User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 6

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

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

Kirk Douglas

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

ps

I could not easily tell what was wrong

with the references. if you would share with me,

I will adjust my citation methods.

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

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

Our killer pet project

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

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

Manson tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Taylor & OR

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

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

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

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

Article review

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

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

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

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

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

Russell Crowe

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

Your note

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

Would like your advice

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

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

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

Luciano

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

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

Little Girl Lost

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

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

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

Martinez quote and reference on Charles Whitman Page

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

Drew Barrymore

Hi, I've had a look and I think it flows well for most of the article. I made one minor change but Drew Barrymore#Other career highlights is the only part of the article that doesn't flow equally with the remainder of the article. I think the article as a whole is effective in its brevity, but within each section there is a logical flow. I think the key is "other" in the header as it suggests that anything that doesn't fit into other sections, goes here, even though the points aren't necessarily related. I also think there are too many "on this date" sentences in a cluster, and some of them aren't significant and don't further an understanding of Barrymore. For example the exact date that she donated 1 million dollars isn't important, and the sentence would be simpler if it was something like "In May 2007, Barrymore was named Ambassador Against Hunger for the United Nations World Food Programme[49][50] and on March 3, 2008, she later donated $1 million to the Programme something that avoids repeating "Programme"" I think the date and repetition adds clutter, an approximate timeframe is enough, and maybe reducing some of these bits of info throughout will make it flow more smoothly.

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

Ed Gein

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

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

Cole & Dylan

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

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

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

User talk:76.212.57.95

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Cagney

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

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

They have wi-fi at atm's now? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. I saw your note on Rossrs's talk page. Have you looked at the Commons at [1]? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I'll keep an eye out, but I think all the pics I've used with Cagney in them have been fair-use. Good luck. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Also, according to a search for "Cagney" on this commercial site, these Cagney films are also public domain: Great Guy (1936), Something To Sing About (1937) and The Time of Your Life (1948). I'm pretty sure I've seen screenshots for the last of those, which is based on the Saroyan play. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

An outside authority -- my wife -- says the colored version is better, so I've gone back to it for the moment. No hassles from me if consensus is for the B&W. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 06:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angelina Jolie

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

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

Cagney filmography

Hi. I saw from one of your edit summaries that you unlinked some of the entries in the Cagney filmography. I didn't actually look at the diff(s), but I assume you removed the redlinks. Can I ask why? I thought it was standard to leave redlinks in place in filmographies because of the probability of articles being written about those films, at which time they would be linked -- as opposed to names of obscure actors, who are unredlinked in cast lists because it's much less likely that they'll ever get their own article.

In any case that's the way I've always thought of it, and how I've assembled filmographies. Any thoughts on that, pro or con? Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

River Phoenix

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

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

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

Martinez Quote on Whitman Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doh.

I'm sorry. [ roux ] [x] 19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Whitman Discussion Page

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

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

Keira Knightly

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

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

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

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

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

Cher

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

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

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

Marlene Dietrich

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

The Garbo of the Nineties

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

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

Linkspam, etc

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

Aaron Sorkin

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

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

Hey

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

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

Screeeech!

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

Lynnette Fromme in Stockton

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

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

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

Aileen Wuornos

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

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

Bare links

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

Vanessa Bryant

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

Claudette Colbert

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

why did you delete the zuguide external link

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

I read through the criteria and it seems to fit.

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

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

Accurate Info

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

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

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

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

Re: Tina Turner

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

American Academy Award Winners for Best Actor

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

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

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

zuguide

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

Mae West

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

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

thanks

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

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

Spreading the love

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

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

Baldwin

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

Thanks!Victor9876 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bundy

No problem at all. I was editing it at work and had to pause now and then. Thanks for clarifying those sentences. --mo ^talk 07:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin

Yeah, I got the feeling there were some personal feelings mixed in there. God bless the POV warriors. Are you still having an issue with that section? I haven't even bothered to do a follow up. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I figured a block would be issued at some point when I saw the IP adding content. I came close to reverting, but I didn't want to add to the drama. I did see the version you added last night when I added a few refs and the awards chart, but I didn't check back to see if you had been reverted. As an aside, I had no idea Baldwin even wrote a book. I'm so out of touch. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 01:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew about that stuff (Basinger is agoraphobic or something?) and I vividly remember the phone call, but I knew nothing about the book. Maybe I was aware and just blocked it out. I tend to dismiss those insipid autobiographies geared towards showing what a good person someone supposedly is. I think Baldwin is funny as hell, but he's probably insufferable in "real" life. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 01:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt Damon

Oh - I'm having trouble with this 'short' edit scenario. Is there some special alarm that goes off in Wikipedia headquarters if you cut a link or a paragraph in half? Am I doing something wrong in the way I'm describing it? Am I expected to write a thesis on my decision and rationale? This is the second time in two days I've been done for small edits.

In the Matt Damon page I shortened several paragraphs. The only 'fact' I removed was a link to a documentary about a book for which Matt Damon was supposed to have done the voice over before he was famous. The connection was that the author of the book was a neighbour of Matt Damon's. It seemed spurious and irrelevant. It was badly written. To quote it says: "Damon grew up near Ben Affleck, a close friend since childhood and future collaborator on several films, and historian and author Howard Zinn,[5][6] whose biographical film You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train[7] and audio version of A People's History of the United States Damon narrated." I cut it out the bit about the historian. While I concede with effort there may have been a more elegant way of including it than the cutting, but these fan pieces get so long.

So that was my rationale - in light of you reverting my edit - what should I have written in my 'edit summary'.

Also the paragraphs in Wikipedia generally are getting really long and hard to read. Is this a style choice? Julius Caesar is almost unreadable it's so convoluted and dense. And in your reverting my edits - have the tiny cuts to streamline grammar gone as well?

Anyway - I went to the sandbox for a check up - and there's no answer to this question.

Best wishes 124.170.219.171 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Manson

No worries, my dear. Glad we're on the same page this time. BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

People will say we're in love... :) BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Selected filmography

Hello, Wildhartlivie ...

Regarding this edit from last week, and this thread, I would like your opinion on the {{Selected filmography}} template ... since you appear to represent a more inclusionist view, I would welcome your perspective ... you may be bold and modify it (within reason) without discussion ... I know that although I gave it birth, I do not own it, and "It takes a village ..." :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)}

Pathology

Has your view of Whitman's pathology changed?Victor9876 (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"ill-defined fad category being deleted"

I think a couple of these edits didn't do you intended them to do, ie [2] and [3]. Regards, Siawase (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to let you know so you could look into it. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter

The October 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. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hayden Pantyairs

My guess is boredom or just plain fu*kery. I gave up on that article eons ago because of that kind of crap. I see nothing has changed much. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 19:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

One step ahead of you :) Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 19:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know my thoughts on the matter and I don't blame dougweller for tagging it as a content dispute because it basically boils down to that. I too hoped we could wait until the sockpuppet report that I stupidly forgot to post comes through, but locking it for now is fine. I think we both know by now that the truth will come out....eventually. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 23:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too

I say : "Oh my god, add me to the list immediately! I'm an expatriate of New Zealand, having spent 3 weeks there in 2002. And the US, and the UK, and Denmark and Poland and Germany and Finland and Hungary ......." The logic is faulty, the "oh dear" edit summary is cringeworthy, but no I haven't noted this editor before. I would have remember edits like those! Rossrs (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:

The reasons for me changing the formatting in the references is because of the past/current discussions at cite web and cite news. One, being that the dates are not supposed to be linked, per the new Manual of Style. Second, I take example of adding Publisher info. to the refs. from Heath Ledger's article, as User:NYScholar formatted the refs. there and in The Dark Knight film article, and citing that because its a manual from Wiki, see The Dark Knight talkpage from previous discussions. Another reason, I'm trying to make aim the article to FA status and I'm trying to properly format the refs. correctly so a problem won't ensure at the FAC. Hey, I may be wrong, and I'm pretty sure I am or not, but reverting the edits in the article will cause some information to be removed, and quite frankly re-adding the info., will take up my time. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mae West/New Zealand expatriates

First...Mae West. The picture adds nada but that seems to be a trend on that page (seriously, have you tried reading it?). I keep putting it off, but the whole page needs a total overhaul. Someone seems to think it's a West shrine and not an encyclopedic entry. I also left a comment on the expatriate RfC on Cate Blanchett. I think all these situations are giving me Wiki burnout. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mae West is a doozy. I don't understand why the grave photo needs a date, unless the grave changes in appearance from day to day. The grave seems to be the secondary subject matter in the photo. It looks a bit like someone wanting to get their face on Wikipedia. You know, their connection to West is such that they appear in her article...... that kind of thing. That's how I see it, anyhow. If I'm ever photographed with Kylie Minogue - I'll be uploading it so fast I'll have blisters on my fingers. Same logic. Never mind the relevance. On a serious note, do you know if Mae ever visited New Zealand? Rossrs (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a number of tendentious editors refusing to engage in discussion lately across several articles. I have commented too. I think you did the right thing - if an editor is given the opportunity to discuss, and fails to take advantage of it, that's their right, but it's also their mistake, I think. It reeks of bad faith on their part, and I for one would be less likely to take them seriously in the future. So, now you've got something to refer to in reverting any future edits, not only for these three actors, but for any other that may fall into the same category at a later date. Rossrs (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree about the Mae West picture. That was my initial thought when I saw it especially after the whole image credit thing (that evidently seems to be ongoing). I just know that when I cut the original research and POV out of that article, someone is going to come crying. If that happens, it's quite possible I'll go bananas and rip someone a new one. I think the main reason for my Wiki burnout is the tendentious editors floating around lately. When I started getting burned out before, I could retreat to television articles for a break, but even those are being invaded by people who just can't wrap their mind around WP:TENSE. Maybe I should start editing my sandbox and leave the main space alone. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, well just don't turn into Gwen Stefani, with the whole bananas thing. You're at least a zillion times better than the tendentious editors, and they'll come and they'll go (what with their limited attention spans and all). If you need to take little breaks sometimes to cool off, you obviously should allow yourself that respite. It's sometimes hard to deal with all the negatives without being distracted or discouraged, but here's a positive for you : you're a valuable editor and you make a real difference to people like me who value this project. Ultimately you are part of the process that makes this a better place, even if it's a battle sometimes. Rossrs (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Aww...sweetness. If it weren't for you and Wildhartlivie, I would have totally lost faith in this place. I think the whole Kylie/YouTube clip thing pushed me over the edge the other day. I'm cool now. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Brad Pitt, Wildhartlivie? I'm sorry, the name isn't ringing any bells. He must be on American Idol or something we don't get in Australia, but if he works hard he may reach Kylie's stature. It's unlikely.... Anyway, I think the image caption is a question of redundancy, and the photo credit is part of the redundancy. There are also issues of relevance - in the previous picture, according to the caption, she's wearing "diamonds" - and yet we still don't know what type of fabric was used to make her dress. I think the diamonds, aside from being bleedingly obvious, are completely irrelevant. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Captions for photos in infoboxes which relates mainly to infobox images, but I think the basic requirements are the same regardless of where the image is placed. Rossrs (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pauley-perrette1.jpg

Can you tell me why this image is "Possibly unfree"? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • November 6, 2008 @ 05:29

If there is a template I can use to bring this image "up to code", please let me know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 6, 2008 @ 06:01

Monty Roberts

I am not a Roberts family member nor associated with their operation in any way. I am an admirer of Monty Roberts, and have endeavored to present a factual, objective description of his work. I feel that there are no grounds for the conflict of interest notice attached to the Monty Roberts page as a result of my edits. Lllmrpvk (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Mickey, what a pity, you don't understand

Hi, the first comment on the talk page says something about him being "batshit crazy". I'd be careful not to describe him that way myself, but god knows he tends to rant and ramble during his interviews. I've been thinking about this more, and coincidentally, I was formulating another comment, when you added yours, so I have reworded it and posted. In addition to the problems I see with context as mentioned, I can also see that the timing (1998) was right at the middle of the Ellen-coming-out-on-the-Oprah-show-jamboree when everyone had something to say about it and her sitcom was being cancelled etc. Mickey loves to talk, maybe he was jumping on a bandwagon, which brings us back to context and relevance. Rossrs (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The elderly... my mother recently referred to Ellen as a "lezo", which greatly surprised me, as she is as far from homophobic as you could get. It's not part of her upbringing or her vocabulary, and she's led a far more sheltered life than Mickey Rooney, but she's done her best to "catch up" on what she didn't learn as a young woman, and she thinks everyone should live their lives and be happy. Nice philosophy. So I told her that's not exactly a good word to use. She said "well you know my friend Jean is a lezo and we've been friends for years." "Yes, I know, but you shouldn't refer to her as a "lezo", try lesbian". "Oh, for goodness sake, I don't see what difference it makes". "Fine, ask Jean." "OK, I'll call her a lesbian". "Do you have to call her even that?" "If I want to, she's MY friend". So I guess the point is Jean IS her friend. And my mother was oohing and aahing over how beautiful Ellen's wedding photos are, and don't they look happy, and isn't Portia de Rossi gorgeous? Yes Mum, she's lovely. Mickey's probably like most people, you ask them a question and they'll give you an answer whether they're informed and qualified or not. My mother has had less experience in giving interviews so her lack of sophistication is more easily accepted than Mickey's, but they're of almost the same era, if not the same attitude. It would be interesting to see what Ed and Pink say - I have great respect for both of them. It will also be interesting to see if our comments attract any reply or rebuttal. Rossrs (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left my comment about Mickey "I steal other people's scabs" Rooney and his alleged homophobia. I wasn't as eloquent as you and Rossrs, but I think my point is basically the same. I don't think the guy is homophobic, I think he's a victim of overzealous born-againess with a dash of (sorry Rossrs) batshit crazy. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, we've got that out in the open. I think it needed to be said, however I was only alluding. Rossrs (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's what? 114 years old? Senile dementia isn't out of the question. They didn't use him in the second Night at the Museum film, maybe he forgot his lines? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You know all those scenes in the first Night at the Museum where he looked like he was getting ready to kill Ben Stiller? I don't think he was acting. I think he may have disapproved of Ben and everything he represents. Rossrs (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It would fit the profile. I hear they patterned those two old cranky guys on The Muppet Show after the future cranky old Mickey Rooney. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Side project

Ooh, I love projects and am happy to hop on that. I recently joined WikiProject Persondata, so this will be a good way to do two things at once.

On a different note, I just ran across the Lucia de Berk article and noticed that it needs MAJOR help. It appears that one or more editors are using it as a soapbox to convey the opinion that she was falsely convicted. One editor even removed all serial killer-related links from the article because "...it is generally understood that Lucia de Berk is a victim of a miscarriage of justice, and not a serial killer". *cringe* The talk page has all the goods. I know you're good at whipping these kinds of articles into shape. :) --mo ^talk 09:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then good. Content disputes are a total pain, aren't they? --mo ^talk 09:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

The transcript of the 2004 ABC Primetime interview is not available online free of cost. Nevertheless, the transcript can be verified if you are willing to buy the transcript or use a library to access a database such as Lexis. I added a web archive link to an excerpt of the American Primetime program that played on Australian television.Claisen (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actors and filmmakers

Yes, it's a lonely place. It surprise me, considering how many actor articles there are and how frequently they are edited. Rossrs (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Archives

I posted a response on the Help desk (User:MacGyverMagic, not logged in) - 131.211.151.245 (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Can you be specific about the pages that were moved? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bingo

I did a Google search for Lucy de Berk and found a treasure trove.

Thank you for the advice. I'm getting better at being bold. It's the discussion part that can be difficult, because, as you know well, some editors find it difficult (or impossible) to be rational. --mo ^talk 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Atkins

I can't imagine anything more appalling than Sharon Tate's final moments, and I also can't imagine what would inspire even the most disenfranchised cretin to pay tribute to one the perpetrators of that horror, in a "punk" song. I know they all suffered, but for Sharon Tate to be left until last, and to fully comprehend that there was no way out for her or for her baby, and to be met with such indifference - how must that have been for her, and what kind of creature could participate in such an act? I'm angered that it would be trivialized in such a brainless manner, and offended that it would be put into the article as if it was something of note. I understand your passion, but I'm a little worried that the way it's worded, someone could see your passion and call it POV, and try to negate the main point you are making. I think it might be worthwhile to have a discussion on the talk page, and even though it may not attract much comment, it would be something to refer back to in the event of any further nonsensical pop cultural references being made. Also... if a pop culture reference is made within a tiny element and is not seen or acknowledged by a more mainstream audience, is it even a pop cultural reference? Doesn't the reference have to have made a statement or made an impact in order to be so considered? If not, isn't it just the random doodlings of someone with a minor platform to state their view but not necessarily the audience to receive it? ie the thing could also be deleted on the basis of its insignificance.

If you want to see a serious subject trivialized, you need look no further than this crazy mix of the appropriate and the asinine. It is jaw-droppingly awful, but its survival prevents these "interesting" factoids from creeping into the article of its subject. Rossrs (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be under control. I added a brief comment, not because I had anything different to say, but just to add to the numbers of editors saying it. Rossrs (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Trivia section in question

I agree with all of the points you made and added a note to the talk page. If Wikipedia policymakers would grow a back bone and just say "NO" to trivia instead of the current wishy washy "avoid" policy, many editors' lives would be a lot easier. You may want to reword the note added to the article itself. You don't want to start sounding like our Richard Mallory lover do you? :)

I'm hoping you can lend me some support as well. It turns out our Lucia de Berk "soapboxer" has returned. Soapy, as I'll call this editor, removed the serial killer-related categories and infobox, saying that de Berk has been released from jail and is no longer convicted. I found this article (in English, thank gawd) that verifies de Berk has been released pending re-examination of the case; however, Soapy doesn't seem to antsy to actually ADD that information to the article. In addition, this pissed me off as much as the Atkins trivia issue irked you, he/she gave a winded description on the talk page (actually, on my talk page first) regarding the sources from which the disputed entries came, THEN removed the POV tag from the article without adding citations to those sources. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --mo ^talk 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexy Sadie

I take the Atkins situation is under control. If not, let me know and I'll weigh in. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a clear rule on pop culture/trivia sections? Anyhow, when you get a chance, could you take a look at David Winters (choreographer)? I did some (big time) clean up but I only scratched the surface. I still left some POV and other problems because what I thought would be any easy clean up turned out to be a project and a half (think Mae West lite). Methinks the film poster should probably be removed and that Emmy box is perplexing. I have never seen that on a bio before and considering the guy was only nominated for that "special" Emmy, I don't understand why it's there. Regardless, could you take a look at the article and let me know what you think? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Emmy box. I still have no idea why it was there. Weirdness. You should look at the previous version, it's a hoot and a half. Loads of misspelled words (like 'and'), sentence fragments, repeated content (someone really wanted the world to know he had an affair with Linda Lovelace), half filled citation templates, and the list goes on. As for the POV, I know it's there but after fixing so much, I was getting bleary eyed and tired of the guy. I'll fix more tomorrow and you can bet that I'm removing that "notoriety" section. I suspect the bolded quote was pasted from the Space Mutiny article and I guess making a crap movie makes one notorious. As for the Thrashin' Incident, I don't know what the hell that is either! I'm guessing it is in reference to the movie he made with the same title, but as far as I can tell, there was no incident. I'm telling you, I find the worst pages. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lucia de Berk

The situation makes a lot more sense now that we know who Soapy is in "real life". I was so distracted by his actions that I didn't look at his user page. I don't know about you, but I don't trust him to be completely forthcoming about her current status, considering how deeply his bias seems to run and his blatant disregard of Wiki policies. Like you said, we'll see. mo ^talk 09:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might tell me what a Soapy is. Regarding bias: well, I do have an opinion, but on wikipedia I do my best to restrict myself to facts. Regarding Lucia's current status: I am completely forthcoming about this. What I write can be read on the web page of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. Regarding disregard of Wiki policies: most of the Lucia page was written by others. I agree that further references would be useful. I suggest you yourself study all English language material on the case and judge for yourself.Gill110951 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers on my talk page! The case will probably be treated by a new court in mid 2009. If the public prosecution declines to bring new evidence to the attention of the court, the trial will be short. It is hard to imagine anything new coming up now, but you never know. In the meantime Lucia remains free, she is not even "on bail". This has been approved at the highest levels (the minister and secretary of state for justice and the head of the prosecution service must approve such a suspension of a conviction). The Dutch legal system is indeed very different from the US or British systems (no jury; so-called "inquisatorial" instead of "adversarial". A board of wise judges carries out an investigation to determine the truth, rather than that lawyers from the two sides fight for the sympathy of a lay jury). Gill110951 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag Restricted - No Way for Mae?

Though I agree about a tasteless overuse of flags, I was shocked to learn of English Wikipedia's exaggerated flag icon restriction through your recent edit. Two comments: 1) For the first time, I feel Swedish Wikipedia has a much more intelligent and educational policy in this detail than English Wikipedia. 2) Mae West is about the most appropriate kind of subject there could be for citizens of the Unites States of America (are you one?) to be proud of, and the inference that it could be inappropriate to use the the Star Spangled Banner in any context to honor her is absolutely ridiculous. For over 50 years West did more more to further a good impression of America in the rest of the world - though her world famous sense of humor - than all the U.S. sports stars put together. You made poor old Mae turn over in her grave, and it's a sad day for English Wikipedia. Please put the flag back, in this case, regardless of your interpretation of policy. Sincerely, EmilEikS (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I (and my organization that is contributing valuable material to the Public Doman at this time through me) shudder from the very thought of your being "a bit put-off" at me? Given the obvious power you have and that huge amount of badges on your page, I take even your being "a bit put-off" as quite a threat. This makes me quite fearful for the future, and I am not being sarcastic. Please stop that, kind sir! Don't throw your weight around in my direction. It isn't going to do any of us any good. It just makes me want to quit. Talk even or up to nice people who are trying to do EnW some good, not down! Please! I was trying to give you some straight and honest talk from the heart to reply to. Sorry if you were offended! I am objective, so please do not be accusatory about that, and I stand by my opinion about the flag policy in this case. Facts about bascially good people automatically honor them, no matter how you want to twist that around. Facts about basically bad people give them their just deserts. Too many editors (and administrators?) disregard the template on top, the most important one, that we should edit with common sense regardless of the rules. Rigidity hurts what we all are trying to accomplish. Very badly. Please respect these thoughts! Thank you in advance or being empathetic. EmilEikS (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is rather odd, if you'll pardon my saying so sir or madame, that you claim not to talk down to people. The only way you can get away with that is by removing a lot of your lecturing all over this English Wikipedia project. The kind of stuff - pages and pages of it by you and other zesty teachers - that is going to make it hard to find the financing this project needs. I doubt you will be financed thus. Foundations and others that might be able to donate are not likely to be interested in that. A very educational Swedish expression for you: Högmod går före fall. This organization has no further comment to you than this one, after your preposterous and highly offensive "please do not imply that policies and rules should be bent because you don't like them" on my talk page (where the comment is very gênant for you - c'est Français). That is how you reply to people who try to express an opinion that doesn't agree with you and yours. We actually have some rules of our own. One of them, minuted at our Annual Membership Assembly last year, is that the Board is not under any circumstances to correspond with anyone anonymous. You are anonymous to us as you choose to work here under an alias. I now regret having bent that rule in your case, as we are so offended by your behavior and don't even know who you are. We find you 95% unimpressionable (deeming from your input all over), so what was the use of writing to you? To round off, I now see that Fiandonca has suggested you do some constructive work, real editing that is. At risk of some insults from you, like you wrote to her about seconding opinions, Southerly Clubs and I wholeheartedly second her suggestion. Good-bye, Wildhartylivöie! EmilEikS (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Copied from my talk page. Please do not write there again! EmilEikS (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah...

Would you mind looking at the Bobby Driscoll article and telling me your thoughts on the References/Further reading section? It looks...umm...comprehensive and all but very muddled. My first reaction was to 86'ed it altogether, but it looks as if there are references (to what, I don't know) buried in all that. Judging from the edit history, I'm gonna guess my helpful (ie bold) changes will probably not be greeted warmly. While you're pursuing the article, check out the talk page. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't read that message but when I did, I got a distinct "you're a Commie Pinko" vibe from it. Sheesh! I guess commenting on content rather than the contributor is just an old rule that these new users who know it all don't need to abide by. I just know the proverbial poo is going to hit the fan once I get to hacking that mess. Thanks for looking at Sad Bobby's article. As you can see, I tagged it for inconsistent citation style and I was thinking of cleaning up that section, but I'm getting tired of cleaning up complicated messes I didn't create. I probably will need some backup so remain on stand by. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 11:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't ya just love it when tags are removed before the problem is actually addressed? Why do we even bother.... Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Check your email. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Flabbergasted

Sometimes I cannot believe what I'm reading, and this is one of those times. I've left a comment, but of all the rude and superior comments I've ever read, these take the cake. Who are these people and how did we manage for so long without them? Rossrs (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked myself the sock question too. Idiosyncratic language can only be put down to common language to a point. I see more commonality than that, but I see socks the way Haley Joel Osment sees dead people. Around every corner. Who knows? Both users have received warnings, one for incivility and one for the legal threat, from different editors, so their presence has definitely been noted. This is supposed to be a pleasant experience. If people come here without that as their first priority, it invariably ends badly. There's just a little too much grandeur and pomposity for my liking. If there's a cost attached to the contributions, I'm thinking that's asking too much of us, and it's not in the spirit of the project. Rossrs (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It all does remind me of sock yes. One of the weirdest exchanges I ever encountered on Wikipedia. And by now I've been here for some time. :) Garion96 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. There's a lot that doesn't read as kosher to me. I don't know about boards participating as such, but I would think that they would still be considered as private contributors. On a lighter note, how do you feel knowing that when Wikipedia comes crashing down through lack of investors, it'll be entirely because of you? Yes, you. You alone. Not me. Not the vandals that write "Matt Damon is gay" and "Anne Frank smells" or replace George Bush's portrait with a photo of someone's bottom. Just you with your gosh-darned doing your best and following-guidelines nonsense. I hope you appreciate the enormity of what you've done. Ooops ! Rossrs (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It must have been someone else, but I thought it was George. I'll have to give it some thought, because it was quite a few months ago that I saw it, but if I find it, I'll find the link for you. Rossrs (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Milat/Backpacker Murders merge proposal

I just stumbled upon my September proposal to merge these two articles on the Ivan Milat talk page. Doh! I swear I have early onset Alzheimer's. If you have a second when you're not corresponding with irrational Europeans, would you mind weighing in on the proposal? There has been only one "vote", and I'd like a tad more consensus on it, as it's a fairly well-known case. Thanks! mo ^talk 22:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! No apology necessary at all. I saw the Mae-related posts when I left this message yesterday and was curious, so I checked out the exchange. As Pinkadelica aptly put it...WTF? You might want to check your person for a hidden weirdo magnet. :)

Back to Ivan: So you think retaining the Backpack Murders article is the way to go? Is this because more people are likely to search for the case by that name rather than Ivan Milat?

An email response it just fine. mo ^talk 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns. mo ^talk 03:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

For cryin' out loud!

I saw the little exchange on the Mae West talk page today. All I can say is WTF? All this over a flag icon? Seriously? Anyway, since the hornet's nest is already buzzing, I decided to start the long delayed clean up. There's still a lot more than needs to be done, but I did manage to remove most of the OR. I'm thinking an RfC regarding the unneeded photos might be the best route. I highly doubt going the official route will matter much considering the recent gripefest, but it might bear a little more weight (to us anyway). You're getting way too much fallout for things you have no control over (unless you make Wikipedia policy and run this joint to which I was previously unaware) so if you just want to be done with it, I'll completely understand. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 03:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around for all that drama. I've been having internet problems for the last two days. Miraculously, after I call my phone company to complain, everything clears up. Regarding the assorted nut problem, the "new" user was a pretty obvious quacker that has already "retired". The thing that about the page being an embarrassment to Wikipedia was mildly amusing though. I guess WP:SOFIXIT and the whole "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" thing is a bit unclear. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tex

Yes, I have the 3 murderesses (!) on my watchlist, but I hardly ever edit their articles. I can't recall looking at Watson's article before but I think you've done a good job of neutralizing it. He's described himself as such, and now the article says nothing more than that. The word "claimed" implies skepticism and it also subtly underlines the point, so that it almost given undue weight. You're right in saying that the skepticism wouldn't be leveled so openly at a born again Christian who is not also a convicted murderer. I find that interesting. It's easier, and almost instinctive, to see criminals as being made up of a whole bunch of exclusively negative traits, when the truth is rarely as cut-and-dried as that. Anything even vaguely positive is taken reluctantly so perhaps veiling it in skepticism makes it more palatable. Rossrs (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad faith on your part. There's no way of knowing whether "claimed" is used deliberately or carelessly. Are crime articles usually as contentious as some of the actor articles? Have you ever seen Citizen X with Donald Sutherland about the Chikatilo case? It's very good and very atmospheric, but it was filmed in Hungary. Some of the older cases are very interesting. I've recently read Gun Alley by Kevin Morgan, about the Colin Campbell Ross case. It's an interesting story if you haven't heard it before. Man executed in Melbourne in 1922 for the rape and murder of a 12 year old girl. The testimonies of witnesses who held grudges against Ross or who stood to gain from his demise were given greater credence than several independent, reliable witnesses who had nothing to gain, and who offered alibis that would have made his participation in the murder all but impossible. He was posthumously pardoned a few months ago, the first executed Australian to be so pardoned. Rossrs (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Forty minutes maybe, and what it doesn't say is that his larynx was torn open when he dropped, so his death was cruel in the extreme. This article says 8 to 20 minutes, which is no less harrowing. I visited the Old Melbourne Gaol, which is now a museum, a few months ago, while his case was still being decided and they had a display in one of the cells about his story, and although I'd heard about it before, it reignited my interest. Poor man, really had no hope of saving himself. I find it hard to comprehend executing a 17 year old boy though. I've read before about people being needed to pull on the legs of the victim to allow them to die more quickly, and this was not entirely uncommon in England in the 15th to 17th centuries, according to a "hangman's diary" book that I have. If you have a look at the Ross article, could you please suggest whether Colin Campbell Ross should be expanded to completion, or should it be The Gun Alley Murder article? The Ross article is more comprehensive but I didn't realize when I started it, that the Gun Alley article even existed. Shoulda checked, I know. Is it usually a case of the murderer is redirected to the article about the crime? For example a more detailed explanation of the victim would be highly appropriate to the crime article, but less so to the Ross article. Any expansion I do in the interim I might do in the Ross article because it already has a structure, and then if it can be merged later..... Do you think that would work? Just to connect these threads - if you lined up Tex Watson and Colin Ross, it's pretty clear that one of them got a better deal than the other. Rossrs (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Whitman Page

Go ahead and change the page any way you like - everybody else does. Make sure Homer Simpson gets his credit for Whitman's rampage.Victor9876 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So do it. You could have reverted with an explanation. My intention primarily was to align the article as I did with the Tower photo. Who's going to expand the intoduction into anything other than what's been said in the intro?Victor9876 (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Now the Whitman page is totally screwed up. I removed your tag thinking it may have something to do with it; it doesn't. Revert it back to the way it was before I separated the Autopsy and I'll write a summary of three or four paragraphs, even if the info will be false because of other false content.Victor9876 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved the photo of the Tower from the right to the left. That allowed the boxed list of Whitman's articles to align with the text and image. Sherurcij will fight to the death to have the photos he uploaded stay; even though he probably lifted them from my prior website.Victor9876 (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do vote to delete. Except the Chief Miles clipping, it is useful. Also, Sherurcij has weighed in on me. lol! He is a jealous liar at best, but effective.Victor9876 (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's just a matter of time before I get banned now that Sherurcij and Woohookitty are discussing me. Sherurcij is a malignant narcissistic personality and Woohookitty a fledgling mix of different personality types - NOS. To your support of the Child photo of Whitman, I feel your assessment is incorrect. Millions of young males are exposed to guns and never resort to mass murder. The photo was staged by the father and Whitman as a child, had no violent tendencies. Those developed after enlisting in the Marine Corp and after the drug abuse and tumor had their effects. Also, the term spree killer is not really appropriate for Whitman since he planned the mother and wife's in advance as well as his actions on the tower. Spree killers go from one place to another as a necessity, not a plan. The article was going well and I was going to upload more info to correct the historical inaccuracies in the article, however, now that banishment is around the corner, why bother. Nice talking with you though, as Woohookitty suggested to me a long time ago to get a hobby, he apparently can't take his own advise. I'm not saying Wikipedia is full of erroneous information on all subjects, but after my experiences here, and by knowledge of other living person complaints, the media is not the best source for truthful and accurate information. Since Wikipedia does not care about the truth, I don't care about Wikipedia. Look at Jimbo Wales history and ask yourself if this is the role model you want to volunteer your time to. He jettisons around the world with the donated money he receives and enjoys laughing at all of the suckers he can exploit, as an ex-sex purveyor, Jimbo knows the abuses people will go through for acceptance. This appears to be important to Wikipedia loyalists, for whatever reason, is known only to them. Like a good laugh? Check out Wiki-Truth. Good luck!Victor9876 (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I knew it would be a matter of time. In fact, I was shocked Detroitnews9 didn't get scrutinized. I accept the fact that I'm obsessed with getting the Whitman story correct. Again, involved personally or not, I do have information contrary to the article, even though a lot has gotten in this time around. Sorry to hear you're health prevents you from getting about like you want to, maybe things will change in the near future for you. Hope you get better.Victor9876 (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged, Milton did his best work blind. Not that you are, but I have empathy for your situation. I'm not a bad guy, just had prior issues with Sherurcij that got me caught in a cabal that over powered me. I am not a moniker, yet he enjoys making it stick. I also don't buy the sock puppet label for all returners. I can be reasoned with, but I know ny subject and why should I change my info for policies that contravene my info. Oh well, I could prevail in a moot court, but not on Wikipedia, different rules. But I have gotten better at trying to follow the rules, at the expense of the facts, that are not verifiable on the net. Goodnight, I'm experiencing vision issues now as well.Victor9876 (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still here. Hey, you mention on the deletion forum that Whitman's mother's photo of her deceased at the Penthouse Apts. was used in a court case. What court case?Victor9876 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

downwards

Hey I saw you had a disagreement with that Downwards character, don't worry about it he's rude to everyone constantly. He was given a 6 month (!!) ban due to his tendencies in the Wikiproject Basketball. He's not a part of the Wikiproject Basketball family, and in fact he is Divorced so he's not really part of his family either. Look at his talk page see what people say, you don't have to discuss things with him he'll just be a jerk you can just go ahead and undo what he does and no admin will ever fault you for it. 66.30.11.153 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I noticed the conversation at the Dahmer talk page and was going to comment but felt it would be a waste of time and not listened to after reading the long posts the editor has written to you and about you. I also read the users talk page which I found very discouraging so I thought I would bring this [4] to your attention incase you would like to add something more to what I have stated. You have had more contact than I have so I just wanted to let you know because I think this should at least be looked into for possible blp issues that may have been inserted in the project. Anyways, please feel free to add more or to ignore this. Have a good day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[5] It's been taken here by the above administrator. Thought I would advice you of this so you can comment if you want and also to save you time with the long edits to respond to. Happy editing I hope, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

Hey, I noticed your vote for deletion on the image at Charles Whitman may have been placed without actually reading the article itself (I can hardly blame you, that large) -- I don't know if it will change your opinion at all, but the newspaper edition pictured is actually part of the article, which discusses how the Chronicle actually re-opened their printing presses to publish that new "mid-day" newspaper addendum. I just thought clarifying that point might help you understand why I think a low-resolution scan of the headline (without any visible article text, making it similar to Image:Deweytruman12.jpg) meets Fair Use criteria. This isn't the following day's newspaper from a random publisher writing about the shooting, it's the local paper that put out a second newspaper that day to update people in the afternoon about what had occured earlier that day. Hope that helps! Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• The above argument is Ad Nauseum! Sorry you had to copy edit my last entry on Whitman, I'm Tirrrrreeeddddd! I told you he would fight to the death to keep his posts, even if he has to make the Chronicle the subject of the article. Oh well!Victor9876 (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Taking a step back

Howdy, I want to let you know that I'm gonna move back into more of a "behind the scenes" role on Wiki, as was intended when I first created an account. I prefer to focus on menial tasks, such as adding infoboxes and persondata, rather than enforcing content policies and guidelines. I will continue working on the banner template side project and keep you posted on my progress. BTW, I love your Ted Bundy edit summary from earlier today (is that from your senior thesis?)...LOL. mo ^talk 05:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I only run when chased with a weapon. :) Some real-life issues are making me want to keep away from potential online conflicts as much as possible. I've enjoyed working with you and plan on pestering you with questions now and then. Like it or not, you've become my unofficial adopter. Have a good one, mo ^talk 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, like many old farts, you are blessed with the wonderful thing called wisdom. Unfortunately (for him), your latest looney was not. I am happy to see that he was indefinitely blocked. People that delusional are dangerous. If I'm short on entertainment at work, I'll just check out the ANI board! mo ^talk 04:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mo, don't go too far though, I enjoy watching your work. As for the indefinite, it looked like a problem with the comments being made to Wildhartlivie which is why I asked an administrator to take a peek. I had no idea the depth of the problems at the time and also didn't plan for an ANI report at the time. I figure a talk to the user about Soapboxing and so forth would be enough until I saw the difs put on the report. I have to admit I was quite shocked at some of the disgusting attitudes shown by the user. I think the project will be served better without that kind of editor. I'm just sorry so many good editors had wasted so much time with him/her. Oh well, anyways, keep up the good work even if you do it 'behind the scenes'. You both do a great job editing here. Oh yea, don't forget to vote in the upcoming elections. I know politics stink and all but I really think this election is needed to help add fresh eyes to the arbcom committee. Happy editing to both of you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your two cents

If you want to, you can add a comment here. The overall tone of the whole thing is rubbing me the wrong way. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's cool with me. Very through. It's totally your choice to remove the tag once and for all. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Photos on Whitman Page - Whitman arrives at the Tower

Think sherurcij will be jealous?Victor9876 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the table cloth, let's eat! I'll move them to better spots. However, the weapons do align with the box descriptions.Victor9876 (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Look now.Victor9876 (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem - there is a Wikisource logo in the Whitman's Death part. I've gone in and can not find any way of moving it. Any ideas? I use Explorer.Victor9876 (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I uploaded a picture of Whitman that fits his character of everyone I've talked to. His smile could stop you they claim. I just realized I made pun with that last comment! Lolol!Victor9876 (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tonight - why Whitman is not a Spree Killer!Victor9876 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Yeah! "Keep a stiff upper lip" look. How about I switch the smiling Whitman for the yearbook one they have there?Victor9876 (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought it looked smaller. Went in and it was 150. Good job, looks great!Victor9876 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right for Julia Roberts. Well...yawwwwnnnnnnn! Good night! We'll see today what kind of trouble I have caused with the Truth. Lolololo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good evening. Well, my images are up for deletion. Never dealt with that before. They are from the FBI file that used to be with the Texas Department Of Public Safety in Austin. Now they have been released to the Austin Historical Library. What do I do?Victor9876 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The line up looks great. However, if I had my way, the weapons, gear and food list would be noted with a click here symbol, in other words, bury them and let an interested party exhume them. Sherurcij may undo or have your work undone. He's anal like that.Victor9876 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was nice to Chronie wan't I? I thought I was. But of course, I'm nice to everybody! Right!? lol!Victor9876 (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of a link to the arsenal and gear lists to get rid of the boxes and free up space? I notice a victims list was created even though the same basic list appears in the article. That way, anyone wanting to actually know what Whitman took up to the tower and access the list, even though most appear in the article also.Victor9876 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought something felt good! Must be losing my touch! lol!Victor9876 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I mean within the present article, instead of the long lists in the article as they are, they will be blue linked for anyone interested in viewing the whole list.Victor9876 (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New

I tried earlier, I'm not formatting it right. However, go to the victims list and look at the link that says Victims Main Article and click on it. That is what I am suggesting for the boxed lists.Victor9876 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So what do you suggest?Victor9876 (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it be then. Still need to resolve the deletion process.Victor9876 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear

I had given a warning to an editor last weekend when I was online and came in last night and saw that such a big to-do went on. I'm sorry you had to endure it. I tagged a couple articles last night, and apparently this has opened another can of worms. They were removed, but I partially replaced them with detailed explanations of why the articles had issues. Apparently to bring up issues with content is now a personal attack? When did that start? One doesn't usually find such a personal affront being taken when leaving constructive commentary on article issues, especially with new editors. Ah well. Hope you have a good weekend. LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gertie

Gertie looks much better. I can now tell by looking at the image, that she could "express glamour in the highest degree, without being classically beautiful or even pretty. And she had the most alluring voice, while often incapable of singing in tune." I can tell all that from the picture, which is pretty amazing, wouldn't you agree?  :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

West a-go-go

I've added some references (and did a little clean up) to our favorite externally youthful grand dame's article in a vain attempt to cut down on those tags. Ironically, I ended up tagging more content so my night was fairly counterproductive. I also checked off what I did on the list and attempted to clarify my edits on the talk page. I didn't do my usual vague citations considering the brouhaha over the article, but do let me know if anything isn't up to snuff. I'm officially burned out on ol' West so I'm taking a break from the page for at least 24 hours before I give it another go. Is it wrong that I wish this woman was never born or at the very least never did anything notable enough to warrant an inclusion here? She has officially taken over Karyn Kupcinet's place on my Wikiannoying list. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's already at the Kupincet hatred level mainly due to the whole bitchy peanut gallery/zero work combination. I did mull over the GA thing because I've never been involved in one, but I think the article would have to be rewritten extensively to include a lot of points that aren't mentioned. See, I've already learned way too much! Does Clorox make bleach for the brain? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 11:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If only I knew someone who had a bottle of that handy. Hmmm.... Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 11:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ed Gein

LOL! "Also" should be eradicated along with "very", "really" and all other overused yet useless adverbs. BTW, have you been keeping tabs on Werdnawerdna's talk page? I have...good reading right there. mo ^talk 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It was all about Dahmer, yet he claims the only personal attack he made was toward SatyrTN regarding the LBGT/pedophilia issue, which wasn't his fault, of course...looney tunes! mo ^talk 02:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dammit! I'm trying to copy edit The Texas Chain Saw Massacre but of course have to take a look at the links you provided. Have you considered making a Wikiquette alert about EmilEikS? Perhaps I will. Well, there goes my attempt to stay away from conflict. I'm just too much of a rule follower and proponent of "good interpersonal communications" to let crap like that go unaddressed. He/she needs a warning NOW to avoid another Werdnawerdna situation. Thoughts? mo ^talk 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? ;) I'll add those to the template. Thanks, mo ^talk 03:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I know you're keeping an eye on him (I looked at his user page this time), so I'll follow your lead. Back to copy editing for me. I've never seen the film, but it sounds like a steaming pile of poo. mo ^talk 03:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I should have chosen my words more carefully when addressing a WikiProject Films member. :) mo ^talk 03:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email. mo ^talk 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you saw Protonk's response. Would you and Pinkadelica like to take it from here? You two know the situation much better than I do. mo ^talk 00:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No Problems

I just joined wikipedia and still am learning how to edit things so thanks for explaining what happened. I hope this solves the matter and that wikipedia will accept it. Karama08 (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes and References

I noticed that you altered my attempt to rename subsections here [6] . Are you a primary editor? I am unable to find your name too frequently in History. No big deal. I would like you to take the time to see the example which I made on another article by Hag2. I asked for his opinion on the Casolaro talkpage but have not yet heard from him. Now that you have altered my attempt, his opinion no longer matters. It would help though when you make alterations that you discuss them on the talkpage. Please answer me here to avoid fragmenting this discussion about Notes and References into several different places. Or move this discussion here [7] under my 14:57, 22 November 2008 comment to Hag2 at the Casolaro talkpage (which would be my preferred choice.) The alteration that I made here [8] is in keeping with the suggestions made here [9] for the example here [10]. Since Pericles is generally accepted as a good example, I think that a similar construction for Danny Casolaro is warranted. From our previous meeting, I realize that you are more familiar with Wikipedia than I; however I believe that the current use of subsection titles "Notes" and "References" under the main section heading References may be mildly confusing to readers. At best, I believe that the "explanatory notes" ought to be separated from the References and distinctly clarified from "footnotes". I believe that Pericles makes a separation distinction calling one "notes", the other "citations", and the final "references" (which are then broken into two separate categories: "primary" and "secondary"). Thank you for your attention to this minor issue. ThsQ (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wildhart?

Asked and answered.

grin

Dixie

Hag2 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

more

Wild, would you read over my thoughts on the Talk:Danny Casolaro, and then reclassify if you agree? I feel that the issues outlined in the Casolaro section of the Bua Report Rebuttal contain details which have not been presented in the Wikipedia article. Also, I would like your thoughts on whether Casolaro is encyclopedic. The peer review was a major disappointment. Hag2 (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cupa Cupa

Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Tea somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:WikiTea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

FYI

I posted an incident notice regarding EmilEikS here and invite you to post comments or additional info. Oh, and I'll respond to your email once I de-stress and clear my head. Gonna play a little Westward II: Heroes of the Frontier. I'm such a geek! mo ^talk 03:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The responding admin requested a more concise description of the violations. I think I need help on this. Thanks, mo ^talk 04:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm working on a follow up posting as well, but will wait until you add yours in case mine ends up including redundant info. mo ^talk 04:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just sent you an email about it. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 09:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail

I'm going to send you an email from my work email address (I don't have access to web email here). I'll let you know when I send it in case your spam filter plops it into your junk mail folder. mo ^talk 03:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just done got 'er sent. Happy Monday! mo ^talk 03:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent events

Hi Wildhartlivie, I haven't been editing much* the last few days, but I have read through the recent comments. I have nothing to add as it's all been said, but I'll keep watching for any developments, and if there's anything I can add that I think might be useful, I'll do so. Please don't interpret my lack of input as lack of interest or support. Rossrs (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

*My goodness, I now see my last edit was 3 days ago. That's unusual for me :-)

Re: RfC

It's my turn to do the closing procedures at work, but I'll take a full look at it and add comments/endorsesments when I'm back at the bachelorette pad (aka my extremely messy condo), which should be in about two hours. mo ^talk 07:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I went to post my dispute resolution attempt evidence and noticed that you forgot to add your signature to the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section. Better get over there girl before the request gets deleted! mo ^talk 12:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I commented, well I asked a question on the talk page [11] I don't know what policy is on this, do you? I'm not sure but the talk page is acting weird for me, maybe it's just me, I hope. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your also; and also...

Thanks for the note on my Talk page. I also have noticed it. Also, when I wrote that (first time) in the Wahlberg edit summary, I also wondered if others had noticed how over-used is "also" in articles...it's cool to also know I'm not the only one. Also, if the "also police" never get started, I bet we could at least strike a small blow for better para flow if we at least try to get the issue of "Also creep" in GA and MOS guidelines, you know? Also: Knowing is half the battle. Now that we know, we might also casually mention it in discussions, at the pump, and also on project discussion boards. I am also David Shankbone 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, my friend. But the life I lead is only because of people like you. If Wikipedia wasn't what it is today; had people not put in all this work to create this amazing attempt to amass knowledge outside of the profit motive; if none of that had happened, none of the things on my User page would have, either. And please bare with my spiel, but it's important that everything I did could be done by any of us. Any of it. Until 2006, I hadn't owned a camera since 2003. I knew nobody. I just...went for it. I wrote a long blog post that tells all my tricks and secrets. Also - kudos for Gene Wilder; I had an opportunity to photograph him I passed up, dammit. I loved him in the Eighties (and Gilda Radner - the first biography I ever read). David Shankbone 11:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Gertrude Lawrence

Hello. It's my understanding - or at least I've been told by other editors - that contributors are discouraged from using lists in articles, which is why I incorporated all of Lawrence's credits into the text of the article and deleted the lists. I can understand why a list might be helpful, since the reader can see a performer's credits at a glance, but I also understand that Wikipedia is to be treated as an encyclopedia, with information provided in prose form. In any event, I'm positive duplicate wikilinks are unnecessary. I will keep the lists but plan to make them uniform, i.e., remove the box format you used for the films, and I will add the Broadway credits.

Re: the film Early Mourning, in his bio of Lawrence Sheridan Morley discusses the filming of The Battle of Paris at length and specifies this was her film debut. I know Early Mourning is listed at IMDb, but the Film Project advises editors this shouldn't be considered a definitive source. In this instance, I tend to agree, since the IMDb entry for Early Mourning contains very little information, and surely her biographer - especially someone as respected and thorough as Morley - would get the facts straight.

I'm still working on this article and hope we can avoid editing conflicts by engaging in civil and intelligent discussion instead of reverting changes without contacting each other. Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! I couldn't understand where you found some of the stage credits you listed, then realized they were the titles of the individual acts of Tonight at 8:30. I don't think these should be listed separately, since they are merely components of the same play. Both Neil Simon's Plaza Suite and the musical The Apple Tree consist of three separately titled acts, but you wouldn't list them individually when citing the credits of an actor who appeared in them, right? LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. What I'm finding with Wikipedia is that each project seems to have its own MOS. There was a recent discussion within the film project re: the use of tables for cast lists in film articles, and the consensus was they're unsightly and should be discouraged. Obviously other projects favor them. I think the most important thing with any article is that the content be accurate and as extensive as possible. I appreciate your input! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hello, I noticed that you are an experienced editor yet refuse to use citation templates[12]. What beef do you have against them? They make things perty and orderly. Too time consuming you say? There's a solution for that. Just select the refTools box in your Editing gadgets and voila! Gorgeous footnotes in an instant...unless you need to cite something other than a website, news source, book or journal...then you're screwed. momoricks ^{make my day} 04:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, jeez...momoricks ^{make my day} 06:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel the vibrations

I've left an additional comment, but I think an RfC probably makes the most sense because I'm still not seeing an clear rationale for its inclusion and I doubt one will be forthcoming considering the latest answer. This whole thing kinda makes me wonder how many convicted felons actually "track down" their victims to apologize. I guess it only matters if you find some fame after you live the thug life. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 00:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question...what do I do with an article's talk page once I redirect the article itself? I'm (finally) redirecting Vanessa Bryant to Kobe's page, but her talk page has some comments on it. Nothing really worth holding on to in my opinion, but you never know. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Groovy, thanks. Happy (late) Turkey day! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh, I got that feeling too. Let me know when it's up and I'll leave another comment. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think I should do with this? I don't even know where to being. The title seems wrong (I think it's actually Let The Music Play: Supreme Rarities 1960-1969 (Motown's Lost & Found)) and the rest....*sigh*. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, how interesting. I checked out the user's other contributions and stumbled on this little gem which seems oddly similar to this (before my changes but still largely the same). Considering the page was created a mere nine days ago, how much you want to bet the link isn't a mirror from Wiki? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the Maxine article as a copyvio but didn't request deletion since the subject appears to be notable. I'll let someone else rewrite that thing since I've no idea who the woman even is. Good catch on the first copy & paste job. I started reading some dumb article about a Hollywood agent and got sidetracked as usual. I seriously need to stop finding these messes. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 09:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article and fab clean up job. I think I'm going to bring that phrase "quick with child" back into the lexicon. I take it she didn't get the chance to track down anyone to say she was sorry. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

UAA report

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. However, your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Use of a commercial name is only blatantly against policy if it is used for advertising or promotion. The edit history thus far does not indicate any conflicts of interest with use of the name and policy. If you have problems with the edits made by the user please consider discussing those issues on their talk page. Or if they continue, report it appropriately as vandalism.

Please remember you should only post infringements on this page if they are so serious that the user needs to be blocked immediately. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, for example using the {{Uw-username}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

seek opinion on Danny

hi, Wild, you probably overlooked my request for your opinion on reclassifying Danny downward. See [13] and [14]. Hag2 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WILD (Turkey!)

Hey, Hope you had a great holiday and not too much Turkey. Had sudden company and they are now gone. Why is incident being used instead of tragedy? The only way I ever refer to it as "the incident" is in very limited conversations. No big issue, but a small one.

By the way, Ed Gein, was the inspiration for "Psycho", "Texas Chainsaw", and "Silence of the Lambs" among a few others. As a true psycopath, he can't be defined. I guess that's where the romance and fascination comess in. But alas, I gave up on serial killers long ago, mass murderers have issues that can have a logical conclusion.Victor9876 (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Personally, I think that when an ill individual climbs a clock tower and starts playing sniper, there are few who would classify it as anything other than a tragedy, but that's me."

I'm sure he wasn't playing, and I understand your point, the results are there, and from all I've interviewed, the tragedy still continues for various reasons; primarily vicariously. As to the ill issue, psychosis can be cavelier, some notice the changes, others do not. His issues were from within, without, all sides and up and down, no particular primary causes besides the tumor and the amphetamine abuse, those two were enough. As to the photo's, I did expand the tags, however, each person may have a different interpretation of the rules and "puff" - they'll be gone.Victor9876 (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I never posted anything on the nomination page. Maybe I should; or, maybe I'll just write a Godfather Moment on his talk page, less activity and more time that way.Victor9876 (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you say "pedantic". Perhaps the appearance of power for him is more important than the obvious. Let's see if the Godfather moment works.Victor9876 (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K.! Let's see.Victor9876 (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I posted and left on his talk page:

Hey Damien, I added to the tags the source for the photos - The Austin Historical Library. All of the Agencies, Federal and State worked on the information. A lot of them are co-mingled and have no mention of which or whom. There shouldn't be a problem and if there should be, a cease and desist order is easy (and recommended) to follow. Please withdraw the tags on the images. Thanks!Victor9876 (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I just went there - it's there.Victor9876 (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added info. Not sure if it is in appropriate area, but it's there.Victor9876 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Resilient Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar, also known as the "Timex Barnstar", because you have recently taken numerous lickins and kept on tickin. Bravo! momoricks make my day 04:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Context

That's ok. Too much turkey is - well there's no such thing as too much turkey. I believe that it's possible to take any reliable source, twist it within an inch of its life, but technically quote correctly from it, and still achieve the literal definition of verifiability if not the actual meaning. I can't quite understand what's being said so it makes it hard to respond to. Anyhow, I'm off to a restaurant for what I'm hoping will be a delicious meal, some fine wine and a bit of a laugh, but I'll check in again later. Rossrs (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness!

Onto something completely different. Brace yourself, and have a look at this picture and everything else becomes irrelevant. Sorry, I just stumbled upon this and I have to share it. And she's 76. It is now my second favourite picture on Wikipedia. My favourite is "...and then, suddenly, Roger noticed the camera...." Rossrs (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I admire Christina Applegate immensely. She seems like such a clear-thinking person. .... so you've got a hot page on Photobucket. I notice you haven't uploaded Roger ;-) Rossrs (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"On second look"? How many times do you plan to look at it? It seems that you can't stop. You're hooked, admit it.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh your amusements are much more subtle than mine. Mine are plastered all over my user page with Mamie van Doren and Roger Moore guiding in unsuspecting readers like a quartet of spotlights. I love the Amy Winehouse deathwatch - that's as confident a prediction as I've ever seen - and could User:Rodhullandemu's reply be more perfect? Right, well I'm setting off for an adventure. Next stop: CherWorld! Rossrs (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's CherWorld, so "accomplish" is perhaps too strong a word. I'm imagining a space-age version of Dollywood. Do you suppose that in units of measurement, 1000 Keiras = 1 Dolly? (Those Keira pictures are disturbing. If she tried to do a tango, she'd snap in two.) Rossrs (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've got a certain user talk page on my watchlist. Have you ever seen another editor that manages to get into trouble absolutely everywhere they go almost as if it's inevitable? Aside from the obvious vandal/troll accounts of course, which this one is obviously not. Jeez! Rossrs (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if he's interested or not, but he's edited there. Rossrs (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. You have to wonder the definition of "condescending". Although it's not worth wondering about. Rossrs (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought so.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WTF

Seriously....WTF? First I'm a liberal whore, then a Commie, now I'm a Marky Mark sympathizer/petty criminal. Is there a theme to any of this? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 20:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to blow it off too, but I'm tired of (not so) cleverly concealed personal attacks 'round here. I wish I had half the life people online are creating for me. I would be so interesting! I'm fine by the way, just trucking along. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AbbyNCIS.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AbbyNCIS.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitman Intro

Is this what you wanted?Victor9876 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well...mission accomplished for me on the Whitman page. Of course, within a week, someone will come along and insert erroneous info from some web page that copied bad info from the press. Let me know if the intro is to your liking. It took me five minutes to write and two minutes to approve. I don't want to think I wasted my or anyone else's time! Lol!!!Victor9876 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out my talk page at the bottom. Carrt81 has some real issues (bless her heart). Of course, I responded on her page with as much levity as I could muster, but still, there is a tone there that is disturbing. I'm sure I know who it is as some of the content has been used by her in phone conversations, and she uses info that is not true, yet never been used on Wikipedia as far as the info goes. Think you might have some kind words for her to stop this behavior?Victor9876 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter

The November 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. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

any objection?

hi, Wild. I'd like to move your most recent comment on my talkpage over to the Danny talkpage. I prefer to keep conversations in one place for others who may be interested in the particulars. If acceptable with you, I propose to cut and paste your comment into the subsection details surrounding the reclassification issue. Thank you for your attention to this matter. (If you would care to move your own comment, that would be perfectly acceptable by me too.) Hag2 (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

There's a refreshingly non-confrontational discussion on the Serial killer talk page regarding a link between autism and serial killers, and whether it should be added to the article. Granted it was started by an anonymous user who was probably just playing around; however, another editor ran with it, which peaked my interest. I'd love to hear (aka read) your take on it. Oh, and by the way, you are the devil. momoricks ^{make my day} 14:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. That's more like 25 cents. :) momoricks ^{make my day} 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I remembered you saying that was your specialty. Perhaps your input will prompt others to stop and think before adding controversial, minority theories to the article. Serial killers are controversial enough already! momoricks ^{make my day} 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, but you can say it much more eloquently than me. momoricks ^{make my day} 01:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It don't get much more eloquent than that! momoricks ^{make my day} 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dominique Dunne

Hi, yes, I think that would be great. There are a few articles with pictures of headstones -Tyrone Power is one that springs to mind. I would say, yes please upload. The Bette Davis one for example would be very appropriate as the grave and headstone are mentioned in her article. I'd love to visit those Hollywood cemeteries. Rossrs (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The images look really good, and I particularly like the Davis images. I'm going to try to read up on monobook and see if I can figure it out. I've kinda tried before but I didn't continue on. On the other hand, I have been playing around with my photo application and I've figured out how to do some things with images - so I'll have a look at the Elyse Knox image. Maybe the crease can be disguised. Rossrs (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Old McDonald

Oh yeah, I've been putting that one off for a while now. Almost a year to be exact. Let me gather some sources and I'll give it a whirl. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...what's this then? When will your reign of terror end? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the whole dramatic exchange. I particularly enjoyed the *shocking* checkuser findings and the subsequent hacking accusations, but then you know me, I'm a sucker for all things wacky. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 08:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, you know there was no second person! lol He got all confused during Flagicongate '08 and ratted on himself. If there's another person that's equally rude and that up in arms over a flag icon, I officially have no faith in humanity. I gotta say, I was actually a little shocked at how fast the exchange between him and Viriditas went from zero to crazy. Evidently no one can say anything about his lack of experience or failure to grasp basic policy without being labeled as condesending and rude. Oh well, if the project tanks because we no longer have a myriad of picture with Mae West looking like walking death or a man gazing upon her grave, so be it. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 09:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was just me that thought the images failed to live up to the hoopla that heralded their arrival. This scratchy old thing is sublime - the game is to look at the picture first and then try to guess which article it was gratuitously forced into. Rossrs (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehee. It's times like this I wish I'd taken a photo of Mae West's crypt. I don't remember actually having seen it, and I'm certain I'd have noticed the yellow roses if I'd seen it. I think it's time for that image to go, whaddaya say? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me! And the living dead picture too. Yuk!

(about MM) Thanks for the tip. I'll probably end up cutting that part from the article anyway unless I get to researching and think it's relevant to keep. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 09:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Marie McDonald is done. It's not great, but it's a wee bit better than before. I'm going to have to take a trip to ye old library next week to get some books about her because online sources are few and far between. As for the Mae pictures, yeah, it's time they go bye bye. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Vile

I should look more closely at categories, as I tend to skip them. This is horrible - and thank you for removing it. Rossrs (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. And ignorance. Shirley Bassey, born in Wales, and of Nigerian ancestry is, so it would seem, African-American. I guess black is black, and that's where it starts and finished. Sheez!

I'm hopping on the disgusted bandwagon. Judging from the user's talk page, I don't think there's any good faith behind this creation. Thank goodness it was caught so quickly because I'd be pissed if I saw that on an article. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Un-freakin-believable. It's 2008. Will people evolve already! Perhaps the user's love of vandalizing Jerry will be his/her downfall. momoricks ^{make my day} 10:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm guessing there's not a whole lot of thought or actual research that is going into adding the category. I reverted two, Malcolm X (sorry about the ec) and Tiger Woods, but he did loads more (I'm guessing you got to them). As I said before, I think the user is just being an ass. There's no way a normal person would think that's an acceptable term unless they were educated at the Werdnawerdna school of thought and social graces. He needs a ban (gosh, I'm getting ban happy in my old age!). Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

B movie actors CFD

If you have a moment, can you go through Category:B-movie actors and add them to the existing nomination for the American subcat? Otto4711 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Festival International du Film redirect page

Hey there, your Tinseltown death pics are fabu. When did you visit? I've lived on the West Coast my entire life and still haven't made it down there. Pathetic, I know.

I happened upon this redirect page and am a bit confused as to why it redirects to Cannes Film Festival when it means International Film Festival in French, a general term. Is Cannes considered THE international film festival of all festivals? At first, I thought it would be more appropriate as a disambiguation page, but then I checked out Category:International film festivals. Woo-wee! That's a buttload of pages. What do you think? If Rossrs or Pinkadelica see this, I gladly welcome your opinions as well. Y'all can put your replies here, if you like. momoricks (make my day) 04:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

From the history section on the page, it says that the original name of Cannes was Le Festival International de Cannes and then it went through several name transformations, but the gist of it is that France and Italy were sort of competitive and Cannes was supposed to be the French side of that. Then an agreement was made and the two countries agreed to have its own festival in alternating years, yada yada, and finally the Cannes was the location of what was the first international film festival. It doesn't say this explicitly, but I'm guessing that Festival International du Film may have been a more basic name for it, like Oscars is for the Academy Award? My guess, anyway. What's more confusing to me is this sentence: "In 1965 an hommage was paid to Jean Cocteau after his death, and he was named Honorary President for life." I'll leave a note for Pink and Ross and have them weigh in. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know. I entered "Festival International du Film" in Google, and the first listing is for the Cannes Festival site. I went through page after page and yet the term "Festival International du Film" does not appear verbatim on any of the pages I could find. This page about the history of the festival may be helpful, but even so, I haven't been able to find anything to indicate that the generic "Festival International du Film" evolved into the Cannes Festival, and yet that's where Google takes you as a first stop.

The Cocteau bit, yes.... Is it intentionally surreal or absurdist? Or just badly written? Probably just badly written. Cocteau's article says "during his lifetime" which is, quite frankly, when he was at his best. Jean Cocteau's page at Cannes makes it clearer. He was made president in 1957. It seems that following his death, he stopped taking an active role in the festival. Rossrs (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, he was at his best before his death. His work has suffered since then. Thanks Rossrs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking into this. I did a Google Books search and found this and this, so apparently Festival International du Film is an alternate name for Cannes. Great catch on the Cocteau sentence, Wild. Rossrs, does that one qualify as a "sincere misfire"? :) momoricks (make my day) 09:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well .... I will assume good faith and consider that it was sincere, and there's absolutely no doubt it was a misfire, so yes. I would say so. :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken Hart

Feel like giving this article your magic touch? I'm semi familiar with the case, but not enough to do some much needed pruning. The whole thing kinda reads funny to me, needs more sources, and the lede is just...odd. I found what appears to be a good reference here if that will sway your decision :) Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 11:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You caught that? Damn...my kissing up skills are slipping. There's no rush on fixing it. I might read up on the case and do a rewrite after I fix Marie McDonald. I've been busying myself with everything but poor Marie. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 12:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't being insincere, you're just really good at writing crime articles and well, I suck at it. As for Kathryn Grayson, I left my note on the talk page. Those opera singer/actor articles have been bugging me for awhile now. I was close to adding an infobox to Mario Lanza but figured it was more trouble than it's worth. Alright...I'm off to research poor Marie. For some reason, I keep mixing her up with Carole Landis. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 01:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

fyi

There is a comment on my talk page for you. The message is confusing to me, too many meds in me I don't know?! Could use some clarifying anyways.  :) Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kathryn Grayson

Yes, I'm in favour. I added one once and I found it in the edit history. It remained in the article for exactly 2 hours and 27 minutes and then it was removed, kind of as a done deal. In any case, yes I think so. Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Birth and death template

Hi, In my travels through the crazy world of actress biographies, I've noticed two - Halle Berry and Beulah Bondi - where the infobox uses a different template to record "city/state" for birth and death, which seems to me that for non-Americans could also convey "city/country". It looks interesting. Have you noticed it before? I'd be interested in your opinion. Rossrs (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

When you think you've seen it all...

I thought I'd share cuz I'm so giving. I was snooping on talk pages again and happened upon this, which lead me to this. I love Wikipedia! momoricks (make my day) 03:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be another way of using Wiki as a big 'ol box of soap, damaging its intent and purpose once again. I'm glad that I signed up for an account because I learned an important thing: Wiki is a handy online reference. Is its information trustworthy? Not always. Some Guido or Werdnawerdna could have just puked POV all over the article.

You raised a good point about consensus. That puts the fright into me too. Groups of people—online, offline, wherever—seem to have a natural tendency to develop some sort of "mob mentality". I'm not worried about you or me. I worry about the less discerning editors (and readers) believing this poppycock. BTW, the Harmonious Editing Club userbox is a nice touch, don't you think? momoricks (make my day) 10:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the can of worms: I added my two cents to the discussion but, at the risk of seeming vague, refrained from saying anything that might bait those flesh-hungry wolves. My eyes started crossing before I was halfway through it. To quote Joey Lawrence in Blossom, "WHOA"! momoricks (make my day) 12:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, that's exactly what I was thinking when I made that reference. momoricks (make my day) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jack Warner

I finally added the proper source. FMAFan1990 (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Questionable B Movie Actors

Here are the actors I'ved tagged so far:

Betty Boyd

Rosemarie Bowe

Virginia Belmont

‎Dovie Beams ‎

Bruce Baron

Indus Arthur

Gloria Castillo

Karen Ciral

Mike Cohen

That's quite a lot, and I'm just through the Cs in the alphabetical list. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello! Good job on cleaning up my contribution.Victor9876 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You should ask Mr. IP address, "How do you prove your negatives?" lol!Victor9876 (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll discuss your question tonight. Need sleep now, like the other night.Victor9876 (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your edit comment. It appeared that the citation request that wasn't removed, fit better where it wass put.Victor9876 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitman was counted among the dead to bring the total to seventeen. How does a perp get counted with the victims? He was suffering from psychosis and the tumor, to whatever degree they influenced his behavior.Victor9876 (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I'd be interested to know how one would go about referencing a statement that begins "There is no information..." Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Many ways, 1.) incorporate the observation into the text 2.) point out the obvious, as we did in the section, or, my favorite, remove the paragraph, put Gunby back on the time issue wounded list, mention his death in perspective in the the after the event section. Shall I do the latter?Victor9876 (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My comment was regarding that I'd put the reference into a cite web template but when you moved it, you put it back in with the inline style. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, please restore to your original.Victor9876 (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Ip is getting confrontational, so I did the above suggested.Victor9876 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Biography

Hi, a little while ago we briefly discussed using "biography" as a header in an article that is a biography. I just saw this edit at Mark Wahlberg from User:Journalist who's edit summary kinda paraphrases my earlier comment to you. "Life and career" is what he's used instead, followed by sub-headers. I think it's quite good, and much better than "biography". What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it won't work in every case, but I'll keep it in mind. I've seen a few articles that have a "Personal life" header with a sentence or two about who they married followed by a header "death" which says basically that they died. I've been pulling those together into one section too. "Death" being one of the more personal aspects of one's personal life.... Kathryn's on my watchlist, as I'm sure she is on yours. So far, so good.

Also, could you please have a look at Natalie Wood when you get a chance. Am I being picky or does she look like Cletus Spuckler in the first two images with her mouth open in both? I was reverted by someone with an edit history of 10 edits, all to this article. I doubt that it's a free image, but that's another story. I know we're not supposed to bite the newcomers, and I agree with that, but I'm getting so tired of people coming in with ownership issues and claiming articles as soon as they arrive here. I'm just having a bit of a rant. Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the Gypsy image bigger but you know it was already in the article, so it ended up being there twice. I've put the BCTA image there in its place in the article section, rather than the infobox, so it'll be interesting to see if that's viewed as a compromise. As for biting - some need to be bitten. Like our old friend, for example, needed to be bitten. I would give anyone the benefit of the doubt, even if they let me down, if I could see something positive in their attitude, but if someone comes in with a bad attitude, that's different. When people come along and make an honest mistake etc, I feel very bad if someone is hostile or rude to them - I remember how discouraging that was to me when I was new here. I'd never be so presumptuous as to go to a new venue and assume I knew more than everyone else there, and that's the attitude I find hard to comprehend. Rossrs (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at a couple of comments on the talk page of his international contributions, and once I translated it into English (which got boring very fast) I saw that he'd had similar comments there, and had made similar replies, and .... well it was much the same really, just less. So that whole thing about not being able to believe his/her/their eyes was a little to disengenuous. Personally, I think he went looking for trouble, and therefore easily found it. In all honesty, I've been able to AGF about most editors. I don't envy you in the freezing temperatures. I've only experienced that kind of coldness once in my life, and I only thought it was fun because it was so different. I'm sweltering (well not exactly as I have the aircon turned onto "Arctic" but I do have to go out into the world occasionally), and it's in the high 30s, sticky and humid, and we've been getting a lot of destructive storms as a result. Too bad we can't each have something that's more an average of the two. Stay warm!! Rossrs (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Lee Lucas

Why did you remove the external link to www.serialkillerstv.com/lucas.html from the Henry Lee Lucas article? There was no edit summary. Newguy34 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It was removed in a series of removals because an SPA has been spamming the links to various pages. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Good catch, then. Can the SPA be blocked? Needed? Newguy34 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sentence

Okay, the sentence has many parts, but I don't see how it reads incorrectly.

Whole sentence: "Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in the Columbine census-designated place in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado, United States near Denver and Littleton."

Let's cut it into pieces.

• "Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999," - Name of event, and date...
• "at Columbine High School in the Columbine census-designated place" - A census-designated place is a U.S. governmental designation
• "in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado, United States" - The census-designated place is ALSO in an unincorporated area
• "near Denver and Littleton." - The school and the CDP are near Denver and Littleton

Yes, it is a long sentence. No, I don't see how it reads incorrectly. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You said: "As an aside, I've never understood the need for the "unincorporated" part of the opening, since most counties in the United States are unincorporated by definition." - Most counties are unincorporated? Huh? - It is rare for *all* of a county to be unincorporated. Most counties have some incorporated places. There are a few which do not, i.e. Arlington County, VA and Baltimore County, MD. Also in cases where there are CDPs often there are wider areas with postal designations like "XX, State" where those places are not within the CDP. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• But when I say "unincorporated X county" it usually means a territory in X county that does not have another incorporated government. - i.e. Academy Sports and Outdoors's HQ is not in any city; it is in an unincorporated area in Harris County, hence unincorporated Harris County. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Banner project

I'm almost through the A articles in Category:People_executed_for_murder and have identified several articles that may have some notability issues. Are you interested in collaborating on picking through these when I'm finished with the category? Some of them look like they need to be deleted. Apparently some editors think that every person executed in the U.S. needs a Wiki article. *snore* momoricks (make my day) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep track of them at User:Momoricks/Sandbox3. momoricks (make my day) 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical Damage

Historical damage was there about 600 revisions ago. Most of it was removed by someone called "Wildhartlivie", you know, one of those obsessive rhetorical fanatics that can not accept the truth, and has to rely on WP Rules that allows false info to enter via drug induced reporters who get published to the net. Wow, your name is similar to....LOL!Victor9876 (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this event, lots of ways. 1.) The movie producer of "The Deadly Tower", did not believe McCoy's account because of what was in the media, did not give McCoy any credit in the movie, and still, put a character named Foss in his place and had Martinez empty his revolver into Whitman as Foss cowardly looked on. 2.) Gary Lavergne, the author of "A Sniper In The Tower", states that Whitman would be alive behind bars (several years ago) in spite of the Gliobastoma that would have killed Whitman within a year, even if he never went up on the tower, and that Whitman, after several hundred pages of reading, was "evil", nothing more. 3.)The City of Austin fought his awards I got him based on media accounts...shall I go on?Victor9876 (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Victor9876 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Anti-Semetic either, I tend to believe the Palestinians have better arguments than Isreal. The Holocaust wasn't just Jews either...but you know that; so, yadda yadda yadda. Now, I understand you references to Myth, Lore and movies, all of those require a suspension of belief, as does our economy right now, but history and the actual participants, aren't going to buy your analogies, as good as they are. It's the miles in their shoes issue. Perhaps I've quoted an observation from Swift to you before (I was going to use it as the header before), "Falsehoods fly, and the Truth comes limping, Long after the tale, has had it's effects!". Your reply is kinda like, "not in my backyard". A good defense mechanism, but no solace to the victims and actors in a tragedy. Good try though! Did you know a few of the victims family members actually died from grief in a short period of time? Many still suffer to this day. Perhaps I'll write a book, call it, "Murder By Media!". The media still require verbs and vowels today don't they?Victor9876 (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.Victor9876 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This guy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nv8200p#Filmakers_and_producers, is an Austinite. I'll bet a rare conservative for that region. You can make the argument that he has a biased interest in the article and should undo and recuse himself from the article better than I can. Besides, his last name is Moore also, I hate people with the last name...Victor9876 (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I left this for Mr. Moore...

From Sherurcij's talk page, you said - "My reason for deletion of each image is in the IFD discussion for the image. In my judgment, the arguments presented to keep the images gave no support for the significance of the images to the article so they failed #8 of the non-free content criteria. I closed them pretty much identically because they all had the same problem meeting the NFCC." Are you saying that your judgment, or interpretation of Wikipedia Rules are above consensus and over ride all discussions? Perhaps you were looking for language or ignoring language to acheive a personal issue. That being said, and you clearly understanding that the Austin Historical Society Library exists, along with your attendance at UT, being an Austin and Texas resident, should preclude you from using your power as an administrator on the article, since the incident happened in Austin, Texas, and at a school you once attended. Judges are held to lower standards than these for recusal. Please withdraw your actions and cease and desist on the Whitman page. Thank you!Victor9876 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs)

Left for Nv8300 - Here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/library/ahc/whithome.htm you live in Austin, the address is on the page, you go there and be the communication! They have a phone number also.Victor9876 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Are you starting to understand the Historical Damage header yet? lol!Victor9876 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Give me til tommorrow. I'll see what I can do. This admin is a photographer http://www.travel-austin-texas.com/ scroll down, he has several photos here and I'll bet...he knows Gary Lavergne and has possibly been sent in to disrupt things. Hope I'm wrong.Victor9876 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know if I mentioned I'm doing a documentary on Whitman. I just called an associate and tomorrow and Friday are going to be busy. Can I take you up on emailing the library for permission? I'll bring the Empire State Building to you.Victor9876 (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sherurcij sent me this, it contains an email address you may need. Hope it helps! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Victor9876&action=edit&section=15 Victor9876 (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Category deletion

Sorry. In the future if you plan on doing work like that, leave a clear message near the end of the discussion. Most admins will hold action pending work that someone is doing. I guess my quick review may have been done with the benefit of your work. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for responding to the message I placed on the Film Project talk page. I was prompted to post it after seeing The Hours on the collector's edition of the DVD at a friend's house. I didn't realize he had hit the scan button when the Miramax logo came on the screen at the start of the film, which forwarded it to the credits after the first scene in which Virginia Woolf prepares for and commits suicide, so I thought for some inexplicable reason it had been deleted from the film and wanted to discuss why with someone who was familiar with it. I know now I was mistaken. I respect your reluctance to discuss the film as I realize it can be a real depressing experience for many people. I'm attracted to it because of the beautiful way in which the three plots are interwoven, the brilliant editing, and of course the phenomenal performances. The first time I saw it, soon after it was released, I sat through it twice, and then went directly to a bookstore to buy Cunningham's novel, a copy of Mrs. Dalloway, and a bio of Woolf, that's how much it affected me. I appreciate your taking the time to write! LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I'm getting ready to leave my computer but want to bring "these new edits to your attention". All the photos are up for deletion again and some have been deleted. I don't have the time to look into this but I figure you could look into it. I figure Victor might also be interested. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitman Images and Sources

The images of the South Door and NE corner are mine, I took them. The others I had to get a Freedom Of Information Act form and permission from different agencies to view and have them reproduced. This was done several years ago and before the information was released to the public. At no time did I have to sign any agreement to not use the images or documents in any way I wished. About a year later, after I interviewed with Fox7 and showed the photos of Whitman in the morgue, the agencies decided to give the entire file collections on Whitman to the library. Sooooo...I don't know what to do or say at this time except that WP rules suck. What else can I say?Victor9876 (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I can estimate that my costs to get all of the information back in the late 90's through 2001 was well over $3,000.00. My efforts to help McCoy another $20,000.00, these do not include the cost of time and research, who knows what that is worth? Now Wikipedia, wants my time, effort and expense's to verify photos that are obvious and relevant to their project. I respectfully decline to do so. I don't have the time or money. Plus, all the documents are stored away and in several locations. I am going through timelines with documents at this time and could not guarantee producing them prior to the images being deleted. I'm willing to help, but history tells me to proceed cautiously.Victor9876 (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at the rationale of Mr. Moore, he quotes Non-Free Rule #8, I assume he means this: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is highly subjective. As to where the photo's were obtained and photo-copied for me, it was at the Texas Department Of Public Safety on Lamar in Austin. They had the photos as well as the APD. They are crime scene photo's that until their release in 2002-3, were available only through a Texas and US FOIA request. The paying and acquisition of all the records were through that agency. Again, I have only been to the library a few times, once to give an audio recording of interviews I did with victims, professors, friends of Whitman and McCoy, Conner, and Gerding of the APD. So in terms of who has what in terms of copyright, I stand by the US Government issue of public domain, they became the lead agency almost immediately. Now that the records have been released to the library and in the public domain, copyright is almost a moot point. I'm not hiding anything, I just wasn't there when they were given to the library, and the library is a public domain institution. What else can I say at this time? Victor9876 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Think I'll get in trouble?Victor9876 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Day Lewis

Hi. This info is already covered in the correct section of the article - personal life. It doesn't belong in the lead. There are already plenty of references that he considers himself to be English. The inclusion of Irish Citizenship in the first sentence suggests someone is trying to push an Irish identity.

92.12.93.210 (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Look what I found

Take a look at the contributions for this anonymous IP address and this one. Suspicious? momoricks (make my day) 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I noticed that too. Perhaps it's a rabbit. Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I'm learning from the boldest of the bold. He asked for things to be pointed out, so I pointed them out. Back to the other discussion: while the contentiousness has quieted, the issues with refusing to learn and follow policy continue. And what's with signing notes with fakes names and "Anonymous"? Is that meant to be a super sneaky, CIA agent-style, hiding technique? momoricks (make my day) 11:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, what did you go and do a thing like that for? I hope I don't have to rethink this whole idol worship thing. :) momoricks (make my day) 12:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I definitely don't want you to feel unimportant. I understand your frustration. It does appear as if the coordinators may be confused regarding how to go about that whole consensus thing. momoricks (make my day) 13:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Links galore

Could you take a look at Bettie Page and let me know what you think about that very comprehensive external link section? I have no idea where to even begin cutting it because nearly all of the links are fansites and don't even get me started on that pop culture section. Ugh. Speaking of ugh, I see everyone's favorite user is back. I knew it was too good to be true :/ Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films

Hello, I appreciate your participation in the discussion about awards at the WikiProject's talk page! I hope that you don't drop out of the discussion prematurely because of coordinators weighing in. Those of us who were chosen to be coordinators are just those who were often engaged in discussions before they got such titles. It may also help to realize that some editors just tend to respond a little critically (though I try my best to say something nice, then ease into the topic, kind of like what I am doing now). So don't take it personally! I've had my own ideas shot down by all kinds of editors. :P I was wondering, do you think that the undue weight of coordinator opinion is a recurring issue for you? I'm asking because I've been trying to figure out where the community stands on numerous issues... I am considering a possible questionnaire that will be used to improve outreach, if you are interested in taking a look. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I am sorry to hear that you have been put off by past discussions. I don't disagree with your opinion, which is why I try to temper most discussions with a more collaborative tone. Not everyone is conscious of the impact of their words... I personally try to amend that, especially in heated discussions, by allotting some time for myself before actually responding. (Cooling down, basically.) Can you elaborate more on what you mean by consistency between WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM? A layout for WP:FILM would be fairly one-shot, and a layout for WP:ACTOR would gradually grow. Do you think we can come up with a table that can fit either? I have to admit, I have not had the chance to mess around with table coding yet. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start with a pen and notepad and try out some designs.

For images, I know that enforcement can be over-the-top... I imagine that some editors get tired of explaining over and over again and just want to enforce the policies and guidelines already. I try to be better than that, though I admit I don't always succeed. It really involves some patience since not everyone wants to read multiple policies and guidelines in one sitting. Do you think there needs to be an etiquette guideline of sorts to apply for individual WikiProjects or for all of Wikipedia? Seems like there should be real-world research that can at least guide editors to more amicable discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I could find it in myself to work on articles about actors and filmmakers... I think I find it a bit too daunting of a feat, asking myself, "How do you adequately write about the life of a person?" The closest I've ventured is probably Alex Tse... not a big name, but that's the attraction. Anyway, I like the changes you made to Shakespeare in Love! I would use that template myself. :) I have a few suggestions... I think "Outcome" would be a better replacement for "Status" since it sounds a bit more final. Also, is there a way to bold the lines between the different awards? The award categories seem to blend together a little. Maybe if we did this, we don't have to repeat the award name in most categories... unless you think there's a good reason for doing so? Obviously, for items like "Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music", it would be fully shown.

I suggested that a WikiProject could spearhead a set of etiquette guidelines because it is difficult to make such a systemic addition. I am not saying that such guidelines would contrast what already exists, namely WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. More like an essay, I suppose... "When you disagree with another editor, open your response with a polite and collaborative tone." Or, "If you feel aggravated during a heated discussion, remember that Wikipedia is not going to fall apart if you can't figure out a solution with this editor right now. Come back with a clear head." Not statements that would make the final draft, but something that would provide a reality check for those who may harbor those unspoken attitudes. For coordinator nominations, I am not really sure about membership parameters. It seems a little restrictive. Have you seen a cabal take over a WikiProject like that before? I thought there was no such thing. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I realized something that needs to be discussed about such tables... referencing awards. While I do not think that the Oscars and the BAFTAs would be challenged, it may be more likely to happen for smaller awards, especially in an article review process. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

New

Looks like we are making some progress! Can you give me a little more background about this Charles Whitman situation? Not sure if you filled me in about it before. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

First, it was really fascinating to hear about the Whitman situation! I've usually dealt with non-free images, so I've been a cynic about using them, trying to find ways to indisputably include them. Anyway, for revamping the sections, I have some films on my to-do list. I'd like to develop them since they have been getting noticed for awards, which means that people will probably be visiting the articles and they are quality enough films to warrant development. (Trying to get the bad taste of Spider-Man 3 out of my mouth after so much editing and discussing time having gone to waste.) I imagine that if we can find consistency with tables at these film articles, it could encourage further use. I am also thinking about an "Awards and nominations" section for the article guidelines, where the first paragraph can talk about the general approach to writing about films (writing in prose or not, choosing importance awards) then the second paragraph can explain some best practices for tables (no gaudy red/green, for instance). Of course, I just want to make sure people are okay with the table format (or mild variations of it) as it is. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So to add to that, of course you're welcome to help with these film articles' award sections! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I appreciate your thoughts and contributions. I'm looking forward to using the tables. By the way, I have constantly heard about Vitameatavegamin but have never actually seen the episode! I think my parents have the DVDs... perhaps I will investigate over the holiday break. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Googly Moogly

How I love that phrase! Did you know it has a page? Check it out: Great Googly Moogly. One of the things I miss from the time preceding my entry into Wikiland is being able to focus on the content of a page. Now I instantly notice crappy formatting, lack of sources, and the like. I went to that page for the content and ended up replacing a source link to YouTube with a fact tag. Oh, to be young again. *snicker*

I came here to post something completely unrelated. Apparently my ADD is in overdrive today. Check out this edit summary then compare it to this caption. ROFLMAO! momoricks (make my day) 00:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, silly me and my lack of specificity. The logo caption at the top of the page. Can you say, "I'll follow the rules when I feel like it"? momoricks (make my day) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I saw that and proceeded to post this note. I want to make sure these edits show clear signs of sockpuppetry to an admin. If so, I will make any reports necessary. momoricks (make my day) 12:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see your note before I posted mine...must need more caffeine! momoricks (make my day) 13:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Humor for the day?!

[15] I saw yours and Momoricks comments of Jehochman's talk and now I noticed this up a ways from either of your threads. But I think I know who they are talking about.... Anyways I got a laugh a bit. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC) ps there is a question for you on my talk on the thread you started to me.

Re: Filmography

I'm going to pass on this one. I'm not a WP Film member, so I feel a bit out of my element, and I don't have the time to look at the background info. Sorry, momoricks (make my day) 01:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm super! Thanks for asking! Seriously, I'm fine. Just tired as all hell, but that's usual. momoricks (make my day) 01:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I voted to support though I'm a tad confused on what the actual issue is. Is it the table itself or the colors? Either way, reverting it after someone took the time and effort to add it is a bit too bold IMHO. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything in policy that says we need consensus to add to pre-formatted charts? I could see if it were like that crazy rainbow colored one that was on Michelle Pfeiffer, otherwise, I don't see a huge problem. As for the talk page drama, I'll send you an email. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 11:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lock and load

Congratulate me! I just bought my documentary camcorder and supplies. I'm in business. The "All American Boy" documentary is about to begin. Can you believe $30.00 for a one hour professional tape!? I don't think you would have heard back from the Austin library yet, let me know. Also, at the time, I didn't want to pry about a certain subject you brought up, but did your God-daughter recover completely from her ordeal? PTSD can develop after many years, though you are probably aware of that. I also noticed only the canister photos are still on the vote page, what does that mean?Paranoid 'til Noon 01:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs)

Strangeling can also be an assault, since you did not mention death, my hopes were she survived. You and yours have my condolences and sincere regret that it happened. As to LM, not really, to common and no one I know in the McCoy family is an L, Martinez maybe, but still, too common to obsess over. I know the APD took the pictures, as I said, all the files, FBI, DPS, State and others were all co-mingled at the DPS. My copies are from the original negatives and not a photo copy (xerox). The only APD photo on the page would be of Whitman on the deck. The tower walkways are mine, the cannister photo's were Whitman's property and who cares about the Marine diary stenciling, so, I don't know, what's your take?Paranoid 'til Noon 02:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs)

How do you like my new handle - Paranoid til Noon? I notice it on your page, but it my signing is not coming through. What did I do wrong? It was supposed to replace the user page link.Paranoid 'til Noon 02:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs)

I didn't use my email address to sign up. Here, bury it after you email me, I should be redeemed, but there are those... --Paranoid 'til Noon 02:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs)

testVictor9876 (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

LM = Larry Moore. O.K., that explains that.Victor9876 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting email. So, looks like they can stay, unless someone else wants them to go - right or wrong!Victor9876 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Texans...most...believe that God Created Texas first, and all else came after. When I lived there, if you lived in North Austin...you were a damn Yankee...and so on. The only way to handle them in an argument is hit them first and hard - to avoid the knife in your back! Can you link me to this new, intentionally errant page?Victor9876 (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, Mr. Moore has removed McCoy's image from McCoy's page!!!!!Victor9876 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

See my recent edit to the Whitman page. I doubt it will help, Mr. Moore has an agenda and I feel there are others involved in Austin. Victor9876 (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Per your cc receipt from the library, great job. I don't know how to give Wiki awards, but in terms of humanitarian awards, you have my utmost respect. (You do have a life outside of WP don't 'cha!?! lol!) Victor9876 (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Good observations. I always try and look for the balance, and shift the fulcrum. To show more balance, I uploaded the last paragraph of Whitman's school assignment titled "Autobiography", here... File:Whitmanautobio.jpg , and tried inserting it to the right of the second paragraph in the History section where it is mentioned that he had a motorcycle accident. After several attempts to get the formatting to explain the writing, I was forced to give up due to the explanation not showing up. This is not one of my strong points, see if you want to tackle it. The Empire is short tons??? Whew! No problem, it's those long tons that get me every time. Victor9876 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll adjust my attitude about Moore's to the Jonathon Swift view - each on their own merit. I can still be self-loathing though can't I!?! Victor9876 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

SUICIDE SEASON!!! Nothing to deck the halls with - not to mention there are no halls anyways! Santa hasn't come for more than eight years! The Drs. say the Leprosy is about to spread below the navel! And you want someone to be constructive!?!?! Well...O.K., Seasons Greetings to you and yours, may you get all that you hope for! Victor9876 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You having trouble with your internet connection? Mine's been down for several hours to a snails pace and slower. Uploaded a picture of McCoy on his page and I had the same problem as last night with the above photo (text). Sherurcij went by and read my mind of how to license it. I never received the list to select from even. Oh well, glad to see everyone co-operating. Victor9876 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Toa Payoh Ritual Murders peer review

Thank you for the spell check. I corrected those you have pointed out ("broadcasted" seems to be correct as a past tense, according to The American Heritage Dictionary). I should be ashamed... I shall check for more typos later. Please keep up the good work, I hope to read your further opinion on the article. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just a note, I removed the periods from the abbreviated Doctor title as the MOS states the periods are unneeded for British English, which the article is following. I look forward to your further opinion on the article. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Jehochman requested the anon IP be informed about the discussion at his talk page about the Emil thread you have going. I just thought it would be better if done by me then you are Momoricks since he doesn't seem to like the two of you and I am not involved. I made the request here. [16] Lets see if the editor follows up and responds or does the norm and ignores. Anyways, I hope it was ok for me to go ahead and inform the IP about all of this for you. Don't mean to step on anyones toes. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sofia/DOB

I just found the AN/I thread. Instead of commenting there (it's marked 'resolved?'), I figured I'd let you know here that I think John Reaves' suggestion sounds like the best route to go. I don't know if we actually need consensus to removed the (false) DOB, but I'm willing to remove ASAP. Like you said, the whole thing sounds dubious and I'm much rather have no information that false information. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oy vey...I'm so tired of defending b-list actor/singer articles. Anyway, if you think the quote is a copyvio, delete it. The article is not online and since it seems to be from a little known magazine, I couldn't verify it. There's another source I can add about the tattoos, though I'm not sure why it needs to be mentioned in the article to begin with. Oh wait, it's because tattoos are a big part of PW as well as her character on Gfs. *eye roll* All I keep thinking is serenity now!!!! By the way, glad you're feeling better. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CW

Thanks for your work with the library, much appreciated. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh-hmmmmmm!!! Do you know how heavy the Empire State Building is, and the task it would take to bring it to you? Will you take a Drs. excuse? Arthritis in the neck you see. Great job! I sent Mr. Moore an apology, he did seem intent on removing the photo's beyond all efforts. I'm humbled! Victor9876 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The Palm Beach Story

Hi. I'm having a discussion -- or, rather, I'm commenting and trying to get him or her to respond -- with User:Britneysaints concerning this article, and I'd like to invite you to participate, if you're interested. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Eric Leiser

An article that you have been involved in editing, Eric Leiser, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Leiser. Thank you. Martin 14:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article: Latter Days

Have you seen this one? I thoroughly enjoyed it. momoricks (make my day) 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice cropping

But I noticed you didn't try to fix Polly Bergen. I find the image kind of hilarious actually, and I'd be a little sad to see it go. Angela looks so serious, like she's trying to solve a murder and she's just found a clue in Polly Bergen's breast. I tried cropping Mae's grave, but it looked diabolical. Then I remembered this and thought, hmmm that would be better than blacking the eyes. Have you seen it before? I don't know why it appeals to me, but I LOL'd and LOL'd.  :-D (when the page loads the images are small on the left side, but if you click on them it goes to full screen. I wonder why that is?) Rossrs (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

She still looks a little like death warmed over, but at least she's alone. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 13:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, you've done the unthinkable - you've eliminated Angela Lansbury! I think the left side could be shaved off a little more to take away that white bit. Is it a sleeve? I can't tell. The hair is a little spotty, but that was a very clever idea to clone Angela away. I didn't think it was possible, because she was so close, but it works very well. Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh - I just noticed the girl's gone from Mark Wahlberg's pic! Slowly but surely these intrusive bystanders are getting the heave-ho! I'm glad to see it being done. Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Tables

No, no difference. Could this be a browser related thing? PC78 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your neat looking awatd tables! Well done! The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What we need is standardising of course but it will take a great dela of time to do manually. One of the untidiest areas in terms of awards is on Indian cinema articles. Many of them have to go on seperate pages because they become like 30 kb lists!! If most of the film and actor articles followed that example things would be looking a lot better! Take care The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

More Bs mischief

Nommed a pic of Louise Brooks for deletion: [17] Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse/Bush Satire

From Faux Samuel Jackson blog."George Bush is like Amy Winehouse’s publicist. Amy didn’t miss her performance because of drugs; "she missed it because of illness." Amy isn’t walking around the got-damn streets of London at 4AM wearing nothing but a tank-top, panties and some nasty-ass looking ballet shoes because she’s fucked up on meth; "she’s doing it because she needs some got-damn bangers and mash." It’s all manufactured bullshit to cover up the fact that we got one big trainwreck on our hands, so wouldn’t you rather talk about bullshit than about how six years blowing shit up in the desert has brought our got-damn country to a got-damn halt?"[18]

Merry Christmas or whatever the heck you celebrate or don't Edkollin (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

WDY remove the "Laughing Policeman" from the reference list on the Whitman page? It's notable. The reference is directly to Whitman and the tower tragedy, not an allussion as other entries state. Victor9876 (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the Parenthood item, but "FMJ" has the Sargeant ask his troop if they know who Charles Whitman was, one answers and the Sargeant mentions his ability to use a rifle was taught to him in the Marines. I mean the listing by Harry Chapin should go then also, as well as Insane Clown Posse and several others. I'm not to big on the reference sections anyways. Some of it is just momentary flash farts that downgrade the article. Try putting your present soundcard in another open slot and see if it works. Could be the slot is bad and not the card. Seen it happer before. Victor9876 (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi Wildhartlivie,

You are cordially invited to a discussion which starts at User talk:Rossrs#Image captions and branches out from there. Would love to see you there. B.Y.O. Neat casual attire. Guests welcome. No R.S.V.P. required.

Best wishes, Rossrs (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No Country for Old Men and Julia Roberts' teeth

Two subjects that are not usually linked. First, the teeth. Yes, they are lovely, but they're kinda distracting in all their largeness too. Maybe I should black a few of them out.... The No Country for Old Men table looks superb and I can see by the edit history it took hours. It really looks elegant, and I think it could be adapted for some of the messier individual filmographies. I had no idea the film won so many nominations/awards, though I thought it was great. Rossrs (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. If anyone suggests otherwise, refer them to List of brain tumor patients, which was created on January 10, 2006, nominated January 11, 2006 and promoted January 20, 2006. If you use this as a barometer, you will need to nominate it today and then it should see in the new year as a featured list. Seriously, I think a list is so different to a text-based article. There is a finite amount of information that can or should be included, and if it's all there, correctly referenced, etc, what more can be done to improve it? I think you should put it forward when you believe it's ready. Its "newness" would not be an actionable objection. Rossrs (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

oh oh one more thing. Country for Old Men isn't going to win any more awards is it? It's pretty well done, until the Library of Congress decides to preserve it in 20 years or so, or the AFI puts it on one of their lists. Meanwhile, notable people will continue to develop brain tumors, and there's no guarantee that their list is being updated. Not to make light of it, but your list is completely stable, and the brain tumor list will never be. Rossrs (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You've been a real Wikipedian for a long time! Rossrs (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

They have added him. I had a look through the list a few minutes ago, and he's there. This won't mean anything to you, being an obscure Australian reference, but I noticed an actress I used to like a lot, Olivia Hamnett, is on the list. I didn't even know she'd died. Sad. (and she needs an infobox!) Rossrs (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added it. I always intended writing to Myrna Loy, but never did. Missed opportunities. There's nobody left that I'd really be interested in writing to. In the 80s, Claudette Colbert and Rex Harrison played in Brisbane in Aren't We All, and for reasons that I can't remember, I didn't go to see it. I may have been too young to appreciate that I'd never get another chance. A friend of mine who worked in the right place, was required by her job to meet Colbert and Harrison and be part of the official committee to welcome them at a civic function. She didn't even know who they were. She's probably seen My Fair Lady and thought he looked familiar. Funny isn't it? To her, they were just another day at the office.... I was in New York when Katharine Hepburn was still alive, and ... this is pathetic... but I had her address and went to her front door and looked through her window. I have no idea if it was the right house, or whether she was home, but I thought, if I knock at the door, Katharine Hepburn may well come and yell at me, but even if she does, I will have been yelled at by Katharine Hepburn. I realized that was wrong on too many different levels to actually do it, but reading your note, I'm thinking : damn I could have been yelled at by Katharine Hepburn. ;-) Or her maid. On that note, I must go and get some sleep. See you next time. Rossrs (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't 3am, more like 2am which is still late for a work night. Would that I could take time off over Christmas. I'm on a late shift at the moment but it's more a combination of my insomnia and my tendency to become absorbed in what I'm doing and forget the time and the consequences. I was wondering how you communicated with Katharine Hepburn. One of the reasons I procrastinated was that I didn't know what to say. Rossrs (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a look at the nomination, and I'm perplexed. There does not seem to be a format that is established anywhere as a standard. It seems to be very open, and therefore the comments appear to be addressing a personal preference. I don't understand the advantage in the Carnivale format and it hasn't been explained. I see that format as being overly busy, complicated and fussy - and a fertile ground for planting redundant summaries but the last thing I would want to do is to attack their choice. If No Country was adapted into a similar format, I fail to see how it would be stronger as a result. I started posting a long rambling comment, and then decided that it would not help at all. I saved it here so I could refer back to it, if I end up commenting along those lines, but it's there if you care to look. I would like clarification, but obviously I need to ask in a less verbose way. Rossrs (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be very cool! Rossrs (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

I've put the image on the left because there are too many files on the right side, and only one on the left. With that picture on the left, the article looked somehow even. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan Alda

Hello Wildhartlivie! I noticed that you reverted my edits. Wikipedia discourages these types of reverts, and considers revert wars harfmful. For help, please see Help:Reverting. Next time discuss on the talk page or go to my user page and discuss- so that a consensus can be reached. I take it from your notes you don't like refferring to him as "Alan". You also say I removed half the info on his early life. Actually I removed things that didn't fit or were stated elsewhere. To explain; the entire article needs general cleaning up, and I thought I'd start with the first section. It was redundant saying "Alda" in every sentence- that is why I reffered to him as Alan. The stuff about him being a feminist is interesting but its a rough fit in the paragragh (instead of revertting all my edits, you should figure a way to put it back in- in a way that fits). Anyway, I want to reach consensus so I will try to fit it all back in for you and refer to him as "Alda" (Compass players will not be re-included because it also is said in the next paragragh). Hopefully these edits will be to your likening!Jonnyhottrod (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)jonnyhottrod

Thank you for your comments on my page! I am happy to refer to him by his surname, and the change has been made. Whatsmore, the part about his feminist activism has now been cited and moved to a more apropriate section ('charitble work and other interests'), And the part about his residence was refit into the "family and early life section" (I do still wonder if it belongs there, as it does seem to be miscelaneous). You will notice then, that the only information removed from the article is the fact that two of his grandchildren attended the academy awards. I am sure you will agree that that has nothing to do with an Alan Alda bio. Cheers.Jonnyhottrod (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)jonnyhotrod

Jill the Irish

Yep, that's my handy work. If there's an actor's bio floating around and I've got time on my hands, you can bet that I'll add an infobox and that nifty filmography chart. Kudos on the Old Men article. I had no idea that flick won so many awards. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you did some extensive work on Ryan White (you did didn't you or am I just making up crap?), would you mind taking a look at Kimberly Bergalis? Before I get to hacking and piss someone off, I'd like an second opinion about the tone of it. Something about it is rubbing me the wrong way. Perhaps it's the largely unsourced accusations section. I added some content about her life and there's probably a bit more that should mentioned which I'll add a bit later. I'm in no hurry so whenever you get a chance, could you take a look? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I got the same feeling about the Bergalis article. It's as if someone is really trying to make a point there. I just had a look at Jesse James and all I can say is wowza! I personally don't see any reference mistakes, and the "universally accepted" citation rule is a new one to me. I guess I need to go back and readjust all the references I ever added to an article. Evidently, that means removing seemingly reliable sources because they're (God forbid) on a webpage and cutting down citation information. If you need any help with it, let me know. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 08:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

More tomfoolery

Would you mind commenting on this and this on Commons, deletion nominations for two images I uploaded from a trailer for The Palm Beach Story. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 13:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Santa's coming! Better get to sleep, or you know what!?! But then...have you been naughty or nice this year? Victor9876 (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Merry Christmas!
		DiverseMentality is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Stay safe! DiverseMentality 08:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Wishing you a very Merry Christmas. Here are some Christmas cookies I baked especially for you. Hope you enjoy the photograph of them - they were delicious. Happy New Year and all good wishes to you. Rossrs (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you too!

Thanks for the nice greeting, very colorful for my drab looking talk page. I wish for you and your family the best health and happy holiday season. May 2009 bring health and happiness to all. Your wikifriend too, it's been a nice 2008 working with you and my hopes are that 2009 is just as great or more. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Right back at ya!

Much thanks for your Christmas greetings to me. My best to you and yours for the holidays, and here's hoping for us all a calm and productive year of editing in 2009! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer

I need your help here since you reverted part of User:Bijouworld. If you would take a look at his contribution you will see that he is adding a site that his own or at least he is associated with it. I find his addition not to be that good do to WP:WEIGHT issues to name just one. He is adding info about one victim when there are many victims. I don't know if I should revert it all back to your last stable version or not but I really think this person may have WP:COI issues or maybe an agenda which I don't say lightly. As a matter of fact I think this is the first time I have actually had concerns like this and written to someone about it like this. I am trying to assume good faith in his edits but something has me feeling something is wrong so I need you to look at this for me if you would because I am going on a gut feeling and I to be honest it doesn't feel good to me not to be assuming good faith in this. I feel lousy about this right now so I need help here if you have the time to check and see if I am out of line or not. I sure would appreciate it, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

More comments to you on my talk page. Something really doesn't seem right. I think I am going to break here soon, maybe I am over thinking all of this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

momoricks (make my day) has given you a slightly lame, handmade Christmas greeting! You see, these things somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a slightly lame, handmade Christmas greeting! Enjoy! Wishing you a belated Merry Christmas. Your No Country table looks absolutely smashing!

Spread the goodness of slightly lame, handmade Christmas greeting by adding {{subst:BlankWikiLove|border=red|bg=green|image=Mchrist.jpg|article=a|item=slightly lame, handmade Christmas greeting }} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I need your Help

You are an Administrator???? P.S. Happy Holiday!

Kekkomereq4 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

re

In those days I've edit the page of the French singer Amanda Lear, but a user changing my edits

For example: I've upload an alternative cover of an album (Tam-Tam) and today he has changed the page and the image has been cut by the article. Today I've repost the image.

The user can do it this, cut my image and change all???

Kekkomereq4 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Bye!

Kekkomereq4 (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

Yeah.. that was may fault. I did check it up,though that was after I had reverted.Thanks.Roaring Siren (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Busy bee

You have been very busy today. Just brilliant! I love your work! Rossrs (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Check out this, repeated here. I've complained here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also very little doubt now (not that there was any, really) that D=BS. Same kind of remark as this. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy and friend

You might find this exchange interesting. Apparently Don Murphy has a "collaborator" (his word, not mine). Naturallyblind (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)