User talk:Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Referencing

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

---

External links

Hi, You opinion is needed here. I don't normally get involved in WP:EL as I don't always see the fine line between acceptable and not acceptable. Is a site excluded on the basis of just being really, really, really bad? Annaliese Frank, Heroine for the Ages has been added to Anne Frank. Interestingly enough they've managed to spell her name incorrectly, so in my view, credibility immediately flies out the window. It's sensationally badly formatted. If you scroll down to section 6 "Guilty" it's just a mass of text that I can't read without squinting. What do you think? Anne Frank used to be a link farm and it's been fairly concise for a while, so I'm unhappy to see this added. Rossrs (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I will remove it. :-)

And I removed it, and the editor put it right back again. Oh well, I guess there are some people who can't tell the difference between something useful and a pile of crap. I'll bide my time I guess. On a lighter note ...... Happy New Year !! Rossrs (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I immediately decided not to bide my time and removed it and commented at Talk:Anne Frank. It will be interesting to see how quickly she reverts me again. Rossrs (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see I reconsidered straight away. I was the one who nominated it for FA and I know it got sifted through with a fine tooth comb at the time. Then it was reviewed a while ago, and I went through it all with User:SandyGeorgia (she is very particular so I know when she was happy with it, it was because it was good). Anyway, it was decided to keep it at FA standard. So after all that effort, I don't like to see it eroded, even in such a minor way. We've been cutting back external links for websites and books over time. Yes, the editor involved is someone with a specific interest in the article, but who appears very infrequently. Some time ago, she was very argumentative about the spelling of Anne Frank's name, even disputing the spelling used by Anne Frank House, which is an astonishing stance. Not reasonable to deal with, if you know what I mean. Thanks, if you feel like commenting it's there to be commented about. Rossrs (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Matt

I only included the book name and ISBN (Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game that Made a Nation - ISBN 9781594201745) because there was no article on the book or the film yet. I thought once you had created an article on the film and someone the book, then it could be removed?

Also I created the link The Human Factor, to encourage you to start an article. Anywho. Carry on and Happy New Year. - 4.240.159.141 (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: The article has a "lock" showing that it is protected, but I was able to edit it. - 4.240.159.141 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that having the lock there would cut vandalism some. 1/3 of the IPs won't even see it, 1/3 will see but won't know what it is, and a 1/3 will see it and know what it means and half of them will test the waters.

Will you do me a flavor? Will you go Here, and copy what I put in to Nelson Mandela under the "Cinema" section. This article is locked. Thanks. - 4.240.159.141 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

SUPER! Reminder: Please do not discharge your firearm into the air this evening. - 4.240.159.141 (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, hopefully since he is a member of the law enforcement community he will know better. But, some of these town constables are just a whisker away from being on the other side of the bars. I went to high school here, and know first hand how stupid some of these guys can be. Most of these guys can't get hired on in the big city, so they make their way out to the country to get hired. The less qualified they are the farther from the city they go. And, they usually don't last very long. One time I befriended a local and asked him if he wanted to go shooting at my uncles farm, in a small ravine/canyon. While I was shooting, powder escaped from the barrel and landed on his face, making him bleed. He thought he had been shot. I thought; "doesn't this guy know any better?" Then on the way back to town he shot out the window of a moving car at a highway sign. I stopped hanging around with him after that. What a dope. So, if your neighbor does it, please turn him in. I hate these idiots. They do have this new technology like ShotSpotter and Shot in The Dark, that may eventually cut down on these yahoos. Have you heard about it? But, New Year's Eve, it would be tough with so much of it, in a city like ABQ, that there will be too many calls. I wonder if the dye hard Obama supporters that also like guns will be especially jubilant this midnight? --- Stay indoors. If you neighbor does fire his weapon, tomorrow morning soak a bandage in some ketchup and wrap it around your head and then go next door and ask him: "Would you please not fire your weapon in the air?" and then turn around and leave. - 4.240.159.141 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ever thought of being an Admin?

Sorry to bother you just letting you know I've mentioned you here as a possible admin candidate. If you're interested then please do consider running. If you're not interested then I apologize for bothering you. RMHED (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year, with reservations...

Hello, Wildhartlivie. I saw your 'edit-out' in my letter to Pinkadelica, and while I bear no grudge for this...I believe that she is entitled to do her own 'edit-out' since she was satisfied with the letter as originally given. Mr. 'Interbang' owes amends for having done wrong not only to ME but also to at least two of the Golddiggers and apparently to Pinkadelica who then rightly complained. So until the amends are completed to the satisfaction of the reading public, said violator should not be given any privacy. Please consider the idea? Thanks fromFleaphone (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Amy

Where might this lead???. Anyway Happy New Year with no reservations Edkollin (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: No Country for Old Men list

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Erik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Got your reply, also responded...

Hi from Ralph, and for what it's worth...Happy New Year! I wrote back again, c'mon over.Fleaphone (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sharon Tate

Thank you. That really means a lot to me. The reason I worked on the article was that it was previously very fancrufty, and when I looked outside Wikipedia I found that the fansites were fancrufty, the crime sites exploited her death and the trial sites were dry and wordy. I thought all of them, even with the best of intentions, treated her as a commodity, and I didn't think any of them did her justice so I wanted to bring all those aspects together into one place. I'm so happy that someone has noticed that, and especially happy that it was you. Thank you, you've made my day. (I guess it is a tribute... no, I didn't really say that) Rossrs (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have compassion for Roman Polanski. His life has been destroyed twice, first during the Holocaust when many of his family were murdered, and then with the murder of Tate and their unborn child, and taking that into account, I have to wonder what the world looks like through his eyes. Rossrs (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting story, and something that I wasn't aware of. I think he's been portrayed as a monster, while I think it's probably more true that he was an opportunist. His version of events in his biography Roman by Polanski has a ring of truth about it. Of course, in writing it, he's had time to sit back and carefully choose his words, so it should appear to be truthful. I wonder if Anjelica Huston has ever made a public comment. Polanski says that he and the girl had consensual sex, and that during it, they realized that someone had entered the house; it turned out to be Anjelica Huston. The girl was anxious to leave because Anjelica saw her. Supposedly the girl was drugged and fearful and if Polanski is telling the truth, Huston should be able to confirm that the girl was neither drugged nor fearful. The girl's desire to get away could be so that Anjelica doesn't have time to look at her too closely. I find this interesting. Polanski says that Huston agreed to give evidence against him because drugs were found in her bedroom and she was offered a deal in return for her testimony. A bit convenient for Polanski to say that, but I wonder if Huston has refuted it. At that time in his life, there must have been ambitious girls throwing themselves at him, and if he's accustomed to this and is basically arrogant about it, is he likely to give the girl's age a second thought? It's at least possible that he could be set up like this. It will be interesting to see what results from this documentary as I notice it's only come to light in the last month. Rossrs (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't heard that Travolta's son had died. The vandalism - it hard to imagine what motivates someone to be so malicious and to trivialize something like that. What a poor excuse for a human being. Rossrs (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

and this What a cretin. Rossrs (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey. I just saw the news about Travolta's son's death on NBC news and I just correctly predicted that some idiots folks who hide behind the safety of their monitors and keyboards would be posting utterly disgusting comments because of Travolta's involvement with Scientology. I'm sure the IMDb boards are flooded with same nonsense. Whatever happened to not saying anything if you have nothing nice to say? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If they had to relinquish their anonymity and were compelled to stand in front of Travolta and Preston and speak, they would find something else to say, I'm sure. Rossrs (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Pfeiffer

Thank you for your message. I only learned the basics of Wikipedia so I could fix the shambles that was Ms. Pfeiffer's article! I'm completely ignorant with it, but I'm glad you seem to mostly praise what I've done. However, I believe my recent edit did not refer to the actress herself as iconic, but specifically to the character and costume, as backed up by my quotation and reference. The phrase you appear to have changed was written some time earlier, and not (I think) by me. All the best Charleynathan (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, from Fleaphone...

Hello, Wildhartlivie. Ralph here. After reading your response to my letter this morning...well, I'm truly thankful that I stayed SINGLE! C'mon now, there was no need to grouch like you did. I hope we can still write back and forth, but PLEASE leave the buffalo stampede BEHIND!! Thanks very much.....Madam..(!)...fromFleaphone (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette Music Section

I have rewritten the music section, transfering some of the already available information to the new music section. If you have a problem with the current setup, please let me know before reverting as I would like to work on it without being reverted. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 3, 2009 @ 18:48

Oooops....I forgot to take that out when I moved the section. My fault and my apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 3, 2009 @ 19:04

No worries. Glad we got it worked out. I will be more careful and slow down when I edit. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 3, 2009 @ 19:07

Back from Lake Worth and Savannah

Just got back from Lake Worth where I filmed Whitman's gravesite as well his mothers and brother John's. I was sent to four different graveyards before almost being turned away by the fourth one where they actually are. Lake Worth is quite estranged from Whitman and very indifferent to the incident. Savannah...let's meet in Savannah. I actually want to move there. Much more interesting and the most gorgeous area I have ever been. I'm not sure about it's short ton status, but it beats NY and the Empire State Building all to hell. Filmed the Bethseda Boy's School, but the grounds have been revamped and the original gate replaced with a similar one, only in brick. AND...the day I left, a triple murder happened across the street from where I live. Go to the Asheville Citizen Times site and read about it. I know he used golf clubs and I know why he did it. It just won't be released until Monday, after autopsy's. What a new year, eh?! Victor9876 (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I on your lost list? Sorry about the dog - what ever it is about. Every time someone calls the dog pound around here...they try and take me away!!!Victor9876 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a small white dog, a Jack Terrier mix, who has adopted me. I too can not afford her, but she keeps coming around and I do what I can. So you bruised your ham giving a ham bone!? Ironic! lol! Victor9876 (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're no sap Wildhart, you've got character, a valuable commodity these days.Victor9876 (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

According to your weather report, you better bring the dog in...as a heater! I lived in Milwaukee until my ex decided to ship me out. The forecast there is even worse. The Milwaukee temperatures are going to be almost as cold as my ex! lol! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

lolololol!!! Good one, I think mt ex misses me too! lololo!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a new computer. A Mac! A Mac Pro! Remember that!!! Enough about you. I've just scanned over 300 pages of my Whitman archive and haven't reached a 1/3 yet. Oh well! I looked at the footage of Whitman's grave and the cemetary and came up with a different opening than originally intended. Whitman mentions in one of his notes that when death over takes him, he will try to remember to observe it closely. So, my thinking is, a slow motion scan of the giant Oak tree in the cemetary, with a voice over of Whitman's note, scattered with brief close-ups of his eyes (on the tower looking at the shotgun) as the camera comes to a close-up of his grave. Whatta ya think?Victor9876 (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

At first I thought "hmmm she's trying out a new font" ;-)

Well done indeed! You were certainly put through your paces but that's a sensational result. 14 days from article creation to featured list status, but if you take out the holidays it works out to something like 9 Wikipedia days, by my reckoning. Congratulations! Rossrs (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it brings out all kinds who probably never edit here, but it usually settles down quickly. Last night someone said on the talk page that Travolta had been held in "custudy". Not sure exactly where that is. Another week, or probably less, they'll have moved on to something else. I must note the Kelly Preston image for cropping. She looks like she's trying to entice someone to join her in the Macarena. "C'mon it's really fun!" How do we get so many weird pictures? Rossrs (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the worst of human nature on display, deriving entertainment from the pain of another person. If they want to expend their energy and strain their limited intellects to create vandalism that can be reverted by hitting one button - how futile is that? Reverting as quickly as possible is the only way to deal with it, and give them no satisfaction. They'll get bored and will go pick on someone else before long. Rossrs (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me some people resent the success of others and will use whatever cheap vehicle they can find to compensate for their own perceived relative failure. In a sense, that's one of the failings of the Internet, but in another sense, one of its successes. Everyone's brave behind a keyboard. From our perspective, I've learned to live with it here, and it soon goes away. --Rodhullandemu 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very true. And complicating this is their interest in something controversial which simply pulls in the conspiracy theorists from the four corners. What's really annoyed me was the drudging up of the old "she had a more severely disabled child with her first husband that Scientology has conveniently cleansed from the internet... but wait!! We have caches and web archives!! Look! IMDB said it in her bio, you KNOW it's true!!!!" Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Which only goes to convince me that some people are just not equipped to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Everyone's got an agenda, it seems, and what really annoys me is the thinking (if you can justify it as such) that if it's not there, then it's been covered up. As you correctly say, "Sheesh". Thank the lord (of the Rings, if you like), for some sensible people. --Rodhullandemu 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:WP Criminal

Regarding your revert on Template:WP Criminal, I'm wondering whether there is a better way to organise these banners. Can you link me to the discussion about the separate banners because I couldn't find it. If it is just a different wording that is required, then we could probably adapt the crime banner using a parameter. This would help to keep the banners in your project more consistent. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Martin 12:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to this. I have taken this to Template talk:WP Criminal in case others have any input. Your comment would be appreciated. Martin 13:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have time

Hi Wildhartlivie, if you have a moment would you take a peek into the article and the deletion review here? This has been added and removed and is at it's third nomination in 24 hours about. Please read the article and then if you feel like commenting please do. The article is here. There is also an ANI about the editor who started all of this at [1]. I have very strong opinions about this situation so I would appreciate someone with less emotion than I commenting. I trust your judgement a lot so maybe you (and anyone else watching your page) will give me a reality check if I need one. But I am outraged at the moment about this whole affair so I am trying not to comment anymore about about it though I can't promise I will be able to. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh...shiny!

Kudos on that pretty little star. I'm gonna be outta town this week, so drop me an email if you need to track me down. momoricks (make my day) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that. No offense was meant. I suppose my colon ("wildhart:") may have made me sound mad :( I'm not :)Beansandveggies (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya ;) Beansandveggies (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Your article is a featured list? Very cool! Congrats! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 08:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

Funny, we were just discussing this. Rossrs (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't really looked at the filmography, but yes, it's unacceptably biased. As is the opening sentence - he's "an Academy Award-winning and four-time nominated" (director), so it seems even his Oscar nominations are more important than his winning of other less discussable awards. Another reason I loathe the "Academy Award-winning" (and all awards actually) fluff in the opening sentence. The filmography is in dire need of attention.

On another topic, after a comment that the Julia Roberts image was "awful", I've tried a revamp. Do you think it looks OK now? Rossrs (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, it wasn't you that said it. You've only commented previously on the teeth, and they're beyond my technology. In any case, it's been switched for another crop. One that I don't like at all, but oh well. Rossrs (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the image of Hottie Hot. I agree, it's a very good picture and suits the infobox far better. Did you know that "He was named #1 on VH1's 40 Hottest Hotties of the 90's"? Wow, imagine being named #1 "hottest" in an entire decade of hotties! All the other hotties must hate him. Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You trying to delete the Batman movie template that I worked so hard on

If you're going to complate about how this particular template is overkill, then you might as well do the same for all of other film related templates on Wikipedia. This Batman template isn't the only one (e.g. Back to the Future, Terminator, Rocky, Die Hard, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) that mentions the movies, actors, crew, msuic, and other sorts of marketing tie-ins like video games or theme park attractions.

This template is the most in-depth one in relation to the Burton-Schmuacher Batman films on Wikipedia. Naturally, with four films, numerous characters to be featured, and different production crews, there's going to be a wealth of information. The video games and other sorts of merchandise (which typically don't get as much coverage as the films themselves), are purely an expected offshoot of this. The soundtrack also falls under this table.

There's already individual templates for Batman related video games, the Batmobiles and what not, so giving them their own template as you suggest would be pretty redundant. Plus, why should a there be an individual template for the characters created for the films, when there's pretty limited number to begin with? The key is that they're related (regardless of how you want to define it) to the films in question, instead of merely having the Batman namesake. Don't you think that people visting Wikipedia, want to have easier access to the info about the Batman Returns video game or the Batman & Robin roller coster rides and what not!? TMC1982 (talk) 2:12 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Julia

I'm wading through Flickr trying to find something better. I think I've found the perfect shot I so want this in the infobox. LOL Rossrs (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Natalie Portman

Okay,

If it is not a free image than what in the world is it doing on wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I thought un free images were not allowed on here,hhhmmmmmmmmmmm? It is a picture of the actress and it can't go on hr article why? I dont get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nosebutton (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle

Hello and Happy New Year! I hope all is well with you. I see that there has been some new activity on Peg's Wiki. I also see where an editor wrote "What a dosey mare" after the description of her death. As I searched the "History" page, I see that this same editor was still allowed to make other edits. I disagree with this to no small extant!

This person's obvious lack of compassion is expressed in his/her comment calling Peg a "dosey mare." I also see this person added to the top of Peg's Wiki (Which I cannot access to edit). The information this person added says she died after getting "her break in the film 'Thirteen Women.'

This is not the case at all. Peg Entwistle did not get a "break" into films. I have various interviews of her in newspapers and the personal interview (for my book) of her brother Milton. Peg was packing her bags to return to New York when RKO called and REQUESTED a screen test ... this is in direct contradiction to the old story that she "broke into," or got a "break" into film.

Can you please edit accordingly? Mentioning she died after "Thirteen Women" is true ... that she had a "break" into film is a myth. She wasn't looking for film roles. She was, as I said, returning to the stage. Films just seemed like a "fun thing to try," said her brother to me during our interview.

I appreciate all you and a few others have done in keeping an eye on Peg's Wiki. I can assure you that her family does as well! Jameszerukjr (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Overton (actress)

Was easier to fix than just talk about. The article is now expanded to show she has significant coverage in reliable sources for her acting AND her directing. Thanks for bringing this one to AfD so it could be improved. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Some authors feel that WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD kinda obligate a nom to do some digging just to make sure a nom is the right move. Some don't. Myself, I feel it is a lot easier just to add sources if available and end any bickering about who should have looked and who should have added. It is certainly important for any editor to polish up an article in a userspace before moving to main space... as new page patrol is on top of things quite quickly... and if an article looks weak, it will treated as weak. So... my very first article, Harry Kloor, moved from my workspace to main space and has not needed to be touched. Perception is everything. Anyway... thanks for letting me bend your ear. And thanks for withdrawing the deletion. That was very courteous. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Always Amy

Maybe he s busy at work catching up after the holidays. Or maybe has is waiting for other replies. Anyway I did move the wax sculpture to artistic impression and deleted a ITunes stat as per the talk page consensus. But we have a much more important concern [2].How should we handle this?. Of course anything by the Sun we have to be wary of but Glen Jenvey who is quoted in the Sun seems legit Edkollin (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As of now it has been out 8 hours and not reported up by a reliable source so it may not end up notable Edkollin (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle

Thanks for you help! I can imagine the headaches regarding the Travolta tragedy! As to the edits in the introduction of Peg's Wiki, I don't really have too much of a problem with what's there. I'll leave it alone. I did contact the other editor in question and made my feelings known. There will be Peace in the Valley. Best to you and again, thanks for all you have done!Jameszerukjr (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle

I admit it sounds fishy, and to be perfectly honest I might well have done it without thinking and then deleted it with the same forgetful malaise; that sometimes happens when I'm half-heartedly editing an article while pondering something else altogether, unconsciously transferring my thoughts onto the keyboard. The only reason I threw a hissy fit and got all defensive was because I didn't appreciate the user's tone. --Heslopian (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Jim Morrison

It's ok. I can see what you guys are all doing- I put it in my own words reworked from the biography reference- but whats it matter?

You guys are adamant in keeping anything to do with his drug problems, alcoholism or stage presence off the introduction.

How about you do your duty to this site (you take so keenly) and rewrite it so it is true to the reference? Whats with this blatant ignorance? The new dawn brings the fresh sorrows of man, bleached, weathered and unreturned. (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Anne Hathaway

I'm a history major and thus I'm used to capitalizing titles and putting references at the end of sentences as opposed to putting some in the middle of sentences. While I understand the section titles issue, I personally think that putting citations in the middle of sentences (as opposed to the end of them) in the articles clutters what the reader sees and is not good for readability's sake. But hey, I'm not the Wikipedia format expert here, am I? What the guidelines say goes here. Change whatever you deem necessary. At least I'm trying to contribute positively to Anne's article, as opposed to vandalizing her article with references to lesbianism and anal sex like so many others do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchockythegreat (talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Winner Supercedes Nominee"? Explain please

You removed the Category:Best Picture Academy Award Nominees tag from Shakespeare in Love saying that "winner supercedes nominee." But if we are to make a list of all nominees, should that not include winners? You got some serious splainin' to do. Bill shannon (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a very fair answer. Once I figure out how to do subcategories I'll get on it. Cheers. Bill shannon (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Talented Kate

I see what you mean. It's very bloated. I suspect that not everyone has read WP:LEAD and there may be a school of thought that believes anything short of superlatives is somehow paying insufficient tribute. I think it does the article a disservice because it tries to boil the subject down to a bunch of statistics and doesn't really give any glimpse of the performer or the person. I see it in Meryl Streep, Katharine Hepburn ... others.... but it's excessive here. We're entering the Oscar nomination season so I think nominations etc will be on the radar for a while. I rewrote the intro for Audrey Hepburn a couple of months ago for similar reasons, and I expected opposition which has not eventuated, so hopefully it'll be the same with Kate, high-profile chronic-overachiever that she is. Rossrs (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Harrison Ford and MMA

Several things you seemingly are unaware of:

First: The information that I have been forced to re-enter into the article was up for months. In fact, please feel free to pursue the history of its inclusion and you shall note its continued presence for months prior. Indeed, I believe the information was up for a year. One can even see Harrison Ford on the broadcast for Pride's Las Vegas event, alongside other celebrities such as Chuck Norris and Nicholas Cage (accompanied by their wives).

Second: The reference is sourced. Note the footnotes.

Third: Your skepticism does not present justification for repeatedly deleting a sourced section of text. If you insist on continuing to do so without demonstrating that I was duped into adding this information, I will petition your own IP blocked as you have threatened my own.

69.22.238.202 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you an admin to believe you have the power to block me out of your own will? I see no "admin" badge on your Wikipedia page. I will, in fact, get you ANOTHER resource to demonstrate that it is a reported fact in news papers for the citation.69.22.238.202 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So if I provide another source for the deleted section I am expected to be blocked from further edittings regardless? So in other words: I cannot provide any resource that would vindicate my position? Or am I misunderstanding you?69.22.238.202 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall dig up another source. This espite the fact that, as I shall mention once more, the section had been up for nearly a year. I will seek further information. Thanks for your clarification.

One further question: If I cannot find further references, am I to expect a block even if I will not revert it if I cannot find yet another source?69.22.238.202 (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles Manson

We appear to be working together on the Charles Manson article, and you may be "annoyed" at some of my edits. Just wanted to come by with cookies and say I'm not accusing any particular individual of plagiarism, but describing a person as "tearfully" stating something did strike me as sensationalist/plagiarism and not appropriate. In my opinion, the article still needs some work on the tone, but given the main source used, I'm not surprised. Anyway, see you around! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 08:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for the article. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Manson heading

You're right about discussion-via-edit-summary: sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's good you got this particular discussion to the talk page promptly.

Glad you were satisfied with my comments. Can you come up with a substitute for the heading "Slaughter," which, as you know, another editor has removed? If I come up with one, I'll put it there. I recall you and I both thought a heading was helpful there.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you got a laugh out of it.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Audrey

I added some info to Talk:Audrey Hepburn#Ballet lessons. The opening section of the article needs to corrected. There may also be some other good tidbits in the stuff that I left there. Thanks. - 4.240.120.118 (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

B'cause I wike you.(batting eyelashes as cheeks flush) - 4.240.120.118 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be cynical. Obviously if we knew each other you would have thought that was funny. BTW: Have you seen the documentary: Cinema's Exiles: From Hitler to Hollywood? It is worth a look. - 4.240.120.118 (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No good turn goes unpunished

Hi, I'm glad to see you've been back here editing, so I hope you're feeling ok after your mishap yesterday. I really detest cruelty to animals, or the neglect of them. I hope that poor dog finds a good home, but it's just a shame he couldn't have shown a glimmer of concern for you. I suppose the ham bone was just too tempting. Hope you're not feeling too battered and bruised. Rossrs (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So you don't have a stalker after all! It's a shame about the dog, but hopefully there will be a nice family someone just waiting to give him a home. I didn't get to see the Golden Globes, although I have looked at the results. I'm glad Heath Ledger won - I thought his performance was exceptional and more than lived up to the hype. As you can imagine, it's big news here in Australia. I thought of you when I heard that Kate Winslet won two awards and I could see your intro being Golden Globed to the hilt. She's going to win an Oscar, you know. Better keep her watchlisted.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Note

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep an eye on the user. Hey, listen, I know you and I didn't get along great from the start, so I would like to apologize if I was seen rude or somewhat towards you, I sincerely apologize. So, listen, I was thinking, since you have a watchful eye for actor/actresses articles, would you like to collaborate on an article and maybe see it to FA status? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, after our discussion, that stood out to me as being unfriendly, which rarely happens. Yeah, I remember you left a notice at WP:Films about the list, I was gonna comment on it, but with the whole Heath Ledger controversy going on in the talkpage, never got to it. Yup, I'm working on Liv Tyler to be likely be my fourth FA. Well, would you maybe like to expand Edward Norton's article, just like Maggie Gyllenhaal and Liv Tyler's articles are? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL

Yep, that was me. I found a way to make my anonymous Oregon IP address trace to Arizona. And also I wike you very much! The snow is gone thank gawd, although a 10-mile stretch of I-5 (the main north/south freeway) was flooded for several days. Luckily the water receded in time for my return. How u doin'? momoricks (make my day) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You poor baby! I hope your back feels better soon. It's amazing how much an injured back affects one's overall mobility. It's probably a good thing Mr. Rottie was more interested in the bone than you. He might have shown his concern by peeing on ya. :) Did I leave a note for Rossrs about Audrey? I don't recall doing that; however, I do seem to be getting a little more senile each week. momoricks (make my day) 06:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dissertation

Quite frankly, I didn't find your dissertation boring. I've always intended seeing A Mighty Heart and you've reminded me to seek it out. I think Angelina is underrated, but her films aren't always good plus she's got a media-image the size of Texas to carry. It does her no favours. There's always Changeling but I doubt it. I think the Oscars are more about timing than some of the other awards. My bet is that it's time for Kate Winslet and Heath Ledger. With Heath, I think the outpouring of goodwill is genuine, but it's also the last chance to award him, so... I'd be surprised if anyone else got it. I think Mickey Rourke has a great chance, and as you said Hollywood loves a comeback. I think the very fact that his performance surprises people is to his advantage, but if not Mickey, Leonardo Di Caprio is due/overdue. I expect Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Viola Davis and possibly Amy Adams to be nominated for Doubt but I think Viola Davis will be the only one to win. I'll say Anne Hathaway will be nominated and will have to settle for that, but I thought the same about Reese Witherspoon - what do I know? I never get these things right, but it's fun to ponder. I'm going to predict Kate Winslet, Mickey Rourke, Heath Ledger and Viola Davis and thus kill all of their chances. After killing their chances, it will go to the second place-getters - Anne Hathaway/Leonardo Di Caprio/Philip Seymour Hoffman/Penelope Cruz. So now I've killed off 4 more possibilities... OK Meryl Streep/Brad Pitt....... ;-) I have no idea. Rossrs (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can take or leave Sean Penn. I've seen a preview of Milk and in the little I saw, I thought it could be an interesting performance. I think you're right about the male nominations and I can't think of anyone else who could emerge as a contender. I thought Leo was brilliant in Blood Diamond, so if he'd won for that, I would have been happy, but I also liked Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises (and Naomi Watts). The problem is that often I don't see the films until after the awards are given out, so it's probably fortunate that I don't have a vote. Interesting to hear that you despised American Beauty. I didn't despise it, but it left my a bit underwhelmed because I obviously bought into the hype. It ruined Kevin Spacey for me though, as he was just a little too creepy. Like you said about Angelina and tapping into something that she must have experienced, I thought Kevin tapped into something that was a bit too disturbing. We'll have to compare predictions when the nominations come out. Rossrs (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your biggest fan

Uh oh, I think my joke was misinterpreted. While I do wike you, I did not post the strange Audrey comments. I'm a freak, but I'd never play a joke like that, especially because I know about your past bizarro encounters. Hope the back is feeling better. momoricks (make my day) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not me. I took a look at that IP's contributions and the editor(s) appears to be familiar with editing based on the edit summaries. They talk as if they know you. Perhaps it's an editor who you've encountered before via a different account? momoricks (make my day) 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is puzzling because if it's an editor that has encountered Wildhartlivie before, the editor must have also encountered me as they also left Audrey messages on my talk page. I have no idea. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue about this. I was much appeased when I thought it was Momo. I can't think of who I've encountered somewhere who would associate me with Audrey Hepburn. Like I said, I've made one or two small edits to the article in my whole time on WP. It's a bit freaky. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Banners

I'm having a difficult time stringing words together coherently tonight, but I looked at it and will add my opinion soon. Nighty night! momoricks (make my day) 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no excuse. I'm fully coherent at the moment and I don't understand what the hell the problem about the banners are! Is the gist of this about the use of the word "Criminal" and that it might be potentially libelous to someone who isn't a criminal (please show me a bio that is labeled as such and is wrong)? If that's not the issue, let me know and I'll go back and reread. So far, I agree that the two banners should stay as they are because they do in fact cover biographies and topics about crime. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm partially coherent. I can string a few words together, but not as easily as I would like. I'll give it some thought. Rossrs (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

wooo-hoooo you paint a purty picture! Rossrs (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comfort's much more important. You do realize though that this will be the night that Brad Pitt is driving by, has a flat tyre, has to pop in to one of the friendly locals to use the phone, knocks on the door...... Oh well, he's probably got Angelina and the kids with him. Hopefully the dog is nice and warm and has a full belly after his ordeal. Rossrs (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

James Cagney

And, after months of only working on it in fits and starts, I've pretty well finished the James Cagney article. I've added the personal and political life sections which hopefully give a bit more insight into the man. . I've also updated all the references to the standard wiki templates. I'd really appreciate your comments on it, and what you think might be needed to improve it further. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RE;

Plural noun & plural verbs for couple or they. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.171.64 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What matter is that it's fixed, properly and also that imaginary second middle name for Violet is removed. I'll sign, but won't do you any good. 65.92.171.64 (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Film or Doc

It will be a "slider". A mixture of documentary, film and interviews. A lot of the story will be voice over narrative from the files and voice interviews I have with actual officers, professors and victims. The narrative will dictate the action. In some scenes, the narrative will lead to actors in the situation, or/and vice-versa. The incident will mostly be from Whitman's perspective. There will be a lot of flash back scenes from the tower. The interviews yet to be done will be with professionals in their respective fields and be interpolated at the appropriate interlude. But it will all lead back to the parapet. Well, now that I've given a 110% description, I don't want to give away any spoilers!!! My only issue right now is the time constraint of two hours. Most films have a problem with two hours being too much, here, it will be too little, so I need a lot of power scenes with brevity. The only slow-mo scene will be with McCoy and Martinez confronting Whitman. The gun battle lasted under five seconds, I've reserved five minutes from the time Martinez goes around the corner and McCoy catching up with him. From their, it will be in their own voices. Victor9876 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ann B. Davis

Hi, Would you mind taking a look at recent edits to Ann B. Davis and my comments at Talk:Ann B. Davis? I'm not prepared to get into an edit war with an anon over something as stupid as this, but it really bothers me. This is the kind of trivial crap that leads people to dismiss Wikipedia and I see no value in it. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had reverted it 3 times and I am not going to get myself blocked over something as inane as this. Thank you for wading in, and being the voice of reason. Rossrs (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

MARK WAHLBERG

That is not at all a controversial edit I made. But I dont know what edit I made that you say I need a citation Ripper404 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, how come the violence and vandalism thing dont have no citation? and it is all pretty much the same when you read all the stories about his past and [here|http://www.markwahlbergfan.com/article_vanityfair.htm] is a good souce for all that

Marlene

Hi there, I hope you're OK. I've looked at the Marlene changes. Mostly it's just rearranging the info into a more chronological sequence, and I think it's reasonable. Very little has actually been removed. The lead section is unbalanced and places too much emphasis on her early career, but it was like that before the edit, so that part is neither better nor worse. The only bit that is significant is the removal of a piece of info relating to her becoming an American citizen and leaving Germany etc, which was unsourced, looked like original research and in my opinion wasn't quite accurate, so it's good that it's gone. The way that part has been rewritten is an improvement. All in all, I think it's OK, but these long edits are so hard to follow :-)

On another note, that idiotic paragraph has been added back into Ann B. Davis. I've already removed it several times - would you mind..... ? Looking back through the history, it's been added and removed numerous times. Originally it was Ann herself who was the virgin, the Jeopardy and Brady Bunch reference came later. Jeez Louise!! Rossrs (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You've mentioned before that you have problems with your vision but I thought you were dealing with a "consistent" degree rather than an "inconsistent" - that must be incredibly frustrating. The bit about Marlene's sexuality was removed from the lead section, and placed into her "personal life" and I think that's where it should go. It's dealt with very briefly, but I think the duality of her characterisations/persona is more interesting and more relevant than her private sexuality. It's touched on very briefly in Marlene Dietrich#Image and legacy (where my pet-hate-word "icon" has been imaginatively used twice in one sentence !!), but not discussed at all in relation to specific roles. As for Ann B., I might request semi-protection if it happens again, but I wonder if it's worth the bother. Semi protection is usually only for a couple of days, and this has been going on since early December. (Maybe longer, as I couldn't bother checking back further). Very tedious. That's like the anon who used to be HC. I've had so many articles semi-protected and within hours of the protection being removed, he's back. He's getting worse - his recent edits at Talk:Tyrone Power are getting quite nasty and personal, but I digress. It seems a little futile. This Wiki toolbar sounds interesting. Where can I go to find out more about it? Rossrs (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The toolbar looks quite interesting. The protection thing - yes it may look like a content dispute. I'm believe in 'give 'em enough rope and let them hang themselves' when all else fails, and no, it's not a bad thing to think or even to say. Many of the HC edits look like content disputes too. I worry that an admin unfamiliar with the history may see me as the one being contentious, but so far that has not been the case. It's only as workable as the admin that looks at the request, but it is usually satisfactory. One thing I'm sure of, is that I can outlast anyone who wants to take on Ann B.!  :-)

No, I didn't see it until later, but I was glad I got to see it eventually. I'm going to install that toolbar and check it out. In the meantime I've just been busy housekeeping, archiving etc. I can't motivate myself to plunge headlong into an article. I've been neglecting all those actresses lately, but most of them are dead, so they're not likely to mind. Rossrs (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Knackered" is the word, but I'm more likely to use the Australian variation that means the same thing, but nastier. According to our very own Wikipedia, its popuarity as a vulgarism exists not only in Australia, but I think it's very Australian. Anyway, goodnight. Talk to you soon. Rossrs (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sherurcij on Whitman Page

I removed the boxes pertaining to the arsenal and supplies Whitman took up on the tower, and replaced a line linking to his uploads of the actual police file list.

1. The boxes smack of a CNN, MSNBC or Fox News multiscreen information scrolls. My belief is that the boxes distract the reader from the surrounding article. The link allows the reader to go to the actual source if they want to see the mega list. We are both at two reversions. Will you consider this? I would compromise for his link at the bottom of the page, it would be a better alert that there is information, rather than the list, which frankly, appears tacky to the article. Thanks!Victor9876 (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured out how to move the list and tag into the proper area. Does this seem fair? Victor9876 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Revisit the page. I have removed the Wikisource tag into the article. Victor9876 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

By moving the Wikisource back down, are you saying the source can not be used in the article per WP rules as a substitute for boxes? Victor9876 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I mention above, the boxes, though interesting, distract from the article. The article already has a fair amount of the items, just not complete. The Wikisource (created by Sherurcij) includes the complete list that even the boxes didn't have, or, were so chocked full of Wiki-links that the average reader probably wouldn't mess with it. The real deal is the actual documents. They lend authenticity to the reader. Again, watch any news program and the information they try and cram on the tube, is overwhelming, a speaking announcer, scrolling text, stationary text, what's on next, etc, etc, no one can absorb or concentrate on it all. The boxes list items not in the text as well. What's the point?! And further more, who really cares about the boxes (sorry, present company excluded). Sure the boxes were a well intentioned input, but not the same as the real McCoy (no relation to the McCoy in the article). Besides, the Wikisource can't be argued with, lazy readers may question the content of the boxes. Just like the photos give credibility, so does the Police Reports. Have I made my point? Victor9876 (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K., now, after 24 +/- hours, and re-visiting the page, I get a sense of pride in the the way it looks. Realize, I don't feel that I am the one to be satisfied for selfish reasons, I truly believe that the visitor will leave with a 98.6109473% satisfaction ratio, over the 88% accuracy rate of the article (truth being factored in as 0%, since WP doesn't find it necessary). lol! Honestly, it is better now, would you agree? Victor9876 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh! It must of been real cold that day and I missed the feature list. Can you link me and I'll give you the "well done" after I see it. Sorry! You may be right about the photos, in fact, I canceled my subscription to Playboy because they kept putting those damned pictures of naked women before the article! What a rude distraction that is! Victor9876 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

First, call it...heads or tails!? Your review depends on it! Ohhh...alright, it is great and I'm very proud of you!!! Must of took a lot of work - writing the Coen Brothers names so many times. You left out that the title to the movie is my AUTOBIOGRAPHY! When my project gets done, I want you to write the review for it - both sentences. Very, Very well done kiddo! Congratulations! Victor9876 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy Bake Oven! I think someone is in a Trade Mark Violation. I'm sure that is how everyone described my ex-wife after I married her. I'll check into that and get back you, just to be sure. Wait a second ... nope, no violation - they called her Shake and Bake Oven! Victor9876 (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So you know her too eh! Goodnight! lol! Victor9876 (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Merge

yea, I really jumped the gun on that, and realized that right away. Really sorry about that ... I'm not used to seeing such quality articles on the unpatrolled pages. My compliments to you by the way .. excellent work. I like to go through the unpatrolled pages when I'm not actually editing (working on Twilight (1998) now in my sandbox) - cause it gives me a chance to build my ability with mostly stubs. I just joined the movies group, ... look forward to seeing you around the site. Appreciate you not yelling at me too.  :) Ched (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NIMOY? ... Wow ... VERY COOL. Just looked over your user page too. I didn't get to Indiana this summer, and usually do (Salem or Winchester for a stock car race). Probably will next summer though. Photography too, I use a Nikon D80, but would love to get the D90. I can see right away that I can learn a lot from you. You might notice me following you around (but I'll keep quiet for the most part, and not pester unless it's worth it). I did some work on Ethan Phillips, and a couple Voyager articles, but nothing major yet. I'm usually a pretty quick study, but admit that my writing background is more prose than research and factual, so it's a learning experience. I just joined back in November, so lots to learn. I look forward to working with you, and ... Nice to meet you ;) Ched (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm harmless really. Did notice you have some very similar interests in topics though, and also did revert just now on Ann B. Davis (same last name as mine). I want to help too ;) ... Ched (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL at paraphrase, ... "The needs of the many". Yep, I use Firefox, (sometimes Chrome off wiki), and have tweaked my preferences with Twinkle and such. The vandalism thing is new to me, really only started paying attention to it a week or so ago when the Star Trek main page kept showing up on my watchlist with change after change after change .. all vandalism. I reverted some, usually a bot or admin gets to it before I do. It is an area I'd like to help with - but have to be careful not to overstep my bounds and abilities just yet. Haven't requested "rollback" yet, not sure I'd pass yet anyway. Like I said, lots to learn here, and appreciate when folks like yourself are so willing to point me in the right direction. Hopefully I can have a positive impact down the road, at least I'll try. Oh, and I started going to Winchester back in the mid-70's as a teen. Great track, can see why you would worry though about the drivers. Saw one guy hit the entrance to pit road wall (think it might have been Randy Sweet, but I'm not sure). Did you follow the sprints or stock cars? Ched (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear about your Dad. didn't mean to bring up unpleasant memories. That link was cool, kinda like a "Hey, you really have accomplished something here". I'm not really wanting rollback, what I have with Twinkle is fine. I'm quite content to go about my quiet little editing. Well, it's been a real pleasure talking with you, and I look forward to working with you in the movies and such. Ched (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Chikatilo

Apologies for the spelling error Wildhartlive. With reference to the difference between "uncovered" and "linked to the investigation", the difference is that in 1982, Chikatilo killed seven people, and in 1983, he killed eight. In September 1983, six of Chikatilos murders were linked to the manhunt for the then unknown killer, but by 1983, eleven of his victims had been found. Many of his murders were only linked to Chikatilo after his arrest and confession. This is due to the difference of age and gender of his victims and the fact Chikatilo did not always follow the same method when killing his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieronoldham (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

...

alright, that was my bad. i wasn't aware of the policy, so now i am. thanks for letting me know then. sorry i snapped. Justme89 (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

i will contribute the best i can. i'll be honest, i've seen that a lot of articles on this site don't have images, where they really do need them and i was wondering if you can help find images to those articles, because i don't have the rights to upload any. if you can't, can you find someone else to, that'd be great. Justme89 (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

that sounds great, i will let you know the articles i find that need them. so, when i mentioned before about not being able to upload images, i actually meant that they have a strict copyright policy here. i have uploaded images before, and they said that the images are not allowed to be put up. i find it difficult to put images up in any case. so, the wikicommons site will have free images you're saying?Justme89 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah i checked there and they don't have much like you said, but i will look around. also before i forget, i will give you a list of certain articles that i think should have images, sometime later on. thanks for your suggestions Justme89 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Son of a #$%*#!

I don't know what it is about me, but I always seem drawn to these obscure articles that no one edits until I find them. Every time I clean 'em up and watchlist them, it's only a matter of time before SPAs seep out of the woodwork with claims of birth records and other such nonsense. Since I really don't want a repeat of the last debacle, what do you think the best recourse for all this is? Natch, there's no other reliable source on planet Earth for the birth name and DOB so I'm thinking about just removing it all (à la the Shinas article minus the AN/I, go nowhere SSP report, and the fake OTRS). There's no need to weigh in on the talk page, been there, done that, I'd just like your opinion. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I need to stop watchlisting these reality show wannabes. The strange thing is, I don't even watch reality shows. Ever. These people seep into my brain via US Weekly. Even though I should stop with these losers, I found this gem which is just begging for a redirect or delete. Anyway, I think removing it all is what I'm going to do. I don't really feel like dealing with these "new" users and I highly doubt anyone has his school records. I also doubt there's a huge conspiracy by Trendy and his management (geez, imagine having that as a job) to give out misinformation. I suppose it's possible, but it's a lot harder to hide information in this day and age. The attempts to to change his birth name to Gnock Yu Gaang Muro Tranh or some variation of an Asian-esque name has been going on since 2007. Personally, I think it's someone with far too much time on their hands. Yes, even more than me. Thanks for your opinion. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Miss Creepy Kimmy is not notable and I was shocked she even had an article. I can't believe it's lasted nearly two years without anyone nominating it. I'll probably redirect the article in a week or two depending on if anyone edits it. If it gets a hit, I'll AfD it faster than E! canceled that mess of a show. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Image cropping

Hi, I thought I'd better show you this with regards to image cropping. I cropped an image of Eliza Dushku by David Shankbone, and I uploaded it using the derivative template, which seemed the most logical one to use, but it creates a particular format that is wrong. (edit 1 & edit 2 & edit 3 - the worst one) The last thing I intended on doing was to claim authorship, and I've offended David Shankbone - I'm mortified. I've apologized which is all I can do. There's also this Madonna shot (which is in my opinion the best free image on Wikipedia) and it's just got a simple box saying that it's been retouched. I figured that if Commons had made a template it would be right, but I live and learn.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not just that it was the wrong upload method, but that it was of a lesser quality, which David rightly pointed out when the image was reverted in the article. It's only in the last couple of days that I've discovered how to save images at the highest quality - I thought I was doing it correctly but I wasn't. He doesn't know me, so from his point of view I may look like a vandal, or a nuisance, or both  :-) but I was genuinely trying to improve it. It didn't work, but I was thinking what a good image it was, and how much better it would look with the line removed from above her head etc. I think it's right to use that particular upload template because it's an efficient way of interlinking etc, but it may be better to manually change the authorship part of it. It would be easy enough to copy and paste from another image before saving it, and although it's adding an extra step into the process it would be simpler than doing the whole thing from scratch. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably something that everyone but me knew. Click on the "Full resolution" link directly under the image and then save it. I was right clicking/saving from the first image. It seems so bleedingly obvious I can't believe it took me so long to stumble upon it. Rossrs (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me out?

Hey, I saw that you were a part of the neutrality wikiproject. Could you recommend someone to help me out on the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) article. I think that it is seriously bias. Anybody who has experience with political articles or else an administrator from the neutrality wikiproject. Thanks a lot. Lighthead ^þ 02:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, at least you gave me options. Thanks so much! Lighthead ^þ 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Jane Fonda

Could you tell me why you reverted my edit of adding an image to her page? I thought Wikipedia encourages the use of images, featured articles of film stars contain many. In my opinion, it also illustrated an important part of her career, as Barbarella was the film that made her a sex symbol, and it wasn't copyrighted. So, what was the problem whit it? Thanks in advance. Aquila89 (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The articles about Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, Judy Garland, Sharon Tate and Diane Keaton, all featured, have several film images. That's why I thought it would be appropriate. Aquila89 (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So, should I put the image to the page about Barbarella? Aquila89 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oscar Oscar

I detect a touch of "Academy Award-nominated" madness being added willy nilly to the opening sentences of several articles. I think it's going to be an interesting couple of weeks with lots of fluffery being added. I noticed the comment above about the film images. As a matter of fact, I added most of the images of Davis, Garland, Leigh and Tate and most of them are from public domain film trailers. (All of Garland, all but one of Davis/Leigh, some of Tate). I've left a message for Aquila89 explaining the difference. Too bad Fonda's career has been almost entirely post-1963 when film trailers started to be independently copyrighted. Rossrs (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I just had a look at that Barbarella image. It says it's from the trailer and it's linked from Commons. It should be OK to use. Rossrs (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Two Ages of Travolta

Travolta used to be a year older than me but now he's a year younger. I tend to be conscious of people's ages if they're that close to my own but I was almost beginning to wonder if my mind was playing tricks on me until other exact contemporaries starting telling me the same thing. If you were that close to Travolta's age in the '70s, you wound up keenly aware of his age, or at least many of us did. Finding an online source might prove inherently difficult, though, since he seems to have changed it right around the time the internet was transitioning from scrolling text read mainly by academics and immediately after a long spate of no one having the slightest interest in him. It's amazing that he can blithely get away with changing his age and fool so many people just by dropping a couple of years, given the extent of his fame back in the '70s; it proves something but I'm not exactly sure what. I wish I could suggest a good source; anything published with his birthdate in the '70s and early '80s would list it as 1952 as a matter of course, but how many references from that period listing him are easily available? Next time either of us is in a library, we'll have to try to look for that, although references from that far back would have been routinely replaced. Any biography written about him from the period would corroborate this but most libraries would have discarded them during the Look Who's Talking period if not before. I can't prove it at the moment, but bear this whole thing in mind and at some point in the future, even if it's in Travolta's eventual obituary, you'll see that he actually dropped two years from his age when his career came roaring back to life with Pulp Fiction. When you do, please change the birthdate in his Wikipedia article for the sake of precision, assuming no one else has already done so. Skymasterson (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Golden Globe moves

Per WP:DASH, "a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span." Here, the en dash serves as a separator (name of award and category). As you said, readers will be redirected even if they type in a hyphen. Therefore, the article is compliant with the style guidelines and at the same time accessible to readers. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN says that there is no need to fix redirects. I will get around to fixing the links in the navigation template though. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More Travolta

The fact that he did set back his birthday and continues to go uncalled on it by all current media, including Wikipedia, is even funnier. I imagine he laughs about it whenever he thinks about it. Skymasterson (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oscars

Verrrry interesting. Kate Winslet for The Reader? Not Revolutionary Road? I have a feeling that this is the year that Meryl Streep deserves to win, but won't because she's kind of taken for granted. I would have said Winslet in a heartbeat for Revolutionary Road but The Reader? Didn't the Golden Globes call that a supporting role? That makes me less confident, but still I'll say Kate Winslet, Mickey Rourke, Heath Ledger and Viola Davis. Davis because I've been reading a lot of things about her performance being a stand-out. I also think that the voters will want to give something to Doubt as the acting is being so highly praised and Streep and Hoffman are unlikely. Working against that theory is Amy Adams....(I think she's great) .... in which case I would say Penelope Cruz who is inexplicably popular. I think she's as interesting as a cardboard box, but that's just me. The nominations are spread around aren't they? Nothing particularly dominates except for Benjamin Button. I thought the Slumdog Millionaire goodwill may have extended to Dev Patel, but I'm happy that someone unlikely like Richard Jenkins has been nominated, although Mickey Rourke is pretty unlikely. I also think it's time they stopped the "Best Original Song" award - they must have struggled to scrape together three nominations.

On another note, I read recently that Sharon Tate had "passed away". Sounds neat and clean, doesn't it? Gee whiz! Rossrs (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sharon - nowhere important - here "the girl has passed away" Actually I find "the girl" a bit off....it's a Wiki page but I was still surprised by the wording.

I've just seen (a bootleg copy because it hasn't started in Australia) of Milk and ... oh my god .... Sean Penn!!! Someone I know got hold of a copy and every five minutes or so a banner comes across the bottom of the screen saying "this copy is not for public viewing but is for award consideration only", which makes me feel like I should be voting. ;-) I'm torn now. Hollywood loves a comeback but I think they love Sean Penn too, and although I have never been a fan, I thought it was a beautiful performance. I hope I don't change my mind too often, but I think it could easily be Penn/Winslet/Ledger/Davis. Rossrs (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cher singles template

I've created this because when I try to edit this, the template redirected me in the this template. Now if you try to view also this template, it redirects you in the first template with the singles from 1964 to 1982 and I don't understand why!

Kekkomereq4 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

She is not longer Pit's wife!--Gaviota2009 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)