Talk:Bruce Vilanch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transition?[edit]

At what age did he transition? I came to this article specifically for this information and it's not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.119.30.12 (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


'practicing Jew'[edit]

It would be interesting to link this comment to a note about what he practices and where. While 'straight edge' is compatible, 'openly gay' might be restrictive to certain brands of Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.220.52 (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an ass. Proxy User (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Homophobia is ugly anywhere, but especially in any religion. To those of us who choose to, "practice" our religion, and there are too many who need a lot more practice, Bruce is a "practicing Jew". Period. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source to explore: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/int/2009/02/21/bruce_vilanch DocOfSoc (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming[edit]

I removed a large amount of what I call "Fat and Fluff" from this article. Essentially, there was a lot of peacock terminology, a lot of what read like an advertisement, and a lot of unneccessary text that didn't really relate to the article's subject. There was also an overdoing of glowing adjectives that caused the article to not read very NPOV. I imagine these changes may anger some who have spent time on this page, and for that I apologize. But, I do hope that rather than reacting in anger and immediately reverting, the changes can be discussed here. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming is ok. Decimating, I have a problem with/ Bruce IS Fat and fluffy and is the best kept secret in show business. I am not angry, a bit frustrated, we shall talk, after I get my hair done LOL. One has to have their priorities in Wiki. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vilanch may be fat and fluffy but Wiki articles aren't supposed to be fat and fluffy since it's an encyclopedia. Sorry you are frustrated, glad you aren't angry. It would probably be good to hear from other editors who have spend time on this article for their opinion(s) as well. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Trimming of article[edit]

Requesting comments from other editors involved (and not involved) in editing this article and the recent changes made. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think some is ok but Vilanch is known for - " as a writer for TV awards shows; he has co-written 21 Oscar broadcasts, as well as a featured writer for the Tonys, Grammys and Emmys and his four-year stint on Hollywood Squares, as both a performer and writer." Get Bruce is a documentary all about this - his best story in the film was that he got paid more to write for a Barbra Streisand impersonator than Babs herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.12.85 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "fat and fluffy" was tongue in cheek. I do realize that the article needed "some trimming" but what has been done has greatly minimized one of the most prolific talents in show business. This is not from a fan's perspective but from out of the mouths of the rich and famous funny artists in which he has inserted words, sometime DURING a performance as at the Academy Awards. He gets paid more than some of the stars he writes for because without him they would not be nearly as funny. Some of this is personal knowledge (both myself and 2 of my kids have worked in the business off and on for years) but I can and will find more valid sources. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 05:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reading over the changes made, the impossible has been accomplished: Bruce Vilanch and his article are boring! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 06:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal knowledge is nice, but it isn't a substitute for verfiability. Still, I think the article is improving and haven't found it to be boring at all. With more than one working on it, it should get better everytime it's edited. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I first read this article (before Lhb1239's changes), I thought it was very promotional and that it read more like an E! Online blog than an article in an encyclopedia. If Lhb1239 has removed some unsourced yet important information, it may be the best thing for now, because this is a biography of a living person, which have stricter standards for verifiability. Quigley (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you regarding the blog-like content. I would like to see the majority of the direct quotes go -- that many quotes (unless notable and well-known) don't belong in an encyclopedia article. More like a People Magazine article or entertainment blog (as you pointed out, Quigley). Lhb1239 (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing little by litte to removed entertainment blog-like text in order for article to read more encyclopedic. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I will continue to source and replace comments you have removed, NONE of which are from personal knowledge. You have now progressed to reverting your own edits and reverting perfectly acceptable and sourced material. There is not an anti-semetic quality to anything except in your own mind, the comments were between two Jews. Why don't YOU look for a source before deleting, what a concept! I will stop here... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You attitude is decidedly hostile, and I have no idea why. Yes, a couple of edits I made I redid. That's how it works here. Change is good and this article needs tons of change. One of the biggest changes it needs is the number of quoted statements it contains. And encyclopedia article doesn't contain as many quoted statements this article has and something needs to be dones about that. There is an anti-semetic quality to the statement about Streisand as well as a POV quality. You are essentially edit warring now. Because of that, I will go to the BLP noticeboard and get more editors to come here and comment. With the hostility you seem to be expressing in your edit summaries (flunking syntax? this isn't a classroom) as well as your comments here, I think it's the only way to go at this point. Lhb1239 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment has been made here. Hopefully, getting others involved will help. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lhb I am not hostile, that is a lack of Good Faith. I am extremely frustrated. As one of my esteemed Mentors has said, it takes two to edit war and I have been careful not to engage, you can't "essentially" edit war , you either are or are not. I am not. Calling my Jewish princess brb. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're not hostile. That's a good thing. Sorry you're frustrated. I have to say that I'm having a hard time understanding why you would be frustrated with this article getting better, though. Maybe you're taking the changes too personally? Lhb1239 (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Hi! You are there! I was talking to one of my J.P. who laughed hysterically at the idea of my writing anything o anti-semetic. She suggested insert ANY other name where Barbra's is and you will see it is not a problem. OK, please remember I write often with tongue firmly tucked in cheek, which you would have no way of knowing. My students loved me and you have gotten the sarcastic teacher voice in my head and if that is offensive, I apologize. Yes, this is not a classroom, but it is a forum where English should be "spoken" properly. "Flunking syntax was meant to be funny and I wrote in my best "Funny Girl" voice. Sorry, inflection does not work here. I DO love too many quotes and will work on that. I am actually having a good time and invite you to join me in what is outside of Wiki, pretty hilarious. Good luck on the BLP board. Even I am surprised at how many people have never heard of one of the most prolific and hilarious men around the business. Does no one read the Oscar credits besides myself? I am going to take a breath and call another JP and we can continue what I believe will be a very productive "conversation." BRB — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what any of the above has to do with improving this article and editing cooperatively. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oy... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your cryptic reply/non-answer is exactly why we need more editors looking at this. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your not understanding my very nice and slightly amusing apology is incomprehensible to me. I tried. I was a little wordy. Maybe you should read it again, was trying to establish a common ground here. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm not getting where you say you're trying to come from but from reading your edit summaries that were in my opinion kind of nasty and directed at me, I am not seeing the humor at all. I'm looking to improve the article and work cooperatively, you seem to want to sabotage most of the the content I have contributed so far. When you follow up my stated concerns that have only to do with the article with comments about "Jewish Princesses" and "I am actually having a good time and invite you to join me in what is outside of Wiki, pretty hilarious" -- well, none of those things have anything to do with the article and concerns about it brought forth by more than one editor. No, I don't get where you're coming from and don't find it anywhere near reaching a common ground because what you've said isn't related to the article and the problems it contains. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please get back to the substance of the article and, as I said on BLPN, specifics. I've already changed some material in the article to keep it finely tuned to the cited sources, and I will continue to do so. One thing the article really needs is citations with dates of the articles and dates retrieved. No one is using the templates for complete cites. This is not just a technical gripe, but it improves the article to quickly know what the date of a cite is and when it was accessed. I just fixed one while I was rewording the Streisand sentences.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now[edit]

NOW you tell me there is a template for cities? Sheeesh! My (talk page stalker)s do a really good job of that, do I have to? LOL TY Bbb for all your help. You are mildly awesome ;-) Namaste...

P.S. Lhb I am Never "Kinda" nasty. When I am nasty you will know for sure. :-D Are we having fun yet? — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source[edit]

The lead has the following sentence: "He is a six-time Emmy Award-winner known to industry professionals in Hollywood and New York as 'the fat guy who writes everyone's jokes.'" The source cited is a website called FamousWhy, which, in my view, is not a reliable source. As far as I can tell, it's like a blog, to which anyone can post a question, and it's not clear who responds to them. The quote, in particular, in the WP article is extreme - it's one person's opinion on the FamousWhy website - whoever that person is - and we certainly can't say "known to industry professionals in Hollywood and New York."

I intend to remove the sentence unless there's a consensus to keep it, or unless someone can provide a reliable source in support of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not from a reliable source, it needs to go. Plus, this article needs less direct quotes to make it more encyclopedic and less like a People Magazine article -- another reason why it should go. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting, but just out of curiosity, why do you think direct quotes make the article unencyclopedic? It's not a list of quotes. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING#1. What other quotes do you object to?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very common quote. I will find a better source! Give me a couple hours. It's Mother's Day! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

The beginning of the Career section used to say: "Vilanch has been described by radio host Ronn Owens during an interview on San Francisco's KGO as "exhuberently gay". Vilanch refers to his trademark hairstyle as "a platinum version of Alfred Hitchcock; 'Fried blonde,' I call it." He is known for wearing "wildly diverse" eyeglasses and his collection of double entendres-themed t-shirts." I removed the Owens sentence because the reference was unverifiable (no date of the show or anything to be able to verify Owens said it). I removed one source that doesn't work anymore (just has the opening paragraph and the "read more" gets a not found). That meant I took out the eyeglasses part because it was unsourced, which has left us with: "Vilanch refers to his hairstyle as "a platinum version of Alfred Hitchcock; 'Fried blonde'" and is known for his collection of double entendres-themed T-shirts."

My belief is this is trivia and doesn't belong in the article. Unless there is consensus to retain it, I will remove it entirely.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find another source for the eyeglasses. I like a bit of trivia and you should go see Bruce, his entire act is fascinating trivia about everyone he has worked with. Bbb, where are you? I can ask around and see if I know anyone that will comp tix. I had the Owen's podcast. Let me look. With passion  ;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Wikipedia doesn't like trivia. Still, if there's a consensus to retain some of this, that would be okay, but it has to be more than you, Doc. If we do keep it in, I think we should probably create a Personal life section for it. It doesn't really belong in Career.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you say so, oh wise one ;-) He does act like his unbelievable t-shirt collection is part of his career and his eyeglasses are part of his trademark. Will ponder this until tomorrow then. I don't want to be a lonely voice crying in the wilderness. Thanks for all your help. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that one of the reasons why trivia isn't desired in Wikipedia is becuase trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The hair and eyeglasses are kind of obvious from the photo of him. Anyone who watched Hollywood Squares in the 90s will recognize who Vilanch is from the photo and likely already know about the glasses/clothing/hair. T-shirts, hair and different glasses? I don't see a need for it to be included in the article. If he's known as a writer and celebrity, then it's his writing and his screen/TV credits he should be known for. I see the eye-wear, clothing, and hair as unneccessary fluff for an encyclopedia article, frankly. As far as BBB's question regarding the use of quotes -- it's not the use of quotes I object to. It's the overuse of them which detracts from an encyclopedia tone. If Vilanch were a world leader (a king or president, etc.), literary or an orator (Oscar Wilde, Benjamin Franklin, Nobel Peace prize winners, etc.) an inspirational sort (MLK, Gandhi, Dalai Lama, etc.), then I can see where quotes would be appropriate. In an article about an entertainer? What's encyclopedic and world-changing about one-liners and and jokes? Nothing that I can see. I just looked up WP:QUOTE to get an idea about what's acceptible quote-wise in articles. From what I can gather on the Wiki policy about quotes is that less-is-preferred. And then there's the entertainment-blog tone mentioned by at least one other editor on this page that's worth considering, too. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree on the trivia. As for the quotes, I don't believe a distinction should be made between a ("lowly") entertainer and an ("important") personage. A comedian's quotes about his career are just as important as an author's quotes about his. That said, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it would be helpful for you to cite specific quotes you'd like to remove. Similar request for tone - I can't know whether I agree with you about the tone without your giving examples.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes/statements I believe should be axed:
  • '...an American comedy writer, songwriter and actor who has been described as "one of the most sought-after jokesmiths in the entertainment industry."' We can say this without the direct quote. Something like, "...an American comedy writer, songwriter and actor whose joke-writing talents are sought-after throughout the entertainment industry". As it is, the quote is unneeded but also carries a peacock-tone to it.
  • 'Vilanch gave Midler some career advice: "You’re pretty funny. You should talk more onstage."' No need for the statement nor the quote. He gave he career advice, so what? It's a fun quote, but there's no indication that him telling her that made any significant difference to Midler's career. It's unneeded fluff, in my opinion.
  • "Vilanch "commands high fees in Hollywood for emergency script rewrites" A direct quote from the reference, I imagine. Isn't that a copyright issue? Stating he gets a lot of dough for what he does is enough without stealing what someone else wrote, isn't it?
  • 'She offered Vilanch what he found a "ridiculously low" wage' Just say it was too low of an offer and be done with it. Why the need to directly quote here?
Cut those direct quotes and I believe the article will be much more well-rounded and encyclopedic. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specific examples. I removed the jokesmith quote because it wasn't in the source. I removed the high fees quote because it's a quote from a web bio and unnecessary (not a copyright vio, though). The leaves the Midler quote and the ridiculously low quote. I believe the Midler quote should be removed because the article is about him, not about Midler (too much stuff already in the article about Midler). The ridiculously low quote doesn't bother me. I'll wait for others to chime in about these two quotes to see if we have any consensus as to what to do with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this before your bombastic edit conflict above. Put away your ax. It cuts out the meat of every item! Obvious or not, his hair, glasses and t-shirts are his "trademarks." BTW, "Hollywood Squares was most of a generation ago, so there are millions of people who have not seen Bruce, much less heard of him. Because he is such an unknown celebrity, a bit of trivia gives insight to whom and what he is. Having brought this article from a stub some time ago, I am a bit disconcerted by the sudden onslaught of long winded criticism. Comparing entertainers with world leaders is ludicrous, but without entertainment and humor this world would be a sorry place, much like admins and editors with no sense of humor. Because most of his writing is behind the scenes, Bruce will never be revered as is Will Rogers but nonetheless his humor is valuable for this time as Rogers' was when the world was a miserable place, much like it is now...

Time to walk around the block (an invaluable admin's advice) BBL — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind:

Quotes/statements I believe should be axed:
  • '...an American comedy writer, songwriter and actor who has been described as "one of the most sought-after jokesmiths in the entertainment industry."' We can say this without the direct quote. Something like, "...an American comedy writer, songwriter and actor whose joke-writing talents are sought-after throughout the entertainment industry". As it is, the quote is unneeded but also carries a peacock-tone to it. It also carries. How may sources would you like that say this EXACT thing?
  • 'Vilanch gave Midler some career advice: "You’re pretty funny. You should talk more onstage."' No need for the statement nor the quote. He gave he career advice, so what? It's a fun quote, but there's no indication that him telling her that made any significant difference to Midler's career. It's unneeded fluff, in my opinion. This has already been discussed, Get over it.
  • "Vilanch "commands high fees in Hollywood for emergency script rewrites" A direct quote from the reference, I imagine. Isn't that a copyright issue? Stating he gets a lot of dough for what he does is enough without stealing what someone else wrote, isn't it? That is why it is in quotes!!!!!!
  • 'She offered Vilanch what he found a "ridiculously low" wage' Just say it was too low of an offer and be done with it. Why the need to directly quote here? After checking with several credible sources this is the appropriate quote. Does not everyone know what a penny pincher the Diva is? BTW my mailman for 30 years was Mr. Streisand and I went to school with Karen Streisand, yep, her uncle and cousin. I heard it long before the public did and the public documented it. Want sources for that too?? Oy! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I'm not sure where you stand on all this based on the quotes that were laid out by Lhb AND are still left in the article. Please just address those, or if you object to the quotes I actually removed, address those too - and easy on the exclamation points. :-) And phrases like "get over it", even if something has been discussed before (and I'm not going to look) are not constructive. Please.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc has restored the "commands high fees" quote and put in three sources. My view is twofold. First, I don't think any of the sources is reliable. The first one (the translation page), I'm not even sure what it's about. The other two are just redundant bios that are probably clones of the original "source" that I already labeled unreliable. Second, I don't think the quote is necessary or clear. If we can find reliable third-party sources (like real newspapers or periodicals) that address Valinch's fees, fine. Otherwise, I think the quote should be eliminated. So, if Doc still wants to keep it in (feel free to comment here, Doc), then we'll see what the consensus is on the quote as I don't want to have edit wars over this material. I want to achieve consensus if possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Bbb. I don't think the sources are reliable, either. On top of that, the quote isn't neccessary. We can say what the quote says without using the quote. Too many quotes. Really. As for redoing my statement(s) above and adding yelling in bold along with all the exclamation points, it that really neccessary and how does it show good faith, cooperative editing, and basic respect due another editor? The drama along with the insults and personal attacks is really not needed or helpful. One more thing: if you want to add your personal knowledge of Streisand, it belongs in the article about her, not an article about someone else. Even so, I think it still wouldn't fly if you take WP:NOR into consideration. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the high fees quote, the assertion doesn't belong even if paraphrased unless we get a reliable source to present facts about Vilanch's fees, not a generalized statement that begs the question as to what constitutes "high". As for Streisand, I have the same opinion about her as Midler - this article is about Vilanch. As for Lhb's comment about original research, I think you misconstrue Doc's comment - I believe she just means she knows it AND it's documented, not that she would put in her opinion solely based on her own experience.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, the high fees quote should go paraphrased or direct. And I agree about the extra info on Streisand as with the extra info on Midler. The article is about Vilanch, not them. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The high fees quote goes with the Streisand quote, and as we have seen Bbb has no problem with the Midler quote. And may I remind you that Bruce's whole schtick is about these people. Without these famous people there is not much to write about Bruce. He puts words in their mouths so in a funny sense, he IS them. And Lhb. under what name did you previously use in Wiki? The aroma of Sockpuppet is wafting through this discussion. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 01:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet? I've never worked on Wiki under any other name. Please stop with the attacks. Can we just work on the article? Lhb1239 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the article. Vilanch certainly has more to his "schtick" than Streisand and Midler. I agree 100% with Bbb that the article isn't about them but about the page's subject. There's plenty to write about him. The length of the article is testament to that. If you did bring it from a stub to where it is now, then kudos to you. But like every article in Wiki, this article is an evolving thing. People add and take away because that's the way things work around here. Please don't turn this into an attack-fest. Let's just concentrate on editing this article cooperatively. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I reverted your reinsertion of the sought-after language. Bios are not reliable sources for opinions about the subject. They may be reliable for facts about the person's history. Also, the assertion is very strong, which makes it even more important that it be backed up by a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yessuh Massa. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia et al[edit]

"Some of the stuff you complain about is no longer in the article. I reworded the scene stealing stuff. I reworded the DRA stuff. I don't see anything wrong with the Midler quote.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC) OK...i still luv ya... Out looking for sources BRB — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking you're not getting the point, here. Trivia in Wikipedia isn't well-thought of regardless of how many references you have. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quotes[edit]

Still thinking there are too many direct quotes in the article. Please look at WP:QUOTEFARM. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:QUOTEFARM: "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit." There are 7 quotes, for a man who makes his living writing "quotes" for other people. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Make that 8 ;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'not center square'[edit]

He was not the center square for 4 years on hollywood squares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.77.205 (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

Is this a test? LOL You asked for cites that were already cited earlier in the article! I will find the rest... who was it that said : "We are not amused"? Fortunately, it was not me. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esteemed Bbb: Happy Now ?  :-D Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still need to review the article more carefully, Doc. My last edit was based on a superficial look. Other than removing the word "premier", which stood out, and making a bunch of small changes, I didn't really match up assertion to source. That requires more work. I have two requests for you, though, Doc. First, there is no space between a punctuation mark (period, comma, etc.) and a reference. Second, when you add sources, it would be really helpful and make the article look more professional if you used the templates {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, as appropriate, and fill in all the relevant parameters (title, work/publisher, author, date of piece, and date of access). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you believe, in 8000 edits nobody has mentioned the above to me. My first year was such a nightmare I got no good "newbie" advice. Thanks again. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today's edits/08-08-11[edit]

Edits have been made to this article that have been sorely needed for months. References have been removed when discovered they were from unreliable sources, posed possible copyright infringement problems, non-existent, dead-links, and just not related at all to the text they were attached to. Cite needed tags were placed as appropriate and some text was removed completely. Some text was removed per previous discussion and informal consensus back in May. Also, as it occurred previously, I'm sure these recent edits will make some other editor(s) upset -- that is not my intent -- but the article really needed work and clean-up. Comments and polite AGF discussion on these edits are welcomed. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment at this point is I've noticed you've been busy. I just got back from a wikibreak and have been trying to catch up on all of my watched pages. This one will require more time for me to review what you've done before I can make any constructive comments. Not sure when I'll get to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough! Lhb1239 (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce Vilanch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bruce Vilanch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce Vilanch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Vilanch&oldid=1218518666"