[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Welcome!

Peg Entwistle continued vandalisim

Hi. It is obvious what has taken place. Most of my contributions have been removed by Eraser. This person is obviously connected to the vandals. This is outrageous. What is happening here is the reason the public has so much distrust of Wilkipedia. I worked very, very hard to try and give a detailed bio of Peg Entwistle according to the policies of Wiki. Now almost all my work is being removed and changed. Nothing was wrong until I posted a rebuttal on Everything2.com and now all of the sudden Peg Entwistle's page is "too much this," or "not enough that."

What other recourse do I have if people holding a grudge from another site employ Wiki editors to vandalise my efforts under the guise of "contributions?" Jameszerukjr (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle

You people are awesome! Thanks so much. I hadn't noticed some of the other vandalisim. You and the other senior editors have been very helpful from the beginning when I first started to contribute. I, and Peg Entwistle's family, are very grateful. Jameszerukjr (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle/e-mail

Thanks for making the request. I just got done sending a request on that page asking for the Entwistle page to be restricted. Was this the wrong way to go about it? I a total novice at this and I thank you and the other snior editors for getting involved so quickly! Jameszerukjr (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean by removing my e-mail. I went to the page you told me to, but I don't understand what it is you want me to do. Thank you, also, for taking the time to resolve this problem. I see now that the person (s) involved in the activity have taken to write personal messages to me in an "Edit summary" window. James Zeruk Jr

Van Houten's uncertainty

I've set "uncertainly" off with commas and given it its own footnote. The citation -- Bugliosi 1994, page 433 -- is already part of the larger footnote, at the sentence's end; but now the uncertainty is supported specifically. Is that enough to address the problem you saw?

P.S. In case you want to check it in your non-1994 edition: The cite is just past the midpoint of the chapter headed "January 26 — March 17, 1971."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Frakes

Thanks for your message. Having read it, and compared it to other similar articles, it struck me as a 'B', but I am happy to learn from more experienced editors. Dreamspy (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Gene Wilder

No problem, take as long as you guys need. Most of it is minor stuff. I don't know about it appearing as if it were written by a "Spanish monkey", but I've seen worse, trust me. Sometimes I wonder if there really are monkeys on Wikipedia... :) María (habla conmigo) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You really went far and beyond with the CE! I just checked and all of Maria's concerns seemed to have been addressed so yes, let's drop her a note. By the way, are you feeling a future WP:FAC?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to you too!!! I'm a HUGE Wilder fan and I love working on that article so I'm up for FAC whenever you are. By the way, I'm Argentinian, but I've lived in Ireland, Chile, Argentina and for the past 2 years, France :) --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 09:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, let me know when you've found that book, I'll keep checking on the article to see what else I can fix. I'm not a prose master, as you know, but I am a big WP:MOS enthusiast and I have reviewed my share of articles so if you are ever in need of a comment pre-GAN (like for Manson) drop me a note :) .--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Hi, Well I'm back. Had a great time and I am reluctantly phasing myself back into my real life, and out of my perpetual-self-indulgence-fantasy-life ... and tomorrow I go back to ... urrghh.... my real job. urrgh. Thanks for this message about keeping an eye on some articles I care about. I see that things have not been dull here. Really appreciate you getting involved the way you do. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gene Wilder article certainly is very good! Well done and congratulations! Rossrs (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On Valentino

Sir, I know the article doesn't belong to either Thegingerone or me. I'm just trying to make it reliable and factual. I also never wanted to get involved in any edit war either. I love to improve articles related to films, and there's no stalking. I also have joined WikiProjectFilms too. I do not stalk users and I want to make Wikipedia better. Thank you.Kevin j (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In Response

I never intended to make any harsh statements. I felt they were only just rebuttals to comments the user made against me. I don't like it when people make false accusations against me. No, I did not intend to get involved in any edit war and I do want to express my concerns in a mature fashion. I want Wikipedia to be written properly as well. I also never intended to make any use of the "me vs. her" approach.

I don't think it should be just me who does all the edits to the article, but I do want it to be well presented to readers. Sir, I did not ever intend on editing the article so it would only favor my opinions; I want it to have interesting and reliable facts. Also, I'm not saying you've been making false accusations against me, but I do not appreciate when other people do so. Please understand, I do not think that there is anything wrong with other people adding content to Wikipedia articles that is backed by reliable sources; I just don't like it when people delete content that is backed by reliable sources. Thank you. Kevin j (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

I have submitted few of my biographies today for new assessments Yakima Canutt, Anita Loos, Fay Kanin but before I submit her again, could you take another look at Helen Gibson? There were more edits made after your last assessment. One of these days I am gonna get ONE of my articles up to GA, but I keep going back and tweaking earlier articles. Thanks EraserGirl (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since they were under WP:Bio, that's where I submitted them, should I submit then to the other place as well? EraserGirl (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Scrolling lists

Thanks for the heads-up, I knew it was too good to be true. Bzuk (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Congrats on the GA article. As for the scrolling twig, it did look good but if it doesn't work for everyone, it probably comes off as just another flashy "gizmo." FWIW, I do like pretty, shiny things! Bzuk (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC).
Thanks Wildhartlivie, but I've already been warned against using scrolling lists by another user who also highlighted discussions on the subject. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Cheers anyway! --Red Sunset 17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I give up

I trust you see how quickly vandalism of the Manson article has resumed. No serious person can be surprised — yet there is no such thing as permanent protection. Wikipedia is ridiculous.71.242.159.196 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least your request for protection was acted on promptly — and I suppose four months' protection is much better than nothing.71.242.159.196 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lara Berk

Re your Speedy deletion nomination for the article.

I would oppose Speedy Deletion for the following reasons:

--seahamlass 23:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


The last AFD I was involved in got really nasty and personal. I would really rather not go through that. If you want to speedy delete again, I'll not argue.--seahamlass 06:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Manson sentence

Just want to bring to your attention "Manson sentence," a note I've left at [1].JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The user on whose page I left the note has simply deleted it. (I notice he also deleted the note left by you on his talk page maybe a week ago.) I've received no reply. You know much more about Wikipedia than I do: Have I committed a faux pas?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Clear and helpful, as usual.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In the article's "Aftermath" subsection, the same user has created a wikilink to CBS News Nightwatch -- a non-article. Accordingly, the wikilink is red instead of blue; if it's supposed to be removed, would you mind removing it? I'm starting to feel as if I'm hounding the user, who did make valuable revisions.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the redlinks; I'd been wondering whether removal of them was required. Actually, I would have bet Nightwatch had an article; on more than one occasion, I've been surprised to find a Wikipedia article about a subject I could hardly believe anyone had bothered to treat. I watched that show quite a bit. It's also a redlink in the Charlie Rose article, as I just found out. — The semi-protection certainly does make all the difference at the Manson page. Oops — just noticed I neglected to sign in.71.242.115.59 (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons footnotes

Thanks for the note about the Creative Commons footnotes. I'll get back to you about them in a moment; there's something else I'm going to wrap up first.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. — I've replaced two of the three blog-footnotes with the pcmag footnote you found. I've left the third blog-footnote only because it provides a verifying photo, which seems the most-valuable support for the statement about the Creative Commons release. I've reworded the footnote, to indicate that it provides a photo; and I've added a hidden note indicating that that's the justification for it. Does that seem all right to you?

P.S. My impression is that the album has been under a Creative Commons license all along — i.e., since it release, in April 2005. Apparently, somebody — maybe the limewire blog — has simply brought belated attention to the fact.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm uninformed re prison-time moneymaking by Manson and the others, but your hunches sound right. — I'm glad you think the Creative Commons footnotes are now acceptable. It hadn't even struck me that the footnotes I'd originally used were blogs; I suppose the word "blog" in the webpages' addresses should have clued me.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub-headings

I'm glad you think the sub-headings were a good idea; I like your changes, particularly the breaking-up of the trial-section into three subsections, instead of two. — I had thought some of the headings I used were vaguely POV, as you have said; but I figured I'd try them. I wasn't surprised to see you'd changed them — wisely.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I just changed "Later revelations" to "Later events," because (1) Some of the entries — such as the creation of the Manson website and the Inyo Sheriff's reaction to the supposed finds at Barker — are not revelations and (2) some of the revelations — i.e., some of Beausoleil's statements — are arguably not revelations either but are, instead, inconsistent remarks. Also — I'm thinking that, in a general way, it's better to avoid the POV-ness of "Revelations." Why suggest, for example, that Garretson's 1999 statements (as opposed to his 1969 ones) are true/accurate? Allow the reader to decide whether it is his original statements or his later ones (or neither) that are the true or accurate ones.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes — changing "Later developments" back to "Later events" (and simultaneously changing "Enduring concern" to "Recent developments") sounds good. Please do it. — Your elimination of my unnecessary subheadings was good; I knew there was something wrong with them. "Contest" isn't quite doing it for me, either; how about simply "Disruption"?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you execute the change to "Disruption" or "Disruptions" (whichever you prefer) — if you wouldn't mind. It's funny you used the word shenanigans (with respect to another subsection); it's come to my mind, too, as I've been working on these subheadings. — I don't yet have anything better than "Remaining in view," which, as you say, should be changed. I have a few other things to do right now; I'll get back to you on that. Should you come up with anything in the meantime, just let me know.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Still haven't come up with anything to replace "Remaining in view." Even though I'll probably be checking in at Wikipedia again soon, you don't have to wait for my opinion: should you come up with something you like, feel free to execute it. If something comes to me, on the other hand, I'll let you know. Other than that, I suppose the headings are pretty good for the moment. I'll mention that you might want to remove the hyphen from on-going.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of headings that, as you've mentioned, are better if they're not immediately followed by subheadings: Now that I look at it, I'm not sure "Prosecution case" (which comes immediately after "Trial") is necessary. I'll leave it up to you. If you think it may go, feel free to get rid of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Go fix the Carter article

If you have a problem with the Jimmy Carter article, go edit it, don't just put up tags labeling it as biased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazeartist (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Manson swastika

I understand your response to the swastika-tattoo note on the Manson talk page; but inasmuch as this is not the first time the subject has come up, maybe we could try the following:

In video recordings of his 1986, 1992, and 1997 parole hearings, Manson sports a swastika tattoo. Positioned on his forehead, where the X carved during his trial lay, the symbol can be seen at least as early as his 1981 interview with Tom Snyder.

If you approve, I'll place it in the "Parole hearings" section, right after the paragraph that ends with "On May 23, 2007, he was denied etc." I'll do the internal links — to swastika and video. Also, I'll modify the next-paragraph's opening, which reads "Manson will not be eligible again for parole until 2012." I'll write, "Manson, who did not attend his 2007 parole hearing, etc."

Just let me know what you think.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the references to the parole videos and the Tom Snyder video reflect original research, in some sense; but that's a problem we've touched on before: The material is part of history now; does Wikipedia have to wait for somebody outside Wikipedia to refer to it in writing? Maybe so. Anyway — considering the associations the swastika has developed in the Western world, I’m not surprised the tattoo has come up twice on the talk page. I’d probably join you in opposing mention of, say, the earring (which I’m not sure I’ve seen); but my reaction to the request for info on the swastika is pretty much the same as my reaction to the requests for info on Charleston, West Virginia; parole possibility; and the One Mind Creative Commons license: if someone’s interested in the subject, get it into the article.
On the other hand — I’m not favorably impressed by a visitor who would post a talk-page recommendation that other persons do research. If he or she is interested in the subject, he or she should research it — or remain silent.
If you're sure my video-research is out of wiki-bounds, I'll let the subject go. About a third of the way through the Afterword of Bugliosi 1994, the swastika at the 1992 parole hearing is mentioned, but I don’t know of any other written info on the subject. Considering how often Manson’s been seen with the swastika, there’s no point in mentioning its appearance on a single occasion; that would only lead the reader to think it a one-shot thing.
For the record: I’d have to go back to the videos – as I don’t plan to – to make sure the swastika is always counterclockwise; but yes, it probably is. I’m not entirely sure you're right in describing it as "covering the X first carved into his forehead during the Tate-LaBianca murder trial." I suppose I, too, have always thought of it as a reworking of the X — or of a scar of the X; but I'm not sure that's right. In looking at the videos, I was unable to tell whether any scar of the X underlies the swastika, which I suppose is, yes, a genuine tattoo. At 2violent.com, there's a Manson swastika-photo that looks as if it goes back to the period of the trial. That surprises me — but I could easily be wrong that the photo goes back that far. (It's also possible the photo's been altered.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry; I understand what you're saying. When I saw that the subject had come up a second time on the talk page, I decided that (1) it might be worth addressing before it gets addressed carelessly by an editor without any great interest in the page, (2) the tattoo is well-enough-associated with Manson that, for instance, it's in the South Park episode, (3) the symbol does, after all, have quite a bit of punch in the West, and (4) there seems to be some misinformation about it. (For instance: I'm pretty sure that, in some Wikipedia article I skimmed the other day, there was a statement that the swastika had been carved during the trial. Similarly, there is The Case of the Missing Swastika, an essay by a writer who — unless I've read the essay too quickly — seems to have been unaware that the swastika was preceded by the trial-era X.)

Those considerations are outweighed by the lack of a creditable source (to my knowledge) for one or two basic facts — such as the first public view of the tattoo. Should I come across such a source, I might bring the subject to your attention again; otherwise, I, too, am inclined to leave it out of the article.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete it

Feel free to delete the entire section — immediately. The "Tate murders" account that is presently in the article is basically Watson's account, which is coherent; I like it. At the same time, I've been concerned that readers familiar with the Atkins grand-jury account will think the article's account is incorrect — and that, therefore, the article is unreliable. (In a clip I saw at YouTube, the 2004 Helter Skelter TV movie included the indoor-stabbing of Folger.) Accordingly, I've long thought that the details of the Atkins account should be addressed just as I've addressed them now. On the other hand, I was concerned that (1) addressing them that way might be a kind of "original research" and that (2) it might not match the rest of the article (as you have reasonably said it doesn't) — but I wanted to make at least one complete presentation of it in the article, to permit it to be judged. At least, it's now part of the Wikipedia record. As I say: Feel free to get rid of it. (You might want to make a note of this exchange of ours on the talk page.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the right Bruce Davis

In the Shorty Shea paragraph of the Manson article's "Aftermath" section, a wikilink to "Bruce Davis" has been added. After you've clicked it, you'll probably want to remove it; but I'll leave that up to you.71.242.115.59 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I wonder whether the section heading "Investigation and arrest" may be changed simply to "Investigation." Again: I'll leave that up to you.71.242.115.59 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Done on all accounts, including removing the questionable concept art piece which is inappropriate for the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't think the artwork was inappropriate. It bolstered the article's opening statement that Manson became a pop-culture emblem. It was well-positioned, too, I thought, right next to the section about the Family's emergence in the hippie world.71.242.115.59 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If the now-deleted image enhanced the page, self-promotion is, in my view, irrelevant. (I don't know the Wikipedia rules about self-promotion.) The image's colors and deft positioning made the long article easier on the reader. A charge of POV-ness strikes me as off-target: The thing is a specimen of graphic art inspired by the Manson story; that it was positioned in the one of the article's narrative sections — as opposed to, say, "Manson and culture" — made it interesting, non-pat. — Anyway — I'm not really arguing for it.
Yes, I've seen the photo you linked; but I can't identify the men in the back row. You have the front row right, I think: Fromme, Good, Watkins, Share. In at least some parts of 1973's Manson (the documentary), Watkins has longer hair and no mustache; but it's the same face, as far as I can tell.
Sometimes, by the way, I don't realize I've not signed in until I've finished typing a comment on your page. Rather than re-execute the comment, I simply post it with just my IP number. If you happen to recognize the number, just respond on my named user-talk page (unless, for some reason, you don't want to be bothered).
Speaking of self-promotion: After I'd completed my original efforts on Wikipedia's "Charles Manson," "Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)," and "Paul Watkins (Manson Family)," I constructed a website that is an amalgam of them (with additional material). When the site was ready, another editor and I had an exchange that culminated in my briefly announcing the site on the Manson talk page. I invited other editors to look at it and decide whether it would be an appropriate external link on the Manson page. Before long, I deleted the comment; but just in case you're interested in taking a look at the site — which I'm no longer interested in having as a Manson-page external link — it's here. (At some point, I might add to it; but I won't do that soon.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you: Thanks for letting me know the website drew you in. Obviously, Wikipedia's Manson article has expanded, to include info that's not at the site; as I've said, I might eventually add that material.71.242.115.59 (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

Hello Wildhartlivie. I noticed that you have been contributing to Amy Winehouse article. What surprised me in the article was that a main thing like she collaborating with Mark Ronson and making music for the next James Bond movie is not mentioned in the article. I think its a very important topic. What surprises more is that there is a lot of other unimportant stuff in the article, but an important thing like this fails to find a place. This article needs a lot of cleaning up. Wikipedia seems to be quite strict with Biography articles if i could remember. Indianescence (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And yes, just a minor help, here is a source [2] Indianescence (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy

What you did by undoing what you call a "link" on Gacy's address was so OK with me, you didn't even have to waste our time by telling me. I initially put the brackets up because I wanted to see if there was a link with that particular bit of information that someone didn't catch, which I often find this way when editing pages. Obviously, now I know Gacy's address doesn't have a link; but, the reason I left the brackets was so that the address could stand out to the reader. That's all. How many other "Wiki" pages have you seen where some bit of information is left in red? Too many to count, I'm sure. I have. So, rhetorically speaking, why is the Gacy address so important to keep in black? But, like I said, I don't care at all that you changed it, I was just making a point here.

As to the "Edit Summary," I'm still pretty new at this. So, I don't always think of it. Yet, I also really don't like the current "Edit Summary" box, because the space to write, "whatever," is cramped, at best.

Beyond that, like I said, I've only been doing this a few months, and I'm already getting tired of the "thin skins" people have and tired of the people who don't know how to write or who don't do their homework for a particular page, but then they act like authorities on a particular page. However, with what little you communicated to me, I'm not saying you're in that catagory, especially when I don't care that you took the brackets way. But, somewhere along the line, we all have our pet projects and pet ideas. Yet, while we all get to work on any of the pages, none of us owns any of it. Canihaveacookie(talk)

John Wayne Gacy

I only read the first part of your last comment to me before showing up here. So I don't really know what you said to me as a whole. But, I wasn't the one who "put back" the brackets on Gacy's address. I was the one who put them up just before you made the comment that I received on my talk page yesterday. But, how long ago did you first see the brackets up before you saw the brackets I put up? I only put them up the other day, so once, recently, unless you're talking about some months ago that you first saw them up. Months ago it may have been me; but, if I did it then, it was so casual and quick a change I don't remember doing it. But, if you're talking about the address being highlighted days or weeks before you'd seen that I'd done it just the other day, it absolutely wasn't me. I barely remember seeing the Gacy page from months ago and much less doing anything to change it then. But, after that, I wasn't on the Gacy page at all before the last couple of days. So, again, I can't even say that I remember changing anything on the Gacy page before the last couple of days. And, if it happened recently before the last couple of days, it absolutely wasn't me, because I wasn't there. Canihaveacookie(talk)

John Wayne Gacy

As far as Gacy's address, I don't know what to tell you. I know anyone can look to see who edited what pages. But as I said above, I only added the brackets once, the other day. I don't know what happened before that, and I don't know how I was recorded doing it, when I didn't, because I've been more concerned about other pages for many weeks and have been on them and hadn't looked at Gacy until the last couple of days. (As a matter of fact, the only reason I flipped over to Gacy was because I was looking at another serial killer's page.) And, so, how coinsidental would it be then that I would edit the Gacy address a second time (unless I was acting like a 10-year-old and just being stupid). This sounds crazy. I don't know what to tell you.

As far as you being, "thin-skinned," I made a point to state that it was others I was talking about who are on Wikipedia who are that way and not you.

The "Preview" concerns me. I've previewed my stuff before, only to then somehow lose it from the editing stage to the previewing stage. So, I don't trust it. Canihaveacookie(talk)

John Wayne Gacy

I hate to rain on your parade; but, yes, while I was the last one to alter Gacy's address, whether I agree with you or not about the second to last instance, for your own peace of mind, just assume I did it, whether I agree with you or not. That way you know who did it in your own mind. I know Wikipedia has logs and records that show everything everyone has done here and the kitchen sink. However, this running conversation is beginning to border on absurd, for its' lengthy, useless talk about a long-dead serial killer's former address. Can we finally put this to rest, because you'll have the assurance to know that I'll never do it again. Canihaveacookie(talk)

Re "ref" problem

Thanks for letting me know reference problems are usually the cause of disorganization of the type my revision wrought. When I began the edit, "Watkins Chapter 13" already had one of those "name=" footnote-shortcuts, which is what I should have used. Because I was entering the note at a point earlier than that at which the shortcut was defined, I decided to move the definer up (i.e., to the point at which I was inserting the note) and then simply insert the shortcut where the definer had been. (Hope that's clear.) That mixed up everything. Eventually, to get things back in shape, I put the definer back where it had been and just entered the shortcut at my new-footnote point.

By the way: Because I'd prefer to see the article stabilized at this point, I was reluctant to make the revision at all; but I've long been bothered that the article's explanation of the Family's move to Canoga Park was incomplete and, thus, possibly misleading. In the Bugliosi-Gentry book and in his autobiography, Watkins indicates that the Family moved to Canoga Park to "watch [Helter Skelter] coming down and see all of the things going on in the city" (as he's quoted in Bugliosi) — to be "closer to the action for a while" (as he says in his biography, where he is quoting a statement as to Manson's thinking).

In addressing that subject, I debated whether to say the Family would be "monitoring" Helter Skelter's supposed onset or simply "observing" it. Although "monitor" moves the narrative more effectively, I wasn't sure whether it reflects a fair reading of Watkins's report. Arguably, all he said was that the Family was going to "observe" the onset; but because he seems to indicate (later in his biography) that he eventually feared that the Family was waiting too long to get out of L.A., "monitor" seemed to communicate what he was getting at. If you think I'm being unjustifiably interpretive, please change it to "observe." (The Bugliosi-Gentry reference, incidentally, is about two-thirds of the way through the chapter headed "February 1970.")JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for your suggestion--Ekyaw (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle and James Zeruk contributions

I find the linking to the "Hollywood Sign Girl" fan page, unprofessional and not in keeping with proper WP referencing. The links are indirect leading to the flashpage on the front of the website, and the material is merely reprinted from elsewhere. Citing a New York Times or other newspaper item, if linked which it need not be, should be linked directly to the original item of the source site, such as the New York times archives. Material found at this fan site that is NOT reprinted, should be considered original research and not included as citable references. I propose cleaning up the citations to wiki standard and removing this link farm, and leaving the fan page as merely an external link. Do you concur? EraserGirl (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle

I wasn't aware of the link problem. Yes I had the link directed to the "agreement"page of my site, but you have to know I did not do this with malice--I did this after images were copied from the site. I had no idea about the Wiki policy. My fault, yes, but hardly deserving the death penalty of my Wiki contributions. I think I should have been informed before hand, given a chance to rectify the problem--which you know from you past experience with me, would have been done.

Having said that. Maybe Eraser is not a involved with Everything2.com, but why, why, WHY is virtually all my work gone from the page? Why now, on the heels of the vandalisim, is my contribution suddenly unprofessional? Why are most of my edits not good enough? Why is information being taken from public view? The timing is suspect. The removal of so much of my hard work is supect.

Why would Eraser not contact me first to discuss the matter? Why remove so much of an editors's hard work (I worked every day for a month to do what was required of me!). The Entwistle page was a tabloid before I started editing. There were no sources cited (I hardly consider "find a death," and "find a grave" dot com as a "source."

This is outrageous and completely unfair. The Entwistle page has been chopped to mearly a few paragraphs...and only after suffering attacks from vandals. Don't you see...Eraser did more damage to my efforts and the page than the vandals. The vandals wanted to remove much of my work...the page gets a "Protection" and while "Protected" a senior editor removes nearly ALL of my work and cleverly cites policy as the reason for so much removal.

I am more than willing to go by policy. How many times have you and other editors I worked with heard me say "I'm a rookie?"

Should not Eraser be more intent on helping creat a better editor out of a rookie? I would have taken Eraser's suggestions, guidance, etc., as I have with other editors.

I have been insulted, and humiliated and in my complaints accused of making "personal attacks." This on the day after vandals attacked my work...on the day I went back to the vandals on their site and told them they failed, that Wikipedia Administraitors have corrected the vandalisim and protected the page...you do the math.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

Thank you for all you have done for me.

Thanks to Rossrs, and Talkative, as well...the 3 of you were kind and patient to me when I first came aboard. I won't forget that. Now, knowing that any future edits and contributions made by me will not be accepted or simply vanish under the authoritive "blue pencil" of a Peg Entwistle "expert" such as Eraser, I shall go...Eraser and the vandals at Everything2.com have won the day--I am not returning. They can call Peg Entwistle a whore on Wikipedia for all I care now (which, by the way, was how all this started at the other site!)

The public has long considered Wikipedia a "joke" because of the lack of research and vandalisim. I tried to change that conception in a small part of the Wiki world called "Peg Entwistle." It's obvious I not only failed, I was conspired against to fail by the same people claiming my work was "protected" and yet suddenly "unprofessional"


Consider this my "Resignation." Best wishes to you, Jameszerukjr (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

IBDB

Hi, again. I just saw the article talk page...makes me want to cry...it is just more proof that Eraser has it out for me. It also proves she is not as smart as she thinks. She knows nothing about the history of the IBDB, it's purpose and goal. She knows nothing of Peg Entwistle's stage career...why does Eraser presume that Peg only acted on Broadway?

What kind of ignorant, arrogant assumption is that?

This is why I should have been consulted prior to any action on the page. I AM 100% CONVINCED THAT ERASER HAS DETERMINED TO UNDERMINE ALL I HAVE DONE REGARDING PEG ENTWISTLE'S WIKI. ERASER REMOVED MOST OF MY WORK AND RESEARCH WHILE NOT EVEN KNOWING, INVESTIGATING, OR DETERMINING THE TRUTH OF MY WORK AND THE SOURCES APART FROM BROADWAY...THIS, NO DOUBT, IS BASED ON A HIGH-BROW ATTITUDE THAT PRESUMES I AM NOTHING MORE THAN A HACK WRITER WITH A "FAN SITE."

Funny thing, my "fan site" has more data about Entwistle's Brodway shows than the IBDB has!

IT ALL SMELLs SO, SO BAD...

See, this is why I should have been consulted before Erasergirl erased all my work. She knows nothing of the history of Peg Entwistle's career. Entwistle was in over 30 plays which are not listed in the IBDB because they were not Broadway productions! Don't you see? This is all a personal attack on my by Erasergirl! A simple inquiry to me regarding Entwistle's plays would have cleared this up in minutes! Eraser doesn't question The Mad Hopes, why? This makes no sense at all. EVERY SINGLE THING I WROTE ABOUT PEG IS PROVABLE...I have photos of her at the Jewett Repertory...letters from Blanche Yurka to the family discussing Peg, reviews from around the country...all shows never seen on Broadway, thus, NOT IN THE BROADWAY DATA BASE! Jameszerukjr (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh will you CALM THE HELL DOWN? I only used that effing database to check on the DIRECTOR'S credits - you dope. You labeled the GD section BROADWAY! you didn't LABEL IT BROADWAY AND OTHER CITIES!. SO I made the assumption based on misleading information. If you HAVE So much about her life on the stage PUT IT IN THE BLOODY ARTICLE. I would never remove data about the ACTUAL subject. THAT's IMPORTANT. Create a list of all her performances and where and when. now THAT'S INTERESTING! Look I don't know you from Adam and I could give a damn about attacking you personally. I am only interested in making the Entwistle article BETTER - and after all the postings you and I have done in the last hour, I think you KNOW that by now. EraserGirl (talk)

I apologize I didn't realize what I said was interpreted as an attack, I was trying to say that I WASN'T attacking anyone. EraserGirl (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa

Good sir? My goodness! Is there something you need to tell me? All you need is a few quips about kinescopes & interlibrary loans and this will be like the good old days of battle. Pinkadelica 06:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw that. How could I not? If you need any help, just let me know. I've already reverted an unexplained edit. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think that website, no matter how throughly researched and interesting, is official. Pinkadelica 07:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Judging from your talk page, yeah, I'd say it was a wee bit out of hand. Pinkadelica 07:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't blame you for that. Who is ever in the mood for that? I went ahead and made some changes. Nothing drastic, just a bit of a clean up. I think this article is the victim of too many cooks in the kitchen. Who knew a woman who only appeared in a few films could be so controversial. Reminds me of another article I worked on. Hmmm.... Pinkadelica 07:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I did. lol I too wonder if there's a JFK connection. It's all linked, you know. I'll bet the acclaimed James Ellroy wrote a book, or at least devoted a chapter to her. He's sooooo smart and he's the only one I look to for answers when things don't quite add up. Pinkadelica 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, no there's the voice of reason. Pinkadelica 09:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pink for correcting the citations, I was just too tired to reformat them as well. I guess I need to apologize all around for messing with other people's stuff. My ASShatted assumption was that all the self references to an external page, which smacks of fanism, was self aggrandizement and it wigged me out. Sometimes we fall in love with the research process, and forget it is all about the subject. As for accidentally lopping off Bette Davis, that was an accident. Thanks for putting it back. I had pasted it to the clipboard to move the para around, and forgot to replace it. My bad. EraserGirl (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

James Zeruk Jr Apology

Hi. I'd offer you an aspirin but I'm all out of them. I am sorry for the headaches I've caused and for my reaction and the things I said, and for carrying-over my dispute to your TALK page.

I have offered an apology to Erasergirl on her page, as well. I hadn't seen her angry reply here until just minutes ago. I laughed when she called me a "dope." It brought me down to earth. I was a dope, will likely be a dope again, but it won't be here--I mean I won't over-react and get all emotional and weird on Wiki.

I mentioned to Eraser why I omitted most of Entwistle's cross-country stage productions. I was saving all that for the book. This is why I haven't added more images and things to my site...I'm wanting to surprise the readers with an "exclusive." I am also fearful that if I put all I have out now, someone will write their own book. I'm being selfish and paranoid, perhaps, yet that's the reason.

The article actually looks pretty good as it is now. It is lean, that's for sure. However, it sure beats what was first there before I signed on to Wiki!

Please accept my apology. Thanks. James. Jameszerukjr (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

filmography tabling

I keep losing track of that list of actors whose filmographies need tabling. Can you send me the link, so i can add it to my busy work list? It should be obvious where it is, but I am having a stupid day. EraserGirl (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As you've probably noticed, an editor has revised the Manson article's opening sentence. In changing the phrase "U.S. state of California" simply to "California" (presumably to offset the word-length increase produced by other parts of the revision), he or she eliminated the wikilink to "California." Maybe the link should be put back, but I'll leave that up to you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Special Award

The Special Barnstar
I hereby award The Special Barnstar to you for your great contributions to the first half of WikiProject Biography Spring 2008 Assessment Drive. Keep doing well in second half of it. :) Solar-Poseidon 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi - I wanted to let you know there's been a request for arbitration on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), if you're interested in making a statement. It has not been accepted, at least not yet, so you'll find it on the main ArbCom page. After I made my comment, I thought I'd leave a note here to see if you had something to say also. Hope all is well with you and that you have a nice week! :-) - KrakatoaKatie 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why were all of my naturalismo links removed from every page? I had posted relevant links to naturalismo interviews with specific artists on those artists' pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMcWilly (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Question

I think the answer is "yes". I've blocked the account. While in theory the edits of banned users may be reverted, however much of the removed material appears to have been sourced to forums. For that reason I think we should be careful about restoring material that was deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

advice

I am trolling for advice on Dorothy Hale I am trying to get her to B status..then I can die happy. But I am just not getting reassessed. I know it will never grow beyond that as there isn't a huge amount of data on this woman. she wasn't THAT important. What happened AFTER she died eclipsed her life. I have found a few more tidbits to add to it, but I am not going to get a lot more material. Even at this point, every book I read just rehashes Clare Boothe Luce's interviews, and she almost never said the same thing twice - so her stories are less than accurate, I get the feeling she wished she never met Hale. (i'm really starting to hate Luce - she was a serious bitchy snob) any advice you can give me or tweaks you can make would be appreciated. EraserGirl (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I THINK I got all the CNs, basically I used the references I already had. The items you tagged where the ones that are uniform from source to source to source. As for the legend on the painting, it isn't exact, as the legend is in Spanish. But it's a good translation, and indeed Frida's name was missing after the 'it'. I talked to the Smithsonian today, they don't have the owner of the Noguchi/Hale sculpture listed, I am hoping it will turn up in one of the books about him I am getting. I could add lots of little asides and stuff, but they don't relate directly to her. I don't want to end up creating another Entwistle. I need to stop fiddling with this article and go back to Harrison and Kaus, they are waiting patiently. EraserGirl (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy thanks you. EraserGirl (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cover version

In the Manson article's intro, there is a statement that a number of artists have "covered" Manson's songs. It might be good to make the word "covered" a wikilink to cover version -- although I'll point out that, in giving the "cover version" article a quick read, I saw no authoritative indication that personnel of record companies or radio networks etc. actually use the terms "cover" or "cover version." A simple change of the Manson-article's verb to "recorded" might be better.

P.S. I can see you're en route to a back-and-forth with the editor who's posting that blog/forum among the article's External Links. I really don't know the pertinent Wikipedia guidelines, but my sense is that he or she is being unreasonable.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Manson nomination

Thanks for letting me know about the Good Article nomination. Yes, the article looks pretty stable. The semi-protection certainly has helped -- not only because it has stopped the vandalism. It's allowed editors, including you and me, to concentrate on what's important.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice anything you typed that would possibly be viewed as inflammatory - at least towards me. I find it ironic, however, that you accuse the other editor of possessiveness of the Manson article, and yet I was called a troublemaker (by you) and accused of being a sockpuppet (by him) when I made the same statement about the same guy involving the same article less than seven months ago. Vindication does feel good.
Although the above statement makes me sound bitter, I'm not. It's not worth it. I'd hope that you wouldn't let this guy get to you and continue your involvement with this article, considering that you've been a voice of reason throughout this whole imbroglio.
I've suggested to him that in order to whittle down the article, a couple of new articles could be created - possibly titled "Tate-LaBianca Murders" (to deal with the specific crimes and their aftermath) and "Manson Family" (to discuss his co-defendants and associates and their additional crimes after Manson's incarceration). Minimal re-typing would need to be done, and the effect would be to meet the guidelines you've suggested. BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Puppetry

I notice that you've tagged Don Murphy's the new user(name) "My Very Educated Mother" as a likely sock puppet. Is it allowable, under this logic, to automatically revert his this user's edits at Larry Cohen and Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit despite him someone having also edited the quote that the now-deleted information was sourced from, or does Wikipedia protocol demanding sources preclude such an action? (I suppose it is possible that the information originally posted was inaccurate, and that's why these edits occurred, but...) ntnon (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't see that there's really any other conclusion to draw, regarding who removed what, my only concern is whether to assume that there could be a valid reason (which the comments made upon removal decry, to my eyes) for it, or whether to re-source the same comment. This is an issue which is fairly crucial to the story in question (who settled and how, impacting on - at least to his mind - the moral character of Mr Moore), but not something that is easy to source, without talking to the lawyers involved! Reading the back-and-forth on the message board (which I'm not suggesting you do!) makes it clear just how much of a challenge it was to draw the comment that was ultimately made -- and has now been removed. Finding a different source seems most unlikely, hence the query. :o) ntnon (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"Two a penny/far too many" - [on this incarnation]..? :o) ntnon (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this happen regularly..? I thought I'd been quite polite with him... ntnon (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Mm. And I thought I'd taken pains to note that, while it didn't seem particularly helpful to remove footnotes here "because they don't exist," where the logic underpinning that claim is that they DID exist, but were subsequently deleted, it is his prerogative. I would have been more than happy to welcome his (constructive) input (hence my query on his new-new-talk-page, which I can only assume he thought sarcastic. It's obviously of considerable help generally when involved-parties can edit and revise "Real life" articles, even if some of those revisions can have the side-effect of gutting the articles. However, this is just nasty, unhelpful and troubling threatening behaviour. ntnon (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite. Hence my wondering just how much credence to place in his words. If it's flippancy, it's in very poor taste indeed (and seems to credit yourself and myself with malice-towards-him that is not implied or intended). If it's genuine, then... well. ntnon (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
My unsolicited two cents: Talking about him is getting him off. Best thing is not respond on here in anyway. Blank his edits. Don't communicate on any pages in Wikipedia about "feelings" that you might have about him. Blank-Ignore-Move on. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the Manson subsection headed "First offenses," there's a sentence that begins, "For the federal crime of taking a stolen car across a state line." This is the article's first reference to federal crime, which comes up again. Maybe it should be wikilinked to federal crime. I'll leave that up to you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Albert DeSalvo

Thanks for the note on your objections to the Albert DeSalvo edit, but it did site the Lawrence Eagle Tribune as the source. The Eagle Tribune, The Boston Globe and The Associated Press reported the same pieces of information. If you have no objections, I will restore your edits with the principal citation. The Eagle Tribune was listed as the source in my previous edits. I am unclear why you feel that violates the principles of verifiability, especially all of the information was either discussed by the subject himself, his attorney and in a courtroom. Let me know if I am missing your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.54.66 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

DeSalvo Redux

Thanks. Your advice was very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.54.66 (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Richard Arthur Norton/footnote request for arbitration is now open

This RFAr that you commented on has been accepted and is now open. If you wish you can add a statement on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Evidence page. Apparently it's valid just to copy your comment from the requests page (available here) and paste it to the Evidence page.

Thanks! RedSpruce (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Warning Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."


1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255
AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255
AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

Thanks! ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


HC is back if you want to jump on him 92.11.220.13 (talk · contribs) IP4240207xx (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm...

I see that the fantastic article on Laurence Olivier was declared a "top priority" recently. Scrolling up I see lots of complaints that are simply no longer there. Was the article in its current form updated as part of the top priority effort? If so, kudos! Maybe someone will do that to one of my pages some day! Maury (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Howson

Thank you for your note at my talkpage; I assure you that it was an inadvertent error. Poor copying and pasting. I'll make an effort to not remove such assessments again.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pai Ping-ping

I would like to undelete this - She is a well known figure in Taiwan. (Notice the ZH link?) - She is a celebrity and actress (that should have stated the importance)

I feel the nomination for CSD and the deletion itself were done in error, so I would like to undelete this article and add press sources. About 48 hours from now if I do not receive any reply I will undelete the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hello, Wildhartlivie. I feel like we've talked before because I see you around a lot. Maybe we have talked before.

Anyway, I see that you are great at copyediting and was wondering if you would not mind copyediting the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article for me, maybe give some insight on the talk page about what you think will improve that article. I'm pretty sure it's GA (Good Article) material already, but I'm looking to nominate it for FA (Featured Article). I know that it needs more tweaks, though, before that.

Currently, I have my hands busy with many other things, on and off Wikipedia, and I listed this article with the League of Copyeditors. The league may take a long time before getting around to this article, though, like last time I listed it there. In fact, they never got around to it at all. So any help from you would be much appreciated.

I'll see you around. And thanks for your time. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind

Hey, never mind, you're probably busy with other matters as well. Don't worry about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas Honorary Oscar Video

Greetings ...

I was curious as to why the link to the Youtube video clip of Kirk Douglas' acceptance of his Honorary Oscar was removed. The clip had been officially put on Youtube by the Academy Awards people, so I reasoned it was worthy of a mention on Kirk Douglas' Wikipedia entry.

Would a Wikipedia references link to the video - placed in the CAREER section of Douglas Wiki bio where the Honorary Oscar is mentioned - be acceptable?

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank Fgf2007 (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Depp Actors Studio tape

Hi, folks. My citation for the Johnny Depp "Inside the Actors Studio" interview was removed (back in February). I don't get why my citation of this TV program, a DVD of which is now available for sale at Amazon.com -- see http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Actors-Studio-Johnny-Depp/dp/B000N2HDJQ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1210776451&sr=8-1 -- isn't as valid as a citation of a book. I can pull ISBN numbers etc for the citation if that's what's required. (I probably haven't followed all the guidelines on this post, but I stopped editing Wikipedia pages for the most part several years ago.) Lblanchard (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Howard Johns and 200.56.x.x

Hola!

I noticed that you did this edit to Brad Dexter. I am trying to purge any edits by Howard Johns, mainly IPs 206.56.xx.xx.

The edits by 200.56.x.x are either Howard Johns himself, or his publicist. They constitute Original Research and POV. Un-Verifiable gossip and innuendo is what I see, from a guy just trying to sell books mainly about dead people. Cheap trash robbing the pockets of someone in their grave.

If you would like to help let me know. I calculate at least 146 articles. I have started, but wouldn't mind some help if you want to.

IP4240207xx (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! How about taking: 200.56.196.73 (talk · contribs), revert all contributions. IP4240207xx (talk)
PS: On my talk page is a section called Howard Johns. I am putting  Done mark in front of the one I have done. IP4240207xx (talk)
No, I guess you can leave those, although there shouldn't be many. Just take out the reference (s) (although I hate to see any references go because we are so under-refed) and any mention of Howard Johns in the article. But, you can leave minor spelling and Wikilinks stuff. Thanks. IP4240207xx (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This one: 200.56.196.73??? All the edits should look like this:
  • ref>Howard Johns. Palm Springs Confidential: Playground of the Stars, Barricade Books, Fort Lee, NJ (2004). ISBN-13: 9781569802977 ISBN: 1569802971</ref>
Well, you are working on the same IP as I am, 200.56.196.53, I just wanted you to do 200.56.196.73, it is smaller. And you can just mark the IP done when you are done with the entire thing, about 30 articles.
Oh, and (this is kind of funny) if one of the ref tags has not been put in the article, the additions don't show up, but they aren't bright enough to see that and don't fix it. They just add the book and move on to the next one.
I am done with my IP, are you almost done? IP4240207xx (talk)
WOW! You caught one that I missed in Edmund Goulding....THANKS! Go for drink? IP4240207xx (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Not tonight. I am burnt. Thanks again for your help. Boy, when you do this you find SO many errors in articles, and how inconsistent they are, and most of these are "Hollywood" type articles, they should have a very similar look and feel. SO much work. IP4240207xx (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I kept wanting to stop and go through entire articles, but I knew that if I did I would get side-tracked. I guess we could start again and edits these articles to a consistent feel? If you are ambitious. IP4240207xx (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Question revisited

I don't know the banned user's habits well-enough to tell. If you are sure beyond any doubt then we can block the account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse

Done. Pinkadelica 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on: User talk:Interbang

I understand and will abide by your admonition with regard to User talk:Pinkadelica. I would, though, ask you in all sincerity and earnestness if you would likewise assess the tone of the comments which that particular user directed toward me, including her initial one, to be in strict conformity with those guidelines to which you referred me.

I also wish to inquire what recourse a Wikipedia user has in those instances in which another user takes it upon him or herself to delete content or external links in the absence of understanding the background of the subject matter in question.

And finally, I would also ask this: What is Wikipedia's policy with regard to a user who deletes text or a link and then, after one or both are restored, subsequently claims to have never had any objection to the very content which that user removed in the first place? For that is exactly what occurred in the situation hereunder.

I ask the above questions with no disrespect, but with only the desire to understand Wikipedia's policies in these areas and to know how fairly and evenly those policies are applied.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Interbang (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Interbang

Conclusion

Dig turns up no bodies at Manson ranch site CNN.com, 21 May 2008. Retrieved 23 May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.134.38 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with Category and Lists

Thanks again for your help with Bonnie & Clyde - your edits were perfect and helped me better understand how to format content and limit it to the topic - Very good - Thanks
Could you please advise or direct me to some instruction on how to edit LISTS within a CATEGORY - For example, there is a category called: Category:Undertaking with a list of pages divided by alphabet about some prominent undertakers - if I wanted to add a new to this list, how do I do it?? Any help would be appreciated! --Jim Moshinskie, PhD (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Rare Earth

I do have permission from the lead band member, Gil Bridges, to change or edit information on Wikipedia per his request. If there is any supporting documentation needed please request. I have been extremely busy with him and the band as their new album just came out. Thanks for your help. 69.133.89.131 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jonestown

Is this just about the "See Also" section or about content as well? Frankly, I'm lost because I'm only seeing very minor differences between the two warring editors. Pinkadelica 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WTH? Are you even involved in this? I don't see any recent contributions from you and I don't see you even saying anything on the talk page, so I will assume that's a no. Just another odd rambling I suppose. I do agree though, something needs to be done. Pinkadelica 07:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If you need any help, let me know. Pinkadelica 08:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

POV tag for American Australian

Hi - saw you tagged the American Australian article with {{POV}} - no problems with the tag if you explain the issues on the talk page as per the tag's text see the discussion on the talk page. There is currently no discussion there and it is not clear what the problem with the article is. Thanks --Matilda talk 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are referenced on discussion page for Jim Morrison

Have you read the comments about yourself, Wildhartlivie, on the Discussion page for the Jim Morrison article? There is some concern that if you get wind of it, then you will transform Morrison into a gay man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.176.245 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started both an attack and sockpuppet case. Also, looking at Nyannrunning (talk · contribs) edit summary's they look VERY familiar to me (of a banned user), but it is so late and my brain is fried that I can't remember who's they are exactly like. Maybe you can look at them and remember. IP4240207xx (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie said on someone else's talk page that my "style" is the same as the style of two other people in Los Angeles. Maybe we are the ones with fried brains and you are an editor at Style magazine who is forced to listen to Jim Morrison sing L.A. Woman too many times. Visit The Gap and you will find the memory you're looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.176.245 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

Why does this posting remind me of that old Susan Powter commercial: Stop the insanity! 
Please be so kind as to register a username, or use your existing one, to contact me. 
I will not succumb to taunts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Sorry, I was out of the loop, you did a lot on the second case! Way to go. Be vigilant. IP4240207xx (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Re: Awards

Although it's at MOS:FILM, the same principle applies. The first sentence should simply say who or what the subject is. How well they do it goes after. Winning awards is something people have done, but it's not what defines them. You wouldn't start with "Carmen Electra is a Razzie-winning actress" eventhough it's true (I'm sure you can see the POV in that). This issue was also disussed at WT:Neutral point of view/Archive 29#POV in first sentence?. There's nothing wrong with awards in the intro, but to introduce people that way implies bias. Spellcast (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand some FAs do this, but it doesn't mean every detail in the article complies with the guidelines (today's front page Ran being one example!). It's a non sequitur to say it's ok to add it because certain articles have it. Davis is an actress first and foremost and "Academy Award-winning" puts an unnecessary emphasis on that award when she has other prestigious achievements like Emmys and Golden Globes. It's much more informative to get into the details a few sentences later. Of course Oscars should be stated, but they aren't the main focus of the article, so they shouldn't be the first thing to be mentioned. BTW, I first saw this "award-winning" issue at Christina Aguilera (link); the "Grammy-winning" intro was disputed (even making The NY Times). Spellcast (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WML etc.

Thanks for the heads up :) TheHYPO (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The fight against crime

I found a new toy in the Wikifight against vandals.

What do you think??? Oh, maybe you have already seen it...IP4240207xx (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to see some Doris Day, some flowers, puppies, articles like that popping up on your list, or I'll get worried...IP4240207xx (talk)
I removed the lists, don't need them sitting around cluttering up the talkbox, Peter Frampton. Here was what I was thinking, create a new account, say Wildhartlivietoo and then put all the pages from the vandal you are tracking on the watch list for that account? So, what's her name and all her socks top 15 pages. Then you could just sign in and check the history? IP4240207xx (talk)
Yes, if you run that list on me, half of those articles/edits are reversion of HC+SPs. Just imagine if there wasn't any vandalism? IP4240207xx (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Sorta, yeah. It's like there's no war to fight anymore. It's almost boring now. By the way, I have a question for you, I'll shoot you an email. Pinkadelica 05:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but who else is going to do such detailed research involving kinescopes and interlibrary loans? Pinkadelica 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my user page. Don't you just love vandals and their unique sense of originality? Pinkadelica 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


The Mickey Mouse Club

I am having trouble with an editor removing information of mine that is sourced and cited very well. They are telling me that an "uninterested" editor needs to publish the information, which makes no sense to me as an "uninterested" editor would have no reason to do so. Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club, and I have cited numerous Official, Reliable, Non-Secondary Disney Publications that provide this information clearly. The editor keeps removing the information without taking the time to check the sources, which can be done if a small amount of effort is put into it. I believe that this goes against Wiki policy as well as a major lack of the assumption of good faith. Removing unsourced information is one thing, but when an editor takes the time to make an article more informative and accurate, it's very discouraging. Please help!

Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Award winning actors

Hi Wildhartlivie, I was wondering if you know where it is written that we should avoid going into award overdrive in the opening sentence of actor articles. I notice Judy Garland has won just about every award going, and so it's now all blurted out in the first sentence. Also - have you read the first sentence of Marilyn Monroe? What a laundry list. I wonder if anyone has actually read it out loud. It makes me cringe, especially with all the citations (sourced fluff is still fluff in my opinion) and the word "icon" should be struck from Wikipedia's lexicon. (See Julie Andrews - I removed "icon" and it was about 5 minutes later that it was angrily reinserted) I'm hesitant to do anything that will just get reverted straight away. I've looked at the MoS for biographies, and Marilyn Monroe could probably be fixed if the guideline was adhered to. Do you think the awards come under the heading of "peacock terms"? If the awards have to be mentioned, I think it's far better executed in Paul Newman's article. I would be interested in your opinion. Rossrs (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was so hoping there was a law somewhere carved in stone, so I'll give it some more thought. I guess it's not exactly "peacockery" but perhaps it's "undue emphasis". Garland's article didn't have the award references in the opening sentence when it passed FA - that's been added later. Even so, nobody's been bothered enough by it to remove it. I may try rewording it Paul Newmanesque and see what happens. Marilyn is going to require more creativity than I can muster at the moment. Yikes!  :-) cheers Rossrs (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well funny you should mention... I've just hit the "save page" button on Judy Garland (and Paul Newman and Katharine Hepburn - living dangerously....). I'd appreciate your thoughts, especially regarding Garland. I didn't actually remove anything, but just gave it the context and the explanation that was missing, so I can't imagine that I've offended any Garlandites. The Marilynites scare me though. Rossrs (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks. Have fun eating weeds. Rossrs (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm home from work sick, and in my possibly delusional state, I've made a rewrite to Marilyn Monroe's lead section. If you get a chance, could you please cast your critical eye over it. I've explained my thought processes on the talk page but I'm aware there could be a backlash. You always seem to be able to comment impartially, and I would really appreciate that, whenever you may get a chance. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Yes, I'll add a source for the suicide bit in the article. That whole section is citable from one work, so I'll revise that. Rossrs (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick suggestions on assessments

Hi. I've just been following up on some of your recent assessments for the Italy Project. Two quick suggestions. I tend to scatter listas= over all the Projects on biographical articles, it's useful whatever the project. And for the likes of Giuseppe Beghetto, the {{Cycling project}} banner makes more sense than the general Sports one - it's one of the annoying non-standard ones. Which I've had to get quite familiar with, they've been chucking hundreds of articles in the direction of the Italy Project! :-( Oh, and WikiProject Rowing is another you could use. No big deal, just things I noticed when following you up. Oh and thanks for classing the article quality for all the projects, not everyone does that. Finally, I suspect you've probably noticed, but in a whole load of articles a few weeks ago, you missed the first curly bracket on {{blp}} Cheers FlagSteward (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Lizzie Borden

Two sentences into your complaint I already knew which editor you were talking about. He is manifesting the same uncivil behavior and insinuation of his own policies that he has done with other editors. I hope the ArbCom deals with him. In the meantime, please take this specific incident to WP:RfC and I will comment on the talk page then, just for the sake of due process (which is very important with this editor, or he will accuse you of ownership.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been editing overdrive on that article, to the point that it's very confusing ... but anyhow, I know we usually talk about movie stars, but curiously enough I'm also interested in notable murder cases, although I hardly ever edit them. I agree that the name shouldn't be in the lead sentence (on the bright side, at least she didn't win any Academy Awards). I can't find the link to the cropped newspaper article that you mention. Can you point me to it please. Rossrs (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Aww...thanks for the Barnstar! Pinkadelica 04:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see where you deleted the logo image for this project under a speedy delete tag. I don't know who the original uploader was, so I can't speak to why a notice wasn't responded to, but I would like to know how to recover this logo so that whatever licensing or copyright information that is needed can be provided. This has left a blank template across scores of articles. Whoever nominated didn't leave notice at the task force talk page. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know how this image can be retrieved so it can be licensed properly. It is a major project logo used in the project template on scores of articles. Could you respond please? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It would help considerably if you linked to the actual page where the image was rather than referring to it descriptively. I delete hundreds of images a day and I can't remember them all. Melesse (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've restored it for now, but it's not actually missing license info, it's missing source info (both cases get deleted with the same explanation). Probably have to ask the creator about that. Melesse (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FWFR examples

Hey Wildhartlivie,
I didn't know you were on Wikipedia too. Looks like you've done a lot here. I focus mostly on Middle East and film technique-related articles.
I originally wrote the FWFR article a long time ago before there was a FWFR article. I wanted some examples of reviews in the article, but I didn't want to put my own personal favorite reviews or the reviews in the top 100 or self-promote my own reviews. Instead, I used the "What Film?" feature on FWFR to choose a handful of reviews at random. Once about a year ago, I deleted all of the examples and redid my random selection so that different reviews would be featured on the Wikipedia article. Maybe I'll do it again soon.
The reason I'm writing you is to ask you if you wouldn't mind doing the same in the future. I'm going to insert a hidden comment on the FWFR article asking that others do the same. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Valentino

I have never been certain about the proper place of "said to be" and so on in Wikipedia; I have been cautioned that they must be used in some situations, because of NPOV. You can't say "John Lennon was the greatest rock musician of all time", you have to say "Many people name John Lennon as", or better yet "In 1990, a poll in (insert name of respected newspaper or magazine here) named John Lennon..." and hopefully give a citation. There were a number of superlatives about Valentino and without crediting somebody, it could look like original research. These are all things I have been warned about, or seen warnings about, on other articles. (I am still looking for documentation stating that Our Lady of Fatima is one of the best-known apparitions of Mary, because someone (not me) had said that on her page and it had been called into question with a citation-needed tag.) So thank you for straightening that out.

About the 'Caucasian' thing; You're right, it was kludgy. Valentino, of course, was Caucasian, he was just Mediterranean. He was most popular in exotic roles such as The Sheik, but that was beside the point. My purpose in changing those sentences was to get Hayakawa's name in there for fairness' sake, and I knew there was a way to do it. I have seen a number of interviews by experts in Asian-American film (you can guess where I saw them) and there is a book out about his career, where we are reminded that he actually preceded Valentino as the first 'matinee idol' women fell for, and that his exotic foreignness was a big factor. (The female equivalent, of course, was Anna Mae Wong.) Thank you for your help and messages. --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jenny Craig

Hi, I noticed you removed a section[3] from the article for Jenny Craig. You noted in the comment field that there was a copyright violation. Can you elaborate? Thanks! ʝuѕтɛn 11:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Urban Review

I'm working on this spammer as well as "Special:Contributions/Markieboy1989 Markieboy1989", ze is generally ignoring warnings. So, I've given a final warning[4]. As "Special:Contributions/Pulsetech Pulsetech", ze is at least trying to appear responsive and I'm approaching the situation from that angle.[5]

Although I'm trying to assume good faith here, the website in question has been scattered far and wide in wikipedia, with numerous warnings from numerous editors. The only editor(s) I have found who have added the link is Markieboy1989/Pulsetech, always with similarly deceptive edit summaries with very similar wording.

I'm yanking the site universally and will be watching this editor and for other uses of the site. Thanks for your confirmation and work on this. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFI

It's OK; after I'm done with gangster films I'll be having a rest for a couple of hours anyway. If you're still busy plugging away by the time I return, I'll let you know which genre I'll be tackling. All the best, Steve T • C 15:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of an error in your cut-and-paste code. :) Steve T • C 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work. It's surprising how much can be done when more than one person takes a task on. All the best, Steve T • C 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm Brian!

Hi there. I was just wondering why you deleted the "I'm Brian!" note from the Spartacus (film) article with the explanation "removed odd stuff". I was just wondering, as I thouhgt I deserved its place. I'll listen if you explain why you did it on the talk page; if not, somebody might replace it like I suggested. Which seems stupid, since you obviously found an issue with it. Thanks! :) Fuzzibloke (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response

Thanks for the response to my question about "filmmaker" vs. "film maker". I didn't make the connection at first, but I just realized that you're probably the same person from the Four Word Film Review. Small world. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sir, the citation I used was from the book Hollywood Be Thy Name

It's a story about the Warner Bros. and their studio.Kevin j (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


You're being ridiculous sir. I am doing it properly. How about I report you for violating Wikipedia's good faith policy, because that's what you are doing by witholding reliable information from a page. If you think it should be done a different way, THEN ADD IT IN THAT FORMAT. I'm not stopping you from doing so. You have only erased my content without rewriting it in your terms, like you did on the Harry Warner page. Thank you Kevin j (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sir, the Harry Warner page revision history says you did make edits to it yesterday, so don't play me. I do not like personal attacks myself, but to say that my citations don't deserve a chance to back my claims is an insult to me. I try to be reliable with my sources. I meant what I said, because you are acting childish to me. The articles are all not about your edits or your POV. I tend to follow the NPOV policy, and so should you. I'm not erasing any of your format revisions, but I am encouraging you to act civilKevin j (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Harry Warner revision history page, and yes, I see your name so don't lie.[[6]] Ma'am, I am trying to cooperate with you, but you seem to think otherwise. I have no problem with the citations, and that's why I added more of them on the Harry Warner page today. If you just reformated them on the other pages and not erase them, I would have absolutely no problem with it.Kevin j (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sophia Turner

Eek, looks like we both just nominated this article for deletion.--BelovedFreak 00:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm Here

Yeah, I answered your email. Did you get it? I don't think there's anything to add which is why I didn't add anything. You pretty much covered it all. She's a persistent little thing, ain't she? Pinkadelica 04:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Your Trust

Wild, I just wanted to apologize to you personally for abusing your trust. Read my comments here. Please carry on with some of the good things I tried to do. Once again, I am sorry. 4.240.165.59 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your message, I have deleted the comments from my talkpage...:), Best wishes, --Badgernet (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice you've been wiping various links to Lux, the successor organisation to the London Filmmakers Coop. Looking at these, I don't feel that they are worthy of the designation "spam link"? For example, you deleted this link to a history of experimental film in the UK from the London Film-Makers' Co-op page; it looks to me to be a very useful history, featuring information probably not readily available. Just to be clear, I have absolutely no affiliation with Lux or LFMC, nor am I a fan of most External Links, but I'm merely seeking the rationale, as that seems to be far less spam-like than most External links. AllyD (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

re: AN/I request in January

Hello. Apologies that it's taken a while for me to get back to you. Thanks for bringing the debbie/sock thing to my attention. I'm happy to agree that your motives were good, and on reflection I have no complaints about your method: and so I apologise for & withdraw my acerbic comments; they cannot have added to much to your situation and were unhelpful. I'm glad that your heart's still in the game despite the brickbats thrown & vicissitudes suffered. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy Provine/WB Movie In B&C?

Hello Wild - I appreciate the work you've done to keep the popular culture section in B&C pure (I personally detest the presence of these and trivia sections in encyclopedia articles and have had to do similar work in articles on which I've worked extensively).

Getting rid of "Gun Crazy" is fine, but the Dorothy Provine "Bonnie Parker Story" is a classic B movie from Warner Brothers and with the unfortunate exception of changing Clyde's name to Guy (legal reasons perhaps? Blanche was still alive - I know under a different married name) stays fairly close to the doings of the real person and seems to me to fit your criteria. That's just an IMHO and I'm wondering what you think. regards Sensei48 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle Death

Hey there, Wild! Long time no write! I left some information on Peg's Wiki Discussion that I think you will find interesting. I also sent word to the other editor with whom you had the "date of death" chat. I hope you'll take a look.

Also, I see that a rather rude and callous comment has been left near the top of the Discussion page regarding the death of Peg's father. I don't know who wrote it or when, but is there a way to remove this, please? I rather think that the comments "Who cares about her father's death," and, "Some one needs to get a life," are uncalled for--and an obvious dig at me.

If you have any more Q's about Peg and her end, feel free to hit me up! Thanks and Best to you... JZ Jameszerukjr (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes and References

I support your change to References. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive_4&oldid=1082603302"