User talk:Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Referencing

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

---

Manson

I definitely didn't see any BLP violations, which is why I encouraged the other editor to cite specifics. It struck me as a strange deletion request, but I didn't want to assume there weren't some real facts supporting the arguments . . . somewhere. I guess you never know what's going to go helter-skelter these days!--otherlleft 09:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lisa

I got the image from this website: http://www.northplattebulletin.com/utilities/genThumb.asp?path=D:\inetpub\northplattebulletin\uploads\newsImages\240.jpg&width=175 Anyways, thanks for helping me out (regarding the image), that's very nice of you! P.S. It's the first image I have uploaded. If there are problems with it or you want to tell me ANYTHING that may help in the future, keep in mind that I won't be offended or anything, and in fact, will be very grateful to receive assistance. ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothica36 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You have been doing an excellent job reverting the Polanski related vandalism today. Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at ConcernedVancouverite's talk page.
Message added 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Stipe

I fixed much of the article during a previous dismantling of the page; according to the current page comparison it hasn't changed much since (althought that overlooks any edits that were subsequently reverted). I definitely have resources to greatly improve the page, but it's all a matter of interest. I usually find it hard to muster enthusiasm to work on biographies of individual musicians; it's far more interesting for me to work on the band articles. However if you feel like working on it, I'm up for helping out. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Memories

Ah yes, what a couple of crazy kids we were !  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Petition to Free Child Rapist

Why did you revert all my edits to the people mentioned in the CNN article that signed the petition to free the child rapist Roman Polanski? Those were important edits and they were cited. Please explain, your edit summaries are non-sensical. Faethon Ghost (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And secondly, how are you going to give me a vandalism warning when I did not commit any vandalisms? I would like this explained as well. Thank you. Faethon Ghost (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that these highly visible people signed such a controversial petition (to free a child rapist) is very notable and it is irresponsible to not note those facts on these individuals' articles. It is so notable that it made major media outlets' headlines. Unless you have some personal bias to keep these facts (these people support child rape) hidden, please re-insert my edits. Faethon Ghost (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have Monica Bellucci on my watchlist, and I removed this little snippet yesterday... so... I noticed there had been more of the same. I've also commented at User:Faethon Ghost's user page. I think there's a huge amount of personal interpretation regarding what signing the document means, what the document says, and the fact that they are supporting a person, rather than condoning the act of what he is accused. As far as leaping to conclusions go, this is taking the Grand Canyon in a single bound. Aside from the BLP issues, it's just not relevant to each of the 140 people. If we're gonna report this, we'll have to report everything they sign or every time they represent a viewpoint or a cause, because it'll be sure to be of interest to somebody. There is such a witch-hunt mentality hanging over this case - it's very disturbing. Rossrs (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Wildhartlivie, I didn't see that coming. Leaping over the Grand Canyon and back again. It's pretty vile, and it's an easy sort of cop out - smear whoever disagrees. I've removed the personal attack from the user page. Personal attacks don't belong anywhere, and I'm not going to allow to sit on a user page. The page belongs to Wikipedia - ie all of us, so it's still subject to the same community standards. Rossrs (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes, I can believe it. It's a bit scary to think that there are people with such flawed thought processes. Rossrs (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I removed it from user's talk page because user has to know that I'm not going to tolerate that kind of comment being made anywhere. If it had been less vile I may not have minded so much. Yes, let's see what happens. "I read the petition, they aren't defending him against the charges, they are protesting the manner in which he was arrested and where it happened." Yep, that's the point I made on user's page. Do you suppose user has read the petition? I suspect not, user would be at grave risk of learning something. Rossrs (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bundy is just yawning

Hi. Not that I really care much, but Ted Bundy is yawning in that picture. He never acted violently in court. --James599 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Gilda

Coincidentally, I saw a little of Gilda this morning, watching Es "20 Most Tragically Sad Hollywood Deaths" or something like that. I think Gilda's was the 11th saddest death. Sad, but not as sad as Phil Hartman's death which was 10th. John Ritter's death was even sadder, but not quite as sad as Bernie Mac's, while Steve Irwin's death was the 3rd saddest Hollywood death. I think he went to Hollywood a couple of times, so technically his was a Hollywood death. I can't remember who the second saddest death was, and that's sad for me. Heath Ledger's was the saddest death of them all. Sadly, the deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Carole Lombard, Jean Harlow and Rudolph Valentino were not sad at all! I thought they were, but there you have it, clearly I was mistaken. I watch some crap, I really do. Rossrs (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And Sharon Tate! Her death was ....... sad. Don't you think it was sad? I do. E don't. Yep, we'll have to give her article some work. If you ever find anything that can go in my amusements page, please let me know. I'd kind of forgotten about it, until it was mentioned today and I read through it again. I much prefer that to the some of the other nonsense I get myself involved in.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!, but at the risk of sounding slanted, I, as the biographer of Peg Entwistle, have to say that her suicide from the Hollywood Sign when she was just 24, ranks up among the saddest Hollywood deaths...um, not to take away from all the rest mentioned here, mind you!Jameszerukjr (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim Jones & Signatures

Hi Wildhartlivie! You were right about that last revert. I should have manually added back in the maintenance templates only. Thanks for adding the reference as per WP:LEADCITE. While I only came upon this article doing recent changes patrol, I did read an article some time ago in The New York Times Magazine dealing with Jones’s sole surviving son who was away at a basketball game the day of the mass deaths and it discussed much of what was in that particular paragraph. So, I knew it to be true and was not doubting you. My only concern was that, to the uninitiated, it’s a very dramatic statement that is all the more forceful when it is supported by a verifiable reference/citation. Plus, with the footnote, it complies with WP:LEADCITE, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE.

By the way, the anon that you reverted in that introduction came to my talk page to yell at me for reverting him! I explained to him that he had his gun pointed at the wrong man. Oh, and I also put a {{Uw-npa3}} on his talk page!

As for my signature, thank you for pointing out the problem. I was trying to create something that looked like the chops I and my spousal unit collect. <sigh> Since you have special insight into these difficulties, do you think that any of the following would be easier to read/perceive:

1.  SpikeToronto 
2.  SpikeToronto 
3.  SpikeToronto 
4.  SpikeToronto 
5.  SpikeToronto 

I would very much appreciate your input. Also, would a lighter shade of blue be better perceived? I have a whole raft of test edits here. Any input you would be so kind as to provide me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Wildhartlivie! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 2009 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) 06:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Viagra-based edit summary...

Don't worry about your summary -- there aren't many laughs in a Barrow page, so it's good to get one!--HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men

Please address the issues raised at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured list criteria--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey. Remember this stupid idiotic interesting article? It seems someone took it upon themselves to restore the content even though there was an AfD to redirect to Britney Spears. Now, here's where the question comes up - seems after it was restored, it was put up for deletion again but there was no consensus. Should the original AfD be upheld (which I think I opened but can't find) or what? I'm confuzzled. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn it! I was still psyching myself up to "just be bold and redirect it!" Ah, screw it, I'm a scaredy cat. I'll keep it watchlisted. Thanks. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's cool. I'll go throw my weight around on the Audrey page to make myself feel better. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James mediation

Hey there -- I've opened the mediation case on Jesse James and your input is appreciated in advance as you're an involved party. Thanks! [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle mention on actress Phyllis Cerf Wiki

Hey stranger! Sorry to hear of your health issues...I hope and will pray for you. Anyway, if you get a min, I was wondering if you could stop by the Phyllis Cerf Wiki. I was rewriting a chapter from my book and wondered if PC had a Wiki, I was pleased to find she does and added a small something in her "Hollywood" sedction....just wondering if it is okay? Be well! Jameszerukjr (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Adam Sandler POV

Oh, I'm sorry, this does appear to be okay then, you have cited correct wiki codes and they appear to be correct... It does appear to be an 'opinion' of a critic none the less... Maybe you would like to include a sentence in his popularity, regardless of what critics would then... those films are debatable on what reasons people like them , regardless of what people are into...

But yeah, everything seems to check out... I was mistaken...

YOu may want to add some neutral or positive statements on those early movies....

--DavisHawkens (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the comments in question are still trashing his early movies just because their silly... And the article is Bias towards typical critical Commentary POV, And I legitamitely believed that Wikipedia rules meant it wasn't supposed to be balanced to either side... But the Wiki Policies you quoted show people can sway it how they want, that thats acceptable... I understand... Its just from what I read it appeared you weren't supposed do to that sort of thing, But apparently it is quite acceptable, according to what Policies you cited. It is a bias type of Encloypedia, I kinda get that now...

Sorry again, but I still i'm grasping the rules and from what I seem to always read... they're are numerous contradictions... In what Wikipedia is supposed to be... And how its meant to run....

So i'm assuming you can actually add other critical info... At least from what i read... I'm sure theres other critics who would disagree... Still I thought this was supposed to avoid that sorta thing....

Not trying to fuss. - --DavisHawkens (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda, but the comment, it is basically saying 'Screw these movies, these ones are better because of these reasons'... Again those inclusions are insults about the characters, and are obviously open for interpretation depending on what your into.... its saying 'This is why you should or shouldn't like it', It does have that lame critic type of opinion pretention, Screw Sandler-comedies, attitude... I'm not really getting worked up about it, i'm just saying i figured this Wiki thing was supposed to be different.... But it appears to be written just like the rest of em'... What i'm sayin probably sounds "retarded" to you, but i hope you understand what i'm getting at... never mind.... Forget it... I won't alter it again unless i'm adding another review... --DavisHawkens (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

List of overweight actors in United States cinema

You edited this article. This is a friendly notice that your input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of overweight actors in United States cinema. This information is provided without any request that you support or oppose the deletion of the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Imposing ordnance

Couldn't I get my "imposing" back in the "Buck joins" section of B&C? Plainly, imposing is what they had in mind when they took some of those pictures -- particularly the ones where Clyde stacked several rifles upon each other and held them all. Thanks!--HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)--HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand about POV; as you might imagine, I'm now scouring for references to support "imposing." Wouldn't it be ironic if it winds up being the detested Geringer piece where I find it!--HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback: Hard-to-read Signature

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

SpikeToronto 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ElijahBosley, in re: Abraham quote on Paul Newman page

You have a point. That is, about the Henry Abraham quote about Paul Newman as his Kenyon roommate. Professor Abraham has repeated that anecdote to me and to several others including recently Supreme Court Justice Scalia, and he verified it just three days ago. He stands behind it. But it is not written down anywhere (yet). This shows a weakness, not a strength of Wikipedia policy. Lawyers consider writings, whether books or newspapers articles or what have you, to be hearsay and untrustworthy unless you can cross examine the author. There is a lot of bunk that's found its way into the papers, and what's more important for present purposes, what is left out is usually the good stuff. Consider reconstructing your own life history just from letters and e-mails and what has been written about you. Still I will defer to Wikipedia's rather foolish policy until I can get Henry Abraham to write down his anecdote in a letter to me, and then I will cite the letter. As if that makes it more credible.ElijahBosley (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

B&C photos

Thx for the compliment and the cropping... size 'em however you think is best... I just want to get 'em up, and put this page to bed... I think we're close to that... Thanks for your help and patience!--HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right: the WD photo looks much better scaled back -- it's such a close-up. I have a few more to put up, I think. Thanks for the help--HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- I moved the video player to the right in Bonnie and Clyde. I like the way it tightens everything up there (and gets rid of annoying whitespace), but if you don't like it, I won't be offended if you revert it.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but why did you revert my caption edit?--HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... I think we're looking real good in there now -- thanks for your help and patience.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

IPA for swank

If what I added was not an IPA pronunciation can you please add the correct one thankyou--Anthony morgan peters (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Get Well

Get well soon. :)--Anthony morgan peters (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I had not heard

What are the odds of a unicycle-riding bull, a baby grand piano and John Travolta all being on a cliff at the same time? A unicycle-riding bull, a baby grand piano and Wile-E-Coyote perhaps. But John Travolta? Rossrs (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I love South Park and I love that episode, though I have not seen it for a long time and can't remember all the details. I don't have a favourite episode but the one that sticks in my mind is the one where Butters goes missing and is assumed to have been abducted and murdered. Also the Saddam in hell segments. I'm OK thanks. Nothing much has changed since I last wrote, but I am exhausted. Jobwise, I'm tired of dealing with people, you know. I could write a book about them, but that would mean reliving my interractions with some of them, and with some of them I definitely think one excrutiating episode is enough. I seem to attract difficult people like I'm wearing a great big "difficult people" magnet, but that's the nature of my job and nothing I can do about it. (Today I had a doozy, and I have to speak to him again first thing in the morning. I'd prefer to be sticking needles in my eyes, but I'm not that lucky.) It's the not feeling exactly well, that makes it harder to deal with. I think I need a change, but at the very least I need a rest, and we're having a week away in 2 weeks time. Looking forward to it. Nothing earth shattering - just a nice relaxing beachy week, and I want to sleep, read, sit in the sun, dip in the water, stroll aimlessly, watch TV .... and that's about all! I'd be happy to have a week of lying on the couch watching DVDs. I don't need to be entertained or stimulated, so you see, I am easily pleased.  :-) How are things with you? Rossrs (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi there WHL, VASCO from Portugal,

Thank you very much for helping Crohnie after this "argument" (to call it that) about some edits i made in Death of Baby P, nice teamwork! Speaking of that, i went to the page again, to "behold" your work, and found out one extra [ in REF#18; i tried to remove it, but cannot. Could you help me out? Ty again.

Keep it up, cheers,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, upon a second glance, found it and removed it. Thank you very much anyway, mate! Keep up the good work, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

GAR

I am not a good person to ask about Sweeps protocol. Talk to someone like Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) or Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway (actress) GAR notice

Anne Hathaway (actress) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is going on with the Anne Hathaway (actress) GAR. It is very close to passing, but no one has come by to finish it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Hi, I removed this. I thought about taking it to BLP, but I decided it was a no-brainer considering that a very vicious accusation is made against the person, on the basis of signing a document that may or may not have been read by the contributor. In any case, the context is not supported by the mere act of adding a signature. I also thought the personal attack, though not specifically aimed at one editor, was still enough of an attack to justify removal. Not sure about the rest though. I think it's valid for someone to ask whether something should be included, but when "rapist" is used as part of the naming of the person, I can't see anything but an attempt to inflame and agenda with a capital "A". These side issues have probably died down enough now that it's not likely to escalate, but I'm interested in your opinion. Rossrs (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

absolutely. I don't see much logic in his comments. There's nothing to address the usefulness of keeping the template, but more a disagreement of the reasons for removing it. That's not how to sway people. Rossrs (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything wrong with it, but I think it's a double edged sword. While it could perhaps alert other editors to wider concerns, it could also be a "foot-in-the-door" for him to steer the discussion, so... not wrong, but a little risky. On lighter note WhoTF is "opera"? Laughing, but not for the reasons intended. :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think people would see that too. Rob Thomas is fairly rationale too, isn't he? You can't beat "shitmydadsays" - and the photograph is just perfect. I love that he has 556,145 followers, but he follows only Levar Burton. Levar Burton? Rossrs (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

problem?

Hi, I did post a citation to the magazine - from a newspaper. I thought it was common knowledge that her family are from scotland/england and ireland. I posted it originally without the citation and then he asked me to post the citation. I did this and now it has been removed by you.

Can I ask why? Apologies if i am not leaving a signature properly. Ralf whiggum1 (talk) 8:40, 17th October 2009 (UTC)

---

A reply to your post you send me. With thanks for replying of course. I must be a liar. Just forget it. Thats the thanks you get for trying to get involved - I will email wikipedia with my thoughts after "one attempt" to update a listing. I have the magazine itself but I was planning on scanning it in and putting it online for the entry but wasn't given a chance to. Won't be now thats for sure.

Looking at the wiki page for her, a number of things on the page cannot be verified so i may weed them all out later. Got to keep it accurate haven't we?

Ralf whiggum1 (talk) 9:10, 17th October 2009 (UTC)

---

No - you are looking for proof - nobody else - just you.

I am not spiteful - One one hand you are saying things should be cited then you are telling me I can't be removing things that aren't cited? I want to make the article accurate - by removing things that are not able to be verfied. You told me thats the case. I won't do it until i read all terms/conditions and hear a reply from wikipedia with my thoughts.

I can see hundreds of articles that have citations but are to magazines and newspapers, none online. So why are they accepted?

I think the system of wiki is wrong and now I see first hand why. Not reliable source at all if things that are true are deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf whiggum1 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi, I've decided I'll not bother editing/updating/adding articles. I'll take it up with wikipedia about the scenario. I will see about deleting this account as well. Thanks for making a new member feel welcome by the way! Ralf whiggum1 (talk) 9:40, 17th October 2009 (UTC)

---

OK I hear what you are saying. I will email my comments to wikipedia regardless.

I apologise to you if I seemed a little het up - I hope you accept my apology.

I will not update any articles in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf whiggum1 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi, looking over the mag - I wrote down the wrong publishers name. I hope you havent asked them as it was incorrect. I was all het up and rushing because it kept getting removed, that led to the mistake. sorry again for putting you to all this trouble. I think we should now just forget it. I do feel rotten for putting you out. I hope you accept my apology. Ralf whiggum1 (talk) 15:47, 17th October 2009 (UTC)

Heath

I'm not sure it's the best source, but in this particular case, I think it's correct. I think it would be worth looking at http://www.nla.gov.au/ however their online database is down for maintenance this weekend. I've done a little bit of searching, but I can only find bad sources. They're easy to find.  :-( I'll keep thinking though. Rossrs (talk) 08:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny. I haven't read everything, but I love the bit where Heath has (uncited) problems with paparazzi in Sydney, so he sells up and moves to New York, where...... there are no photographers? None of the three cites deal with the privacy issue, just the property value. I'll reword it sometime, but I know you're working on it right now, so I won't edit conflict with you. Rossrs (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

mind weighing in on this?

• User_talk:Tedder#The_Game_.28US_TV_series.29

Thanks, tedder (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ms. Milano

No problem. I caught the tail end of a little "current affairs" snippet yesterday, that said that celebrity obsession was becoming recognised as a genuine medical disorder. (Accompanied by video footage of various stars being trapped by a posse of paparazzi even though they're doing nothing more notable or newsworthy than walking along a pavement.) In my own lifetime I've seen celebrity interest grow to a point where there is almost saturation point disclosure on just about everything a celebrity says and does. They say TV brought celebrities into our living rooms - we didn't have to go to a cinema to see them - but where does Twitter bring them - into our private mind-space? It's no wonder that someone raised in that kind of culture would believe it all needs to go in an encyclopedia. There is so much inane detail in so many articles, and the scary thing is that most of it is added in the best possible faith. Just thought I'd share that because I thought it was interesting and I wonder where it ends. It looks a bit like a rant, but it's not meant to be.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say most people would be level-headed enough to take Twitter as a bit of fun, and maybe a chance to learn a little bit about the thoughts of the celebrities who interest them. I know you and Johnny are a special case, so I won't comment further about the two of you, other than to wish you both all the best. I was thinking more of the Robert Bardots of the world, who may feel even closer to the Rebecca Schaeffers of the world, if the Rebeccas are all pouring out their thoughts on Twitter and the Bardots are reading them almost as soon as they are thought. I think it's just part of the cycle that brings the celebrities into a closer orbit, and it isn't always going to be healthy. I guess every parent has to be making a judgement call about what films they take their children to see. Wild Things obviously has fairly dark moments. Likewise Harry Potter - even the first one which is aimed at a younger audience than the later ones, has some very disturbing moments. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and The Wizard of Oz are quite dark too. I'm not a parent, but I wonder if carefully exposing children to a degree of darkness isn't a necessary part of their education and development. As a child the most terrifying story I ever read was Hansel and Gretel and I had nightmares about the witch coming and taking my mother. I can't recall anything else that was supposedly a children's story, having a greater impact on me. I wonder if the lesson learnt was more important than the fear. I equated it with "stranger danger". I had a friend that was very sheltered and his parents vetted everything he did, everything he saw, and he was a very "soft" child, and incredibly naive. There are limits though - my 12 year old great-niece recently announced that she'd watched Wolf Creek during an (unsupervised?) sleep-over with another 12 year old. My sister (her grandmother) hadn't seen the film and asked me if I thought it was appropriate. Ahhhh, no. There's obviously a line somewhere between Snow White and Wolf Creek. Not sure exactly where it is for me. Rossrs (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What a world, indeed! I quite like slasher films, but only when they take me out of the real world. For example, I can't buy Michael Myers as a real person, the violence is stylised and heightened, and to a degree is a kind of lampoon, so the film (and others of its ilk) doesn't take me out of my comfort zone. The plot devices are cliched - the young, vulnerable girl will always go to the abandoned house/dark and scary dungeon/lonely forest/derelict insane asylum. Whatever. We know she's going to end up there one way or another, and we know that at least one of the pretty blondes will prevail, until the sequel. Which is why Scary Movie etc can turn it into comedy without needing to give it more than a tiny twist. Those I like. Wolf Creek, I'm guessing you aren't going to go and see anytime soon, and I don't recommend it. It stays within a real world, the characters seem real, the violence seems real, the blood and gore looks real. It doesn't offer the roller-coaster thrill ride of the average slasher film. It's like someone is following a serial killer with a camera, and not trying to save the victim, and it's unredeemingly unpleasant. There's another Australian film Jindabyne that I would recommend. Some elements of the serial killer are similar, and it stays within a real world, and yet nothing is shown of the killing, because it's clear enough without showing it. Wolf Creek is murder-porn in a sense of presenting brutality as entertainment, while Jindabyne is about the people affected by a murder. That's my pick of the week - Laura Linney, Gabriel Byrne and Deborra-Lee Furness, (the under-utilised-by-the-film-world Mrs Hugh Jackman) - you could do worse. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope some of Obama's money heads in your direction. That would certainly help, wouldn't it? So keep me posted. I've never seen Before and After. It's one of those films that I've considered but it's always lost out to something else. I hadn't read the plot summary for Jindabyne until you mentioned it, and it shows how much POV goes into movie plot summaries. I look at what's written, and I think if I'd written it, I would have emphasised some things that aren't even mentioned in the summary. It's sincere but superficial. One of the things I like about the film is that it doesn't deal with absolutes, but rather it shows the different viewpoints of the various characters as shades of grey. Much like real life. Anyway, I won't bore you further with that. Another one I'd recommend, while I'm wearing my movie-review hat is another Australian film, Lantana. Don't read the Wikipedia plot because it gives away too much and spoils the suspense. (If you're interested, the Ebert review doesn't reveal the resolution to the mystery). Whoever wrote it may as well have transcribed the script. It's similar to Jindabyne in that a lot of it is about dealing with consequence. It has Anthony LaPaglia, Geoffrey Rush and Barbara Hershey (we love importing "names" for our little Aussie films), and a fabulous actress Kerry Armstrong. She's had a good career in Australia, but her U.S. endeavours kind of failed after a stint on Dynasty and a Murder, She Wrote. She deserved better. She reminds me of Jessica Lange. Oh, nearly forgot... I noticed the recent revert you did to Sharon Tate. It's bizarre that someone who probably doesn't really give a damn, would make such a moronic display of moral outrage. Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Game

Eh...I wouldn't worry about it. The content/blog link which the IP was trying to get in is now removed because it's outdated (do we really need to say that the show is being shopped to BET now that it's already been picked up? Nope!). If they want to complain about that being removed, the talk page is free and clear. Unless there's a new policy stating that established editors can't edit a semi-protected article, they're just whistling in the wind as far as I'm concerned. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress)

I have begun a new discussion on this talk page concerning our most recent edits. I would greatly appreciate your participation. —Major Seventh (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

TFD

Unfortunately I can't do much either. I'm just waiting for it to be closed. I commented myself (a few times...) on the tfd so I can't close it myself. I did closed a bunch of other tfd's so that this one will be one of the few remaining. I also saw some of the other issues you have with this editors. I was really tempted to remove the over-tagging on that article but thought it's better to first have this tfd closed. Garion96 (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. :) I also posted a message here asking for someone to close these two tfd's. Garion96 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And they're gone. Garion96 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious

Check out the infobox image. I mean, really, why bother?  :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

and this (and I love that it's a "retouched" image, so this is the improved version.) Rossrs (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL winning ip

LOL great title....I was thinking the same no real use...but a log of messages might be usefull in the future to get him banned if need be....Tks for talking the time to write to me ....someone of your stature typing to me makes me feel important. your new follower Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Leslie Van Houten

I could not find a citation for the last edit, though the wiki article Most Evil shows this information. I want this to be noted that Van Houten was not Psychopathic, how else can i prove this? The Most Evil documentary is a reliable source. It can't be a BLP violation if another wiki article has the same information.PhilOak (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Hamer photo at Bonnie and Clyde

Hi! I see your (superior) crop of the Hamer photo at the image file page, but my old crop seems to be what shows up on the B&C article itself. I don't know enough to fix it, but I'll bet you do.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever get hate mail like my meanfrank posting? Gee, I got him so mad, he forgot how to spell "you're"! I found it funny he signed and datestamped it. Wonder if he has anything to do with Frank Hamer... or a certain ursine B&C editor?--HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know!

About Tom, or that Sarah Jessica Parker has also had some work done. Looking good! Rossrs (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was hilarious too. I think what makes it more amusing is that the image caption wasn't changed, and is very "matter-of-fact". I've added it to my amusement page. Rossrs (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Michael Jackson's work is being reappraised, and there is more of an effort to focus on his talent and overlook his weirdness. While he was alive, the opposite was the case. I heard that So Ya Think Ya Can Dance was wanting to do a MJ night, but it didn't happen. Next season, perhaps. I'm interested to see This Is It too. I saw Moonwalker a few weeks ago. I had never cared much about seeing it, and if not for my sister showing up with the DVD and insisting we watch it, I might not have bothered. I enjoyed it, but I don't feel any need to watch it again. I can remember reading something about Yoko's childhood experiences. Imagine having something like that as a childhood memory? Sheez. From various things I've read, I have the impression that although Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney don't get along, Yoko has always separated the person from the art, and has been respectful of the Beatles legacy. Rossrs (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lansbury, tables & awards

I just wanted to reiterate that I am quite willing to continue working on the tables and incorporating the awards into the tables. That will allow you to concentrate on the other points raised in the peer review. I have a user subpage that several people use when adding awards to filmographies at User:Wildhartlivie/Award and nominations templates. With this, all one has to do with most all film awards is copy and paste the templates. This keeps us from having to look up all the correct awards pages. I'm going to a little league football game this evening to watch my goddaughter's son play in the semi-finals of the "Super Bowl", and planned on finishing up the tables when I got home. Hope the peer review notes help and some of the housekeeping I've already made to the article were helpful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would highly appreciate any additional work done on Angela Lansbury. I am not going to begin editing it quite yet (I am in fact searching hastily and without any luck for her biography) and am collecting valuable information in the meantime. Your comments at the peer review will definitely serve as a good set of guidelines. I am attempting to fashion the article after Anne Hathaway (actress), and featured article content, notably Katie Holmes, which I believe is more in-depth than necessary (but hey, who's complaining?). Have fun at that game! Thanks again. —Major Seventh (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

not that you need another one

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Wildhartlivie, you are the BLP/vandalism whisperer of Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

I didn't know there was even a way of checking how many users were watching. I'm a bit disappointed that with all the watching, so few stop by to say "hi". Mind you, a lot could have been added long ago and never removed. I have a bunch on my watchlist that I've never bothered removing. Now from the curiouser to the downright bizarre. I have just walked in the door from spending a couple of hours in the shops. Among my purchases, I brought home This. Is that an obscure kind of coincidence or what???? I thought I'll just check in here while I'm adding it to my iPod and ..... I'm just a tad gobsmacked. Rossrs (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do find coincidences interesting. I don't think they are anything more than that, but the more obscure they are, the more they attract my attention. "Curiouser" is a very odd word ... (isn't it used in Alice in Wonderland?) .... and to be sitting with a CD in front of me at the same I'm seeing the word appear in the title of a message to me. I noticed too, that you sent the message about a minute before I saw it, so the timing was something. I always mean to go back and take a pelican picture of my own, but it's not the sort of the thing I think of at the right time. One day. I'm listening to Curiouser now, and I've decided that "The Last Day on Earth" is one of the most beautiful songs I've heard. Very Kate Bushy, very "This Woman's Worky". It's amazing what one can do in a kayak but I don't think you can do that!! I tried it myself to see ... and it's very weird. It gives me very definite directions "turn left into Edward St", "turn right into Alice St" and it even knows that to get on the Riverside Express I need to "take the ramp" and it seems to assume without saying that I am in a car. I was kind of expecting that once I hit "Myilly Terrace" in Darwin there would be an instruction "Buy a kayak". But no. That seems like an incredible oversight. I'm amused no end. I love Google Earth, so I will forgive it for its utter ridiculousness. Rossrs (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Annoyeder and annoyder

I'm annoyed that my email account has been disabled. Every 2 or 3 weeks it asks me for my password, and every 2 or 3 weeks it tells me my password is wrong, so I go through the nonsense of updating it. I shouldn't have to do that, but it only takes a few minutes, so I've gritted my teeth and done it each time. Now, for the first time, it's told me my account has been disabled and in 24 hours I'll have a new one. WOW, thanks. 24 hours. Take your time. Anyway, we'll see. I will probably have lost my folders, so I'm not happy. Rossrs (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There is so much horror in Port Arthur's past and it seems jarring because the place is so beautiful and so serene. The memorial, at what was the cafe in which most of the victims were killed, is very sobering. I was just looking through my photos. I didn't take any at the cafe, because that seemed disrespectful. I suppose if people have been dead longer, I don't have the same moral anguish, because I did take photos of the Isle of the Dead and the gravestones are amazing. They do brilliant Ghost Tours in the main part of the complex (you wouldn't get me on that island at night) and .... talk about creepy, going through the prison, the mortuary, the chapel, the asylum, all in the dark following one volunteer with a lantern. EEK! I was very rattled. We went back the following day in glorious sunshine and it was a whole different place. I'll let you know if my email is dead and gone, and if I've lost my emails, I'll start again with hotmail. Stupid Yahoo! Rossrs (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You're probably not alone in being spooked by old hospitals. I can think of a few that pop up in horror films so maybe the filmmakers are inspired by them. The medical profession has a fairly gruesome past hasn't it? Although in a hundred years they may be saying that about our current level of care. The appearance of this killer caused discussion here when it happened and when he was tried - he was referred to either as a baby-faced killer or a surfer dude. I see more of the latter in his appearance, and if memory serves me correctly, surfing was one of his interests. I think he may have been more successful in his aims than the Columbine guys by luck rather than anything else. The geography and "openness" of Port Arthur, its isolation, the large number of people, the sheer incredulity that they must have experienced. Did you read that a number of them heard the gunshots and thought it was a re-enactment and actually walked towards the cafe to see what was happening? There was also a woman and her two children who were trying to escape on foot some time after the shootings at the cafe, when he came up beside them in his car. They thought he was there to help, and walked towards him too, and of course, he killed them. Not that running would have helped, but actually thinking they were safe and heading towards him. God, how awful. I don't think he planned it to any degree, but was more opportunistic in reacting to the situation as it unfolded. He was probably "lucky" that there were no real obstacles for him in the early stages. Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Murphy template

Yep, I got them all. The template is now orphaned. Technically it could be added to the individual album articles, but since I don't like templates (to say it mildly) I think I'm skipping that step. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet

My ownership – or your ownership, that’s the question. Once I removed ALL reviews, in the other case I tried to balance out the negative reviews with positive statements on the other side. Never cherrypicking, attempting to balance out; you posted negative reviews and posting the other side was necessary to reach a neutral point of view. You forced it, take a look at the history. I never removed negative reviews, take a look. Posting negative reviews in a gossip-like manner in fact violates the policy of WP. WP is a encyclopedia, not a second-life-reviewing. Would be good to come to a consensus without menaces. My suggestions are: Either 1. no reviews. or 2. reviews in a neutral point of view. the worst and the best review and one roundup for both productions respectively seems fair, without highlighting one. The current editing isn’t neither fair nor neutral. In this moment initially, I would prefer to delete all reviews and starting the new edits. Tell me your decision, please.Wik4 (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No changes made, can't see any cooperation, what could be the cause for further communication? Wik4 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Elfman

Your input here would be greatly appreciated. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question

Yes, all Scientology-related articles are subject to article probation - "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation." You can look up general sanctions such as this at Wikipedia:General sanctions, and if you feel some sort of enforcement is needed, you can make a request at WP:AE. If they're new to the area, you may want to just try to explain things to them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Billy the Kid

Why have you reverted back to the original after I changed these sections to accurately reflect the information in the sources given? I have all of these books beside me and the person who quoted them did so improperly.We had discussed most of these changes in August and no one had objected to my information. You yourself said: "In fact, I'd more doubt the person who put in all the references than the Wallis book itself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)" Thank you --Gordontaos (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jude Law

I see the editor responded. I will add the article to my watchlist at least to keep an eye on it. I wonder if I could re add the red links on the Donald Duck filmography. It does look like consensus (although not unanimous) that red links aren't evil. :) Garion96 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in no real hurry, I can wait till Erik shows up again. I can't say it was a delight in having a discussion with that editor. See User_talk:SlamDiego#Donald Duck filmography. One of my weirdest discussions ever on Wikipedia. :) I reverted my lasty edit to that discussion, it was pointless. Garion96 (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wildhartlivie. What is the reasoning for the undoing of any commentary mentioning Jude Laws affair? The comments made are factual and backed up by multiple sources. I would think this is an important aspect of his "Personal life" and better explains his separation from Fiancé Miller? Is there some valid reason it is edited within minutes every time a reference to this incident is mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.141.162 (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Janis Joplin

Okay. But I don't udnerstand why one picture is, and one not with copyright. Is there any better picture (I think that it should be picture where Janis sings). --Ogggy (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. Yes, I know that it's cover of "Farewell Song" etc, and that new picture is her passport, actually, but if there's no other picture with law, okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogggy (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes!

Thanks for your recent edits!!

Re: Anthony Hopkins

Most of the news outlets Ive seen today seem to be sourcing THR and it seems like a easier leap of faith to omitt the part about him being in negotiations rather than including it. However given the credibility of Variety and the other sources you mentioned makes this difficult. So if you or others feel comfortable with adding this info, I will not object.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolph Valentino. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 14:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Return of the HarveyCarter sockpuppet

Hey. I tried for the first time to maneuver through the request for a sockpuppet investigation but couldn't make heads nor tails of the instructions. So I thought you might have a handle on this. The HarveyCarter sock has returned, or, I should say, has reverted to pseudonyms again after I publicly busted him for using ISPs starting with 92.. His current ID is LouisWalshFan, and he's making trouble on Steve McQueen, Christopher Walken, and the usual suspects. What to do? Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Razzie template

I saw in your removal here of the template for the Razzie Award for Worst Actor at the Bill Cosby page that in your edit summary you said that WP:ACTOR "concluded long ago that these are bad faith parody awards, not legitimate industry awards and wouldn't be listed thusly on articles." All I could find in the project's archived talk pages was a discussion about awards in the infobox, not templates down at the bottom of the page. The project concluded only that the Razzie should not go in the actor infobox; it did not conclude anything about the Razzies being bad faith parody. What is "bad faith parody?" I thought a parody was free speech, and that good or bad faith didn't apply.

If the template is considered such bad faith, why not get it deleted so that it is not an option?

Can you point me to the project discussion and conclusion? Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this comment by Binksternet (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Razzies

Hey, thanks - I didn't know the Razzies were discouraged. (It just appeared to be an inadvertent deletion when the image caption was reverted by Durova.) Any thoughts on the caption itself? I'm inclined to leave the photographer's name, simply because it is confusing in the Shatner infobox, but would welcome other opinions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, sorry to disturb then. I presumed you were just watching the William Shatner, and didn't realize you were doing a mass removal. (As for the image question, it was to do with having the caption mention the photographer's name. Arguments for focused on the notability of the photographer, while my concern is that it looks odd when the image is the portrait in the infobox as opposed to an image elsewhere in the article.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)