazy way by trying to condense it into one sentence, and they've changed the meaning considerably. User:Tombaker321 has rightly quoted the text from their article, so his edit is 100% correct based on what he has to work with. The final quote from Polanski, attributed to Robert Caille is "We said we knew nothing about it." That's a denial. Azaria's comments are hedging and refusing to confirm, and saying that Polanski was not officially contracted. Someone should have asked "how about unofficially?", but I guess they didn't. I agree with you. Let's leave it for a while. If it needs to be reworded, I suggest that Tombaker321 finish his work, and then ask his opinion. It may just need to be tweaked to a small degree. Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• And, good grief, I wonder who just changed the Quaalude entry. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, based on the edit summary. I've done a quick search and the FDA supposedly says that it has both sedative and hypnotic properties. I say "supposedly" because I can't find anything official to confirm it. Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• See this description of the Azaria matter in this Polish description (in Google translation) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is simply casting an aspersion that Polanski made up the photo layout assignment. Polanski had made Kinsky famous with a photo layout. Polanski was arrested, and his photography equipment taken into evidence. Did Polanski believe he had an assignment, or just making it all up as an excuse to fuck young girls? Using his autobiography to imply he made it up is absurd. Do you really want to phrase Polanski's own words to imply he might be lying? How many sources say Polanski had an assignment? Seriously, What a waste of the holiday season. Cheers. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• But there is one cool data point from this excursion: Vogue Homme and Vanity Fair are both subsidiaries of Conde Nast. Conde Nast caused Polanski grief twice. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're jumping to a conclusion. I'm not trying to use his autobiography to say he was lying, and the phrasing I'm suggesting does not do that. Is it OK to say the magazine's editors were dishonest? That they left Polanski to be devoured by the wolves? Because that's suggested by the alternative wording. Why is ok to suggest one thing but not another? It's not ok to "suggest" anything. Polanski made comments in his biography - that's a fact. Personally, I think he had a verbal contract with them, same as he had with other publications before that, and they left him out to dry because he embarassed them. I view his biography as presenting his viewpoint, and I'm sceptical about anything I read and try not to take things at face value, but his comment on this specific point has a ring of truth to it. I tend to believe him on this point, and tend not to believe him on others. Neither of us knows, so please stop assuming what my motivations are. That's grossly unfair. To refer to his comments is not dishonest and you are seeing an inference that maybe only you see. I don't see it. Considering how many comments I've made about fairness in relation to this article, you ask if I'm making an attempt to portray Polanski as a liar? I'm more than taken aback. I see the need to ensure that the text and the source material match each other. None of the recent edits achieve this. Yes, it's a waste of the holiday season. Interesting about Conde Nast, but the press in general have caused him grief for a long time, going right back to August 1969. Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What is going on now is what has been going on for two months. The situation can be made harder or easier to counterbalance. I understand the perspectives of all participants (including the ones who have resigned from the field, for the moment, and the drive-bys who have left their mark, like 209.x.x.x, not to mention dynamic shifting twice-blocked 99, and good old Wookmuff who joined with Russian nationalists to keep mention of "communism" out). I understand your current choices and their rationale. We calculate the summation of actions differently, it seems. More than I thought. Proofreader77 (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we do, but I was only commenting on what seems to be your summation of my actions. The article has been a battleground for a couple of months, and some of the contributors had little interest in the article but wanted to grandstand their viewpoints, and stir up trouble. It's more stable than it's been for a while. Maybe our main difference is that you look back over edits and see trends in certain editors presenting certain views, and remembering the various steps the article has progressed along, if I correctly interpret what you mean by "summation of action". I'd find it too frustrating to go back over numerous diffs, because there are too many unproductive edits, and I don't see it as a good use of my time, so I probably don't calculate the summation of actions much at all. I'm thinking more of what the article is now, and what the article could be. The unpleasantness of the last couple of months is something I've tried to put to bed, as it's a distraction. Rossrs (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From summation to nittygritty ... WP:SYN by someone who's sure of their 'judicial' powers. E.G., Vogue Homme denied agreement when confronted by Interpol, so "at best" Polanski "presumed" an agreement.

That is B.S., of course. We cannot presume that Polanski (and all the other sources) are presuming/lying/wrong about the agreement/commission. We just know that Vogue Homme (chose to) deny it.

Note/Sanford: Sentence before Interpol says Polanski's home insurance had just been canceled. A litany of people turning on Polanski because of sex case. Vogue Homme just one more. SYN (+UNDUE + summary cramming) Proofreader77 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, and the best solution may be to simply remove the whole lot, something I've also said on Polanski's talk page. I was reading one of the external links and it was (in my opinion) a very thoughtful summary of Polanski's life, and it suggested that a lot of people turned on Polanski before the sex case. The article suggested that he committed the cardinal sin of failing to make a spectacle of himself after Sharon Tate's death, and he unforgivably appeared to get on with his life. Not all people are demonstrative of their emotions, and perhaps he's one such person. The same article suggested that a lot of Americans would also be condemning him for not offering a public apology in regards to the young girl, and noted that Hugh Grant's public apology/humiliation helped win back some public support after being caught with a prostitute. Different situation of course, but it could be that people turned on Polanski, because for one reason or another, they just didn't like him. Plus the sex case, of course ;-) Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Way past bedtime/brain=mush) Yes, Roman was a guy more likely to say "Fuck young girls" three times than publicly apologize. But when I say that I (perhaps for first time) paused to imagine what his childhood was like. Well, try to. I can't. But I also realize that in that stretch we think of as "no mother and no father" ... he had force of will to (somehow!) end up in film school. Be a director. That's a pure force of will thing. And often "don't give a fuck" about obstacles (other people). Did I say brain=mush? Sleep. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Way past here too. I can't imagine what his childhood must have been like, but he must have needed to internalise his feelings in order to survive. He was lucky in being adopted by a particularly caring and guiding family, and from his biography I don't see anything to suggest any self-esteem issues, or any lack of ambition. That makes me think that whatever internalising he needed to do to survive, probably remains with him and in some regards, may even be his strength. After Sharon Tate's murder, there's no way of knowing what was going on inside him, but it's not out-of-character, or even difficult to understand, that he may have appeared outwardly to be relatively composed, given his background. Effectively, two of his families have been murdered, first his blood family, and then Tate, his unborn child, and not forgetting Frykowski, Folger and Sebring who were close friends of both Polanski and Tate. Almost family. So whatever got him through the first murders, also got him through the second. The running and hiding "fugitive" isn't exactly foreign to him either, given that his earliest memories must be of existing as a fugitive, waiting to be captured. Perhaps to flee is a reflex. Surviving the Holocaust must have a profound effect. It's all just conjecture isn't it, but people don't exist in a vacuum, and there are some aspects of his character and behaviour that must be a result of all he's been subjected to. It's therefore odd that even before the sex case, he didn't inspire empathy or compassion, and maybe that's because he just is not a likeable personality because he doesn't behave the way people expect he should behave. I can only think how boringly satisfactory my life is, compared to his. Rossrs (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My first thought ... is that I have never had this kind of exchange on Misplaced Pages. Clearly not on article talk. (lol I can see the collapsing and WP:FORURM/CHAT etc)

Of course, that's true, but not talking about subjects this way on Misplaced Pages means we only see each other through very narrow lenses. Anyway ... :-)

To bring your insights to bear on the article, my editing is based on seeing "the whole," but understanding a large number of people wear blinders restricting vision to "rapist." (I can only write 100 words, so I'll stop there for now.) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Quick note re Sanford bio of Polanski: Page 231 -

  "On 15 April, Polanski appeared for a preliminary hearing at the Superior Court of Santa Monica. This was the first encounter with the judge in charge of the case. ... Amidst the commotion an enterprising young man stationed himself at the front door, selling T-shirts inscribed with the slogans 'FREE POLANSKI' and 'JAIL POLANSKI.'"

  lol Exactly. Perhaps for the Polanski article the participants should customize their sigs accordingly. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

POV of narrative

I.E., Yes some will agree with you on narrative structure, but not because it's better— because it buries personal context. Just "Sexual assault" in the middle many will skip to. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I live in hope that there will be people who agree with me for the right reasons, and not the wrong. Rossrs (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality control

Bullet list of bullshit ... bullet list of bullshit .. bullet list of bullshit.

Yeah, sounds just right. Where's that t-shirt seller? :-) Of course the t-shirt I'd really like reads: "FA". Proofreader77 (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a lonnnnnnng way from WP:FA, but keep dreaming. It doesn't read very smoothly, (but the same is true of the entire article) and I'd like to try tidying up the prose, but I'm too tired to think clearly tonight. I find it often happens that when editors are freed from the structure of the article talk pages, and can talk on user pages, there is a better understanding. I agree with your view that the Polanski article should represent the "whole", and you know, we'll have to disagree on some other points. I don't think there is anyone who has contributed to the article over the last few months, that I agree 100% with, but that would be an unreasonable expectation. But, yes, any biographical article should look at the "whole" person, or least as much as is relevant. Polanski has to be defined by more than the one event that some editors want to focus entirely upon - he had a life before then and he still has a life after it. Some of the recent news reports comment that after Tate's death, Polanski changed and became more self destructive, and hedonistic and began on the path that led to his problems. Everything connects, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in more dramatic ways, but to look at someone and focus on just one element, fails to do justice. I think there were a lot of people who just wanted to remove everything but the rape comments, and amplify them so that nothing of Polanski was revealed but that. It's settled down for the time being, and the current disagreements are mild when compared to the state of play a couple of months ago. Rossrs (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry to be so slow ... finally back at 4 AM) lol and I'm going to erase everything I've just written (1) it's 24 words too long, and (2) you can guess what I said anyway. lol Off to sleep... Proofreader77 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"The whole picture" (of a sliver)

• Since there is continual twiddling/cramming ... I created a "counterbalanced" version (of top part) of the Sexual assault case to illustrate what the "the whole picture" might look like if summary cramming was allowed.

  Note the diff edit summary reads:

  "20:09, 11 December 2009 Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (70,458 bytes) (→Sexual assault case: Due to cultural contentions of article (Jail Polanski! vs Free Polanski!)& efforts to cram more "Jail Polanski!' facts into short summary (w false allegations of whitewash), I will illustrate "counterbalancing" the cram) (undo)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-ups

Yes, I've seen The Middle, and what I like about it is that it has the janitor from Scrubs. You know, though, we're not quite that backwards here. My SSD appointment was interesting and a disappointment. The docotor who did it was from India, didn't touch me, nor do a good examination. She said "my numbers" speak for themselves. "My numbers" were off the grid and out of any realm of good readings - 285/155, which isn't right. The BP cuff was all wrong, it was done on my forearm and really, really hurt. Ah well. As long as "my numbers" speak. The numbers for The Middle and that Kelsey Grammer thing speak as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we Hoosiers aren't pedestrian - we have the interwebs, Twitter and cell phones. It's a cute show, though. My numbers ... are scary. They will stay where they are until they either pop through or drop, I suppose. They aren't Monk, though I do have a bit of that OCD thing going for me. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Russell Crowe

If I could tear you away from other more important topics *coughRomancoughPolanskicough*, could you please take a look at Russell Crowe#Firepower Fiasco and render your opinion? I cleaned it up and tagged it, but I think it is actually someone's attempt to make Crowe more culpable than he is in this. I tagged it as "undue weight" given to the topic. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If you would, could you possibly add at to the talk page? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Barbara Pepper.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barbara Pepper.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. You may also want to provide a source for File:Belinda Lee.jpg and File:Beryl Wallace.jpg as they have the same problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So I'll send them to WP:FFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lucille Ricksen.jpg

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton

You are probably aware of this, but just to be sure -- I've opened a thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard about the situation with User:Jojhutton. Omnedon (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jenny from the Fleck

Hi. If you have time, could you possibly weigh in at Talk:Jennifer Garner#Fashion/Style Section on an RfC? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Just wondering

if you'd seen this pile of rubbish? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KylieMinogueKids.ogg

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon

to you. How insane has that whole thing become?? Sheesh. Thanks for your observations. I would suggest you not post to that page in case someone would say you are me! That's me all over the place. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) or as Rossrs would say MisterBeyondMyWildBettySoupLoganhartlivie (I'm feeling a little schizo today!)

Hey

I could use your help at Talk:Nicole Kidman regarding her place of birth and citizenship in the lead. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you know...

that Russell Crowe thinks music is like tea? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And to you

To repeat what Dick Clark mumbled on the TV: May you have a happy and healthy New Year! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How funny

that I was actually watching Mr. Ed on television when I got your note. Poor SJP, she takes hits from all sides, doesn't she. This is just proof positive that the lyrics to Mr. Ed are suspect:

A horse is a horse of course, of course,

And no one can talk to a horse of course,

Unless of course, the talking horse,

Is the famous Mr. Ed Sarah Jessica Parker.

Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You should be aware that there is now an official "Conspiracy of bullies" at work, of which, me, User:Vidor, User:Crohnie and LaVidaLoca and certain unnamed administrators were fingered as members in a complaint filed at WP:WQA#User:Wildhartlivie by SkagitRiverQueen was listed, if you are interested. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Image

Hey Rossrs, you are right, I confused the non-free reduced tag with this one. Thanks a lot for explaining it to me. No offence intended. :) --Legolas 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kate, Daniel, Forest and Ben

Hi. Thanks for reverting vandalism on the Winslet article. Someone has opened the good article nomination on the page and I have Daniel Day-Lewis waiting on its GAR review to be done. My plate is piling high. Meanwhile, we've got Forest Whitaker and Ben Stiller up for GAR and I'm hoping you might help a little. I'm looking at Whitaker, which seems to be fixable. Not so sure about Stiller, though. I posted a request for help at WP:ACTOR but so far, no one has volunteered to help save any of these GAs. Do ya think ya might?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Any help is good help. Nehrams2000 offered to help on Whitaker, too. Daniel Day-Lewis seems to have flown through recertification, which is a good thing. The reviewer on Kate's article wants the lead rewritten. I'm in dicussion over that. I've proposed on Whitaker's that removing part of the filmography decreases the comprehensiveness. Any port in a storm, eh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That works too. Nehrams is working on Stiller (whew!). Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Kate

WHY did that editor wait until now to jump on this article and knock it out of GA criteria by rendering it unstable??? What does he think he is doing?? I'm sick to my stomach over this. What does he think he is proving? Why is he doing this???? I want to cry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Huge thank you for your comments. I felt the righteous anger coming through. For what it's worth, I think Tony is ignoring it - he continued to check fixes and posted new comments, so I think it irked him too. Bless your heart. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. Every once in a while, we all need a knight riding a white horse to come to the rescue. Here is my thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Welllll, I appreciated the stance you took. Skag took me to AN/I tonight over "rollback misuse". Nothing much happened except she made a stink. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Winslet GA nom

Watch the talk. I will comment. I am slow. Watch the article. There has been a POV editorial issue during the nom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a WP:FILM person. The current WP:LEAD is shaped by my vision which is in the GA discussion. I am open to opinions. If the opening 2nd sentence is a bit heavy let me know. It is a vast improvement over the submitted lead in terms of summarizing her life. That is why I made the comment in the discussion and steered the lead in the current direction myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rossrs! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 7 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Jon Blair - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Kim Carnes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Manual of style

Hey, I believe you were one of the contributors a little while back from that discussion of a user, Jojhutton, who kept removing the country from infoboxes. Well, I noticed that he continues to do this, and says that the MOS is saying to only mention the city and state. Is he right? I thought many were against this. Tinton5 (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kevin Spacey

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kevin Spacey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday (a day late)

I saw from here that it's been six years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ

While it's normal for editors to comment from time to time on each other's behavior on article talk pages, that has never proved to be constructive with SRQ. She isn't interested in listening to other people's opinions or advice on the way she conducts herself. She thinks she's always right and isn't open to any other possibility, so such exchanges always deteriorate and fill talk pages with endless bickering. It's best to avoid them completely. If you see her behavior as an ongoing problem that needs to be dealt with, as it seems some other editors do, an RFC/U may be warranted. Short of that, for now, on article talk pages especially, it's probably best to ignore the problematic remarks and focus on article issues. Equazcion 03:27, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Rossrs is completely aware of this editor and is up to date on her. I would venture to say that a response that boldly laughs at what he says would get a comment in return. Rossrs is one of the most fair, calm and even editors around. If his feathers get ruffled, I'd say his response was deliberately solicited. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Giving her what she deserves" (not a direct quote of course) may be satisfying, but not really that helpful. Not that I think that was Rossrs' intention, but that was in response to your justification, Wild. The idea with SRQ in my mind is to avoid the drama that so easily develops when she's involved. I'm only suggesting a way of doing that. You can choose to continue to be pulled down into those useless exchanges, if you find it too unbearable to let her remarks stand unretorted. But if at all possible, it would be best to generally let her have the last word, if she desires it so vehemently. Equazcion 03:37, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

My point actually was that this is the most even, fair and hard to ruffle editor that I know of on Misplaced Pages. I've never seen him get pulled into a huge squabble and his opinion is sought from editors who are looking for an honest and well-considered opinion. It's unconscionable that anyone would actually outright laugh at something he's said and I personally don't blame him for responding. Why would anyone have to adapt a different approach to any one given editor based on that editor's lack of social graces? I don't know of a guideline or policy that says we should "feed the bears", although there is one about feeding the trolls. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not blaming him either. As I said, normally it's fine. "Don't feed the trolls" means not responding to a provocation. That's exactly what I'm proposing. Don't respond. And it's just advice for the future, I'm not berating Rossrs. Equazcion 04:09, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is that usually, when one comes upon a bear or a troll, one can readily identify the subject as a bear or a troll. It's not the same when someone has to go around explaining and giving advice about how to deal with a given person because they tend toward this behavior. There is no magic sign to know not to cross the water. That's the biggest problem I see here. An innocuous statement can be made into a major battle without one knowing it is going to happen. How do we deal with that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm dealing with it here by warning people that there's a "troll in disguise" roaming the woods. Trolls are rarely all that conspicuous, though. That's how they operate, by deceiving people and luring them into senselessness. Once you realize what you're dealing with, you do your part to try not to feed into it.

The only permanent way to deal with this is with an RFC/U. My concern though, as is always a concern in these cases, is that the problem is somewhat ambiguous, tough to describe to an outsider, and even harder to prove. If anyone wanted to give it a try, though, I'd be behind it. Equazcion 04:33, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is coming, very soon. This sort of upheaval cannot continue as it has been. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"you do your part to try not to feed into it" - how funny. I made a similar comment elsewhere just a day or two ago. Although I used the word "follow" rather than "feed". Anyway, back to me. Firstly, whew, nobody is blaming me or even berating me. Why would anyone blame or berate me anyway? I fully appreciate that talk pages become part of the permanent archive, and I never say anything unless I accept that it will end up there forever, for all to see. If one day it blows up in my face, so be it. I weigh up what I want to say, and even whether it's worth saying at all, and if I decide that is, I will go for it. In this case, I saw a comment I had supposedly made, being mocked. I know very well that I didn't say what I was being mocked for and I chose to respond. I can recognise tactics when I see them. You don't know me, but trust me. The manner in which I comment, well that's my choice. It was never intended as "giving her what she deserves" but was only "setting the record straight". I don't know that you've necessarily helped the situation by speaking in the manner of another editor. I think you've potentially fanned the fire and the comment actually makes you look worse than anyone else. I'm sure that was the last thing you intended. As far as I'm concerned, we need to focus on Susan Atkins, don't we? Rossrs (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you were doing and again am not blaming you. Only offering advice for the future. The root of most disputes with SRQ are each person saying the other misinterpreted them, which is precisely what I think needs to be avoided, if possible. As for my comment, it didn't have the exact effect I originally intended, but it did end up working out anyway. You and SRQ both turned toward me in agreement that I was the bad guy, rather than continuing to argue with one another, which is fine by me (in small doses), so it became within my power to stop the whole dispute by not responding (which I've done, and it now seems to be over). Equazcion 05:06, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Well it's stopped whatever the reason, and I recognise what you were trying to do. It's not the path I would have chosen, but then you wouldn't have chosen my path either. We'll see. Rossrs (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kate

I just want this to finish, ya know? Going on 3 weeks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It didn't take this long to create, touch up, finish and pass my featured list, from start to finish! BTW, §. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Tall woman

And why didn't you CROP her???? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sooooo relieved! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My new project

Hi there. I've started a new project, awards and nominations received by Gangs of New York. It's at User:Wildhartlivie/More articles worked on. I'm running into problems finding some sources. I need a source for Motion Picture Sound Editors Golden Reel Awards, Phoenix Film Critics Society, Russian Guild of Film Critics and San Diego Film Critics Society if you happen across them. Couldn't find 2002 awards on the critics society websites. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about Movie City News, but perhaps it will take, if nothing else comes up. Sometimes I've had luck on the Los Angeles Times site, but not for this round. I watched the film last night and thought, "Oh what the hell?" Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah. In passing, we're going to be published: . I've started putting a few reviews on my userpage in case all 100 of those people who watch my pages take a look. Might sell a book or two. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing you're referring to Gangs of New York, re: Cameron Diaz? She was tolerable in it, DiCaprio was okay and Daniel Day-Lewis was wonderful. He filled the screen and stole the show. And are we moving on to FWFR on the rest? Not Another Teen Movie was okay. I loved Fried Green Tomatoes. It made me cry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll never believe what I got in the mail today!!! Did I tell you that I talked on here with someone who said she worked for Val Kilmer about working on his WP article? When we were done, I told her to tell him I thought he should have been nominated and won an Oscar for Tombstone? She said she'd send me an autographed picture and today I got one. Wasn't from Tombstone, was from Top Gun, but still! AND it had a CD of his music in the package. How cool was that?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that it isn't who you know, but who you help that comes through sometimes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And I happen to have a copy of Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe signed by Fannie Flagg. And a copy of Welcome to the World, Baby Girl! signed by her as well. Great writer. Good stories. Homespun and full of love. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That I do. I have a hand obtained signature from Stephen King that I mounted with a photo we took of him holding his black cat when we were in Maine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, don't go by History for Sale's prices, they are about 3-4X what other dealers sell for. And I have two Bette Davis - one is a vintage 1930s era and the other is from around the early 1980s. Anything signed by Garbo is going to run into the higher thousands, even into the tens of thousands, as would Basil Rathbone, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, and all those really HUGE vintage stars. Ya ought price a real Harlow sometime. Or for that matter, price the Frances Farmer. It's an 11X14 studio portrait, signed to a costume designer. Sheesh. But yeah, you shoulda. Then again, there are lots of things we shoulda done! I still yearn for some cool 30s era photos that I can't touch.

And I'm off to bed. It's tomorrow. Night!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tension breaking

To me, Didion's comment was regarding the division of class. Throughout the 60s, there was a terrific division between "establishment" values and those liberal ones being embraced by the younger population. Free love, free living, free drugs, sex and rock and roll, lack of "morals", if you will. The established and more conservative of the population had been viewing this new "freedom" with growing disdain and distrust. Parents shaking their heads over the mores of the younger, old society shuddering as things like the San Francisco and greater California subculture became more rebellious. Woodstock was happening. I think it created a fear in the older conservative society to accompany the wildness of the times. You often read comments today about "it was a different time, things were different". The flower power ideology was broken with the Tate/LaBianca murders. Newspapers later wrote about the "dirty hippies" that perpetrated it. Hippies suddenly weren't cool. The fears of society about these free living people were upheld. People didn't see a difference between the Manson family and the wider group of hippies. One in the same. I think the comment was along the lines of saying "the other shoe is going to drop, and it did." Paranoia equates to distrust and the killings solidly established a wide swath of distrust. People started buying guns. I mean, they packed weapons. No one in Los Angeles was trusted. Steve McQueen carried a gun to Jay Sebring's funeral where he delivered a eulogy. People looked on their neighbors with distrust and suspicion. It changed the texture of interpersonal trust and comfort.

How's that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting question. I think the editor is really trying to understand what the situation was, and that's good. Not understanding something can often lead to clarification. You're welcome. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hurrah!!

Put Kate Winslet on your userpage. It passed!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I say you "helped a little bit"? You helped a lot, especially during my enforced wikibreak. You deserve to claim credit for this every bit as much as I do. Take it, Prissy, take it or I'll give you one of those Scarlett slaps!!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's more like it. Tony will like that. I've look through his pagese before, he's a martial arts practitioner. Interesting person. Thank him for me too. Kate Hudson? Why?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, Cate Blachett isn't one of mine, I only safeguard her virtue, so to speak. I'm not all that interested in Kate Hudso, though. Heath Ledger is on my agenda, and Brad Pitt is on my telly. In Troy. He gets nekkid in it. Loverly. Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit that anything with nekkid Brad can disrupt one's concentration. Even in Legends of the Fall, when all he showed was his bare bottom. I like me some nekkid Brad. It's pleasing to the eye. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

De Niro/Scouts

]

Original edit that added claim - says 65. No sources for the claim of any kind, cannot find sources that say he won it at all except essentially wikipedia or sites that have copies of the de niro page. Might be worth removing it unless it can be verified. However if you read the claim itself:

Robert was also an involved member of the American Boy Scouts for several years and eventually earned his Eagle Scout rank, later becoming 1 of only 16 persons to earn a second Congressional Honorary Eagle Scout Rank for his excellence in theatrics at the age of 65.

I think it's clear that it shouldn't say 15.62.31.60.62 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely. The sentence does not make sense in the context given, (ie that is about his early life). If it can't be sourced to an independent reliable source, it's a problem. It's also of a fairly minor nature so the article doesn't suffer by it's removal. Thanks for checking. Rossrs (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sound sample box align left

Template:Sound sample box align left has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Wells (again)

Please take a look at Talk:Dawn Wells about this editor returning this very stale old story to the article. I've posted a request at WP:BLP/N#Dawn Wells once again about it. Please, and thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoo-ray for canvassing!—Chowbok ☠ 07:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing improper about notifying someone who previously commented on this issue that it once again has come up. Please stop stalking my edits in the mean time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing says "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions.." Considering that I was the only editor notified, considering that I raised the same discussion in August 2009 at Talk:Dawn Wells and have discussed this point several times in the past, and considering that Wildhartlivie only asked me to look at the discussion and comment without attempting "to influence the outcome", there has been no wrong-doing. Please don't leave sarcastic messages like this on my talk page. Rossrs (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)