Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 31 October 2008

Archives

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

Referencing

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

Re: I'm sorry!

No problem at all. I happened to look at the page history and saw that you'd been working on it, but figured you had finished because it was about 15 minutes since your last edit. When I got a edit conflict note I realized you were still working on it and skaddadled off to the Serial killer article. Ugh, trying to find sources for all that uncited info is a real pain in the arse. The beautiful bibliography is useless without page numbers! How goes your editing? --*momoricks* (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to the Wuornos article look good. I'm going to expand the Victims section and find sources about her legal adoption by Arlene Pralle so I can add that back in. As I'm sure you saw on the talk page, the original info was uncited and ridiculously inflammatory/POV. *sigh* Oh, and I read the note on the Zodiac page...ack. Have fun with Andrei! ;) --*momoricks* (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the murders section. The article is starting to look really good. Have a great weekend! --*momoricks* (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

Yes. However, some comments aside, I'm rather hopeful that he can be logically argued to be a more productive than disruptive influence. From the link you gave to this (which I like to hope is a genuine thought); from outright removal of (possibly) spuriously-sourced comments, to asking for sources. That's progress... I hope. :o)

Basically, I think there's hope, even though the memory you evoke was not a pleasant one (and, frankly, somewhat bemusing at the time). If you are aware of the pre-history to that, though, or even if you read between the lines of the BLP-points raised, it becomes clear that "A.K.A.S" did have initial cause for serious complaint against Misplaced Pages. Not against us, nor against many of the people that ire is being (mis)directed at, but certainly cause for very serious complaint. I absolutely disagree with many of the methods by which he seems to be addressing those complaints, and certainly feel that more constructive contributions would go a long way to helping heal the harm, rather than simply fighting fire with fire. I tried to point that out here, and hope that some of those thoughts reached home.

Ultimately, attempting to "unmask," ban, block or otherwise hinder him at the moment is, clearly, going to bring about precisely the situation you mention all over again. If possible, I would like to avoid that. If on this occasion we can all calmly and rationally have a meeting of the minds (and, again, I hope this is possible), then I think there will be a massive positive reached from a pretty nasty negative. I prefer to hope that careful handling, rational discussion, a lot of crossed fingers and some understanding will be a help; while I would pretty much guarantee that any submission/referal/complaint of puppetry (or similar) will swiftly degenerate back into an identical situation, and we'll all be worse off.

I would advise caution. I would prefer everyone to 'let it go' (a little, at least) for the time being, and just think positive thoughts..! I don't want this to escalate further, and I don't think it has to, so...

If this makes any sense (or even if it doesn't!), please comment further. :o) And thanks for mentioning it. ntnon (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, and as I say: 'fingers crossed'. The threats and stalking are totally beyond the pale, I agree. But there's some mitigation (some) to be had from the deeper history of the issues. Conflict of Interest is also an issue, but not one that's particularly high on my agenda - unless it's overly self-serving, un-'notable' or misinformation. And frankly, I can think of few people better to start certain articles than those involved... so long as they maintain a proper degree of attachment and non-bias.

I broadly agree with your old school approach, but there are two obvious flaws: second chances (although the multiple number of second chances some people seem to get with simple things like 'good faith' - there's somebody heading through the Archie Comics articles at the moment randomly erasing details without a thought, comment or edit summary, who seems to just be allowed to continue! That is more of a problem; at least here we have engagement... not always entirely civil, and sometimes downright nasty, but still. There's a dialog.) or the chance to turn over a new leaf, and trying to do what's best, or right. In this, fairly sensitive, case, it would not do anyone much good to go for a puppet-branding and banning, and would likely do ill. That is, I realise, not a million miles from tacit scare tactics, but it's also hand-in-hand with kid gloves and red tape, both of which have some history to them..!

Luck will be helpful. Politeness will be a must, and I may change my hopes shortly, but in the meantime... optimism isn't an inherently bad thing, is it..?! :o) ntnon (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Manson articles

Thanks for the alert re the sock puppet.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinton/Palin

Yep, that would've actually been insulting! Pinkadelica (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Myspace

People really aren't pulling your leg. Validated Myspace sites can be used as being statements from the people that own them. It's subject to the normal problems of primary sourcing: you can't take primary sources as being truth, you can only take them as truly reflecting the statements of the source (i.e., if Lindsay Lohan claimed she was the Queen of Senegal on her Myspace, an article could say "Lohan says she is the Queen of Senegal", not "Lohan is the Queen of Senegal").

As for validating the page, look at http://www.lindsaylohanmusic.com/. It redirects to the Myspace page in question. A whois on that site shows that it is owned and maintained by Motown Records, Lohan's record label. Validates all the way through. Kww (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas

As seen on the Kirk Douglas discussion page: Notability is difficult for me to discern. I have a feeling that it is like art. You know it when you know it. I added the notability phrase to publicly announce why I was adding it. I felt since it was the lead idea expressed in the new york times review of the piece, that was enough for me to consider it notable. One the source of the review. Two the fact it was written 25 years after release. Three I forget what three was for. I am not advocating for a return for the notability phrase. I am just satisfied, the entire edit was not deleted. I had this great picture and felt it needed to be discussed, and did not want to get into a is it notable or non notable debate. cheers I am still new in content creation. I am much more a nit picking tidbitter to existing article.

ps

with the references. if you would share with me,

--K3vin (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I agree with the notability issue, I just am so notabilanoid, it seems every article I work on has a notability template put on it. So I tend to stress things that may fit in the notability guidelines. In this case it was a stretch, in that the review went on to say how poor the production was :-) anyway, thanks again for your helpful guidance. --K3vin (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Our killer pet project

The Wuornos article is getting close to being a GA; however, I've reached the land of confusion with the Serial killer article. While I was trying to improve the Motives section, the sources kept mentioning that most serial killers exhibit numerous motives, which makes it difficult to give examples for each category. Would you mind looking at it? Perhaps we should just give basic descriptions of the four categories and leave it at that. On a different note, I was thinking about going through all the articles and performing citation cleanup/archiving. Are you cool with that? Thanks, --*momoricks* (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I was able to find an example of a mission killer (the Unabomber) from the preview of Serial Murder, but the other examples were of non-notable people or not included in the preview. I'll try to track down a hard copy. I'll also take a look at the list of related articles. --*momoricks* (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Manson tags

Thanks for the message re the fact tags. On the article's discussion page, as you've probably noticed by now, I've presented my reaction to the points raised. We'll see what happens.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The Sock Who Debated Himself. — At the moment, my recommendations re the fact-tagged items are as follows:

1 — The tags in paragraph two's first sentence (re "Helter Skelter") should come out. The sentence is a summary, introductory statement whose claims are presented and documented in detail elsewhere in the article; it doesn't need a footnote or footnotes of its own. (Not sure what the Misplaced Pages procedure is re documentation of this sort of introductory remark. Choosing a particular footnote in support of the summary statement would be difficult. Three or four footnotes would probably be necessary.)

2 — The article's opening sentence should be changed to this:

Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is an American criminal who led what became known as "the Manson Family," a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s.

3 — The DeCarlo-based remarks about girls at Brunner's place should be changed to the following:

After moving in with her, according to a second-hand account, he overcame her resistance to his bringing other women in to live with them; and before long, they were sharing Brunner's residence with eighteen other women.

Of course, Antivert might respond with information that would make me change or withdraw those recommendations. I suppose a waiting period for his or her response is in order, but you would know better than I.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your lucid reply. Maybe you've seen that Antivert has suggested I make the changes mentioned in my talk-page comments. I'm going to enter the revised sentences I presented above.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Taylor & OR

I'm asking you 'cause you know about these things. Sorry, cheesy 80s song cliches aside, do you think it's time the uncited/OR section of the Robert Taylor article should be 86'ed already? It's been uncited for a loooong time (tagged since Feb '08 by me, but there for much longer) and I doubt the anonymous editor who added it in good faith will return to cite it. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I can do that. Let me go see Bob and I'll get started. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you want me to fix what's wrong (some of those will take awhile) or just tag 'em and strike 'em out? Pinkadelica (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm letting you know now that Béla Lugosi is a mess and should be dumped. It has loads of unsourced content, speculation, trivia, pop culture references, etc. You can take a look (I'm still going to finish up some sourcing and then I'll tag it) and then remove it. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Article review

You can strike Julia Stiles off the list or make a note of it since I skipped to the "S" section. I did a checklink, removed the unclear wording, removed all the unsourced content, and sourced the bits that warranted inclusion. I now know way too much about Julia Stiles. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is! I'm guessing someone didn't know how to cite references and put them there and then someone came along and created citations and didn't bother taking them down. That's my guess anyway. They probably can be removed since they're already in the article as far as I can tell. I didn't do a through check as I was going into Julia Stiles overload. By the way, your last question...what the hell? Dumb it down for me....I'm high as a kite on Tylenol severe allergy meds and I'm slow on the uptake. Well, slower than usual. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew that's what you were asking! Here I was chiding myself for thinking that. She's not that I know of. There was some stuff that she "reportedly" dated this dude and some other guy, but I didn't find any thing concrete. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You can cross off Johnny Weissmuller. It still needs additional references (I'll add some later), but other than that, it's good to go. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wowza...that's quite a farm. Thanks for the input. Pinkadelica 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Russell Crowe

Please see Talk:Russell Crowe regarding South Park episode discussion. Thanks. HagenUK (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hello again Wildhartlivie. My apologies for the delay in getting back to you. To answer your first question I wound up working on the Dillinger page after veiwing the 1973 Warren Oates film on cable TV the other night. I know that it has its inaccuracies but I like it anyway. One of the reasons being the fact that Oates and Ben Johnson get the lead roles after years of marvelous supporting performances (they were even brothers once in The Wild Bunch!) Next, thanks for the links to other ongoing projects. As a wikignome I am always looking for other areas to work on and I will be happy to help where I can if, and when, I get the time. Things are a little hectic off-wiki right now so it may be a bit before I can do much. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Would like your advice

Wild, I need advice. May we discuss it here? Then, after a short discussion, I would like you to delete whatever we have determined. Thanks. Hag2 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wild, I have deleted my worries; I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong. I wrestled with my beliefs and eventually realized that the vandal's depth of knowledge had to be coming from an expert. Unfortunately, I must now find corroborating public documentation for most of his additions since he has a low opinion of Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages editors. Hag2 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It does help. It answers a few questions for me. I am glad that you explained IP 76. There is a good possibility that 76 is a person with whom I have experienced unpleasantries elsewhere due to all that conspiracy stuff. New Mexico rings a bell. I agree with your entire assessment, and have no intention of backing away from the need for verification of 71's additions. I should probably move a copy of my query regarding the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Chief Judge's Advisory Report onto 71's talkpage too...just to cover both 71 and 76. Thanks! (p.s. It's a sunny day around here so maybe that will help some headaches. *smile*) Hag2 (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Luciano

Okay, working on Lucky Luciano now ... anything to avoid articles about fiction! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to hand this back to you for some sourcing. The first two sections have no refs. I've skimmed The Five Families, and the other ref available online, and all the relevant external links, and I see nothing to support anything in the first two paragraphs. Do you have any idea where we could source this information from? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Little Girl Lost

Yeah, I'll give it a go. Let me finish up this stupid television show article I stupidly got into cleaning up and I'll fix it. Pinkadelica 03:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks and reads much better. Good job! Pinkadelica 04:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh...it's also liberal whore season apparently :D Pinkadelica 08:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Martinez quote and reference on Charles Whitman Page

The quote references his own book - it is a Vanity Press, paid and distributed by him - NOR should apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Drew Barrymore

Hi, I've had a look and I think it flows well for most of the article. I made one minor change but Drew Barrymore#Other career highlights is the only part of the article that doesn't flow equally with the remainder of the article. I think the article as a whole is effective in its brevity, but within each section there is a logical flow. I think the key is "other" in the header as it suggests that anything that doesn't fit into other sections, goes here, even though the points aren't necessarily related. I also think there are too many "on this date" sentences in a cluster, and some of them aren't significant and don't further an understanding of Barrymore. For example the exact date that she donated 1 million dollars isn't important, and the sentence would be simpler if it was something like "In May 2007, Barrymore was named Ambassador Against Hunger for the United Nations World Food Programme and on March 3, 2008, she later donated $1 million to the Programme something that avoids repeating "Programme"" I think the date and repetition adds clutter, an approximate timeframe is enough, and maybe reducing some of these bits of info throughout will make it flow more smoothly.

On the other hand, it depends on what you're aiming for - I doubt that the article is GA standard, but it's comprehensive and could stand satisfactorily as it is. Rossrs (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ed Gein

I responded to your comments on my talk page. Thank you very much for taling to me about it. --CrohnieGal 10:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so kind and not getting angry with me for causing you extra work. I really appreciate it and yes I was trying in good faith. I will still take a peek at the links Momoricks gave me and see if maybe there is something new that can be added. I haven't really worked an article in this fashion very much so it's more for practice to find WP:RS and so forth. I promise though not to make a mess requiring cleaning! ;) Thanks again for assuming good faith in me and not getting mad. --CrohnieGal 10:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cole & Dylan

Ok, I just watched the whole video and nowhere in it does anyone say anything about ADD. All the video was about was something called Habbo (which I guess is some website) and an interview the boys did that consisted of your basic, run of the mill fangirl questions. If there is something about ADD in there, it must in some kind of code that my old ass can't decipher, but I heard no such admission. As for using YouTube as a source, I wouldn't accept it as one. I don't know if there is a policy about YouTube not being used, but I tend to replace YouTube links anyway because they are forever removing videos and if something is true and noteworthy, there would be more than just a video source. In this case, I found nothing else to back up the ADD claim. Perhaps the person who wants to include it should find a secondary source because the one provided doesn't back up the content. You were right to remove it and it is a BLP issue at this point which means it needs to go until it is properly sourced. Pinkadelica 06:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack! I just saw the talk page where it gives the time and the little caption. On my monitor, the video appears a bit blurry at the bottom and it was hard to read the type underneath without my glasses. You're right, that is hardly an admission and sounds more like it was said as a joke. Since the person who reverted it said the kid said it, I was waiting for him to actually say it. Do you need me to weigh in or anything because I'm guessing you're going to have some problems. Pinkadelica 07:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment. I have no idea how much good it'll do but hopefully it won't be a huge issue for ya. Glad to see your buddy is back and the denial is as deep as ever. Pinkadelica 07:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.212.57.95

It seems highly unlikely that an IP address would suddenly zero in on a specific section of a specific archive. Thanks for helping. I wonder if this is a battle brewing, or just a drive-by. Baseball Bugs 10:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're willing to do all those reversions, go for it. Just be prepared to do it again if he starts an edit war on many fronts. It occurred to me that some of his edits are arguably reasonable. He removed "popular" from the Marx Brothers, although calling that a POV-violation is really nit-picky. However, if they weren't popular, I suppose they wouldn't have an article. Baseball Bugs 10:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like we didn't use "unilaterally" unilaterally. :) Meanwhile, I gather you have NOT looked into whether any of the users in the discussion was ever indef-blocked. I'm looking into that now. Baseball Bugs 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole deal reminds me of one of the many contentious debates with User:Tecmobowl that got him indef-blocked. He was arguing that saying anything in the intros of Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, etc., that defined them as anything more than just ballplayers was "POV-pushing". The way around that, of course, was to point out that they are in the Hall of Fame and to cite polls that include them in the upper echelon of the greatest ballplayers of all time. Even then, as I recall, he wasn't too happy about it. Some users are just obtuse. Luckily, we are not. 0:) Baseball Bugs 10:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at all the users without prejudice. None has ever been indef-blocked, only one short-blocked a year ago, and one declares he has multiple accounts within the rules. Baseball Bugs 11:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet... Obtuse? Moi? And just as I was about to respond to the Audrey Hepburn edit summary of "Bette Davis didn't have award stuff cluttered in the first sent, and she's an FA, Audrey needs more work" with "I knew Bette Davis, I worked with Bette Davis, and you Sir, are no Bette Davis" but then I got your message. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleverness is not obtuseness. Your edit summary idea was clever. Tecmobowl was obtuse. He was so stupid that when he set up a sock after being blocked the first time, it practically screamed "I'm a Tecmobowl sock!" Then he wondered why his sock got blocked so fast. Baseball Bugs 11:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

James Cagney

Hey there. I stumbled across your page after that disucssion with Baseball Bugs about POV pushing in leads etc. Anyway, you seem to have an interest in filmbios, and I'm wondering if you could perhaps give me a hand with Cagney's article, which I seem to be pretty well the only editor working on. I'd be grateful if you could have a look over it and give me any comments on structure etc.

I haven't finished yet (only up to just before the end of Warner Bros part 3 as will become evident when you look at it) and I've lost the will to work on it atm, but I'm hoping a second editor giving me a second pair of eyes will spur me back on. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

They have wi-fi at atm's now? :) Baseball Bugs 12:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Most in central london probably do, actually :p --Ged UK (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. There's no immediate rush. I'm not hugely worried about resources on him yet, I've got two bios and his autobio, which is enough to get me to the e4nd of the article, but obviously the more the merrier. --Ged UK (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, good to have another pair of eyes looking over it. I'm happy for you to work on the template citations. Generally, my stuff is the stuff related to cites from the Warren bio,the Gilligan bio and the autobio, and I think i used the right template for citing those in the notes section. As you can see, I've used a shorter form just referencing the chapter and refering to the text in the notes. Most of the other citations were already there. I agreee there's far too many quotes; I was mainly just trying to make up for the horrendous lack of images. It will be easy to put most of them back into the text. I totally agree with the IMDB trivia. I've slowly been filtering it back into the article when I've found a proper source for it. And yes, I don't really care about his grandson working in a video shop; I appreciate the irony, but this isn't the place for it!--Ged UK (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed the YDD ones on that article the other day, and thought I could probably cope with one of them, it was his Oscar winning film after all. What I'd really love to find though, are some shots of him as himself, rather than stills from films, if that makes sense. There must be pictures around of him from newspapers or magazines. I know he was a private man, but he did lots of Army related fundraising etc. I wouldn't know where to look beyond google, which hasn't been effective so far. --Ged UK (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Public Enemy one is already in there, and it's the actual frame from the film, rather than the rehashed publicity photo. --Ged UK (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your note on Rossrs's talk page. Have you looked at the Commons at ? Ed Fitzgerald 19:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly there's almost nothing in the Commons, 7 items, including categories. We're already using one as the infobox picture, and the other decent one on there is too small to be much use, sadly. --Ged UK (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out, but I think all the pics I've used with Cagney in them have been fair-use. Good luck. Ed Fitzgerald 19:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! --Ged UK (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how useful it will be, but according to this advertisement, the 1945 film Blood on the Sun is in the public domain, so if you find any screenshots from it, they should be usable. Of course, I haven't found any yet. Ed Fitzgerald 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, according to a search for "Cagney" on this commercial site, these Cagney films are also public domain: Great Guy (1936), Something To Sing About (1937) and The Time of Your Life (1948). I'm pretty sure I've seen screenshots for the last of those, which is based on the Saroyan play. Ed Fitzgerald 20:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. I can remember a while back looking for a free image for him so that the infobox would have least have something that was free, and the only free image I could find was the one that is there now. (and although I uploaded it, I'm the first to say it's not very good). I'll do some searching. Rossrs (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Commons has a headshot crop made from your trailer image, but it's not never good, so I tried making another. It, too, has its problems -- mostly it looks very "worked on" (which it was), but at least Cagney's face is larger and more identifiable. If everyone reading this thread could take a look at it and see what you think, I'd appreciate it. If someone thinks it's not an improvement, that's fine, just revert it, no problem. Ed Fitzgerald 02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So, I took a look at what I'd done, and didn't like it that much. I've replaced that version with a black & white version which I think is better. It's still a little fuzzy, but it doesn't have that "manipulated" look that the color one had. You can flip back through the revisions to see the old one. Ed Fitzgerald 02:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks better in terms of composition, especially considering what you had to work with, but I think we still should try to find other images. Rossrs (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, absolutely. I was thinking of this as a temporary measure. Ed Fitzgerald 06:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

An outside authority -- my wife -- says the colored version is better, so I've gone back to it for the moment. No hassles from me if consensus is for the B&W. Ed Fitzgerald 06:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but we'll double-check with your wife Ed.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Gosh, thanks guys. I like the color version better. I'm trying to remember how old an image would have to be to be considered out of copyright. For some reason, 1923 keeps coming to mind. All your help is so appreciated! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

1923 is correct. Rossrs (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is why I love time-zone differences; I go to bed, and when I get up, the article has a great new pic! I agree that something better would be, well, better, but this one is a vast improvement. I agree the coloured version is better. --Ged UK (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded some film trailer images onto Commons. Some are quite good, I think. They are here Rossrs (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! I'm sure we can make good use of those! Thanks! --Ged UK (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure Ged. Rossrs (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent). No problem, Wildhartlivie. Nice to receive a note on my page that doesn't mention my genitals. They've been quite the topic today. :-) Rossrs (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

I apologize for not editing properly. Can you help put that quote into the article? The one that was reverted? I feel it is an important quote, and one that many people are quoting from. It was originally in an interview with the New York Times. Any help with adding it into the article would be appreciated, and again, I apologize for not putting it in correctly. Thanks in advance for your help, and for pointing it out to me. Again, since it's an important quote, and people are using that quote everywhere, much like the "I would never have an affair with a married man" quote, certain quotes can define a person. Thank you so much. Ruth E (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I really screwed up, I didn't read through EOTS's edit properly. Thank you for fixing it correctly. Sorry that I messed up so bad. Ruth E (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cagney filmography

In any case that's the way I've always thought of it, and how I've assembled filmographies. Any thoughts on that, pro or con? Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald 03:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it very much. I understand your ambivalence - if I had my druthers, Misplaced Pages would have a much better search function, or, even better, a search-and-replace function, and then leaving redlinks wouldn't ever be necessary, because it would be easy to retrofit links when new articles are written. (Still, think of the potential for Wiki-wide vandalism if we had search-and-replace!) In the meantime, I guess that evaluating on a case-by-case or type-by-type basis makes the most sense. Best, Ed Fitzgerald 04:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

River Phoenix

Would you mind taking a look at this page? I'm thinking the References in popular culture section is getting out of control and probably needs to be 86'ed. Knowing how erm....devoted those River fans are, I'd like another set of eyes before I make any drastic changes. Pinkadelica 04:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll bring it up on the talk page in the next few days and then get to cutting. I loathe those sections in general. Pinkadelica 05:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't ya just love POV warriors? If you need some help, let me know. Pinkadelica 06:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Martinez Quote on Whitman Page

I addressed this issue for you on my talk page. Your last response was put below it. You never responded, so how can you blame me for not communicating, when it was you who did not respond. In either case, there is a history of Martinez lieing and avoiding the other officers who were in the tower also. I know the history and if I wanted to, I could put it in the article with references. I chose not too, to allow the history to further develop. Again, Vanity presses were not allowed a few years back and it has gone unchallenged long enough. I did put the quote and reference back. My motives are historical, your assumptions are not.Victor9876 (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Here Wild****, I put Martinez' quote back."

For your clarification, I don't have your moniker memorized. You are the only "Wild...." I was responding to. Whatever you perceive I meant is your perception and yours alone. I meant nothing other than to have you recognize that I was addressing you. Now that I'm here, in the future, to prevent these exchanges, please notify me of any changes you deem inappropriate and I'll gladly have a friendly chat. By the way, adding McCoy and Martinez to the opening paragraph doesn't diminish their being mentioned later. In fact, it supports their later appearances. As the paragraph reads now, the whole austin police department can be presummed to have shot Whitman.Victor9876 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh! But the Whitman story is an "Everyman" story. An "All American Boy" story. The media and the University of Texas has quelled and covered it up. True, his deeds were heinous, but his psychosis is an American psychosis, shared by most, but benign in terms of shared actions, his motives were personal. As a former hippie, liberal moderate myself, I find his pathology fasinating, but then, I do have a long history of research and personal involvement with those who were in involved. You might say, I was there in a vicarious sort of way. Check out my Youtube account, a work in progress.

http://www.youtube.com/user/botheredinarms

I forgive you for having a Clinical Psych degree, lol! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll agree that Mr. Victor9876 needs a timeout, as you'll see by his commentary both on my talk page and on the Charles Whitman discussion page. He's like our pal John Bonnacorsi - he's making the Whitman page his own. BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well...BassPlyr is quite the traveling passive-aggressive isn't he/she? If there is some kind of alliance between you two, other than John Bonnacorsi (Partidge Family? Nahhhh!), let me know. Of course, I'll have to re-schedule meeting you on the Empire State Building indefinately! lol!Victor9876 (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that, as usual, an entry by my "pal" BassPlyr23 includes a misspelling (in this case: of my name).JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Doh.

I'm sorry.   19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whew! I'm glad I didn't screw anything up for you. The reflinks tool (the link is in the edit summary) is really, really useful for getting rid of gruntwork. It only works on web references (not for books or whatever; you still have to go manually for those I think), but it makes life SO simple. Just slap your refs in with <ref>http://www.whatever.tld</ref>, save, run the tool. Make sure to check 'use cite web' at the tool interface. And I only found the article because I look for articles with BEL (Bare External Links) with the tool and click 'go'. Cheers!   20:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Checklinks is a different tool--it checks every external link, and reflinks only looks at references. My preferred method is to run reflinks first (because it will also check to see if any links in refs are dead) which places refs into the {{tl:cite}} template, and then run checklinks after all is said and done, to double-check and to cover external links at the bottom of the page.   20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whitman Discussion Page

I answered your input. hope all is well!Victor9876 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're familiar with B. F. Skinner and Harry Stack Sullivan. Why don't you click the link to my Youtube page and send me a message. There are a few things you may want to know that I won't put on Misplaced Pages. Also, the WP:3RR rules have exceptions, one being that since the issue in question is properly placed and sourced, the rule moves to the other edit warrior.Victor9876 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Keira Knightly

I actually never had a problem with the article, gave it as an example of a good article :p When articles are constantly edited it's very hard to keep on top of them isn't it? Million_Moments (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been known to just give up on watching articles. I mostly live in the world of plant pathogens nobody else but me edits :p Million_Moments (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. I had no idea you were working on the Knightley article. Well, keep up the good work. When MM mentioned it, I noticed the citations were a bit inconsistent, and the lead looked short for the article. On Holmes, the article was originally written without named refs. The main author put a ton of time into the article (something like 600 edits over three years including two peer reviews and two FACs), and I think that stands for something. Gimmetrow 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup. At the core I find it frustrating to see people spend a lot of time changing around style and formatting issues. I've been around long enough to know that a few months down the road, someone else will come by and change it again. The Berry article, in particular, went through that cycle twice that I can recall. While the edits that accompany these cycles tend to improve the article, I think edits are rather wasted which change 'Name (date). "Title". Publisher.' to 'Name, "Title", Publisher, date.', if the article is mostly consistent one way or the other. So that's where I'm coming from.

The Holmes article actually has a bit of a problem. Some of the refs don't have enough information to identify the source. The article used to have a big bibliography which had complete info for some sources, but it was too big and got removed. Eventually, someone will need to figure out those refs or supply new refs, ideally before the article gets to WP:FAR. Would you be inclined to help out? Gimmetrow 04:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cher

i'm sorry i didnt know how to use the discussion page. but i still don't know how that topic was unnecessary. i dont think that the paragraph belongs in her article. it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Real182 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

well could the paragraph at least be retitled something like "influence" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Real182 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

i accidentally removed the deadlink. are sources for chastity's birthdate, the movies she starred in and the awrds she won REALLY necessary? those facts are obvious. the movie posters are licensed for wikipedia use since they appear on other pages. i will get sources for the other info if you insist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Real182 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Marlene Dietrich

I figured that - some people don't, but it doesn't bother me (in fact, I rather like it at times). Ed Fitzgerald 02:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Garbo of the Nineties

Uh...well, the awards box was mighty colorful, but I don't think I've ever seen a similar one on any other article. Since I'm sort of a nut for uniformity, replacing the prettifed one with regular one was a good call. As for the link to the fansite, cut it. If there are articles scanned from there, I suggest using the original article as the citation if you can verify the content from the scan. There's no reason why that link should be included at all in my opinion. If I had my way, fansites wouldn't even be listed as external links, but I digress. Now, the Garbo of the Nineties section title is just hilarious and so POV-y that I'm surprised no one else has removed it. Aside from the fact that there's no comparison to Garbo included in that section (or the rest of the article) to support that mess, it should go. The fact that it's in quotes like someone said it is odd too. Pinkadelica 08:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I weighed in at the deletion page. A whole template for four films? Hmm... Pinkadelica 08:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam, etc

No worries. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin

Dear Wild "hart" Livie: Neat fixes to the Aaron Sorkin article. I have found the dead link for the "Interview with Aaron Sorkin and The West Wing pilot script" (PDF). On Writing Magazine, Issue 18. The Writers Guild of America, East, Inc. (February 2003)--quite alive at the Internet Archives. How does one resolve this difference? The other dead link you found to a Steven Spielberg fan site (I believe) should probably just be replaced. Sincerely, Homely Features (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That worked.Homely Features (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Wildhardlivie! I see you fixed the references on the Preity Zinta article. First of all, thank you for doing that. Secondly, your edit created one problem as ref. 75 remains unfixed. Could you please check this? Best, Shshshsh2 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem was with the archivedate which was missing. I've added a date, but I'm not sure it is correct. Shshshsh2 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Screeeech!

Be warned, you're subject to idiotic abuse if you dare touch the Dustin "never met a reality show I wouldn't go on" Diamond page. I guess idiotic is a tad judgmental, but considering I'm a lesbian Nazi, you might want to ignore my opinion. Pinkadelica 06:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lynnette Fromme in Stockton

“it is absolutely a copyright violation to recreate an entire newspaper story.”

Quotation marks were used along with a proper source credit for the original authors of the story. So, I do not see how this can be a copyright violation at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholasweed (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I added information back into article. I reworked it and it is not the entire newspaper article so there should be no copyright issue this time.Nicholasweed —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC).

Aileen Wuornos

Hey there, thanks for nipping the potential edit war in the bud. I posted a note on the article talk page backing you up. I hope all is well with you. --momoricks 01:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I took a look at Ammonitefossils' contributions and they deleted an entire paragraph from the Dumb blonde article (with no edit summary or talk page note) shortly after their edits to this one. I reverted the edit and left a note on their talk page...new users *sigh* :) --momoricks 04:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bare links

Haha... Actually I just look at this link and fix from there :)   16:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Bryant

Would you mind weighing in at Talk:Kobe Bryant on my suggestion that his wife's page be merged/redirected to his? As far as I can tell, she is only famous for being Kobe's wife (and for getting that "I'm sorry I cheated" bling). Pinkadelica 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert

I don't know - I wish I did. I'm probably paranoid but I think that a contemporary performer would be more likely to attract different tendentious editors. I think that Claudette attracts a disproportionate amount of tendentious editing considering she's not well known to a lot of people these days. The copying and pasting external articles into a sandbox, has a familiar style. Could it be the same person who features on the talk page and its archives? I'm always suspicious of new editors that leap straight into doing something I wouldn't expect them to know about, and with this particular article I'm even more suspicious. Rossrs (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

why did you delete the zuguide external link

Please describe what your criteria are for deleting the zuguide link.

I read through the criteria and it seems to fit.

1) The content complements wikipedia 2) The site show media rich content not available on wikipedia 3) There is no need to register 4) The content is licensed

In the case of the Cate Blanchett, zuguide shows movie trailers for movies that she has starred in and seems to be up to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movietrailerfan (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Accurate Info

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/obituaries/death_notices/view.bg?articleid=1073799

Donald E. Wahlberg Dorchester, Mass Monday, February 18, 2008

E-mail Printable (0) Comments Text size Share (0) Rate Donald E. in Dorchester, February 14, 2008. Former husband of Alma E. (Donnelly) Wahlberg of Weymouth. Loving father of Michelle Donnelly of FL, Arthur E. Donnelly of Weymouth, Paul J. Wahlberg of Hingham, James M. Wahlberg of FL, Tracey A. Marcarelli of Holbrook, Robert G. Wahlberg of Dorchester, Donald E. Wahlberg and Mark R. Wahlberg, both of CA, Donna Nelson of Rockland,Scott Wahlberg of Holbrook, and the late Deborah E. Donnelly and Buddy Wahlberg. Brother of Robert Wahlberg of CA, Archie Wahlberg of Quincy, Alfred Wahlberg of NC, Donna Black of Quincy, and the late Thelma Moser, Joe and Paul Wahlberg. Survived by 17 grandchildren, 4 great-grandchildren, and many nieces and nephews. Visiting hours in the Murphy Funeral Home, 1020 Dorchester Ave., DORCHESTER, Monday 4:00 P.M. 8:00 P.M. Funeral Mass in St. Margaret Church of Blessed Mother Teresa Parish, Tuesday morning, February 19, at 10:00 A.M. Relatives and friends invited. Veteran Korean War- U.S. Army. Late member of the Teamsters Local #25. In lieu of flowers, donations in his memory may be made to Marian Manor Nursing Home, 130 Dorchester St., South Boston, MA 02127. Interment in Cedar Grove Cemetery, Dorchester. For directions and guestbook, www.jmurphyfh.com. Funeral Home handicapped accessible with ample parking.

As the person above me asked, I am wondering why you removed accurate information from a listing.

Re: Tina Turner

Oh OK, I got you. Thanks. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor

Umm...this page confuses me. What are the flag icons for and are we suppose to just guess at what year an actor won? How the hell did you find this? Pinkadelica 05:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa...just caught that. I was too busy looking at all those flags. Good intentions I suppose. By the way, I'm off to kill some peacocks over on the Tina Turner page. Pinkadelica 06:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh* I haven't even got that far. Right now, I'm trying to source some of the relevant information. I can tell you now that there's some sources there that probably need to be replaced. Some are from what appear to be a fanclub that is now defunct. My guess is it wasn't an official fanclub and the link shouldn't have been there to begin with. I have no idea how to even assess a good article, but this one ain't good. Pinkadelica 07:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

zuguide

No, I'm don't know User:Sodowe or the site. Just a fan. Is this how it works? Do I write on your talk page or do you write on mine? Movietrailerfan (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mae West

Dang...ya beat me to the punch! This page is a mess and a half. I'm working on a new version that I have saved in a text file so I'll attempt to remove some of that unsourced cruft in the next day or two. Also, I'm going to leave some comments at the Tina Turner talk page if you're still attempting to assess that mess. I did some clean up last night but frankly, I barely scratched the surface. Pinkadelica 02:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love it when someone comes in and bulldozes everything and only uses edit summaries to communicate. I'm thinking a 3RR report might get them talking. If you need some additional backup, let me know. I delisted Colbert weeks ago because it seems to attract the most "interesting" folks. Pinkadelica 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

ok thanks and sorry, i am new and find this oh so confusing, it just took me 10 mins to remember how to post on here! I thought it was your edit, and do apologize! When I clicked to compare the versions, it appeared to my eyes that this what what you took out, Sorry again and I appreciate you letting me know so I can keep looking lol! Thanks so much! Trell24 (talk)Trell24

Thank you User:Wildhartlivie for your welcome note on The Assessment Process. I too am new. I noticed that you contacted User talk:Redcknight too. Good. It is nice to have mates like you who take the time to go into details. This place is a bit disjointed I suppose because of all the information but I think that I am on the right track. ThsQ (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Victor 9876

Sir, I have nothing to do with this wiki user. I just wanted to make that clear. Please do not think that I am associated with Victor9876 in any which way. Him and I have a difference in opinion and that is fine and it has nothing to do with you. I apologized if you thought that I was questioning your educational background. Thanks for responding to his comments. carrt81 (talk)

Talk about a conflict of interest! Carrt81 is either Houston McCoy, his daughter Monika or someone real close to the McCoy's. There's nothing painfully obvious about anything Wildhartlivie, except that you are not an administrator and I considered our conversations friendly and informative. I can't verify your degrees on Misplaced Pages, nor your other bio graphics. In fact, you could be a 25 year old Canadian male that flunked high school for all anyone knows. Where are the opinions in the article you are talking about? Everything is backed with links and as new links become available, I put the info in. I research, McCoy doesn't (assumming Carrt81 is McCoy or an associate), the fact that he referred to you as a male (Sir) is exactly how he starts all of his correspondence. As long as the information is backed with Wiki rules (which you appear to be pedantic about), there should be no concern on your part. I'm not insulting you, but a clinical psychologist, should be very aware of human nature, as being a very precarious subject. I've caused no harm to anyone, and in fact, I've written and corrected about 80% of the Whitman article as Victor and DetroitNews. I was met with a sign-in prompt and forgot the password, so I abandoned the DetroitNews moniker and wrote down everything for Victor. No big deal. Carrt81 contacted me and now wants someone to complain to because he/she can't get things done (look at the history). Now excuse me, I'm meeting someone else on the Empire State Building. Lol!Victor9876 (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just spent forty-five minutes responding to your last entry on my page - only to click the save page button and find an edit conflict, and all the work is now gone. The gist of it all was, don't take things personal...look at my last blanked page...and see Carrt81's comment. Your claims are verifiable on Misplaced Pages. And here is Cart's initial intro to me. So get off my case!

Hey John...how is the documentary going? I never thought I'd see the infamous man who represented Houston McCoy on Misplaced Pages (I read your comment to BassPlayer). I've read alot about you. You have done alot for Houston. We should talk sometime.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrt81 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Victor9876 (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Victor9876 has had more usernames on Misplaced Pages than there are leaks in the Iraq Navy. ALOT. He keeps getting kicked off and banned due to his erratic behavior and obvious emotional involvement with Houston McCoy. I would call it more like an "obsessed fan" One such user who banished him was user Sherurcij, even Jimbo Wales has gotten involved. I am not related to Houston McCoy, nor have I ever met the man, and I have had only one username. Victor simply cannot handle the fact that there is someone out there who knows just as much as him about this incident. Here is a list of Victor9876's other banished usernames.

HoustonMcCoy (yes Victor9876 created an account to pretend he was Houston McCoy to make changes)

Johntex

Truthtruthtruth

Detroitnews9

Victor9876

Let me know if I missed any?

carrt81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

Spreading the love

Check out this. Pure comedy... --momoricks 04:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your relative comment. Guess we'll have to keep an eye on this article just in case. Happy Halloween! --momoricks 05:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin

no problem at all Hmains (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You just made a blanket statement that there was bias, but didn't point anything out. You didn't even say, until this talk message, which way you thought the bias was. I went and looked up the sources for most of the items that were in the section, and read them and considered them in context. Baldwin does a lot of comedy, etc, what is said on a comedy show isn't exactly a political position statement. Also, I have read a Promise to Ourselves, and I have researched the issues the book is talking about. I find, for example, his statement about service off the menu to be highly significant, and it ties into a lot of the complaints about the divorce industry.

I'll be honest with you, I don't watch television and rarely see a movie. I didn't even know who Baldwin was before going into this research on him due to his book. I can tell you, the book is an enlightened work. In a short time he came up to speed and came to conclusions about the divorce industry that took me years to figure out by experiment and investigation.

Also, I would prefer to have a discussion on the discussion page rather than one on one.

Cheers, Dimitrisdad —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC).