User talk:Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Currently retired from all
WP:CRIME related articles

Referencing

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

---

Welcome Back!

Look out there could be some crazy edits tonight! You may be a little distracted. Rossrs (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion and later rewriting my invitation

Just thought you may want to know, an alternate account deleted my poorly worded invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions.[1] and also went to ANI about it.

I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. The template was inviting you here: here. Ikip 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrected Charlize Theron

Thank you for the succinct manner in which you edited my contribution to Charlize Theron's split up. I always enjoy learning from seasoned editors like yourself. I also had a look at your resume and it is pretty impressive, to say the least. Incidently, you share my fascination with crime and serial killers. Maybe that is why I am in law enforcement myself. Good luck with your health issues! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozinsky (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter

The January 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) 04:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

James Stacy

Your actions from two (yes, two) years ago are being called into question here in case you're interested in explaining your damn self. I've already left two somewhat curt messages but I suspect this will be brought up again in two years time because, you know, explaining your actions at the time wasn't quite good enough. This article is quickly becoming a big pain in my ass. Every time it pops up on my watchlist, I just know there's going to be some kind of jackassery to deal with. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I take it you no longer need my comment at Dawn Welles? Pinkadelica^♣ 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I do believe your theory about attraction was spot on. Pinkadelica^♣ 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Flag icons

I just want to make the articles become more beautiful like the stars. I thought the articles are prettier than before.

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the information about it, but I really understand that the ladies are much more younger than Bruce Willis. The ladies' nationallity are absolutely American, Hungary, France or Czechoslovakia.

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 06:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Mrs. American Lady. I've stopped the actions.

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

After seeing this edit, I changed it from the reverted "best known for" to "recently known" as this is her current television project. If this isn't any better of a term, please let me know and I will self-revert. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Neat, little psychic connection there. :) Yeah, I am cool with "known for". Would you like to do the honors? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, excellent. :) My is a little cracked, gotta take it into the shop. Take Care :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Twitter links

While social networking links are normally avoided, note that the top of WP:ELNO states Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:. Please stop removing these links unless there is an established consensus. The fact that a template exists for twitter should tell you that it's currently considered to be acceptable when it's the subject's own twitter feed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy

Wildhartlivie: I'll take "People Rossrs wouldn't want to trade places with in a gazillion years" for 1000.

Alex : This nude model inspired works of art and a murder, attempted suicide and spent 65 years in a psychiatric facility before dying there at the age of 104.

Wildhartlivie : Who is Audrey Munson?

Alex : That's correct!

(And you probably are wondering "Who is Audrey Munson?" Poor Audrey!! We must tell Angelina Jolie. There's an Oscar-worthy film there, just crying to be made. Rossrs (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I was tempted to revert this. What, if anything, do you think this poking is going to acccomplish? I see no reason at all for you to be making comments like this esp. with the bad blood between you and Wildhartlivie. Please stop as this will bring more heat than light to everything going on. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That editor has been notified that such posts are from now to be considered overt harassment and such will be reported to WP:AN/I. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie

To both of you. You both need to disengage from each other. That means completely. No more accusations from either of you about the other. Both of you need to read meatball:DefendEachOther and rely on others to make any reports, because this level of sniping is unsatisfactory. I've left the indentical message on both your talks, because I don't want to hear about who started it. Be the bigger person, and walk away. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied

Please see my note at her talk page. You have the power to stop this now. Please do so, in the way that I've recommended, or I guarantee, it's going to get uglier, for both of you. Trust me; I've seen this go down many times. End it, please. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Downtone Bonnie & Quiet Clyde...

Why, thank you ma'am, for noticing how quiet sheriff Harry's been keeping B&Ctown recently. Even the teenage vandals with their spraypaint cans have been steering clear. It's my shoot-first, ask-questions-later policy.

Basically our insurrection back around New Years was an editor or editors who had dragged out the same old anti-Hamer axes to grind — except without any new research to support anything at all. I'm not sure how serious s/he/they were about real editing and how much was just for some argumentation. I like to think the former.

I learned something important from the whole nasty business, though, and it's important that you know it, too, as one of the guardians of Truth (note cap) on our article here. At several points, our article talks about "the controversy" surrounding the execution of that 1934 ambush, and all the questions it supposedly opened up about shoot-to-kill and no capital warrants on BonPark and no warning called out to Clyde. Well, I went back to brush up on the B&C canon — especially the more recent books like Guinn, Knight, Phillips, Ramsey, Milner and Treherne — and I gotta tell you, Wildhartlivie: there ain't no controversy. Not at least among the writers of all the important books. There is not a-one who engages in the kind of discussion (with the kind of stridency) that we've had here about it. It just never comes up. It's 99% on our page and just about absent from the canon. And when you go back to the mentions of "the controversy" in our article, you'll note that there is not a single cite among them that says that so-and-so says such-and-such on page xxx — not a one. There's a line in our article that says that "respected historians such as Phillips, Treherne and Milner failed to find a capital warrant on Bonnie blah-blah" — when in fact they didn't even look. Treherne, a Brit, doesn't even seem to have come to the States to do research, just wrote from the U.K. I find it really upsetting that these "controversy" accusations are sorta "sneaky-cited" in the article, never to pan out when you actually check 'em. What they really are is leftover polemic from the days when the POV rampaged around the article.

All of which leaves us with an article that isn't as good as it could be, and isn't as good as you and I — to name only two — want it to be. An article that's giving readers the wrong impression. I know we'll fix it, don't get me wrong, but until we do, we're not doing justice to the subject or to our readers.

Well, lest I make you sorry you ever wrote, I'll close here. There's about 30 things I'd like to fix on our article without even getting into "the controversy." Hope you're well and not too despairing about the football the other night. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Bullock

True, she was born in the USA, but her mother is German (and her father being American), therefore making her German - American. Norum 11:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Links

Thanks for your message, Wild. I was just concerned with the number of EL's, not the quality. --BwB (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim?

Gosh, no I was not aware. But surely he jests. He looks nothing like Marlon Brando!! Rossrs (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Kate

Thanks for your rvs to the Winslet page. You are quite right; the fact doesn't belong there. It would be nice, however, if you left it on the other page that you reverted. I did not place the fact there in the first place (merely providing two refs for what was, until then, merely an allegation); it predated me. Perhaps it is encumbent on you to explain why it doesn't belong on what is - in truth - not a wholly serious page. Kind regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, a good compromise. Ericoides (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

This, with what looks to me like a source delete, plus a change from a correct (AFAIK) DOI to FBI has the appearance, to me, of vandalism. I stand by saying it looks like it. I don't claim anything else, or I would also have added a warning here before now. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No apologies needed. I wasn't sure about the shoe polish remark, either, but figured it'd be highlighted in the rv, so if it needed addressing, it could get taken out later. As for an AN/I report, 1) I had no idea & 2) I wouldn't know one if it bit me. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hey, some people can be real dicks. I've run into at least two I can only call trolls: go out of their way to complain about a page, refuse to answer any questions or comments, then just walk away as if it never mattered in the first place (which is what I really don't get in it all). If all we had was a simple misunderstanding (& I've had more than my share of those ;p), no prob. Cheers. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had my days, too. ;p Thanks for the kind words. Same to you. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Non-free reduced}}

When I made this edit I wasn't asking for a smaller version, I was noting the fact that a smaller one had been supplied. When this template is used, after 7 days, an admin will come along and process the template. Could you please revert your removal of the template please?--Rockfang (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

I suppose what you're saying makes sense, but even so, the definition of spree killer only LOOSELY corresponds with Harris and Klebold's crimes. I agree with you %75 percent about what you said, but other certain Wikipedia users rejected this explanation when I used it, so what's the deal? As for now, I think I'll quit removing Harris and Klebold from the American spree killers category. Just remember that others like the Colin Ferguson, Nidal Hasan, George Hennard, James Huberty, and the Jonesboro killers are only MASS MURDERERS, nothing else. Although they did go on KILLING SPREES, they don't fit the definition of SPREE KILLER. As for Thomas Dillon, I decided he was a spree killer after all and decided to just leave that be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.165.30 (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your sandbox

I'm going to ask that you blank your sandbox page in accordance with item #10 at WP:UP#NOT. You can retain the information in a local text file on your computer. Any recording of grievances against another editor has to be used in a timely fashion at some dispute resolution page or ARBCOM/ANI etc, and not be something ongoing. Your sandbox page has been used this way since 15 Jan.

This shouldn't be taken as any kind of judgment on the issues you recorded on the page, as I haven't even read them. But that page does seem to constitute a technical violation of the policy. SRQ had a similar page at one point which I asked her to take down, and when she refused I nominated it for deletion, which was successful. I hope you'll heed this request instead though, so it doesn't have to come to that. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:15, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this page & #10 at WP:UP#NOT, this compilation was started last month as an intended RfC/U or AN/I report that addressed wikistalking prior to my being blocked, other evidence started to be added 6 days ago. After that, and Lar's restriction on editing, after I noticed the uncommon irregularity with which she popped up for the first time on pages where I routinely edited and acting in concert with other editors, we have begun to assemble evidence for an ArbCom filing. That is based on a belief that a statement made by Lar here that "ArbCom is a very real possibility" was a real possibility, I am not aware of a restriction upon one beginning to compile evidence for a potential ArbCom filing, about which I have already had discussion with various individuals involved. I have been in contact with various administrators off site and with one who works with ArbCom. A month to assemble such content isn't extravagant. And the webpage the other editor had was kept as a selectively contained archive which refactored select statements. I don't mind blanking the initial paragraph, but the list contains no names except article names and dates. This is for a possible ArbCom case or perhaps an AN/I request like the one you recently started on Tbsdy. The pros and cons of each avenue are being discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled. WHL's sandbox seems, to me, to do what RfC/U#Preparation suggests, though it is missing the recommended RfC/U template. I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. -FeralDruid (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to be correct: attach the

template to the top and it would seem to be without serious issue... Doc9871 (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lizzie Borden/The Man Who Came to Dinner

I added a reference. You had deleted my link, instead of requesting a citation, which is unusual. Also unusual is the fact that there are three totally unsourced items directly below it, that you did not delete. I would also imagine that the following blurb used in the play "Harriet Sedley took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks, and when the job was nicely done, gave her father forty one" might possibly be a reference to Borden.

Is there some reason that you deleted my paragraph, but did not notice the multiple un-sourced paragraphs below it?

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Sorry

I don't know how I did this. I looked at the article a little while ago, but I would have sworn I did not hit the edit button. Clearly I did something, and when I looked at my watchlist later, there it was. I've reverted it back. Rossrs (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben Affleck

First of all, as I have mentioned earlier, I have edited several wikipedia articles under a different username, including writing almost the entire article on Hugh Grant that attained the Good Article status right after and the entire article on Zac Goldsmith. Even if I hadn't, while longevity on Wikipedia is a sign of respect and assurance, it isn't the only criteria for making a valuable contribution. Secondly, if you have a problem with the style, then take the time to move the projects that I added (on film, TV) into the original table rather than getting rid of the thing entirely by simply undoing a contribution. I will confess that my strong skills are sentence construction, researching references and providing structure to articles - I am not an authority on style guidelines.

The reason I have only majorly worked on his wife's article lately is because I tend to take a topic, work on it and expand that article - one at a time. It just so happens that my new username is relatively, well, new, so I haven't gotten around to other projects. My contribution had more to do with assuring complete coverage rather than pushing a POV. I plan to add a lot more to the Affleck article in the coming days as I have been researching on it and the article as it stands today, though good, is obviously far from comprehensive or top-notch - would that mean that if I amend the article, I must run a copy of it before you first? I am not here to pick fights, but, like I said, I do like to work on articles wholly and that sometimes means maybe making too many changes at a time - most of them meaningful and enhancing. If you accuse me of lack of discussion, then you, with your constant reversals, are not that much different. Moving forward, I think I can improve the quality of the Affleck article, if you have any suggestions on how I should - or shouldn't - proceed with editing it, I am open to advice but not the hostility that you display towards new members (which, in this case, I am not, but you seem to behave similarly towards other new contributors).Hutch y2k (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, this is just a courtesy note to let you know (in case you haven't kept track) that you've reverted on Ben Affleck 3 times today. I'm sure you're aware of the 3RR, but I'd advise you not to revert again and to discuss the matter. If you need anything from me or you just want to chat, do feel free to drop me a line or email me. Best, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I've sent out a request to a likely candidate. Will let you know when it's up. I've been really happy to get the images recently for the Hathaway and Forrest Gump articles. I've kind of shied away from searching for images recently as I've been trying to complete Sweeps, the Tag & Assess drive, and work on an article off-wiki. But sometimes, out of the blue, requests that I sent out many months back will all of the sudden have replies and new images come about. Hopefully this image request goes through quickly, the author seems active. By the way, congrats on the book. Although it's great to be published on here every day, a book is much better! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the talk page (again, I didn't read the whole thing, and hopefully nobody ever has to!), I'm amazed that section after section has started again and again about the topic. Looking at the article and the talk page, the discussions are more than 15 times larger than the content of the article itself. For the number of editors looking over the page and spending time focusing on this one issue, it could have been a GA by now if the same effort was put in it. Anyway, to prevent further issues of editors arguing about canvassing and/or biasness, instead of having me concluding the discussion for a consensus argument, I would instead recommend either doing a final request for comment/BLP noticeboard and let everyone resolve it one last time. After that there should be no reason to again and again question the prior consensus especially since the details of the situation have not had any breakthroughs since the initial discussion of adding the section. I apologize for not being of more help, but as we have these community pages and they invite further and wider opinions, it's probably best to use them to hopefully conclude this issue. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The image has been added to the article. Hopefully it has the impish look you're going for. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Levitt image seems to me like a new editor got it from somewhere else (if you go to Commons, the image upload is the author's only edit), and to get such a good pose, I'd figure the author would have other images to contribute (it's also the standard web size image and lacking metadata). I won't mess with it, but there's always a possibility that somebody will come along and put it up for deletion without an OTRS confirmation from the uploader. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I just sent out a request for one I've been watching a while, we'll see out that goes. Not the best angle of him, but it will be a good backup to this one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How about that: File:JosephGordon-LevittZooeyDeschanel500DaysMar09.jpg! Maybe not the clearest image of him, but after months of searching and requests, I finally got you a Gordon-Levitt image. He's been harder to get than actors such as Clint Eastwood, Tom Hanks, or Matt Damon. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ibid.

Is there a way I can use the "< ref name=/ >" system but also supply a page number? The more I follow down cites at B&C (particularly), the more I'm realizing just how many of our cites are bogus! I want my cites to be abso unassailable. Howzabout I stay away from Ibid. and op. cit., but use the author's surname and a page number? The alternative is to embed the pg, no. in an invisible comment. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

And another. Apologies for the delay. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about Mariska Hargitay assessment

Hi. On a BLP I've work on improving (specifically Mariska Hargitay) and would like it to be accessed (currently a start class), do I add it to both the WikProject Biography and Project Actor? Also how do I determine what the priority scale to use for her? Thanks. —Mike Allen 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I had already added it to BIOG/A before I realized that WP:ACTOR also had an assessment. Moved now. This is better, they had a backlog. lol Thank you—I try to catch them as quickly as possible. :-) —Mike Allen 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. —Mike Allen 07:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll get on that. It was my first BLP article I had worked, I kind of looked at Angelina Jolie's article as a guide for the lead and the award table. I worked on this last month and was going to ask for an assessment then, but forgot about it until her name showed on my watchlist the other day. LOL. I did her filmorgraphy table like that (compact style) because separating them made her "Film" table's width so small and looked out of place, so I thought the compact would look better. Unless you think I should add her film and TV credits all in one table? Oh and in the table under "Notes" there is no use in adding all her list of award and nominations for SVU are there? PS. How do I add the IPA for the pronunciation of her name?—Mike Allen 20:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which titles?

Which redlinks in question do you feel that I should not have removed? OOODDD (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Keanu Reeves

I wonder why is there a link for the paparazzo, Alison Silva? It is a link to an article that has been deleted? Anyways, just wanted to point that out. OOODDD (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Katie Holmes & Cruise photo

Hi, could you tell me why did you undo my edition of changing the image about the relationship between Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise? I think the new image is better because it doesn't show a third person apart from the couple. Lobo de Hokkaido (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

3rd Opinion re: Ingrid Bergman

Any chance you can take a look at Ingrid Bergman, incl. talk, and offer any suggestions? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Scorsese

"(switching one blog source for another doesn't reliably source this content)"

"Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." WP:RS

Instead of constantly reverting the changes, please, tell me specifically what is not reliable about sources cited? Most are sourced to a page at Le Monde, the French newspaper of record. (You can also listen to the audio of the actual interview.) A second source was to New York Magazine. Specifically, why do you think that these are not reliable sources pursuant to WP:RS? Jedgeco (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

....Per WP:NONENG, the source should be available in English for verifiability. That you just changed out sources from a blog to the ones you added made me question it again. What would make the quotes and comments based on the content in the first source you added would be a copy of that interview in an English language reliable source.

OK, a couple things: 1) This still doesn't explain why you reverted citations to New York magazine's website, of which there should be no question of reliability. 2) WP:NONENG provides that "English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." While WP:NONENG would justify citing a French source in this case, such justification is unnecessary here because the link was to the source of the quotation in English; you click a prominent green "play" button and you can hear audio of the actual English interview and verify it yourself. (Incidentally, I don't speak French and I had no problem with the site.) 3) Again, Le Monde is a prominent, and therefore reliable, French newspaper, and if there were any questions regarding its reliability, I think being able to listen to actual audio of Mr. Scorsese's interview obviates them.

Finally, when I have a chance, I plan to reinstate my edits. Based on the foregoing, I don't think that we have any disagreement. But if you have a problem with them, instead of unilaterally reverting them, kindly tag or , and we can take it up on the article's talk page with other editors. Thanks. Jedgeco (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you're objecting to or the justifications for those objections. (1) the cites ... were too extensive to sort out other cites you might have added in there. Frankly, that's your burden as an editor, especially if you're reverting changes that are clearly not vandalism. "Revert a good faith edit only as a last resort." WP:STATUSQUO. (2) We have no evidence that the tape shown there is not copyrighted, making it a copyright violation, which we cannot use. Under that justification, there can be no quotes on Wikipedia at all. Regardless, the amount quoted and the purposes for which it is used are well within fair use, so this is a non-issue. (3) not everyone has sound capability. The point of a citation is that the source "can be checked," not that every reader can instantaneously access it. Should we stop citing to .pdfs since not everyone has a .pdf reader? Stop including pictures since some users read text-only? (4) WP:NONENG ... it does indicate that it must exist somewhere reliable in English. This is just flat wrong. WP:NONENG: "English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." But again, this is a non-issue here, because the original interview is in English. (To make this point more directly, next time, I'll just link directly to the audio file.) You appear to want me to find an English translation of a French translation of an English interview, which is pointless when I cited the English-language primary source.

Finally, I'd note that, although it would be useful to someone who wanted to know about Scorsese's future projects, this is hardly controversial subject matter. I'm really having a difficult time understanding why you're flyspecking edits that are sourced perfectly well and, frankly, cited better and more reliably than 2/3 of the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.2.4 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

On behalf of the Koenig's and their friends...

Dear Wildhartlivie,

Though I know you're just doing a part of what every good Wikipedia editor does, I have been asked to thank you on behalf of Andrew's and Walter's friends & family for your efforts in un-vandalizing Andrew's page during these difficult times for them.

With much thanks, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again, so much. We will be updating Walter's official site as soon as the conference has ended.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 00:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre-code image needed

Hi, I'm looking for a good image to add to the Pre-Code Hollywood article. I'd prefer not to get into any fair-use hassles, so I've been searching through the Commons, but have yet to come up with anything really good. I'm looking for something that exemplifies the sexual suggestiveness of the pre-code film, but, of course, that's just the kind of thing that the studios didn't put in the trailers, the primary source of free images for this period. In a similar situation for Moral panic, I used a picture of Harlow, but I'd like something better, if I can find it.

I thought you or Rossrs might have an idea of something that would work well, so ... here I am. Any ideas? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Louise Brooks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Theda Bara stuff you pointed me to is great. After I get some sleep (been up all night), I'll look at using them.. Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

Wh do you keep removing the info i put on the Charlie Sheen article...the info im adding is notable and well sourced.Handstoni (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the part about him entering Rehab, why did you remove that?Handstoni (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

??????Handstoni (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But its his wife, just because her page was deleted because its not notable, that doesnt mean that any info regarding her should be removed from every other article....she's his wife, and its notable to mention her in his article........its already mentioned that he married her and has 2 kids with her and that he got arrested on charges of domestic violence againest her....so, she is already mentioned in this article...so, your not making any sense..........im gonna add the info back cause its well sourced and notable..........Handstoni (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This was removed because it's not notable and only adds negative information about his wife's drug problems which is against biography of a living person. You don't add negative, non-notable info into an article for shock affect. Please do not readd it, thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But the part that about him entering rehab being "conjunctive or auxilary therapy in cooperation with his wife" is just a rumor and not confirmed...so that part doesnt need to be mentioned....all that needs to be mentioned is that his publicist announced on February 23 that he entered rehab and is taking time off from "Two and a Half Men".Handstoni (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Filmogs

You don't need to add all the coding bumpf (border="2" cellpadding="4" background: #f9f9f9; center, etc) now we're using the wikitables; the "wikitable" coding automatically takes care of all that. It's much better to have as little coding as possible visible in the edit window, so that unfamiliar editors aren't scared off. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one that added the table with that obsolete code. I'm sorry. Now I know what to use; I've updated my notes. Thanks. —Mike Allen 02:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a comment on User talk:MikeAllen waiting to be read.

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

Razzies again

Are we including Razzie noms and wins in awards charts? I know there was discussion about not using the template at WP:ACTOR awhile back but I'm unclear about mentioning them on awards charts. I say nay because of the reasoning behind not including the templates in articles but natch, there's opposition over at Sienna Miller. You know, because her Razzie nomination for G.I. Joe is incredibility newsworthy and should like, be totally mentioned because "wiki-clowns" are trying to whitewash her article. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Johhny Depp

Hi. I thought you'd like you to know that Depp was interviewed by Jonathan Ross on his BBC TV show tonight (26 Feb) and Ross specifically asked him about his vineyard. Depp replied that he doesn't own a vineyard, as the French won't allow him too - that's the reason I removed the sentence. I realise that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, but when references are so obviously wrong it makes one wonder about the veracity of other parts of the encyclopedia. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sophia Loren

Hi I have made an account now. What was wrong with my edits on Sophia Loren's page that prompted you to undo it? Jarjar66 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)