User talk:Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Referencing

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

---

Tfd

In response to your request for help. You started out ok. Put a new Tfd template on the templates you want to delete. Then go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. See the explanatory text, where it says "Follow this link to edit the section of Tfd for today's entries."? Press it and follow the instructions, namely add a Tfd2 template to the list, while filling in the name of the template you want to have deleted. Write me on my talkpage if you need more help. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But there is a section for 1 November. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_1. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It also might be that in your time-zone it was already 1 November, but the Wikipedia page is created according to UTC. Or perhaps you just didn't recognise it because it is called on wp:tfd not "November 1" but {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}}. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom courtesy notice

Just to advise that you have been named as a party in a request for Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Silent_Films_and_Wildhartlivie.

It is actually a requirement that the filing party of an ArbCom request personally alert anyone who was named, however this appears to have not occurred. Manning (talk) (ArbCom clerk) 12:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dylan Klebold

People don't put hammer and sickles on their boots while killing people just to look good. Just like the WRATH Shirt Klebold was wearing, it was symbolic of his motivations. And for your convenience I put placed a reference to the autopsy on it. And it the word Intrestingly disturbs you, I will be more than happy to remove it just for you.

Eric Harris drew Swatsikas on his papers and people don't ask "oh who says that has anything to do with Nazism?" See, the idea of questioning that if the symbol people use has anything to do with the ideology it represents is stupid. Just like the argument "who says The Hammer and sickle has anything to do with communism" is ridiculous and holds no weight because it is the International Symbol of Communism. That has been established for about 90 years now. The hammer and Sickle has never at any time was used to promote anything other than communism. And i'm pretty sure that Dylan didn't wear it to promote world peace, or for finding the cure for AIDS.

Besides, I said that "besides this, no other evidence been found suggesting that his motivations were related to communism". And that is not original research because it is a fact.Rezashah4 (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

inre this

Thanks. I knew that was the case, but have recently crossed paths with others who need to hear it from someone else. Being able to point to the diff will be helpful. Appreciate it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince and the Razzies

Hi Wild, I noticed reverted a reference to the Razzies on the Prince article recently. It has since been re-added by another editor (not me). Please see the Prince talk page before deleting it again. Thanks so much and I wish you good health and happiness!-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Jenna Elfman

Couldn't it just be called Scientology or has that been tried before? -- Stillwaterising (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare in Love

I do not understand why you reverted my recent edits - except that I should have left in the part about the burnt script. But even that was in the wrong sequence when I deleted it. You have reinstated factual errors and sophomoric writing. Watch the movie again. Ronstew (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I will give you a point-by-point reply on the weekend. Ronstew (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibson's new baby

See here. Apparently, the daughter's name was misreported (or rather, most likely satirical since Eva Mauner is Hitler's ex-wife). ★Dasani★ 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

August Coppola

Thank you for your advice, I think I heeded it.Jimbosil (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Template question

Found your TFD on a similar template and wanted to get your opinion on this one, thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The last TFD was here. I imagine I can speedy delete this new one...let me know if you agree...Dreadstar ☥ 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For shame, titillating contains one of the seven deadly sins...er...words..and mine virgin ears doth turn red in shame at having mine eyes connect with such tit-language.! I must be on my way to speedily delete the rascally and titillating (oops! Did I say that?) template... :) Dreadstar ☥ 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jane Fonda GAR

Looking at the review page, I don't see any statement by the reviewer saying that the article was passed/failed/put on hold. The reviewer linked the page to the talk page in late 2008, but the article history records it as April 2009. If the reviewer determined that the article did pass/fail, then it does not need to be reviewed again as we are only looking at articles before August 2007 for Sweeps. Let me know if you need further clarification. I'll try and comment on the Razzie issue later today. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Final Run" section of Bonnie and Clyde

We had built up considerable flab -- and commas -- in the first two paragraphs of "Final Run." I trimmed 'em up. Hope you're well.--HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references on Fort Hood shooting

Please don't post complaints about my having changed the referencing.

First of all, I find nothing on the article talk page where the odd formatting was first proposed, widely discussed and agreed on before it was used. What I find is discussion after the fact and comments that it is an odd reference style, but again, no consensus to use it or keep it. I do not see that particular style recommended in Wikipedia citation guidelines or policies. I do not see an imbedded note on the article page indicating that a new style of referencing is being used, or that editors agreed on it. So when someone comes into the article and discovers reference links that are dead, and finds something entirely odd and slightly insane in appearance while trying to fix that, it is not unheard of for it to be changed. I'd be entirely grateful if someone would point out the Wikipedia reference guidelines or policies that suggest that this odd style is now accepted for referencing. Frankly, I don't care if it ruffles someone's feathers, why would anyone try to institute a format of referencing that isn't used here and do so without notating it somewhere in the article, especially since no one had a problem with imbedding notes not to use photographs not related to the shooting or that this isn't technically a massacre. It seems to me that a mention of the reference style being used from another version from Wikimedia but not this one might come to mind to someone. If you don't like it, then by all means, change it back. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether you agree, accept or whatever, this [1] is clearly a discussion about the refs. style where the originator of the format and others discussed the proposed use the style. No substantive argument was raised against it, just incorrect comments about it being old. This was very early in the article history and changing it wholesale after nearly 3 days was unneccessary and possibly disrespectful to the original author, although I'm sure that was not your intention. You are quite correct that any style can be adopted, but the method adopted and widely accepted subsequently should not be turned upside down - per the bold bit here [2]. We all make mistakes so free to help revert your changes if the original proposer requests it. It was Rich Farmrough and I have left him a note so that he is aware of the situation when he returns to the article. Regards. Leaky Caldron 17:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't expecting a further reply.

We all learn from experience. For example, I wasn't aware of the requirement for an editor to stipulate the type of citation style they have elected by using an embedded note in the article or to get his preference approved in advance. I don’t think such guidance exists but correct me if I’m wrong. You have over 40,000 edits, 70 user boxes and over a dozen barnstars but as you’ve acknowledged elsewhere, you’ve spent 3 hours undoing changes which had become custom on practice for this article and to which WP:REF#Citation_templates_and_tools therefore plainly applies. The format the editor chose is clearly recommended here: WP:Footnotes#Reference_name_.28naming_a_ref_tag_so_it_can_be_used_more_than_once.29 encouraging its use by suggesting that whole footnotes tend to reduce the readability of the article's text in edit mode, which makes finding specific parts of the text when editing tedious.

I fully understand your frustration at discovering that you had undone a settled schema that had been agreed 2 days ago. I certainly was not offering you a lecture as you suggest. I was simply pointing out the background which you were evidently not aware of when you embarked on your edit foray today. It simply isn’t my fault, either that you did it or that it was pointed out to you by an IP, by the time you had almost completed your work. I can only repeat what it says here WP:REF#Citation_templates_and_tools, that editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. There may have been no consensus 2 hours into the article, but I believe that there has been a managed consensus since, so making wholesale changes 2 days later (albeit accidentally) cannot be anyone’s responsibility other than yours.

I would point out that I became involved only because I saw an editor trying to improve a fast moving article who did not need the additional hassle of dealing with inconsistent footnote methods and his valuable work being undone. I would have done the same if anyone else’s approach to citations was being undone while he was trying to develop the article. We all have our preferences and although his approach is recommended in certain circumstances, there are several alternatives. But once it had become distinctive in that article he was clearly entitled to maintain it. Regards. Leaky Caldron 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just a quick, hopefully final, update. I can see that you favour precision in your arguments about style etc. as well as in your excellent article work and didn’t want to leave you thinking that some sort of novel, hybrid, unapproved approach was being used. I have seen this method in use in many mainspace articles. However, it has not yet been promulgated into WP:FN guidance, which is regrettable. The background is here: here. It’s clearly down to editorial judgement – so GA & FA reviewers should have no concern. Regards, Leaky Caldron 10:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Razzie discussion

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Gaining_consensus:_Razzie_award_templates_at_the_bottom_of_articles, it appears that there is a majority of consensus not to use these templates on WP:BLPs. I think I will close this discussion, and nominate those particular templates for deletion. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't know

From March to November seems like a long time between drinks, doesn't it? I've had a read through some of the comments. It's amazing that some people try to jump on Wikipedia as a vehicle and with a small number of edits to a small and select group of articles, think they can claim ownership of it. I hope it doesn't develop into something more, but that doesn't look likely. Rossrs (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be cryptic. Looking at the edit history, the last edit to an article was in March, and then, seven months later, the mediation listing is made. Seems odd to me. Rossrs (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Valeska Suratt

Hi, I hate to say it Wildhartlivie cause I thought we had an understanding, but here you go again, deleting an edit of mine without relevant cause. And an edit that I made(added) on April 28 2009. So that's six months that the post has been in the external link section. The 'Forget the Talkies' link was relevant because it helped and discussed an ongoing search for any of (Valeska's) films. Why would that link be removed and not everything else in her External links section? The link is not in the text as I explained to you by WP:EL YES. I spend a lot of time digging up this information, especially on Suratt and don't appreciate uncalled for deletions. I wager if and when the article stops talking about Valeska's films, THEN it should be removed. Perhaps it should be moved to the Reference area, should it not. Help me to understand why this particular link gets reverted by you, so as to avoid a tug of war of revert-and-delete between you and me. Thanks. Koplimek (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

David Friedman vs. Christopher Masterson

Nice job on the David Friedman article; think you can add Christopher Masterson to your "to do" list? trezjr (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

re Harriet Frank, Jr.

Made a note of it at the GA review subpage. ;) Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User compare

It's at http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/User_compare.htm, but you have to e-mail Betacommand and ask him for a key. He isn't too picky, just doesn't want to give it out to obvious vandals and probable puppetmasters.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the context to this is, but I have a "permanent alpha" script doing something similar: User:TedderBot/WikiBacon and User:TedderBot/Bacon Results. tedder (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Lucy Liu

You see what is right with the image but no longer expresses so rude, i just wanted to add the prize table filmography and organize the article and respected because my edits are not completely useless, did some research that was never true, and really bothers me because the image is old and liu is not very well, contrary to LucyLiu.jpg is only color adjustment, as this very dark and opaque, also had widened a little information and I say again got the awards and nominations at the table, taking as example the articles Sean Penn, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson and Kate Winslet, about not is useless because he called editing. If you have any questions contact me the message. Gellar55 (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In what you say is right, we note that uest knows what he does, because it goes up another picture of Lucy Liu to commons with valid license and good. Feel free to respond: On the other hand, my English is bad writing because I was born in a country of English language (USA) but was raised in Mexico, which is why my English is not fully developed. Thank you. Gellar55 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)