Jump to content

User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Birthdays

I didn't think about it being her birthday. I've sometimes thought about people who have died young and how old they'd be if they'd lived. Carole Lombard would also be 102, Jean Harlow 99, Vivien Leigh 97, Ingrid Bergman 95 - likely they'd be gone by now. (Although Luise Rainer and Gloria Stuart are still around). James Dean would be 79, Sharon Tate 67, Natalie Wood 72, Marilyn Monroe 84, Jimi Hendrix 68, John Lennon 70, Steve McQueen 80, Anne Frank, Audrey Hepburn, and Grace Kelly all 81, Judy Garland 89. Hard to imagine them as elderly people. Rossrs (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm vaguely aware of Gloria Stuart as a young actress. The first time I heard of her was reading about the WAMPAS baby stars, and that was long before Titanic. When Titanic came out, I wondered if it was the same woman, and it was. I uploaded a screenshot of her from The Invisible Man (long deleted as it was non-free, back before I knew about such things). I was watching a documentary about Hollywood a little while ago and it had an interview with Gloria Stuart which seemed fairly recent, and in the bottom left hand corner was a picture of a young Gloria. My screenshot. Considering the thousands of potential screenshots in a film, I thought it must have come from Wikipedia for it to be exactly the same one right down to the cropping of it. All the old stars being interviewed had "young" photos on the screen with them. I looked to see if I could take credit for any of the others, but Gloria's was the only one. This is it. (Once something's uploaded on Wikipedia it's pretty unusual for it to not end up somewhere else.) Pretty gorgeous in her day. Rossrs (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I find that interesting too. We have someone in the family who will turn 99 later this year (although she keeps praying for God to take her, he ain't listening). She was alive when the Titanic sank, and she's lived through changes I can't begin to comprehend. It astonishes me to think that my mother (84) remembers a time when Hitler was discussed in the present tense as a current threat. I ask her questions, but if I put anything to her directly she becomes vague and self conscious and I don't think she really gets that I find it interesting. Occasionally she'll remember something out of the blue and tell a story. Recently she remembered this one. My grandmother lived not far from where I grew up and where my mother still lives, and around the corner from her house is a large park. Nowadays it's used for football, and when it's not in use, it's the most beautiful and tranquil spot, framed by huge jacaranda trees, but during the Second World War there was a temporary Army camp there for U.S. soldiers about to go to war. To get from there to the local pub, you go past my grandmother's house, so there was usually a stream of soldiers going by her place at the end of the day. She'd be out trimming her roses, and probably being a bit of a busy-body. She became acquainted with one young soldier and somehow they became friends and he'd come into her house for a cup of tea. All my mother remembers of him was that he was very young, and that he was nice and polite. A nice kid. She can't remember his name. He was killed in the war, and after his death, my grandmother in Australia and his mother in the U.S. kept a correspondence over quite a few years. Never met - but kept in touch for quite a long time. I'd never heard this until recently, and something reminded my mother of it, and so she told the story. I drive down the street where my grandmother lived, and I've played in that park numerous times, but you just don't know what kind of history has taken place there until someone tells you. I think it's a very sweet story, and if I had more to tell, I'd send a synopsis to Clint Eastwood, Letters from Australia, but you now know as much as I do. Most of the story died with my grandmother, and I guess with the boy's mother. My mother probably remembers less than she once knew, and all that's left are the bare bones, and if something hadn't brought the story to the front of my mother's mind, the bare bones wouldn't have seen the light of day. Now I have the bare bones of it for as long as I'm around. After that, the young soldier and his story probably won't be known by anyone. Kind of sad when I look at it like that. On the other hand, when he was walking down my grandmother's street nearly 70 years ago, could he have dreamed that in 70 years time someone who hadn't even been born would be telling about something as mundane as him walking down my grandmother's street? Less sad if I look at it from that angle. Rossrs (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Norma Shearer / Pictures

I don't think that removing pictures you think are bad is quite the same thing as improving the quality of the pictures in an article. While the trailer picture from The Women is pretty blurry at all sizes, the one from Marie Antoinette looks fine in the article, it only looks blurry when it is blown up. Since trailer pictures (which are in the public domain) fair use images from the films cannot be used because they are replacable by public domain images. You say that you are okay with all the images except those from trailers, but in many cases, trailer pictures are the only public domain pictures of old actors acting. And shouldn't an actor's page ideally have a picture of them acting if such a picture exists? After all, ideally an athlete's article would have a picture of them doing their sport and ideally a singer's article would have apicture of them in concert.Givememoney17 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim Novak

It's not as if she is dead. For a living person, an image from 2004 should be in the article instead of one from the 1950s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Closeminded8 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What's my line?

I see that you once again put "What's My Line" back to the present tense. You state that it is still an active program or show. Where is it current or active? You need to spell out where the show is active, if you want to keep in in the present tense.

- Dan Dobson~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.160.161 (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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


Wild -

You wrote, "It doesn't go away. Please look at the standards used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television for television shows. They are referenced in the present tense since they don't cease existence because they are no longer broadcast."

Well I went to the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Television for television shows" and I failed to see the standard that you claim that exists that television shows are always referred to in the present tense. What Section and / or sub-section are you referring to? I did not see it.

- Dan Dobson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dann Dobson (talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Crowe

Hi Wildhartlivie, I've replied on my talk page. XLerate (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag&Assess

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to point out that you have adopted a range in WP:FILMS' Tag&Asses drive that still has articles left to review. Do you think you're going to be able to finish this range before the end of the month? We want to make sure that all of our unassessed-class articles are assessed, and if you are facing time constraints or have other projects, I can assist you if you'd like. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I just thought I'd remind you in case you forgot. There's always so much to do on here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent photos in infoboxes

Hi, do you know if there is any policy/guideline to say we should use the more recent usable picture in the infobox? Or is it just something that is "unofficially" adopted as a common practice? Just wondering, as I notice the 2009 of Betty White has been moved to the bottom of the article and replaced with a 1989 pic of her. I'd also prefer to use the cropped version of 1989 - these anonymous people in the background would in theory be protected by the same "personality rights" disclaimer that applies to White, but the difficulty is that we don't even know who they are. It's not a big deal, but it's just one of those things that irritates me more than it probably should. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of photos - did you notice that horrendous Holly Hunter image has been replaced by something professional, and in my opinion, beautiful? Superb. It's nice to finally cross a name off my "horrendously inappropriate infobox images" list. Jessica Lange is still on the list unfortunately. And she's been joined by Allison Iraheta. It's hilarious. An infobox image where the only thing you can't see is the subject's face. Oh, ok. And her feet. You can't see her feet either. Rossrs (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, and I know it's the common practice, but wasn't sure if it's actually written anywhere. She looked so glamorous in her 60s, and that's very evident in the 1992 photo with Alan Light, but on the other hand, she's 88. She may no longer be what most people would call glamorous, but does she look good for her age, or what? !! If you like Betty, as I do, you could do worse than look at You Tube under the heading of "stupid game show answers" and there are a number of Betty White appearances on "Password". She's a very naughty girl. Some funny stuff there, if you're ever feeling serious and need a laugh. I love this one (not Betty). "How many decades has your mother lived." Rossrs (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reese Witherspoon

Why was my edit http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Reese_Witherspoon&diff=355091381&oldid=355080277 reverted?

I copied some good sensible statement from an old version to address a problem raised on the discussion page.

123.3.110.165 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The hidden comment you mentioned is not related to her film producer job at all. Please review.

And the sentence I added was supposed to make it look like an opening sentence. It has the word "first" in it, and sounds like a natural opening to me. Anyway it was there when the article reached Featured Article. I just copied and pasted. The sentence starting with "in 1998" is the awkward one, because the year 1998 just came out of nowhere. 123.3.110.165 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That hidden comment was added because people kept challenging the highest-paid actress sentence, which was in the lead some time before, but has been removed already. 123.3.110.165 (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

nope

Erm, as I said on my talk... eh, just read it there. Your points not actually verified anywhere... I'm not gonna stick the OR tag in the body text right now so you don't have to 3RR... I'll OR tag it Tuesday (which is probably your Monday night)...• Ling.Nut 05:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Talented Tony

Does he mean the entire book? All of 'em? That's got to be so bad for his throat. Rossrs (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Russell Crowe

Your options here are to look at some form of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and in particular Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. If you don't think it needs the full works then Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts might be able to help. something lame from CBW 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bergman

It looks like more edit warring over at Ingrid Bergman for the same material as before. I added more comments to the talk page after their last deletion, but nothing seems to sink in. Any ideas? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize they put back the deleted text since their comment implied otherwise. Unless it was a mistake. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Something Interesting...?

"You've got mail!" Doc9871 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at Talk:Sandra Bullock#Convoluted language.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LadyofShalott 01:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben Affleck

Why did you revert my latest edit to Ben Affleck? I thought you agreed that what's good for the GA-status nominated version, should remain intact... I was the one had originally changed Ben Affleck to Benjamin Geza Affleck and then removed the Boldt, and I think it is wise to return it to its original, Better state. You can see that I made the change here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ben_Affleck&diff=prev&oldid=341881863

I thought we had reached a truce? What's the issue now?Hutch y2k (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you being so vicious? I noticed the 3-revert rule and I haven't reverted anything since. You mentioned that things should remain the same as the state in which the article was GA nominated, I thought that sounded like a decent proposal... so I made that change thinking you'll probably be at peace with it too.Hutch y2k (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in moving the citation anywhere... but I think the language of the original article serves the article best. It was good enough for Thinkblue, it was good enough for the GA editors, then why are you playing so hard to get on it? I think it is a decent compromise... and I hope you are big enough to say OK or just do it.Hutch y2k (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me add: the reason I don't like the "known professionally part" is because he is known as ben affleck both privately and professionally, so the sentence seems misleading (even if it is obvious). this is almost the same situation as Angelina Jolie, so I don't see the big deal in having it the way the original editors put it.Hutch y2k (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
why can't we just use the original sentence, which went like this: Ben Affleck (born Benjamin Géza Affleck-Boldt on August 15, 1972) because clearly as we all agree the A-b hyphenated form of the name has been a passive if not now a totally defunct presence in his life (if he had used that name in school, I would have given it more importance, but it seems like he was never called by that name ... it would be like starting joaquin Phoenix's article with joaquin bottom merely because he was born with that moniker). The Angelina Jolie case is identical and it works just as well for her article as it will for Affleck's. I see your point about given name, but let's face it, if say Affleck was to run for office tomorrow, we'll see his tax returns, etc. and his name on the ballot is going to be benjamin geza affleck. And then we'll have to change it to the way bill clinton's lead is formatted. but given the absence of any such proof for his current legal name, I think the name he uses for both professional and private purposes (campaign donations as a private citizen, etc.) isn't too far-fetched to be the first name mentioned. So, I really think the aforementioned lead works best. Phew. I rest my case :)Hutch y2k (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason why I think ben affleck should be first is a) that is how originally it was set up in the GA nominated article; so why change it? b) it makes much more sense as I pointed out above. c) why are we giving so much importance to a name that is neither his legal name nor his professional or private/childhood name? It just baffles me. Lastly, I am sorry about calling you vicious, but somehow I get the idea that you personally dislike me and tend to pick a fight every time I make a point - maybe it's just me or maybe we just see things differently or maybe I am the one who has my head stuck up my a**. I certainly am not here to fight, though of course we've crossed swords in the past too. Here's to better cooperation in the future... like I said, I really think the original lead works best-let's restore it. My apologies for any hurt feelings. Hutch y2k (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, is silence a form of consent? I haven't heard from you - should I assume you are cool with restoring the lead to the aforementioned form? I don't want another edit war. Hutch y2k (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

this is not a talkback template

I despise talkback templates, and would not be seen in public associating my name with their use. I think should they all be summarily deleted... Off with their heads!... but I replied on my talk. • Ling.Nut 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wishing you a nice day

Hello Wildhartlivie, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Gosh, thanks. Yes it DID make my day. Thanks!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Affleck update

Hi Wild, Okay, since you haven't objected to my suggestion of reverting to the original lead of the GA-nominated article, I made the change while I was updating the article about the Eastern Congo Initiative. I hope that is fine, man!!! If not, please leave a message at my talk page. Hope you are doing fine. best, Hutch y2k (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When I noticed that you had taken more than a couple of hours to reply (the horror! lol), I realized that you must have more important things to tend to ... because otherwise you seem to be omnipresent on Wikipedia (at least in the Entertainment/Actors sphere) and for good reason. Feel better! Hutch y2k (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Casey Affleck

Thanks. After I did that, I realized that there must be a better way to go about this (given the giant backlog of unassessed articles... though the subcategory for actors is pretty well-managed). I snooped around a little to explore and then got distracted.Hutch y2k (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

2 pages for "The Two Coreys" ?

Hi there,

As you've been so helpful with Corey Haim's page, I though I would ask your advice... when I was linking Haim's page to "The Two Coreys" (TV series) page, another page came up which has sections for the Coreys as an acting team and one for the show itself -- which seems like a good idea, as anyone searching simply for "The Two Coreys" can get both lots of info, which is interrelated anyway. Obviously there shouldn't be duplicate pages, and I'm not sure of the protocol. It looks like the table showing the episode guide from The Two Coreys (TV series) should be integrated onto The Two Coreys page, and The Two Coreys (TV series) should be deleted.

What do you think?

Page for "The Two Coreys" with sections for series and the actors as a team:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Two_Coreys

Page for "The Two Coreys" (TV series), with ep guide.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Two_Coreys_(TV_series)


Thanks again --Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Help please with WP:ACTOR filmography tables?

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but I was really hoping you might be able to help me regarding the filmography tables. In the past, you have been a good source of help at the talk page. Editor User:Jack Merridew recently corrected me for "fixing" the filmography of Jayma Mays here, as per the standard listed at WP:ACTOR, due to an ongoing discussion. I see that the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers has been closed and I was curious as to the consensus, if any. It doesn't seem to me that there was one. So what do we do? I left a message for this editor but he really didn't give me a good answer.

My further research led me to notice a war at Anna Kendrick and I realized that this editor might not have been the best person to go to after I was reprimanded. He seems to have an argumentative opinion on this and is clearing all code on filmography tables (as he "tidies"), or is making fancy ones. (Geez, what's up with Anna Kendrick? Yuck.)

In the past, the table at WP:ACTOR is what I understood was "the standard". When I had further questions regarding "preferred style", I posted them on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers. The editor who corrected me has said a few times that this isn't really a "standard". Not even a guideline. The only standard is to use "wikitable". I am so confused. What's the purpose of the table at WP:ACTOR?

Can you please advise me on what to do? Are we allowed to alter filmography headings at all? Should I still stay away from them? (Gladly if it causes more edit wars!) Obviously, I don't want to get in trouble again, but sometimes I think it's necessary to create a table and I have no idea what format to use.

Sorry again to bother you with this. I really don't want to cause any additional problems (or wars) about the subject with other editors. Maybe it would be best if I avoid filmographies at all costs. Unfortunately, clearer guidelines would help on this issue, but it's obvious that isn't going to happen any time soon, if at all. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


Likewise... very recent revisions to the filmography table on Corey Haim's page?

Thanks for your vigilance on the page, by the way. Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wildhartlivie reverting endlessly. Thank you. Jack Merridew 05:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Taylor

I changed the main photo of her (taken in 1958) to one taken in 1985. You reverted it, without explanation. A 25-year old photo is more appropriate than a 52-year old photo.


You wrote this on Jane Fonda's talk page:

An editor came through and removed the 2005 photo of Fonda File:Jane Fonda 2005.jpg and replaced it with one from the mid-1990s File:Jane Fonda Cannes nineties.jpg. I reverted that mostly because we tend to use more recent photos in the infoboxes and not ones showing the currently working actor from a previous decade. Another editor reverted me, saying "Bzzzt; Cannes photo is perfectly acceptable". Yeah, well, it's a photo, but it's at least 15 years old and doesn't represent Fonda as she looks today. Consider that she's still a working actor and we should present her as she looks now. Thoughts and comments please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't see why this shouldn't apply to Taylor, since she is around the same age and still has a presence in Hollywood. I am going to change Taylor's main photo.Closeminded8 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Aileen Wournos

Is there some reason why you just had to put your foot in your mouth on your very first edit? Please take some time to research WP:COPYVIO. Most things posted on YouTube, including the copy of A&E Biography which you returned, are copyright violation s and are therfore not permissable links to include for citations. Learn a little bit about acceptable sources and what is and is not permitted before you go off shouting in edit summaries about things being removed "without just cause". Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you took offense to my message, and do not comprehend why you feel the need to use such language: "put your foot in your mouth on your very first edit." First, you cannot be certain that this is my first edit. I may have forgotten my previous login information, and therefore, your conclusion is unwarranted.
Second, thank you for letting me know that YouTube videos are not permissible to include for citations; however, I do not understand why. Most texts/videos on the Internet are copyrighted. Why are certain items that are copyrighted allowed to be used as citations, but not others?
Third, you assume "shouting off." The language of "without just cause" refers to "a standard of reasonableness used to evaluate a person's actions in a given set of circumstances." It does not imply a certain volume, pitch, or tone, as is implied through "shouting off." In addition, "tattle in the edit summary," does not make sense, because Wikipedia requests an edit summary, which, at the discretion of the editor, may include reasons for the edit.
Lastly, I am warranted to state that the removal was "without just cause," because a reason or "just cause" was not provided by you. If you had provided a reason, such a comment would not have been made. Objectivity is Essential (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
If you suspect User:Objectivity is Essential of being a new user, that's reason to be excessively gentle in your communication with them; not the opposite, WHL. If you simply don't have the patience for new users who edit without being familiar with our multitude of rules beforehand, I suggest taking a break. Dealing gently with newbies (or failing that, keeping away from them and their edits altogether) is part of your responsibility here as an experienced user. Equazcion (talk) 04:58, 20 Apr 2010 (UTC)
The whole point was that it was obvious this was not the first edit by this user, who has now been accused of sock puppetry by others for this very editing. I didn't suspect the editor of being a new editor, the observation was ironic. It was quite obvious the editor knew what he was doing and also engaged in a direct attack in edit summaries. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi... About Bonnie...

Are you inflexible about the edits made by editor LaNaranja to the Bonnie section of Bonnie and Clyde? I thought they were good: each of the birth/death dates for the parents has a flaw, and should go. The extra info about mother Emma helps flesh out Bonnie's childhood and is a good addition. The revision about her high school performance (which ended at 15) is far more accurate than what had been there — her award history was a single win at a "sub-junior" spelling bee at age 11, according to the cite. And the cites are all better in the LaNaranja edit: Parker/Barrow/Fortune is the seminal book on the subject, Guinn is the latest (and perhaps best)... while the Internet Accuracy Project is anything but accurate, and the Texas Hideout is a trove of photos, but a cesspool of badly flawed history scholarship. (Sorry, it's something I feel strongly about.) :)

In short, the LaNaranja version is more accurate, more complete, and has far better sources — I hope we can figure out how to keep it.

Oh, also, the final paragraph of that section: Jimmy Fowler is an entertainment critic reviewing a one-woman show about Bonnie Parker that ran briefly in Dallas in 1999 — he is not writing about the actual historical figure. The "authorities who shot her down" did not make any such concession... there is no evidence that she wrote any poetry in her truncated high school career... her introductions (plural) of politicians was a single episode when she was about six... and Shirley Temple didn't make her first feature till the year Bonnie was killed. Bonnie was not the "mini-celebrity" this quote avers — Phillips and Guinn and Knight (all the heavy hitter authors) agree that she was already on the road to trouble several years before she ever met Clyde. Anyway, I'm still searching more legitimate sources for something more accurate to go into that slot.

Hope we can get together on the first two paragraphs of the section. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You got it!  :) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind meaningless stuff like edit summaries, let's talk about the direction of the Bonnie and Clyde article ;) -- LaNaranja (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, I hope that you wont drop out of the B&C article, because I know you're a perceptive editor and I have a great deal of respect for your ability to recognize and express minutely fine points clearly. It would be wonderful if you'd choose to contribute to it beyond just the watchdog work, which we all do and continue to do.

I'd be happy to show you the problems with the article and Im sure HarringtonSmith would, too. The B&C article gets thousands of hits a day, if memory serves. Shouldnt we create a article we can be proud of -- that we know is "honest and upright and clean"?

I'm really not a bad person out to hurt you or upset you, and I suspect that's the case with most people who get irritated when you revert their work. But of course you know that other people have pride and feelings too, not just you, and they will defend themselves. So never mind pride and don't worry. Let's be friends and work together, this hysteria is just silly. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Robin Williams

i see that you undid my edit to the Robin Williams page. Mr. Williams was indeed featured in A Wish for Wings That Work. it's even mentioned on the page in the TV special section. it is also confirmed on the special's IMDB page. is there any reason you feel the world shouldn't learn this when visiting the page dedicated to him? --Sadchild (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Movie infobox: gross revenue

Hey Wild, I have a question for you that I thought you might know the answer to offhand: Is there a consensus on whether the domestic or worldwide gross revenue of a film should be listed in their infobox? I've seen both figures presented in infoboxes for notable films; it just seems as though there should be some measure of consistency (with qualified exceptions, of course). I'm guessing that we should put the worldwide bo in the infobox, but would like to get a definitive answer from you. Thanks! Hutch y2k (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look elsewhere for more info. Thanks.Hutch y2k (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember?

Hello Wildhartlivie. I have been noticing these Special:Contributions/Jordancelticsfan edits by User:Jordancelticsfan. You dealt with him on the Jack Warner page. He seems to like to change peoples nationalities. Most edits are of the busy work kind. Some of it is okay but some of it seems unneeded. He later returned to that page and edited as an anon IP Special:Contributions/174.23.72.231 making the same kind of edits. Considering that the IP is from South Jordan, Utah I think it is safe to say that they are the same person. He has also been adding categories and that jogged my memory. A few years ago we had an editor somewhat like this who was always making up new categories that were deemed unnecessary . I think that they were eventually blocked but I could be wrong. I am wondering if you remember any of this. If you don't don't worry about it. I hope that you get to feeling better and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it. Thanks also for suggesting SPI I will look into it. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 12:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Julian McMahon

Haven't you heard him speak? He doesn't sound Australian at all--in fact, I didn't even know he was Australian until reading his bio. Blueboy96 22:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So how can we word it in a way that doesn't sound POV? Something like "Although he is Australian, he doesn't speak with an Australian accent"? Blueboy96 14:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Gene Tierney

As You point out a discussion. The disputed materials were reversed with out any comments from you, let me ask you. How would that information be included form a neutral POV. JGG59 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Rachelle Lefevre

In the filmography table of Rachelle Lefevre, you removed the film *K-11* with no reason. Do you have a reason for removing it? --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(reply) i couldnt find anything either, but after looking throught the history to see when and why it was added i found that the film (that was K-11) was previously called VK, and was changed for no reason but not challenged. I havnt found when this was entered yet. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
(reply) i couldnt find anything either, you're probably right and it was entered without verification. i coudnt find anything that said otheriwse as well, but its always good to get a second opinion (yours). --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem

Because it has nothing to do with Alyssa Milano anymore, I guess I'd continue it here. How am I personally attacking you? I've read the guideline. The 'blackmail' thing was a remark that if I don't receive any objection, I suppose I could realize my plans. Which I was allowed to do in the first place, but I supposed I'd be that polite to discuss it first. It seriously wasn't meant as 'blackmail'. I don't like being portrayed as this monster who wants only to violate every page on Wikipedia, because my intentions are good. It's regrettable that is has to come to things such as double account accusations.

Thanks. Moviefan (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC at Al Pacino

May I suggest that you withdraw your request for comment for the time being? As it stands right now, it seems premature and heavily skewed. I say it's premature because WP:RfC requests that the issue first be discussed on the talk page before outside opinions are solicited. Neither yourself or the other editor attempted at all to discuss the issue before the RfC was requested. And I say the RfC is skewed because WP:RfC requests that your statement be brief and neutral (the word "neutral" being emphasized) whereas your statement cleary suggest a preference for a specific outcome and is thus non-neutral. I worry that editors might see it as canvassing that you requested comment after being involved in an editing dispute, placed a non-neutral statement and then notified two Wiki projects to participate.

Perhaps a discussion with the other editor is in order and, if that fails, an RfC might be appropriate to discuss what's best for the article. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me (in all politeness)

Why are you worried about the fact that i edit the pages of twilight actors? They happen to be on my watchlist, i dont see how thats worrying. And i gave them that warning because we were having a dispute, the paramore links were a mistake, i was also looking at links to paramore that i had been sent and i must have mixed them up. apologies. but i must ask, are you following my edits? (im trying to make this message sound polite but im not good at that so im sorry if i cause offence) --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(reply) thankyou, clearly i have been errored on many of my edits, and im sorry for the inconvenience. thankyou for the wake-up call. i think im going to take a very long break from wikipedia to rethink my habits in life. i dont mean to sound sarcastic, but thankyou, youve actually managed to make me realise that im wasting my time editing articles on a website when i could actually be having a life with something im good at and is real not virtual information for some reason i managed to make myself obsessed with during my spare time. sincerely thankyou. (i know this sounds sarcastic, but it isnt) --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I will reply to you because i have you to thank for my recent decision and because this conversation was started before i made my decision and i have explained my reasoning on my talk page. Youre right, this is not supposed to be a battlefield. But it has become an obligation to many people, for instance, i will never undertsand why you felt that you had to put a link on the word 'battlefield', i wouldve had understood what you meant without it. and i regret to say, that although you do not wish for me to go, or do not mean for me too, many people here do. i dont think my behaviour has made many friends, or even tolerant associations. it was fun while it lasted, but it has got to the point now where its just not worth the pain of checking every day to see if someone has vandalised a page, or has reverted your edits just because they could. i will probably return, eventually, when ive harmonised my lifestyle, or when i get bored in an ICT lesson and decide to see what old acquantences have been up to. but i leave knowing that in the beginning i got everything worng, and towards the end i became self-righteous. but, in the middle, i did more good than i did bad. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden

Lizzie Borden

Hi Wildhartlivie, I didn't want to undo your change just so I can make a comment, so let me do it here. Look at Evan Hunter's novel Lizzie. It's almost complete fiction, unabashedly, from top to bottom. His "solution" for the crime is pure entertainment, nothing to do with reality. There is no evidence for anything he writes and he doesn't even pretend to have solved the case. So to withdraw the Girl Detective book because it is fiction and "can't be proven" sets a criteria that only provable events are allowed to be referenced by Wikipedia. If you hold that criteria, you have to take down Angela Carter's short stories, the Elizabeth Montgomery movie, and half-a-dozen other creative and artistic takes on the Lizzie Borden character. Despite the cutesy title on the Girl Detective novel, it's more than a one-shot joke. It's more like Shakespeare In Love was about Shakespeare. The author of Shakespeare in Love doesn't even pretend that such events happened to Will, but he uses his fictional Shakespeare to illuminate the historical one. Why don't you take down a real piece of "fluff" like MonsterQuest where some "ghost hunters" are pretending that they are getting paranormal readings at the Borden House. Everyone knows that the B&B puts on a show for tourism, and that the MonsterQuest episode was pure fabrication. I guess I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just trying to get a sense of why one creative piece gets nixed while others that are clearly more irrelvant and fluffy get the royal treatment? As for the Girl Detective being "non-historical", well...it's fiction! Other novels about Lizzie, no matter how outlandish, and Evan Hunter's novel is incredibly outlandish to the point where Lizzie Borden experts despise it for the liberties it takes, do deserve to be noted, if anything to show how Lizzie Borden has influenced our culture, both historical or artistic. Agne DeMill's ballet, the Lizzie Borden opera, numerous plays and endless novels all take wild speculations and some of them just flat out create a far-fetched fictional character. And the recent Lizzie Borden rock opera in New York shouldn't be taken off because it shows the Borden family as rock musicians singing in front of microphones? And in the opera, isn't Andrew Borden a preacher? These are all artistic liberties, which I'm sure you have no objection to at all outside of Wikipedia, but why would one artistic liberty be edited by you and others go completely uncommented upon? Do we slice them all off of Wikipedia? That's my argument, please let me know what you think.


Why have you deleted my edit on the John Wayne Gacy page? All that was added is the current film name, Dear Mr. Gacy, which was based upon the book The Last Victim by Jason Moss.

Thank you

``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digby scallops (talk • contribs) 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


With respect, I see the entire IN Film section has now been deleted on the Gacy page. I don't know who placed the embedded message there, but it begs the question, Why not simply go through the entire Wikipedia site and delete all film references to all mass murderers, ie: Berkowitz, Bundy, Jim Jones etc , etc. All the section did was point out to the reader the various films out there depicting Gacy, none by the way in glamouous fashion. It seems to me one of the purposes of Wikipedia is to provide information, not necessarily comment or to put forth one's personal opinion on any given subject. I believe the In Film category should be rerturned together with all three film references.

Thank you Digby scallops (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for the manner in asking the question. I am not that experienced in the various communications functions on Wikipedia. It was not meant to be deceptive in any way. I was unaware the Help Desk function should be used only after attempting to contact the user who removed the edit direct first. Having said that, I certainly did not take being told "to leave it alone" from another user to mean if someone chooses to undo an edit, that is the end of the issue. Rather I felt it was more a courtesy about getting into what this has developed into.

As to the actual issue, I fail to see the difference here between deleting film references to John Wayne Gacy and doing the same to say Hitler's page or any other person. As to IMDB, I am well aware it is not considered a reliable source. All that was done was to link the film to their web site, which has been done countless times on Wikipedia. If you go to the Dear Mr. Gracy page or Jason Moss's page, I believe you may see similiar links. It was not as though I was citing the info on the IMDB site as to Gacy , Moss or anything other than pointing the reader to the film.

Thank you Digby scallops (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the reply. This will be my last post, as I believe I understand where you are coming from. Based upon what you have written, am I correct if we look for example at David Berkowtiz's page, the "Depictions" heading & its contents should be deleted, as it references several films about him? If not, I'm afraid I don't see the difference. And looking at Ted Bundy's site, there is an IN FILM heading as was the case with Gacy.

regards,

Digby scallops (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi and welcome back, you've been missed. I hope you are enjoying your new keyboard. :) Lot's to do I'm sure. The vandals have been quite busy lately. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back! Oh, BTW, I'm typing this from my new computer!!! Vandals and creeps beware... Doc9871 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Go get em Doc! LOL --CrohnieGalTalk 12:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Bloody Disgusting & DreadCentral is WP:RS

Actually yes, Bloody Disgusting and DreadCentral are reliable sources. Without those sites, horror film articles wouldn't exist. :P Mike Allen 03:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think this shows that Bloody Disgusting is a reliable source. DreadCentral is part of CraveOnline (who also has ComingSoon.net and ShockTilYouDrop that is used frequently here). GA and FA's have passed with these sites being used as RS. However, I don't understand why the user Zombie433 added the DreadCentral source that had nothing to do with what he was sourcing. I'm starting to get very concerned with his contributions, which I have noticed for a long time, adding ONLY Bloody Disgusting and DreadCentral as sources to articles. Most of the time the source he includes is legit (that I've noticed), but then again it's like he just adds the sites to show there's a "source". Mike Allen 05:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just Out Of Curiosity...

Funny. I was sternly warned (with a block threat) not to post to a certain someone's talk page; I abided by it and he did not. I took the high road, though. Others can choose the low road and still get away with it (go figure). I can still post here, right ;> Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are open to all. You're welcome on my page if you take a different tone than last go. WHL's removal of my appropriate post is really rather telling. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's telling that I don't want you to post on this talk page. I don't care to hear from you, Jack. My health can't take the stress you've willingly handed out to me. I consider any posts to my talk page by you a hedge toward harassment. Please abide by my request. I've seen similar requests backed up by administrators, so please don't put yourself out to post here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Jack, You didn't like my tone so you erased my posts (and I admit they were quite nasty); and she didn't like the tone of yours (legitimate post or not) so she removed it. There's nothing "telling", really. There's no block threat against you; but you should extend her the courtesy of not posting here, like I did for you. Then, everybody's... not less happy? Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

your revisions on hilary duff

why are you making revisions to a page being improve, more of a setback, bonnie & cylde offcial 2011 relased, foodfight! not offcial put on unrelased so either 2010/2011 relased on unlisted, be more organize please, notes unneed unless appropatie take a look at the notes put, for ex one can be, [ex: 2010 | stay cool | premiered at 2009 summer film] (just an example) so pls use conceous, pls improve, tahnx :) Loquesoy (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't suppose you could translate that into English, could you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice on getting format consensus?

Care to give me some advice here? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack Warner

It is absolutely, positively beyond the meaning of ridiculous to say that. He barely has Canadian roots whatsoever. The only thing to support that was that he was born in the great country of Canada. His parents were Polish Jews, who moved from the US to Canada, and Jack Warner only spent the first two years of his life in Canada and that was it. He doesn't have Canadian ancestry whatsoever. He considered himself American. Its a fact, I'm not trying to take credit for a great Canadian, because he wasn't. Calling Jack Warner a Canadian is like calling Canadian Steve Nash a South African. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you, because that is absolutely useless for my short life. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Xtinadbest

Mentioning Xtinadbest makes me wonder. Think he finally gave up? It's been a while.—Kww(talk) 21:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Careful with doing it based on username. User:Jazminerocks seems to be a completely legitimate editor, for example, and has even undergone a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 22:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

As you probably realize, I do have your talk page on my watchlist. Sometimes I think I'm pedantic and excessive with edit summaries and then I see something like this. Your edits were all in line with WP:BLP, and even if you'd made 10 reverts to the same material, it would have been acceptable. Actually, more than acceptable. If we see something that violates BLP, aren't we supposed to remove it? I mean, we don't just remove it because it's a nice thing to do - we're required to remove it. It's clear as day that there are people waiting and hoping for you to make a mistake so they can pounce on you, except that you didn't make a mistake. But welcome back. You must be so pleased to be back. Rossrs (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Diane Downs

Hi, there is a conversation going on at the talk page that you may be interested in here Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, you input, and anyone else who is watching, is really welcomed at the above dif. We are discussing and trying to figure out if the use of [[Ann Rule]'s book Small Sacrifices is a good ref. to keep the information about Danny and Kristie being left paralized in the 'Aftermath' section. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Game

Hello. I think I made good edits to The Game. I corrected errors in the old version like tense,cast, and more. The upfronts happened in April so new information in known. I added that new information. I explained my changes on the discssuion page. Look there. Thanks. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WHL, those edits really shouldn't have been reverted wholesale with no edit summary, as if they were vandalism. They look like good-faith attempts at improvement. Equazcion (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The IP has reinstated the edit. It may not be perfect, but please don't revert it again. Instead, try copy-editing it to fix any particular problems, keeping in mind that the Hollywood Reporter source is probably fine (unless you have some further argument why it's not, in which case respond on the talk page, rather than reverting yet again). Equazcion (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I want to apologize for thinking you were in the wrong on the Game article. I could still be wrong but this does appear to be a bad-faith user from where I'm standing. It's good to open up cases at ANI or WP:SPI in these situations, so you at least have something to refer back to in the future, when someone like me comes along and doesn't fully realize what's going on, so you don't have be bothered with explaining the history of the situation each time. Equazcion (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Facinelli

I understand that it may not be reasonable to use multi rowspans for the roles, it just seemed uneccessary to keep repeating the same thing underneath eachother. However, he has signed on for breaking dawn. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150179422020005 and it is official now. i didnt want to revert your edit immediatly so that we can avoid any type of war. but it is in production now, and he is in it.--Stripy Socks (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I understand why it cannot yet be entered to the filmography or the issues with the rows and I was wrong. However, i do not see how deleting it from the paragraph was neccessary as it will not affect anything. Perhaps the source was not reliable, but i was not the one who entered that. --Stripy Socks (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Is IMDB enough to go by? --Stripy Socks (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The page for Breaking Dawn on IMDB has him listed as Carlisle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbYc4aNhTQU&playnext_from=TL&videos=1DN0L7LgLMg&feature=sub This video promoted it as well. http://movies.sky.com/twilights-cullens-sign-up-for-breaking-dawn and SKY news, though i seem to be wrong about what sources are reliable, so i would like to leave this to you to decide upon for now. If you need something more reliable just let me know and ill find it for you. --Stripy Socks (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, my problem is that you removed it from the career section when it can be included without disrupting anything. i have given you sources that deem reliable and so there should be no issue, yet somehow, there is. --Stripy Socks (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I will look for one and show you tomorrow morning for your approval (i do not know what time zones we are working with here), but may i ask, as a general question, why Sky News is shakey? Sky is a major company that deals with pretty much everything, it just made me curious. --Stripy Socks (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Understandable, i have found three sources that are not fan sites which may deem useful.

--Stripy Socks (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Then it is ok to add it into the career section? It wont start filming until late this year so we can leave it out of the filmography table. And also, thankyou for your help on this, im still fairly new to wikipedia. --Stripy Socks (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Krav Maga

This website clearly states that Lucy Lui and Sandra Bullock pratice Krav Maga [1] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Just curious. Not experienced with the ways of Wikipedia--how is it that an inaccuracy can be introduced into an article without consensus, but a verifiable correction needs consensus? Again, just curious. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Winslet

It was my pleasure, thanks for the note. As to the rest, unfortunately I'm not nearly that cool. Thanks again. — e. ripley\talk 12:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IP Freely...

You might want to add this to your watchlist. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think, "...that the original idea of just building an encyclopedia has been completely lost" would be an excellent diff to add to your last comment at the SPI. It's under "Comments by other users"; otherwise I'd add it. Her strong dedication to the Bouley article is clear on the page before the linked one. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't want to create a new heading for this, but wouldn't it be "title role"? ;P Doc9871 (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

TY!

I noticed on the other's Doc's page you were cupcake deficient ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc has given you a Girl Scout cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

OMG

You'll never guess - my talk page just begged me to archive it. Of course, it had a valid point. Rossrs (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kristen Wiig COI Vandal is back

Hello if you are on or any of your page watchers are on, the vandal claiming to represent Wiig is back removing the sourced content about her marriage. If you can help keep an eye out, I have already reverted twice. Active Banana (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo help wanted

Can you look at Natasha Kinski's photo, which was tagged and responded to by me, to see if the image is OK to use? More details explained on photo talk page. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ed Norton

Been meaning to ask if we should include mention of his latest charity website called Crowdrise. He's apparently, according to RS, the guy who created it. Where should it go in the article, if at all?Malke2010 21:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep it short. The sources are several newspapers including the Wall Street Journal. I'll use that one.Malke2010 21:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Haim continued

Dear WHL,

Thanks for your vigilance over Haim's page. It's kind of bugging me that no-one is developing the page by adding new info, but just altering what is there to their own personal view. But I figure that's part and parcel.

As you may know, his nicknames were The Haimster and Space Ace, and in fact he had a Haimster tattoo. Should this fall under Alternative Names (I guess it's not strictly an alternative name), or just quoted in the text? Not sure whether it's too trivial to be in the text...

--Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again,

Could you please advise if this is a valid source? It is a rare interview with Haim in his wilderness years by a professional photographer and regular contributor to magazines, and is part of a series of interviews she did with people associated with Alphy's Soda Pop Club. As you can imagine, this early detail on his time at school and experience of his fame at its height etc is incredibly difficult to find, especially in his own words.

If it is admissable, I'd like to integrate some of this carefully into Haim's page and start another (brief) article for Alphy's. There are other mentions of the club from teen celebrities of the era, and it has an active Facebook page devoted to it with original flyers and photos etc.

Anyway, enjoy. The part about the jaguar in the limo is pretty extraordinary.

http://jjstratford.blogspot.com/2010/03/rest-in-peace-corey-haim.html

Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Shame. Though it won't hold up in Wikipedia's eyes, having logged hundreds of hours researching this dude, I recognize his signature turns of phrase and do believe the interview to be genuine. I'll try and find out whether it was ever published anywhere.

--Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Scream 4 and Neve Campbell

I don't understand why Scream 4 isn't in production? [2] Filming is set to begin in July. Pre-production is not considered in production? Also it's already been confirmed that Neve will be in the film (see film article for sources). Thanks. Mike Allen 05:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well some people tell me that we're not supposed to include references within tables (or infoboxes), not sure why. It is sourced in the body of the article though. It's no big deal, I'm sure some IP will add Scream 4 back.. as they've been doing for the past 8 years. LOL. Happy edits. :-D Mike Allen 06:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Um yes.. actually in September 2009. Probably should include that source, but the EW interview with Craven talked more about them. Mike Allen 06:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. Filming is set for June 28th. Um how do you get an autograph in the mail? Did you request it? Mike Allen 00:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well that's neat. With my luck I would never get replied to. On sites where you can "ask a celebrity" something.. I never get answered. lol Oh and someone has already begin adding Scream 4 to Neve's filmog. Mike Allen 04:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Brain and Scamper

Happy to look at it, but none of those old user names seem to exist.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC) [1]

Is She back?

So Sorry. I meant to send this to you this morning: Please checkout the Ryan Seacrest article. I spent several hours reorganizing, and categorizing the article, only to have it mostly reverted. I thought categories were far more appropriate than years, have not seen that before. To call the stalking incident " Personal life" has a familiar ring to it. Categories subject to change but a total revert? Input please. Looking over my shoulder... I spent a lot of time rearranging and categorizing. Categories were removed and a timeline format was reinserted. I have not seen an article set up with a time line. Is this usual? I would like to know what ya'll think of my changes as I am planning on changing them back if you agree and this is my first attempt at a total reorganization. The "Personal Life" change is her style. Later... Have a great weekend! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your vigilance. I have to admit the "Stalker" was a red herring. My bad... :hook line and sinker. You are on my cookie list ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I think DocOfSoc is right about Sabra2, and this led me to discover that SRQ hit the John Dillinger article here and a few more times around then (all a familiar IP signature, no?). This is getting annoying now... Doc9871 (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Note that Sabra2 also created a blank user page and a (initially) blank user talk page for his/herself, just as UrbanCowboy12 did. This is presumably to avoid having the telltale red user links that signal "newly registered account over here". I would add this user to the sock report, if you guys think the article editing style matches up too. Equazcion (talk) 06:47, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)
I think it does. I'm trying to find where SRQ dismissed "Find-A-Grave" as a source right now, but I think it's her... Doc9871 (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Notice that Sabra2 also hit old SRQ faves like Ted Bundy and Ed Gein. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think she dismissed the find a grave source at either the Ted Bundy article or Charles Manson one. I too believe it's her. I've seen edits in other articles that I think she is also hitting but I can't prove it's her. Does anyone know a checkuser that they can poke a little to get some answers here? I don't or I would. She thinks she is fooling everyone and the longer the SPI case goes on, the braver she is going to be. I think we need resolution to this already, but how? AN/i? Maybe going there will get some attention that is needed. Just a thought, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm checking the Ted Bundy article now and the Sabra2 editor has just edited this article. I'll keep looking to see if I can find anything helpful. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Notice

A discussion in which you offered comment has been returned to deletion discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The link to the newest deletion discussion is included in the notice above. The previous discussion was closed here and a new discussion was opened 17 hours later HERE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Double check those edits. I didn't do anything to the birth name, you might be confusing me with someone else.Closeminded8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

WP:FILMS May 2010 Newsletter

The May 2010 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 an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Hopper Filmography/Features

Did you intend to delete Colors (1988) from Filmography/Features? He directed it. I added it back, since all the other films he directed are there. --Lexein (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Wildhartlivie. I know you from the Stephen Moorer AfD discussions. Would you mind terribly taking a look and voting/commenting on my deletion review for my article on a German actress which was suddenly speedily deleted even though it was still a stub and even though it gave credible importance? Article: [3] Deletion review: [4]. If you can comment, thanks in advance. Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ta. There's also now an AfD of a very similar article, Sebastian Reid, that I created at the same time. Care to take a look, and if so inspired, comment on the AfD? [5] -- Softlavender (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now the article (Antje Thiele) has been AfD'ed by the editor who speedily deleted it. If you consider it worth keeping, could you vote in the AfD? (PS: The article is still a stub). Thanks so much for your time. Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hayek Coca-Cola television commercial

You removed two edits I made to the Salma Hayek entry deeming them of "minimal relevance". The book cover perhaps is, I will be cross referencing other actor entries to verify, however, the Coca-Cola television spot definitely was not. It was part of Coca-Cola's "Real" campaign airing completely unedited on both English and Spanish-language television networks, something quite uncommon in advertising. I may even provide a citation explaining the socio-cultural aspect behind the ad. Regretably I failed to make a note of what I was editing.

I actually take great care when editing the Hayek entry; the great majority of citations on that entry were added by me. I will be undoing your edit and I'd encourage you to remove the book cover note if you please. The note on the Coca-Cola spot is quite relevant. If I am not following Wikipedia guidelines please let me know. Light Bulb (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


FYI

For you and your talkpage lurkers, some good advice. Let me know if this is getting worse with the socking with difs so I can take it to Vassyana to see if I can get them interested in the SPI case. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking about what you said here. I think you should take it to an administrator. Did you read the link I put up above? If not please do. I think what he says about things is good he also gives an administrator to go to, well actually two of them. Both of these administrators will listen to what you have to say. You know the history which is why I am asking you to go to one of them about this editor you bring up that is a sock. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway -- Early life and career

Clearing up Anne_Hathaway_(actress) spiritual philosophies. When reading the article, the wiki quote seemed out of place and strangely abrupt, so I checked original source, and sure enough it was taken out of context. The wiki quote states her religious beliefs as "nothing", but the original source states no such thing. [2] The article states that her move to the Episcopalian denomination didn't take, with Hathaway responding, "I'm nothing...fuck it, I'm forming. I'm a work in progress." She is not describing her beliefs as nonexistent here, just her denomination and/or affiliation. She had previously identified herself as a "non-denominational" Christian, so this is largely in line with that earlier statement. In the spirit of her original intent and quote, the reference to this article should be reworded as Hathaway states her religious beliefs are a "work in progress." That is her last word on the topic via the original source and is obviously much more indicative of the intent of her statement. My hope is that this explanation will end this edit battle and I hope more so that this constant re-editing of my more accurate contribution isn't an example of Wiki-bullying or some goofy atheistic bias or quote mining, In good faith, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, however. --Biaspo (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Please see the article The Deliberate Stranger and it's talk page. An editor is removing things because he says on the talk page that it is confusing to other projects having this be a movie and a book. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Help/advice regarding converting filmography tables to lists

Hello. I'm not sure where to go with this, but I decided to come to you since you have been active with the filmographies at WP:ACTOR. I have come across an editor who continues to convert filmography tables to lists. (A few examples: [6], [7], [8]) I have left a few messages about my reversions of these edits, and tried to explain that tables are preferred. Unfortunately, that was over a week ago, there has been no response, and the editor is still doing this. (e.g. [9]) What, if anything, should I do? I'd appreciate any advice, even if it is "Just ignore it". ;) Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help/support with this. I appreciated you adding comments on the talk page. S/he does have other issues like you mentioned, it's not just the tables. Some strange things, huh? I saw some of your reverts, and you are definitely more bold than I am. ;) I don't know all the proper guidelines/preferences of what belongs in the lead and such, but I was focusing on the tables because that seems so backwards to me. I really just don't get it--why convert to a list?? I was so frustrated, especially in cases where s/he just completely removed valid info and not only made a list, but made an abbreviated list! Oh well. Someone I will keep my eye on. Thanks again. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope I didn't offend you by saying you were bold. That wasn't my intention, actually I appreciate it. I'm still relatively new here and tend to tiptoe around a bit more than I probably should. I find a fire and I spit on it a few times, then when it's still burning, I hope someone like you comes by with a bucket! A few of the times I have been a little bold, I seem to end up against someone who knows it all, or is always right. (Won't mention any names.) I'm still learning, but I'll get there! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

I've read it. The link you provide is dated and so I added updated news. Moreover, it seems that we both rely on .com sources for this page. You only cited one where I have five. I'll be happy with your edit if you can offer more "reliable" sources. Until then, it seems that we're both speculating. I, for one, am more content with updated, more researched speculation. Loftymuses (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Probably a silly question but...

At the Sandra Bullock there is an editor who is reverting out a name here. Now s/he has four edits about the same items. Now my silly question, does the first edit count for a breach of 3 rr? I seriously don't know which is why I'm asking. :) I'd appreciate it if you would take the time. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Anne Hathway

On May 31, you effectively reverted changes I had made regarding the Follieri case the day before, as well as all the other more minor improvements I had made. Your edit did not include any summary of what you did or why. You even went so far as to put back the dead link I had removed in the Follieri section. You also apparently didn't think it was necessary to even consult with me before undoing my changes. Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your long explanation. I don't agree with any of your comments about word choice (what you sweetly call dumbing down), but based on your superior position at Wikipedia and the fact that many of your characterizations of my changes are simply your opinions, I don't see any benefit to making an issue out of it. The more important part is the Follieri affair, which, as it stands, is not well described or well-sourced. The statement that Hathaway was never implicated in any wrongdoing is vague and unsourced (I do agree with you about my parenthetical - I didn't like it much, either, and should have left it out). In fact, the source that succeeds the phrase does state (if one clicks on the link at the bottom of the article to see more) that Hathaway wasn't charged with any crime. That would be a much more accurate and less vague statement than "never implicated in any wrongdoing." Still, I'm not going to touch it because I don't feel like being slammed again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Closeminded8

No problem. Let me know if you think this editor returns. If it's good enough to run a CU, technical evidence might quickly put the sock to bed. Cool Hand Luke 12:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I just found this myself so I thought maybe you'd like to comment too. Here you go [10] --CrohnieGalTalk 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Scarlett Johansson

Don't you think you're "jumping the gun" here, just a little bit? Wouldn't it be best to withhold those kinds of edits until the discussion has been completed?  Chickenmonkey  08:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it resulted in exactly what you had to have known it would: Jack reverting you. There's no reason to change it until the discussion is concluded. The only reason would be to bait him into reverting you, which isn't constructive. What is the harm in waiting? There's no deadline and waiting would avoid a needless edit war.  Chickenmonkey  08:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, it's been there for a while and nobody else has seen fit to change it. There's no reason why it couldn't stay that way until the discussion ends. As the discussion is ongoing, it is unhelpful to make edits which you know will be challenged and which are currently up for discussion. Frankly, I think you're both quality editors who've made quality additions to Wikipedia, but your apparent obsession with each other is, again frankly, tiresome.  Chickenmonkey  08:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that about your goddaughter. The fact that this is so taxing on you, due to your vision problems, leads me to further question, if you don't like him, why do you continue to needlessly confront him? I mean, why say anything about him? When interacting with him, why not keep your comments completely focused on the encyclopedia? (he should, too, by the way). I'm being entirely honest, I don't have a dog in this fight, the two of you seem to mention each other more often than Rudy Giuliani mentions 9/11 (that's a lot of mentioning). From my perspective, Jack's attitude toward you could definitely use a bit of toning down, but I could say, and am saying, the same thing about your attitude toward him.
I meant it; you've made a lot of quality edits, but I also meant it when I said Jack has, too.  Chickenmonkey  08:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see him treating you terribly. What I see, subjectively, is two editors who have something against each other. It's a bit of a shame because you're both good editors and you both appear to edit similar articles (naturally, instead of as a result of wikistalking, not that I'm anyone to decide on that). Really, Wikipedia is at the receiving end of a dispute like this. Hopefully, whatever happens, it'll be moved on from and everyone involved can go on editing.  Chickenmonkey  09:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully, whatever it should be classified as, will come to an end soon. Civil discussion is very enjoyable and accomplishes much more than arguing (just a general statement, not any sort of implication). Talking (typing) is basically the best thing I do.
By the way, on a completely unrelated note (well, tangentially related), I'm not a big fan of Cold Mountain, but I do like The Notebook and Nights in Rodanthe, which are roughly comparable films, in tone.  Chickenmonkey  09:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a small world, after all.
You'll probably like Nights in Rodanthe. It's not great cinema by any stretch of the imagination, but it does well what it is that it does. I must be the only person left who doesn't have Netflix. I haven't seen Alice in Wonderland, but Johnny Depp is my favorite actor.  Chickenmonkey  10:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That was some good luck on those autographs. Diane Lane is great. The Lovely Bones is pretty good; Stanley Tucci makes it 200% better than it would have been without him. The music is also very good.  Chickenmonkey  19:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope you like The Lovely Bones. Also, no problem; the page seems within reason, and you were asked to assemble the information.  Chickenmonkey  04:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I would agree on The Lovely Bones: a solid 3.5/5.  Chickenmonkey  07:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Page

How can they delete your own page?Malke2010 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, in case you didn't notice, the latest protection at Diane Downs was hit by the banned editor about 5 edits or so back from protection of the article. She is still at it, I'm sorry to say. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


RFC is in the works

Hi, you should know about this. Editors have been informed that were active in the conversation at MRG talk page about this. You are very active in this area, so you should also know about the RFC to help set it up if you are interested. I think this is going to be announced in multiple locations too. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Hello, I apologize for this nonsense that I have put you through. Sometimes I hear things from fans or people who knew the person through YouTube interviews and what not. I apologize and I can see that I am getting to far with this so the next time I add religion I'll see to it that I add a reputable source. Please don't block me I am sorry and I promise to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Rumage (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Dennis Hopper has filed for divorce on his deathbed
  2. ^ "Anne Hathaway quit Catholicism for her gay brother". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2010-03-07.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive_12&oldid=1138984398"