Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:27, 29 October 2007

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for September has been published. October's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Misplaced Pages. Check it out!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

ou who keeps undoing my addition on the Jonathan Rhys Meyers page and why

Dear Wildhartlivie/Archive 4,

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Unfortunately, using your e-mail address as your username is not a good idea. Misplaced Pages content is extensively copied and the site itself is one of the most visited sites in the world. Any edit you make on Misplaced Pages will have your username attached to it, and using your email address will make you a tempting target for spammers. We recommend that you change your username at Misplaced Pages:Changing username in order to prevent abuse.

If you need any help, simply contact me on my talk page, or go to Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Another option is to place {{helpme}} on your own talk page, and someone will come shortly to help. Remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Again, welcome!

 (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I received your message about usernames/email addresses. This isn't my primary email address, it's one created specifically for use on message boards, user sites, etc. Unless it's a rule that it can't be used, I do prefer to keep it this way. I've been using the internet for over 10 years and I don't have a spam problem since I've begun using this format. Thanks.

You can keep this username by all means. It's good that you are aware of spam problems - you should be able to keep on top of any that come from a Misplaced Pages-sourced database. Happy editing!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signing Comments

Please note that you do not need to sign your comments thus - ~~~~ - on article pages such as Steve Irwin, this is only for talk pages such as Talk:Steve Irwin]. Cheers and happy editing! Jpe|ob 06:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

FWFR

Too bad you didn't like my tone, but I sure as hell didn't like buddy's (for example, using someone's full name when demanding an explanation of something you can't be bothered to specify is usually considered condescending, especially when you misspell the name). If you're snotty to me, I'm snotty back. Speaking of which, just what are these things I'm supposed not to understand? If you want more information about why I took certain things out, tell me what the certain things are. John FitzGerald 13:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And:

• the questions were not straightforward, since they failed to specify just what information was in question
• if you or Koli doesn't like what I took out, put it back in instead of making vague and unsubstantiated accusations of stupidity and ignorance against me. John FitzGerald 14:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And incidentally, I didn't say there was no need for explanations. I said there was no need to wonder about my motivation. John FitzGerald 14:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I will simply refer any interested readers to John FitzGerald's talk page for my response to this. I'm not keen on having to paste responses across 3 or 4 talk pages. Wildhartlivie 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want an "opportunity to discuss something," how about giving me something to discuss? What specific changes do you want to know the reason for? Your statement about not being a member of FWFR implying ignorance is clearly illogical. I am, though, a member of Misplaced Pages and I understand what constitutes a good article, and unless you can spare the time to tell me exactly what mistakes I made I'm going to believe that you are just harassing me for some obscure purpose of your own. I deny having said there is no reason for explanations for the simple fact I didn't say it. Apparently you're unable to quote my supposed assertion. Finally, I addressed no one as buddy; apparently it's now a crime to speak Canadian English (in the Toronto version of which buddy = he; in fact, it's polite form used to avoid calling someone he)). Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion, ask me about specific changes I made (I think you may have been trying to do that, but your description of the change was vague – okay, it was non-existent; you seemed to be asserting that something is true that I took out, but I may have taken it out for some other reason). If you want to go on just telling me what a piece of crap I am, I suggest we file a request for mediation, informal discussion manifestly having failed. if you don't like that suggestion, I'll file one myself, since if you are unwilling to discuss specifics there is no point continuing our discussion. John FitzGerald 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, could you tell me the date of the edit in which I removed something about the site owner's discretion, and why you think the information should remain in? Thanks. I will then endeavour to respond. Incidentally, the article does require sources, and if some aren't forthcoming soon the article should be tagged. John FitzGerald 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm such a good guy, I went and reviewed all my edits, and guess what? I didn't remove the reference to the site owner's discretion. I just tightened up the writing. My review suggests you guys should be thanking me instead of harassing me for things I didn't do – that was one flabbily written article before I worked on it. If you have any other changes to discuss, I'll gladly look into them. John FitzGerald 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made a final comment on my talk page. I will be reviewing the edits of the article. Why you couldn't just have informed me you were restoring some of the material so that i could express any objections to the restoration is beyond me. John FitzGerald 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed your recent edits – they're really good. The article has been significantly improved by them, and they are a significant improvement over the text I took out. I'm glad we finally seem to be on the same page. John FitzGerald 13:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Salopian has pointed out, with his/her inimitable charm, that I had leapt to the conclusion you were a man. Actually I had you confused with another user, a fellow who is also from Indiana, but nevertheless it's my fault and I apologize for the error. I am now leaving the FWFR page in your capable hands. Besides sources, my concerns have been with the inclusion of promotional and unencyclopedic material, and the over-writing. For example, I cut much of the text about Benj Clews' prerogatives for the same reason I would cut "I like to pay with pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters, dollars, two-dollar coins, $5 bills, $10 bills, $20 bills, $50 bills and $100 bills" and replace it with "I like to pay cash." I hope that's helpful. John FitzGerald 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You...

... for the warm welcome. The Chocolate Lady 12:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

I am the one who added the picture of Seung- hui Cho to the article on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. I just wanted to ask if you would be able to get pictures of the two sawed off shotguns, each of them used, onto wikipedia, so as to put in their article page. It would also be nice if you could get pictures of their knifes, pipebombs, and propane tanks. If you can get these pictures, could you please post them on my user talk page. Thank you. -User:71.191.112.253

Welcome to the Ward Churchill pages.

In general I tend to agree with Lulu and some of the other more level headed editors of those pages. I usually pipe in when I think there is an issue that requires consensus. Anyway hello and welcome to the milieu....Albion moonlight 07:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Preston

I am very pleased to see that you are standing up to Preston. I wrote this and placed it on the Ward Churchill talk page it was intended for him and the other agenda driven editors .

Eichmann is dead. Wiki's policy on BLP frowns on attacks upon living persons. Factual accuracy is (more often than not) in the eye of the beholder. I have mentioned this to Preston mcconkie before but here are 2 back to back quotes from wiki' policy on biographies of living persons,

"Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Misplaced Pages article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options." Cover the event, not the person. ::: Albion moonlight 13:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Check this out

Check out my sig! --AR Argon 07:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to bump into you

Wildhart, it was good to go into the history of the Jake Gyllenhaal page and see we were both busily editing at the same time. I apologize for accidentally undoing one of your changes when I was trying to undo some accidental damage I'd done. By reviewing the history section, though, I was able to undo the undo. Preston McConkie 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You said, "and boy, do I hate those "blah blah, and then blah, and then blah"s that keep popping up in articles!!" I can't agree more. I was just tweaking it too, and ahead of you I had already removed a number of those "additionally"-style transitions. My pet peeves are the overuse of "however" and other stylized transitions that are utterly unnecessary; really, any superfluous word, phrase or even syllable. I also deleted a rambling, wordy quote in praise of Gyllenhaal that seemed to have just been plopped in for no good reason. I'm glad to see there's someone else out there who simply likes smoothness and simplicity. Preston McConkie 12:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

I don't know if this was you, but the article RMS Titanic disapeared. You last made a revision I undid. Now if it was'nt you Im teribbly sorry for any offense, but if it was you then take this as a warning. Thank you.Philippe Auguste 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My clarification of this:

OK RMS Titanic got COMPLETLY deleted. Now its my one of favorite articles and I think the who did it was User:Wildhartlivie. Please check RMS Titanic's history to make sure I did the right thing. Don't worry I was careful with my words that I wrote there. Thanks.Philippe Auguste 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not me who blanked the Titanic article. If you will go back through the history, you will see that at the revision at 20:47 on 30 August 2007, another editor kept trying to blank out the internal message about vandalism, and both times he did so, it blanked the entire article. I tried to reverted what he had done, and as I see, several others have been trying to fix what was done. You weren't all that careful with the words you wrote anywhere. Since I see you're a newbie, let me ask you to be sure you know who did what before you scatter about accusations. And if you'll look at my contributions history, you'll also see that blanking a page is not something I do. But gee, thanks for the warning. Wildhartlivie 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am SO SORRY. =( I couldn't tell who it was or even what cause titanic's disapearance. Please do forgive me. I am very sorry. I'll retract all statements regarding you. See I couldn't figure out the article history page(its complicated for me). Once again, Iam really and truly sorry.=(Philippe Auguste 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Wildhartlivie 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gay cowboy.

Hang on, you point me to a link which specifically says "The media keep tagging it as the gay cowboy movie", but then claim that the media don't refer to it as the gay cowboy movie? Don't be silly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But you're totally missing the point. Whether the word gay was in use in the 60s, or whether Jack was a bisexual shepard is not relevant to the fact that "gay cowboy" the term that the media used. It was ubiquitous, it was mentioned in virtually every review and interview I read and watched at that time. That's why I put the term in quotes, to recognise the fact that we as an encyclopedia do not claim he is a gay cowboy, but rather that is what Jake's role was characterised as. Whether Brokeback Mountain was about gay cowboys or the romantic relationship between two men who couldn't express themselves freely about how they actually felt towards one another due to the opporessive era they lived in is neither here nor there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Watch just slightly longer

I've reported Dev920's 3RR violation on this. Usually admins respond fairly quickly, but if I could ask you to keep an eye for any further violation, that would be great. I can't fix it again without 3RR'ing myself. What's most annoying is that Dev920's most recent edit had an edit comment indicating it was a deliberate slap in the face after I added a more nuanced mention of the phrase in the article body (complete with proper citation). I have no idea what her/his crusade for the cute-but-inaccurate phrase is, but it's certainly single-minded in relation to this article.LotLE×talk

Actually, I have some idea. I suspect Dev920 has the same misguided perception that MeltyGirl has, that somehow crude and inaccurate language that uses the word "gay" must automatically advance gay rights (as witnessed by all of MeltyGirl's irrelevant edit comments about a gay cowboy being "a good thing to be". FWIW, the word 'gay' actually was around in the 1960s, it just didn't enter it's widespread and default use until the late 1970s. The subculture use of the word dates from the 1900's or 1910s; I don't actually care whether the lead describes the main relationship as "gay" or "homosexual" as long as it mentions (as the current version does) the more complex psychological issues in the characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What up wit' Downey

To answer your question, I reverted it with some other edits, and I think I saw the bit you added on, and totally missed that you were adding on to a reference. I will replace it immediately. Please accept my apologies. :) - Arcayne () 07:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem and again, sorry for the mistake. Cheers! - Arcayne () 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Madonna

I'm curious as to why you reverted the edits contributed by Bookkeeperoftheoccult this morning. This editor added references and expanded the lead in a fairly minor way, which was supported by both the references that were added as well as the reference that already existed in the paragraph. I'm asking because you didn't add a reason for the reversion and only said in the following edit that you "fixed lead." I was under the impression we should always include an edit summary, and especially when it involves reversion of material supported by a citation. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your assumption about edit summaries is correct, but people make mistakes when they are in haste. Sorry for that.

Anyways, some time ago, it had been agreed upon on the talk page that empty, meaningless media-touted titles, such as "Queen of Pop," "King of Pop," etc have no place in an encyclopedia article. Having a source does not necessarily means that it should go into the article. There are POV issues to worry about, which have been the main downfall of the article. The intro of that article seems to list everything that is great about Madonna. We don't necessarily need one more point of how great she is. I'm sure they get the picture. Thanks. Orane (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: John Wayne

Hello, noticed that you worked on John Wayne.

This line makes her sound like a nun:

'"Mother Mary Alberta Brown was of Irish descent."'

This one makes my eyes roll!

"A surprising percentage of the cast and crew of the film The Conqueror developed cancer. The film was shot in Utah, where the U.S. government had tested nuclear weapons."

• 1) The testing was done in Nevada.
• 2) Please see my addition to Talk:The_Conqueror#Cause_of_Death_1.29_Smoking_or_2.29_The_Conqueror

I know you didn't put in the Utah thing, but, the word surprising you put in, and this is not true.

Carry on....WikiDon 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I am still not happy with it. WikiDon

Talk:Physician

I'm having a little trouble pointing out on this page that physicians are the most likely profession to be a serial killer (5 sources cited in favour of this point, including the British Medical Journal) - the medics there don't want to accept this bit of info. Could you take a look and comment if you feel so inclined? Thanks:) Malick78 08:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Carter puppet

HaroldFranklin

I didn't block User:HaroldFranklin, I am not an admin, I can't block anybody. Wasn't me. WikiDon 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think you were confused, I just added the sock puppet tag, someone else blocked: User:HarveyCarter.

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:HarveyCarter

Please leave input there. Thanks, IP4240207xx 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exhibit - SEE: User:HarveyCarter - the "Edits by User and Date" section

IP4240207xx 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

SueBrewer

I'd be happy to help, but I need to know the username. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for watching out for this user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you see what User:Shalom did?

"All accounts listed above are blocked indefinitely, except for SueBrewer, who is blocked for one month. One month seems long enough to me. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)"

Apparently he doesn't understand. IP4240207xx 21:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DaveyJohnson

He's back....IP4240207xx 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

SarahLover

Hola, don't fact tag any HC-SP contributions, just REMOVE w/extreme prejudice. Remember, he is just here to stir the poop and cause controversy.

Unfortunately, because of the way this editor contributes they have exhausted all "Good Faith." So, even if they have valuable contributions to make, they pushed their abuse to the point that it doesn't matter any more and is rendered irrelevant. This is a sad state. This is sad because of they way that they contribute, and have choose to conduct themselves and ignore the basic Misplaced Pages rules, MOS, and proper procedures. In addition, it is a sad state because it takes away valuable time of editors that want to make positive contributions to Misplaced Pages. So, not only are they doing something negative, they are causing others to do something negative. The amount of time that good faith editors spend on vandalism and reversing negative edits is tremendous. This becomes a productivity factor. Users like HarveyCarter make Misplaced Pages an unproductive place. In addition they give Misplaced Pages a bad name in the general media. The time I have spent removing previous sockpuppets, and now working on this, the HC, case, I could have been creating new articles and/or cleaning up existing ones. But letting users like HC stick around only cracks the foundation of Misplaced Pages. If you have read the press that Misplaced Pages has received this year, it has not been very good. Most of that press is from Conflict of Interest edits, edits from uneducated and uninformed editors, and users like HC who just want to screw with people and cause editors that want to make positive contributions to waste their time following their tracks. I suspect that HC has another legitimate handle on here, and makes edits in good faith, and I will now conduct a search of the IP addresses to root out who the real HC is. HC is priority one with me right now, it will be my main activity until the man behind the curtain is exposed and expelled from Misplaced Pages. I will abandon making any other contributions to Misplaced Pages until this is accomplished. I may make a few edits here and there while I am waiting on HC, but they will only be distractions of time. Thank you very much for you help and time. IP4240207xx 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: JJuliech: Well, I want to stay on him. It is still my number goal. I would like to find out who the Oz is behind the curtain. I am convienced that they wouldn't keep coming back unless they were already here editing nicely in other articles. They keep doing it because they enjoy doing it, if I could find out who they really are, and start hitting them on the edits that they really care about, well that is when it will go to a head. But, until we find the real person, they will just keep making new accounts when they are here and bored.

Gregory Peck and the Armenian edits: that person is either being like HC and is just messing with you, or was naive and thought they could change the talk page to skew their POV. Either way, don't let it get to you, just revert and move on. Thanks, and carry on. ! IP4240207xx 02:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I dare say it? Do I? And, why did it take 28 accounts to get around to blocking his email address?

CU

Post a report on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser‎, but, unless you can so evidence from both accounts, you might get shot down. You might also ask an admin that can do it (who likes you) to do it, but that is tough also. Compare the accounts edits and look for any similarities. You can also try Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. If they do it, they can do it easy and fast. Good luck.

RE: Carlos and Gloria

Thanks for pitching in on the Gloria articles. Carlos has a hard time with English. I get the feeling he might be very young. Thanks again, feel free to keep working on them. Check his user contributions to see where he has been. There are a few of them, but they are pretty small articles. Thanks! IP4240207xx 06:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this diff

Who says? Has anybody published their onw interpretation of what the journals say? As it's worded now, it looks like WE did the research and came up with that original conclusion. hbdragon88 03:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Childish Tantrum

I've never had a problem with edits in the past, but your edits were particularly galling. Almost as soon as I was adding the links you were deleting them. You weren't interested in discussing anything - you just wanted to impose your will. Also, I reserve the right to delete anything I have added, but apparently I am not allowed to even do that when dealing with you. My contributions to wikipedia are at an end. I am requesting my id be deactivated so if you want to respond please feel free to do so, but I won't be reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noviracer (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That User

Hi. It's good to know I'm not the only one having issues with this person. I've read your version of the Joplin page and to be honest, I don't know much about the woman but I prefer your version. I loathe articles worded in a sloppy manner and that's exactly what is going on in the Joplin and Kupcinet articles. The issue with this person isn't really content, it's the way they word things and their inability to reason. They've also taken to personally attacking me and calling me a vandal for not agreeing with them. What exactly did you do to report them? So far, all I've asked for is editor assistance because I'm not really sure what steps to take to deal with them. Let me know what I can do to help with the Joplin article (regarding keeping your version) and I'll take the right steps. I'm hesitant to leave a comment as I'm already involved in another issue with them, but I completely agree with the way you originally wrote the article section. Pinkadelica 04:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll throw my two cents in at the Joplin page if it'll help, no problem. In my situation, I'm not sure if it's a three revert violation or what, I should go back and look at the history of the page and I'm thinking if I edit the page again and he/she reverts it, then it will be a violation. Right now, I'm a little too irritated to go through their mumbo jumbo and sort out the mess. All I know is that if he/she puts something in, they think it is suppose to stay and no one has a right to edit at all. I'm waiting on another editor to advise me what to do. I don't want to escalate the situation but it looks as if that's what they want. All I have is one word...insanity! Thanks for the tips too, I have a feeling I'll need them in the future. Pinkadelica 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow...thank you! I thought about doing some editing on that tonight but I'd rather wait, take a step back and cool down. The changes you made have already made it much, much better! I can't stand citations that are formatted incorrectly either. I'm basically learning as I go, but I know when things look unprofessional and messy and I just don't understand why some people feel their opinion should outweigh policy and rules. Again, thank you. If those edits are reverted (I'm sure they will be), we'll see what happens. Pinkadelica 05:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Joplin/Kupcinet

Hello – thanks for the message. You are doing the right thing with this editor – you've opened an RFC, and that's exactly what you need to do at this point. Let the RFC run a week or so to get more opinion, then adjust the article according to the consensus view, be that yours or his or someone else's.

I don't think I have to tell you to not get into an edit war with him – as a reminder, tattoo the 3RR on your forehead (or your 4-year-old's forehead - kids need to learn to read anyway). Remember, the consensus will prevail in the end, but sometimes you have to go through processes such as these to get that consensus to show up. If it upsets you, walk away from the computer for a while or work on something else, like the maintenance tasks.

The next step is to open an request for comment/user conduct. You _could_ do that now, but I would wait until the Joplin RFC has run its course. I've seen editors go through an article RFC and completely turn around, and they start working well with others. Hopefully that will happen here. I've seen other editors who see an RFC as some kind of attack. Those are the ones who get mad at everybody who can't/won't see their own "correct" point-of-view and decide the cabal is out to get them. They get the bold part of WP:BRD down, but revert and discuss don't seem to make it off the page and into reality for them.

Again, you're on the right track. If he violates 3RR again, report it to WP:AN3 and you can leave a message on my talk page too. (Report it to AN3 first.) Let me know if you need more help or have questions, and keep me posted on the progress. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 07:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi I'm new and not too sure how to use this, but I was just wondering if it was you who keeps undoing my addition on the Jonathan Rhys Meyers page and why User talk:Salixhexe Response on usertalk page: Hi. First, when you pose a question or make a comment on a talk page, you should do that at the bottom of the page and add a proper title by prefacing it with == ==. I had a hard time finding what you'd asked. Also, when you leave a note on a user talk page, be sure to sign your addition by typing 4 tildes (~~~~).

I don't know whose addition it was that I removed from the JRM page or which one you're talking about. I am guessing you are referring to the Glenda Gilson. I removed it twice. Both times I did so, it was based on policy listed in WP:BLO which is very clear-cut regarding biographies of living persons. Some of the issues in that policy concern printing gossip and innuendo that has no substantiation, which can open up Misplaced Pages to liable charges.

The first time I removed it, it was worded to say that it was rumored he had a fling. The second time it said he had a fling. The problem with adding that was that there was no reference given to support the statement. When it was added the third time, there was a reference given for it. Then I only reworded it and moved her name further up in the sentence so that the reference for it didn't appear to be supporting everyone named in the sentence. You might want to check out WP:BLP for tips on what can and can't be added to biographies of living persons and how to format things. Hope this answers your question. Wildhartlivie 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the welcome. :) I was just looking through some pages and I wanted to tell you that I think you are handling the problem about copyrights very maturely and patiently. I'm not sure I could be so even in response to how hateful things were getting on the Dan Antinioli page. It made me mad and I wasn't even in the middle of it. I did put in my two cents worth. Thanks again for the welcome. AndToToToo 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)