Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:50, 20 February 2010

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.

Welcome Back!

Look out there could be some crazy edits tonight! You may be a little distracted. Rossrs (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion and later rewriting my invitation

Just thought you may want to know, an alternate account deleted my poorly worded invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions. and also went to ANI about it.

I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. The template was inviting you here: here. Ikip 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrected Charlize Theron

Thank you for the succinct manner in which you edited my contribution to Charlize Theron's split up. I always enjoy learning from seasoned editors like yourself. I also had a look at your resume and it is pretty impressive, to say the least. Incidently, you share my fascination with crime and serial killers. Maybe that is why I am in law enforcement myself. Good luck with your health issues! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozinsky (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter

The January 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

James Stacy

Your actions from two (yes, two) years ago are being called into question here in case you're interested in explaining your damn self. I've already left two somewhat curt messages but I suspect this will be brought up again in two years time because, you know, explaining your actions at the time wasn't quite good enough. This article is quickly becoming a big pain in my ass. Every time it pops up on my watchlist, I just know there's going to be some kind of jackassery to deal with. Pinkadelica 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I take it you no longer need my comment at Dawn Welles? Pinkadelica 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I do believe your theory about attraction was spot on. Pinkadelica 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Flag icons

I just want to make the articles become more beautiful like the stars. I thought the articles are prettier than before.

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the information about it, but I really understand that the ladies are much more younger than Bruce Willis. The ladies' nationallity are absolutely American, Hungary, France or Czechoslovakia.

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 06:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Mrs. American Lady. I've stopped the actions.

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

After seeing this edit, I changed it from the reverted "best known for" to "recently known" as this is her current television project. If this isn't any better of a term, please let me know and I will self-revert. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Neat, little psychic connection there. :) Yeah, I am cool with "known for". Would you like to do the honors? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, excellent. :) My is a little cracked, gotta take it into the shop. Take Care :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Twitter links

While social networking links are normally avoided, note that the top of WP:ELNO states Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:. Please stop removing these links unless there is an established consensus. The fact that a template exists for twitter should tell you that it's currently considered to be acceptable when it's the subject's own twitter feed. OhNoitsJamie 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy

Wildhartlivie: I'll take "People Rossrs wouldn't want to trade places with in a gazillion years" for 1000.

Alex : This nude model inspired works of art and a murder, attempted suicide and spent 65 years in a psychiatric facility before dying there at the age of 104.

Wildhartlivie : Who is Audrey Munson?

Alex : That's correct!

(And you probably are wondering "Who is Audrey Munson?" Poor Audrey!! We must tell Angelina Jolie. There's an Oscar-worthy film there, just crying to be made. Rossrs (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I was tempted to revert this. What, if anything, do you think this poking is going to acccomplish? I see no reason at all for you to be making comments like this esp. with the bad blood between you and Wildhartlivie. Please stop as this will bring more heat than light to everything going on. --CrohnieGal 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That editor has been notified that such posts are from now to be considered overt harassment and such will be reported to WP:AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie

To both of you. You both need to disengage from each other. That means completely. No more accusations from either of you about the other. Both of you need to read meatball:DefendEachOther and rely on others to make any reports, because this level of sniping is unsatisfactory. I've left the indentical message on both your talks, because I don't want to hear about who started it. Be the bigger person, and walk away. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied

Please see my note at her talk page. You have the power to stop this now. Please do so, in the way that I've recommended, or I guarantee, it's going to get uglier, for both of you. Trust me; I've seen this go down many times. End it, please. -GTBacchus 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Downtone Bonnie & Quiet Clyde...

Why, thank you ma'am, for noticing how quiet sheriff Harry's been keeping B&Ctown recently. Even the teenage vandals with their spraypaint cans have been steering clear. It's my shoot-first, ask-questions-later policy.

Basically our insurrection back around New Years was an editor or editors who had dragged out the same old anti-Hamer axes to grind — except without any new research to support anything at all. I'm not sure how serious s/he/they were about real editing and how much was just for some argumentation. I like to think the former.

I learned something important from the whole nasty business, though, and it's important that you know it, too, as one of the guardians of Truth (note cap) on our article here. At several points, our article talks about "the controversy" surrounding the execution of that 1934 ambush, and all the questions it supposedly opened up about shoot-to-kill and no capital warrants on BonPark and no warning called out to Clyde. Well, I went back to brush up on the B&C canon — especially the more recent books like Guinn, Knight, Phillips, Ramsey, Milner and Treherne — and I gotta tell you, Wildhartlivie: there ain't no controversy. Not at least among the writers of all the important books. There is not a-one who engages in the kind of discussion (with the kind of stridency) that we've had here about it. It just never comes up. It's 99% on our page and just about absent from the canon. And when you go back to the mentions of "the controversy" in our article, you'll note that there is not a single cite among them that says that so-and-so says such-and-such on page xxx — not a one. There's a line in our article that says that "respected historians such as Phillips, Treherne and Milner failed to find a capital warrant on Bonnie blah-blah" — when in fact they didn't even look. Treherne, a Brit, doesn't even seem to have come to the States to do research, just wrote from the U.K. I find it really upsetting that these "controversy" accusations are sorta "sneaky-cited" in the article, never to pan out when you actually check 'em. What they really are is leftover polemic from the days when the POV rampaged around the article.

All of which leaves us with an article that isn't as good as it could be, and isn't as good as you and I — to name only two — want it to be. An article that's giving readers the wrong impression. I know we'll fix it, don't get me wrong, but until we do, we're not doing justice to the subject or to our readers.

Well, lest I make you sorry you ever wrote, I'll close here. There's about 30 things I'd like to fix on our article without even getting into "the controversy." Hope you're well and not too despairing about the football the other night. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Bullock

True, she was born in the USA, but her mother is German (and her father being American), therefore making her German - American. Norum 11:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Links

Thanks for your message, Wild. I was just concerned with the number of EL's, not the quality. --BwB (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim?

Gosh, no I was not aware. But surely he jests. He looks nothing like Marlon Brando!! Rossrs (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Kate

Thanks for your rvs to the Winslet page. You are quite right; the fact doesn't belong there. It would be nice, however, if you left it on the other page that you reverted. I did not place the fact there in the first place (merely providing two refs for what was, until then, merely an allegation); it predated me. Perhaps it is encumbent on you to explain why it doesn't belong on what is - in truth - not a wholly serious page. Kind regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, a good compromise. Ericoides (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This, with what looks to me like a source delete, plus a change from a correct (AFAIK) DOI to FBI has the appearance, to me, of vandalism. I stand by saying it looks like it. I don't claim anything else, or I would also have added a warning here before now. TREKphiler 09:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No apologies needed. I wasn't sure about the shoe polish remark, either, but figured it'd be highlighted in the rv, so if it needed addressing, it could get taken out later. As for an AN/I report, 1) I had no idea & 2) I wouldn't know one if it bit me. ;p TREKphiler 10:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hey, some people can be real dicks. I've run into at least two I can only call trolls: go out of their way to complain about a page, refuse to answer any questions or comments, then just walk away as if it never mattered in the first place (which is what I really don't get in it all). If all we had was a simple misunderstanding (& I've had more than my share of those ;p), no prob. Cheers. TREKphiler 11:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had my days, too. ;p Thanks for the kind words. Same to you. TREKphiler 14:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Non-free reduced}}

When I made this edit I wasn't asking for a smaller version, I was noting the fact that a smaller one had been supplied. When this template is used, after 7 days, an admin will come along and process the template. Could you please revert your removal of the template please?--Rockfang (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

I suppose what you're saying makes sense, but even so, the definition of spree killer only LOOSELY corresponds with Harris and Klebold's crimes. I agree with you %75 percent about what you said, but other certain Misplaced Pages users rejected this explanation when I used it, so what's the deal? As for now, I think I'll quit removing Harris and Klebold from the American spree killers category. Just remember that others like the Colin Ferguson, Nidal Hasan, George Hennard, James Huberty, and the Jonesboro killers are only MASS MURDERERS, nothing else. Although they did go on KILLING SPREES, they don't fit the definition of SPREE KILLER. As for Thomas Dillon, I decided he was a spree killer after all and decided to just leave that be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.165.30 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your sandbox

I'm going to ask that you blank your sandbox page in accordance with item #10 at WP:UP#NOT. You can retain the information in a local text file on your computer. Any recording of grievances against another editor has to be used in a timely fashion at some dispute resolution page or ARBCOM/ANI etc, and not be something ongoing. Your sandbox page has been used this way since 15 Jan.

This shouldn't be taken as any kind of judgment on the issues you recorded on the page, as I haven't even read them. But that page does seem to constitute a technical violation of the policy. SRQ had a similar page at one point which I asked her to take down, and when she refused I nominated it for deletion, which was successful. I hope you'll heed this request instead though, so it doesn't have to come to that. Thanks. Equazcion 01:15, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this page & #10 at WP:UP#NOT, this compilation was started last month as an intended RfC/U or AN/I report that addressed wikistalking prior to my being blocked, other evidence started to be added 6 days ago. After that, and Lar's restriction on editing, after I noticed the uncommon irregularity with which she popped up for the first time on pages where I routinely edited and acting in concert with other editors, we have begun to assemble evidence for an ArbCom filing. That is based on a belief that a statement made by Lar here that "ArbCom is a very real possibility" was a real possibility, I am not aware of a restriction upon one beginning to compile evidence for a potential ArbCom filing, about which I have already had discussion with various individuals involved. I have been in contact with various administrators off site and with one who works with ArbCom. A month to assemble such content isn't extravagant. And the webpage the other editor had was kept as a selectively contained archive which refactored select statements. I don't mind blanking the initial paragraph, but the list contains no names except article names and dates. This is for a possible ArbCom case or perhaps an AN/I request like the one you recently started on Tbsdy. The pros and cons of each avenue are being discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled. WHL's sandbox seems, to me, to do what RfC/U#Preparation suggests, though it is missing the recommended RfC/U template. I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. -FeralDruid (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden/The Man Who Came to Dinner

I added a reference. You had deleted my link, instead of requesting a citation, which is unusual. Also unusual is the fact that there are three totally unsourced items directly below it, that you did not delete. I would also imagine that the following blurb used in the play "Harriet Sedley took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks, and when the job was nicely done, gave her father forty one" might possibly be a reference to Borden.

Is there some reason that you deleted my paragraph, but did not notice the multiple un-sourced paragraphs below it?

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Sorry

I don't know how I did this. I looked at the article a little while ago, but I would have sworn I did not hit the edit button. Clearly I did something, and when I looked at my watchlist later, there it was. I've reverted it back. Rossrs (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben Affleck

First of all, as I have mentioned earlier, I have edited several wikipedia articles under a different username, including writing almost the entire article on Hugh Grant that attained the Good Article status right after and the entire article on Zac Goldsmith. Even if I hadn't, while longevity on Misplaced Pages is a sign of respect and assurance, it isn't the only criteria for making a valuable contribution. Secondly, if you have a problem with the style, then take the time to move the projects that I added (on film, TV) into the original table rather than getting rid of the thing entirely by simply undoing a contribution. I will confess that my strong skills are sentence construction, researching references and providing structure to articles - I am not an authority on style guidelines.

The reason I have only majorly worked on his wife's article lately is because I tend to take a topic, work on it and expand that article - one at a time. It just so happens that my new username is relatively, well, new, so I haven't gotten around to other projects. My contribution had more to do with assuring complete coverage rather than pushing a POV. I plan to add a lot more to the Affleck article in the coming days as I have been researching on it and the article as it stands today, though good, is obviously far from comprehensive or top-notch - would that mean that if I amend the article, I must run a copy of it before you first? I am not here to pick fights, but, like I said, I do like to work on articles wholly and that sometimes means maybe making too many changes at a time - most of them meaningful and enhancing. If you accuse me of lack of discussion, then you, with your constant reversals, are not that much different. Moving forward, I think I can improve the quality of the Affleck article, if you have any suggestions on how I should - or shouldn't - proceed with editing it, I am open to advice but not the hostility that you display towards new members (which, in this case, I am not, but you seem to behave similarly towards other new contributors).Hutch y2k (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, this is just a courtesy note to let you know (in case you haven't kept track) that you've reverted on Ben Affleck 3 times today. I'm sure you're aware of the 3RR, but I'd advise you not to revert again and to discuss the matter. If you need anything from me or you just want to chat, do feel free to drop me a line or email me. Best, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I've sent out a request to a likely candidate. Will let you know when it's up. I've been really happy to get the images recently for the Hathaway and Forrest Gump articles. I've kind of shied away from searching for images recently as I've been trying to complete Sweeps, the Tag & Assess drive, and work on an article off-wiki. But sometimes, out of the blue, requests that I sent out many months back will all of the sudden have replies and new images come about. Hopefully this image request goes through quickly, the author seems active. By the way, congrats on the book. Although it's great to be published on here every day, a book is much better! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the talk page (again, I didn't read the whole thing, and hopefully nobody ever has to!), I'm amazed that section after section has started again and again about the topic. Looking at the article and the talk page, the discussions are more than 15 times larger than the content of the article itself. For the number of editors looking over the page and spending time focusing on this one issue, it could have been a GA by now if the same effort was put in it. Anyway, to prevent further issues of editors arguing about canvassing and/or biasness, instead of having me concluding the discussion for a consensus argument, I would instead recommend either doing a final request for comment/BLP noticeboard and let everyone resolve it one last time. After that there should be no reason to again and again question the prior consensus especially since the details of the situation have not had any breakthroughs since the initial discussion of adding the section. I apologize for not being of more help, but as we have these community pages and they invite further and wider opinions, it's probably best to use them to hopefully conclude this issue. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The image has been added to the article. Hopefully it has the impish look you're going for. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Levitt image seems to me like a new editor got it from somewhere else (if you go to Commons, the image upload is the author's only edit), and to get such a good pose, I'd figure the author would have other images to contribute (it's also the standard web size image and lacking metadata). I won't mess with it, but there's always a possibility that somebody will come along and put it up for deletion without an OTRS confirmation from the uploader. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I just sent out a request for one I've been watching a while, we'll see out that goes. Not the best angle of him, but it will be a good backup to this one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ibid.

Is there a way I can use the "< ref name=/ >" system but also supply a page number? The more I follow down cites at B&C (particularly), the more I'm realizing just how many of our cites are bogus! I want my cites to be abso unassailable. Howzabout I stay away from Ibid. and op. cit., but use the author's surname and a page number? The alternative is to embed the pg, no. in an invisible comment. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)