User talk:Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for September has been published. October's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Helpful templates

Just cut an paste them when you need them from this page, I keep them on my user page. The dates are always formatted correctly, just remember to increment the date, as often as possible, as I sometimes forget to do.

• <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2007-10-31 |quote= |publisher= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |quote= | url= |isbn= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |publisher=[[New York Times]] |date= |accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref>

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Van Houten's uncertainty

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

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

Jonathan Frakes

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

re: Gene Wilder

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

You really went far and beyond with the CE! I just checked and all of Maria's concerns seemed to have been addressed so yes, let's drop her a note. By the way, are you feeling a future WP:FAC?--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to you too!!! I'm a HUGE Wilder fan and I love working on that article so I'm up for FAC whenever you are. By the way, I'm Argentinian, but I've lived in Ireland, Chile, Argentina and for the past 2 years, France :) --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 09:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, let me know when you've found that book, I'll keep checking on the article to see what else I can fix. I'm not a prose master, as you know, but I am a big WP:MOS enthusiast and I have reviewed my share of articles so if you are ever in need of a comment pre-GAN (like for Manson) drop me a note :) .--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks

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

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

On Valentino

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

In Response

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

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

Ratings

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

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

Scrolling lists

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

Congrats on the GA article. As for the scrolling twig, it did look good but if it doesn't work for everyone, it probably comes off as just another flashy "gizmo." FWIW, I do like pretty, shiny things! Bzuk (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Thanks Wildhartlivie, but I've already been warned against using scrolling lists by another user who also highlighted discussions on the subject. Seemed like a good idea at the time. Cheers anyway! --Red Sunset 17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I give up

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

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

Lara Berk

Re your Speedy deletion nomination for the article.

I would oppose Speedy Deletion for the following reasons:

• A recent Articles for Deletion debate on Toni Ann Gisondi, another of the Annie orphans from the 1982 film, found in favour of keeping the article. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toni_Ann_Gisondi
• The subject can be said to meet notability guidelines based on her appearance in what is acknowledged as a notable film.

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

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

Manson sentence

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

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

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

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

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

Creative Commons footnotes

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

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

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

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

Sub-headings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go fix the Carter article

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

Manson swastika

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

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

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

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

Yes, the references to the parole videos and the Tom Snyder video reflect original research, in some sense; but that's a problem we've touched on before: The material is part of history now; does Wikipedia have to wait for somebody outside Wikipedia to refer to it in writing? Maybe so. Anyway — considering the associations the swastika has developed in the Western world, I’m not surprised the tattoo has come up twice on the talk page. I’d probably join you in opposing mention of, say, the earring (which I’m not sure I’ve seen); but my reaction to the request for info on the swastika is pretty much the same as my reaction to the requests for info on Charleston, West Virginia; parole possibility; and the One Mind Creative Commons license: if someone’s interested in the subject, get it into the article.

On the other hand — I’m not favorably impressed by a visitor who would post a talk-page recommendation that other persons do research. If he or she is interested in the subject, he or she should research it — or remain silent.

If you're sure my video-research is out of wiki-bounds, I'll let the subject go. About a third of the way through the Afterword of Bugliosi 1994, the swastika at the 1992 parole hearing is mentioned, but I don’t know of any other written info on the subject. Considering how often Manson’s been seen with the swastika, there’s no point in mentioning its appearance on a single occasion; that would only lead the reader to think it a one-shot thing.

For the record: I’d have to go back to the videos – as I don’t plan to – to make sure the swastika is always counterclockwise; but yes, it probably is. I’m not entirely sure you're right in describing it as "covering the X first carved into his forehead during the Tate-LaBianca murder trial." I suppose I, too, have always thought of it as a reworking of the X — or of a scar of the X; but I'm not sure that's right. In looking at the videos, I was unable to tell whether any scar of the X underlies the swastika, which I suppose is, yes, a genuine tattoo. At 2violent.com, there's a Manson swastika-photo that looks as if it goes back to the period of the trial. That surprises me — but I could easily be wrong that the photo goes back that far. (It's also possible the photo's been altered.)JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Delete it

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