Jump to content

Talk:Lacey Chabert: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 27: Line 27:


It doesn't make sense to me either, and why would FOX deny it? all it took was typing her name in for 13 episodes. In fact, I find it funny that it was denied, as it is VERY apparent when you hear her voice that it is different than the others.
It doesn't make sense to me either, and why would FOX deny it? all it took was typing her name in for 13 episodes. In fact, I find it funny that it was denied, as it is VERY apparent when you hear her voice that it is different than the others.

Here's a source of Fox News's website- http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2010/10/19/favorite-cartoon-stars-unmasked/#slide=14 "Mila replaced Lacey Chabert in 1999 as the voice of Meg Griffin." --


== Fan Of Sonic The Hedgehog ==
== Fan Of Sonic The Hedgehog ==

Revision as of 00:46, 27 June 2011

religion

Her religious affiliation is not placed well in this article. It looks awkward. Sp0 04:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish on her mother's side?

I've seen mentions that her father's a Cajun, and that's she's a practicing Christian, but does anyone have a source that she's Jewish on her mother's side? I'll take it out of the article until then. JackO'Lantern 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her mother's maiden name sounds perfectly Anglic to me, and she looks Anglic as well. I'm not going to reveal what it is because I don't want to invade her privacy. 24.170.187.96 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed photo request

Think someone forgot to remove that when the photo was added.

Citation requested for Family Guy role

I requested citation for this bit:

In addition, she also provided the voice of Meg Griffin in the animated cartoon Family Guy, for thirteen episodes from 1999-2000 (She, however, was never credited, and so far, Fox has denied that she was ever Meg's first voice).

It does not make sense to me that she would not be credited as a voice if she did it. -- Thesis4Eva cont. talk 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to me either, and why would FOX deny it? all it took was typing her name in for 13 episodes. In fact, I find it funny that it was denied, as it is VERY apparent when you hear her voice that it is different than the others.

Here's a source of Fox News's website- http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2010/10/19/favorite-cartoon-stars-unmasked/#slide=14 "Mila replaced Lacey Chabert in 1999 as the voice of Meg Griffin." --

Fan Of Sonic The Hedgehog

I think it should be mentioned she is a fan of Sonic The Hedgehog.Themasterofwiki 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a show in 1970?

I want to take it out but I'm not sure why that's even in there. It makes no sense. I'm not sure what's wrong, her birthdate or the show. Dibbity Dan 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I was looking at that wrong, but it's still very confusing to list the date the show started, and not just the date she was in it.

Ex: All My Children (1970) TV Series: Bianca Montgomery #3 (1990-1993) AND Days Of Our Lives (1965) TV Series .... Claudia Cruz (2002-present)

So, should that be removed? The start dates of the shows? Dibbity Dan 05:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Christmas" hypocrisy?

Does it strike anyone else as odd that Lacey took umbrage to Black Christmas being released on Christmas Day? It offended her and yet she had no problem making a movie called Black Christmas (and being paid for it)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.213.204.159 (talk) 01:14, August 22, 2007 (UTC)


Citation that she was offended? I merely heard she was disappointed, just echoing others in a less-than-committal way. Even so, relevence? Are we here to judge people? Wontonkok (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation on her Christianity

I don't know how to edit it, but here's the article with the quote:

http://lacey-chabert.dayah.com/text/Yahoo.html

"Slinky21497 

   are you religious?

Lacey Chabert 

   Yes, I am a Christian. Jesus is the center of my life and 
   I give God the glory for everything, for all my success."

84.90.203.130 15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this and in other interviews, she's said the same thing. Why was she removed from the list of Christians? Wontonkok (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ward3001 keeps removing her religious affiliation. I will report him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zingo (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and report. The source is eleven years old and she was 15 at the time. If you continue adding poorly sourced information it is you who will be blocked. Ward3001 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then look at the plethora of other sources that are more recen. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lacey Chabert.jpg

Image:Lacey Chabert.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

family success

Though none of them are famous, her sister Crissy recently opened a restaurant in Purvis. This might bear mentioning. Check www.hattiesburgamerican.com for the story, dated this past Sept. 24.170.187.96 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political affiliation

Issue: Should the following statement be included in the article: "On August 25, 2008, Chabert attended a fundraising dinner in Beverly Hills for John McCain's presidential campaign (with McCain in attendance)."[1]?


A. Who cares? She's not a politician. Is she running for office?

Just because you don't care doesn't mean no one cares. It's well sourced information. It's relevant to her personal life. And Wikipedia is written for everyone, not just you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone cares doesn't mean everyone needs to know about it. Spammers frequently send messages they care about, but that only 1 person in a million (approximately) wants to see, or finds relevant to their lives.Wontonkok (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Do we do this for everyone? No.

Everyone, no. Lots of celebrities, yes. Ward3001 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A majority? No. A large fraction? No. 100 sounds like a lot, until you compare it to 100,000. Wontonkok (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. I forgot this one, but it would've knocked your socks off. Wontonkok (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting. Ward3001 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pick a stance: either this page is the end-all be-all clearinghouse for all information, or it's not. A one-time political contribution is as relevant as the DOZENS of as-yet unmentioned movies, charities, and other film projects she's participated in, but I don't see anyone racing to copy IMDB's database. When she becomes a political activist, or a politician, or soemthing else where a one-time contribution is relevent to what kind of person she is, OR when you go and edit every single OTHER celebrity's page to reflect their political beliefs, I will heartily support your decision to include this information. Until then, I advise you to take the advice you gave me, and keep out the stuff that doesn't have a direct bearing. Wontonkok (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if there are other opinions besides our two. That's the way it works on Wikipedia. And raising your voice (all caps) is not necessary. Ward3001 (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Her political beliefs and activities are as (or more) relevant than information about here love life or any controversial statements or behavior she might display. Although such information is not in this article, it could easily be added without reasonable challenge (if properly sourced and written), as it has been added in numerous celebrities' articles. Sourced information about political beliefs is included in many celebrity articles. I'm not just claiming that other stuff exists, but that political beliefs are as relevant as other beliefs, such as religious beliefs, and are routinely included in articles such as this and are not excluded by any Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - First, this line was originally added on 8/27. In that time, it has been (re)added by 3 people and deleted by 3 other people. Total time it has been posted is 4 days out of 52. It is therefore the overwhelming minority position, and until this dispute is resolved, should not be there. You don't get to just add stuff and then cry foul when it souldn't have been there in the first place.
Second, attending an event doesn't consititute a political belief any more than going to a state fair makes you a redneck. She could simply have been a fan of his book or career. She could have been with a friend who was a supporter. She could have been brainwashed into trying to steal Soupy Sales' anti-Semitic meatloaf recipes and just took a wrong turn at Albequerque. I once went to see Ronald Reagan speak, but that doesn't make me a Reagan supporter. Same for when I went to see Clinton. She might attend an Obama rally, will that make her his #1 supporter? Further, "donated an unspecified amount" is a common journalistic taunt to imply impropriety, and leads one to believe all sorts of things that may have little to do with what actually happened.
Third, she has not at any time run for office, been a political activist, or even mentioned any political beliefs one way or another. This is in stark contrast to her repeated claims of devout Christianity, for example, yet she was removed from that wiki-category.
Fourth, per WP:NOT
    • "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia"
    • "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."


Wikipedia is not a collection of irrelevant facts. It is not a political commentary site. It is not about something that will be completely irrelevant after some other event happens a month later. It is not a rumor or innuendo site.

If you want news flashes, use WikiNews, because that is what it's for. Let's keep WikiPedia full of useful and relevant information. Wontonkok (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News flash??? If it's a "news flash" it has to take the record for the slowest one in history. Two months after it occurred and appeared in news sources. Ward3001 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on pedantics, it took around 500 years for there to be a common concensus that Columbus' was not the first European expedition (not counting Vikings) to spot the New World. Nor even the second.Wontonkok (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"McCain ... spent the evening collecting checks from Hollywood stars .... Among those attending ... Lacey Chabert." Big names don't go to fund-raising dinners if they don't make a donation. If nothing else, they pay several thousand dollars for their meal. Ward3001 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it doesn't explicitly say that Chabert made a donation. An editor's guesswork cannot substitute for a reliable source; it's original research to go that bit further. What can be reliably sourced here (assuming the source is reliable) is that Chabert attended a fundraiser. That, in itself, does not allow us to claim a political affiliation on Chabert's behalf. Are there any other sources? RB 21:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other circumstances I might agree, but it is standard operating procedure for donations to be made at political fundraising dinners. Here's another quote: "The evening began at 5:30 P.M. with a cocktail party for 400 low-dollar contributors .... At 8:00 P.M., McCain bundlers and other big contributors were directed to a private dinner with the candidate." I think the odds that she did not give him at least a couple of dollars are virtually zero.Ward3001 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'd missed that part, thanks. I still think it would be safer to simply mention her attendance (assuming the RFC resolves in that direction) and leave the reader to make their own conclusions, but it's not something I feel strong enough about to continue a content dispute (ie. not gonna revert or argue about it beyond what I've already said). RB 21:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attendence still doesn't prove political affiliation. At most it could prove she wants one candidate to win over another. Wontonkok (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. Low contributors go to a cocktail party. High contributors go to a dinner. She goes to the dinner. Elementary logic, Mr. Watson. Ward3001 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Campaign contribution =/= political affiliation. It could be a bribe to get herself onto his Senate Advisor Board, for all we know. Or so he'd vote for a bill she wants passed. And we still have to pass the relevance test. Wontonkok (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about whether she's a Republican. We're talking about her attending a fundraiser for McCain and contributing to his campaign. Are you seriously arguing that attending the fundraiser and making a contribution to his campaign does not indicate a political belief (not affiliation, belief)? The section is titled "Political beliefs", not "Political affiliation". Ward3001 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
News flash! This still has no bearing whatsoever on what kind of person she is. That, as you may remember, was your justification for undoing six deletions and threatening a seventh. If she had a record of this which we could add this to, it would still be irrelevant. If she stood next to McCain and spoke to the audience for half an hour, it would still be irrelevant. If she had ever in the past made some comment about being one thing or another, it would still be irrelevant. But there is no point to be made, because attending dinner one time =/= relevance. Are you going to list every time she's eaten now? I have given you half a dozen other possibilities, and you just wave your hands and insist it's a defining characteristic, that it says anything at all about her. At best, and this is stretching it, I could see it as one action of charity among many (and it would still be irrelevant), so if you want to present it as such, break out a list of charities and I will happily stand back. I will even applaud you. I will even help you with what little I know.Wontonkok (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, another one of your "news flashes":
  • has no bearing whatsoever on what kind of person she is: Nor am I talking about the kind of person she is. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking about a political belief, not whether she is good, bad, liberal, conservative, moral, immoral, or any number of thousands of descriptors. I am talking about a political belief. Last time I checked, this was a political fundraiser, not a what-kind-of-person fundraiser.
  • insist it's a defining characteristic: Again, don't put words in my mouth. I never said it is a defining charactersitic any more than her race, hair color, or shoe size. It is a political belief.
  • Are you going to list every time she's eaten now: Not unless it says something about her political beliefs, as this does.
  • kind of person she is. That, as you may remember, was your justification for undoing six deletions: Please, please tell me what in the hell you are talking about? Show me an edit summary or talk page comment where I reverted something properly sourced about Lacy Chabert based on the kind of person she is. Ward3001 (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I bow to your mastery of misdirection and obfuscation. I'm running around in a circle chasing my tail, trying to figure out how to link up the claims you made at the start of this section, while you merrily ignore every single point I make. I've given you reasons why she could have been there without having to "believe", yet you equate attendance with belief. Nowhere in that article does it say she ate dinner. Nowhere. And considering how she's often put on guest lists without her knowledge, I can't even be sure she was actually there, as there are no pictures of her. There is no proof the writer didn't simply look at the guest list, which is made out of the invitees list, and assume she was there. This happens with startling regularity.

But, I'm chasing my tail again, trying to convince your hand of something, and all the while and the fact remains, it has no relevance whatsoever. It doesn't tell what kind of person she is, it says nothing about her career, and one single instance of something =/= a belief. It generally takes 3 instances of something to make a call like that.

I've also given you several alternatives that would shut me up, and you just have to insist on resurrecting something that was deleted 3 times before you even found it, that wasn't present for 49 out of the 51 days since it was first deleted. I am going to follow your lead now, and stick my fingers in my ears and shout at the top of my lungs, defending to the death something someone else did (twice) before I did it too.

Let the RFC go on, allow people to have a chance to have a say, and if in 30 days there still is no consensus, I'll stand down. There isn't anything more either of us can say.Wontonkok (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the article wasn't specific enough in stating exactly how much she ate, just that she attended a political fundraising dinner. Maybe she ate an appetizer and didn't have dinner, so I guess with your hair-splitting logic maybe she didn't actually eat dinner. Or maybe she had a club soda at the cocktail party for the low-contributors and left a little early because she wasn't hungry. Nope, the article doesn't go into that much detail I'm afraid. So let's not jump to wild conclusions and assume that, even though we don't know exactly how much she ate or drank, she attended a political fundraiser for any reason other than she didn't have anything better to do that evening. Let's not go off the deep end and reach the astounding conclusion that she attended a political fundraiser because she supports the candidate and gave him a dollar or two.
Gosh thanks for giving us permission to let "the RFC go on". Hey, look at the edit summaries. Who was the one who removed the information in the article based on the RFC 30 minutes after the RFC was posted. Let's see ... was that me? ... Nope, not me. And who argued at that point to let the RFC proceed before making knee-jerk edits? Let's see ... was that Wontonkok? ... no, wait a minute, that was me! Ward3001 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who was it that told me he wasn't going to allow the RFC more than "a few hours" to decide before restoring something that shouldn't have been there? Was it you? Yes it was! And who was it who was jumping down my throat, re-spamming the minute I de-spammed, so I couldn't possibly have posted an RFC without that section? Was it you? Of course it was! And who has repeatedly threatened to ban me for trying to remove contentious content? I'm pretty sure that was you too. I did not "give permission" to go on, I suggested (for a second time) that you allow it since it was you who suggested it in the first place. We've had two entire people show up. Are you so eager to take a vote now? Okay! 2 to 1, you lose, the spam goes in the bit bucket where it belongs. Or, we could both shut up and allow it to run its course instead of this idiotic bickering which is (somehow) even less pointless than what this is supposed to be about in the first place. Wontonkok (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming??? Again, what in the hell are you talking about??? How did spam get into this discussion? Let's just take a deep breath ... and remember ... this is an RFC about a section in the article ... sentences in the article ... sourced sentences in the article ... not spam. One minute you're ranting about me reverting something based on "the kind of person she is". Now you pulled spam into the argument. Are we talking about the same article? Ward3001 (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&defl=en&q=define:Spam&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

  • indiscriminately send unsolicited, unwanted, irrelevant, or inappropriate messages

Let's try to stick to Wikipedia, OK? Please read WP:SPAM. There has been no issue of spamming in this RFC until you brought it up. And I'm finished here until a consensus emerges or I need to respond to outrageous comments. Ward3001 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the option to retitle the section: instead of "Political beliefs", something more neutral, like "Political activities", say. Then we're not making assertions about party membership partisan affiliation while still including the info. RB 22:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be on to something; I would be far more amenable to a list of charities she has donated time and money to, and listing this with them in as neutral a way as possible. Simply saying "Contributed to McCain presidential campaign" (or major contributor, if that turns out to be true) as part of a greater list of charities could work. But on the whole, this is the first time in 8 years of being able to vote and 17 years of celebrity that she has been seen at a political function. What is the big deal? Why is it suddenly a national crisis to politicize everyone, no matter how tenuous the connection?Wontonkok (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]




  • Delete jebus! i haven't seen so much spam n all my days! u nearly have managed to outspam the netry n question. this is not your forum, take your stupid bickering bak to q-link.

i still have not sene evidence that 1 single event = a beleaf. i once thru a rock off a bridge, does that make me a believer in BASE jumping? god help me if i ever have a wiki page, with people like yu 2 runnning around.

nope, no evidence, and definately no proof that she even has a political belief. wores, i see no reason to make a big deal of a since instance. what is all the fighting about?!?! get over yourselfs and stop adding crap that dont belon. 67.79.180.115 (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you delete stuff you have allowed to remain on the page for AGES....

I don't know what this sudden orgy of destruction for Lacey Chabert's page is all about, but how about checking the common references before you delete stuff out of hand? You deleted several movies that anyone can look at IMDB or even a modest biography will tell you she was part of.

I'll give you the Power Rangers game, as I have no idea if it's true or not (and you could have attached a request for citation like everyone else does), but the rest of the movies you deleted, it would have taken you less time and effort to go to IMDB (and then correct the entry, since you know how) than to hunt those particular entries out. If you were even Lacey's 80,000th-most rabid fan, you would know she was part of those movies.

Find some other page whose users won't mind you destroying it. Wontonkok (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid "anyone can look at IMDb" does not conform to Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. The citations belong in the article, and none were there for the items I deleted. If you want to restore the information, why not do it the way things are usually done on Wikipedia: add the citations. Ward3001 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting my citation request.
I didn't add citations because I don't see any citations on any of the other entries, and because I don't know how. I see zero difference between what you deleted and what you left behind. Wontonkok (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take another look. The others are linked to sourced articles. And even if some other entries needed citations, "other stuff exists" is no excuse for repeatedly adding information improperly. Ward3001 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot be a source. I am not repeatedly adding anything, I am trying to prevent yet more pointless vandalism. It seems you've got a jones for me, because you only edit things when I do, and I didn't even add those things, I simply rearranged the existing contents. They've been where they are for years; the only remaining explanations for your actions are that you have some vendetta against me, or that you are simply intent on being destructive. Stop and reexamine your motivations. Are you improving anything, or are you deleting things just because you can?
What notability do the items you want listed possess that the ones you want to delete don't? "When Secrets Kill" has more screen-time for Lacey than quite a few other items on the list, so that is apparently not your criteria. Stop vandalizing, stop trying to bludgeon me with false accusations and warnings. You are the one who has engaged in an edit war. Your most recent edits where you asked for citations are welcome. Stop destroying things, be constructive.
If you would like to use my talk page to instruct me on how to add citations, I will welcome that. Wontonkok (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that Wikipedia is a source, but if an item is linked to an article that contains appropriate sources, the sources don't need to be duplicated.
And I don't have a jones for anyone. I made the edit because it needed to be made. Maybe you should examine your own motives. Do you really want to improve the article, or revert perfectly appropriate edits because you had a disagreeement the editor who made them? Single-purpose accounts such as yours (thus far) run the risk of assuming ownership of articles, and that's never a good thing.
The amount of "screen time" for Chabert is irrelevant to the issue of verifiability.
You tell me how I have vandalized by reverting unsourced information, then adding "citation needed" tags because you didn't want to do it. Please stop making false accusations.
I did the exact opposite: I thanked you for adding them instead of yet again haphazardly deleting them. Wontonkok (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your words: "Stop vandalizing". You said them in your edit immediately above mine, and you've said it about a half-dozen times since this little skirmish began. Using that word, and "report you", seem to be your favorite way of dealing with someone who is following a policy that you don't like. Ward3001 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See bolding above. You are constantly sending me warnings for edit-wars that you have begun, or for newb mistakes I make. As it appears to be the only language you understand, I have no choice but to use it. Perhaps you are capable of speed-reading and speed-editing, but I am not. If you see a comment, it's very possible I started making it 2 or 3 of your edits ago.Wontonkok (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me how I began an edit war by making a perfectly legitimate edit, which you then reverted without any justification by policy, and then I added the appropriate tags to the items in the article. Here's another policy for you to read before throwing around all those accusations: WP:Edit war. Ward3001 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it happened the same way I supposedly started an edit-war by undoing unwarranted deletions and then opened up a discussion about it so there wouldn't BE an edit-war. Wontonkok (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite for me a policy indicating that my deletion was "unwarranted". You've said that (or something similar) over and over, but I have yet to see any reference to a policy. Not your personal point of view, or "screen time", or how long the items have been in the article -- policy. Ward3001 (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard enough time understanding the relevant policies that dictate the one thing I try to do in any given day to waste time teaching you things you should already know from common courtesy and the language most other people here speak. Since you apparently have unlimited time and unlimited understanding, feel free to link up the policies that govern the addition of irrelevant information, and the deletion of relevant information, both of which are obviously unwanted and requiring of discussion.
The policy that deals with unsourced information (regardless of how relevant it is) is WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Ward3001 (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is COMPLETELY out of context and you know it! You would have us adding every possible piece of information about every possible subject. "Lacey is a mammal." Duh! WP:V is all about adding information that has references, and about NOT adding everything under the sun simply because it's true. WP:NOT clearly states that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a clearinghouse for all knowledge in the universe, and I've read plenty of other things you've linked up today that show that truth and verifyability =/= noteworthiness and inclusion in articles. Wontonkok (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not knowledgible enough on the subject of this page, please refrain from altering information, and instead limit yourself to correcting newb mistakes or answering newb questions - this is a very valuable contribution and you're good at it. Your helpful link regarding one-page editors like me WP:SPA indicates this would be a good use of both our time, and and eventually I will learn how to add/edit information without the newb mistakes. Wontonkok (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If you are not knowledgible enough on the subject of this page, please refrain from altering information: I'll ignore your incredibly arrogant assumptions about how "knowledgeable" I am, and simply point out that: (1) You do not own the article, and therefore (2) You are not entitled to tell me (or any editor for that matter) what to "limit" myself to. When Jimbo and Wikimedia Foundation notify me that they've handed complete authority over to you, I'll listen. But until then, you're wasting your breath. Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is the hallmark of someone who simply cannot admit they are wrong. We are once again down to you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, refusing to accept anyone else's facts. I shouldn't have to feed your craving for edit-wars over things you just don't know enough about to know that your changes are damaging. You do make it clear that the only way to get you to take your fingers out is to get someone else to force you to.
Since you readily delete information that anyone knowledgible on the subject would recognize at a glance as being accurate because they have seen the credits lists at the ends of the films in question, then you are obviously damaging the article, and you obviously do not know enough about it. Requesting citations is okay. Destroying information on a whim is not.
But since all that is just "wasting my breath", maybe you can answer the questions I posted below a few hours back so I can get you the citations you want. Wontonkok (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply beyond belief. You have no concern whatsoever for Wikipedia policy. I cite policy over and over. You ignore it and accuse me of sticking my finger in my ears and craving edit wars. If you would spend about 10% of the time reading policies that instead you spend on petty arguments with me, you might have a chance of being a decent Wikipedian. I thought that if I gave you a few tips about editing that you might take matters to heart and put the quality of Wikipedia's article (or the one article that you have restricted yourself to) ahead of your own ego and personal agendas. But apparently not. So I'm finished arguing with you on this particular matter. But if you continue this attitude of ownership and demanding that everything be done your way despite policy, I am going to be the least of your worries. This is the end of my discussion on this particular issue, but it is not the end of my editing according to policy. Ward3001 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that you cite the ownership page, but have apparently not taken it to heart. I see now that you view yourself as the owner of the page. A few quotes:

  • "... keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field and/or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership."

Oh wait, that's my description; I probably know a lot more about the subject than you, and I've also tried to have discussions about major changes BEFORE they get made.

  • "If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages revert wars, try to ignore disruptive behavior by discussing the topic on the talk page."

Okay, that sounds like you and how I have tried to appease you, except that ignoring your disruption means an unnecessarily damaged article that was just fine before you arrived.

  • "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack."

A single mention, I see that as welcome education, even though it was presented in an aggressive tone. Twice, though, you're about to stray into different territory. I will try to continue to assume you meant only to educate me until you prove otherwise by bludgeoning me with it a couple more times.

  • "If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later."

Odd that you avoided this page until I made a minor edit, and then decided to make changes you knew would be resisted, and only by me screaming back did it occur to you that the entries you never found offensive in the past could simply be verified. From my reading of the pages you've linked, all that has to be done is to add a line at the bottom of the section to say that it's all findable on IMDB, and poof, argument over. But I'd like to make sure I add it correctly before I do it. You COULD do it once so I have an example to follow for the rest, but I sense you'd rather fight about nothing and keep spamming the discussion page.

I'm glad you linked that up, because it explains a lot about your behavior, and I would otherwise have thought I should be taking it personally. (I was honestly starting to wonder, what with your opening communications being warnings to have me banned and all.) Maybe we should both take a break, as we both are exhibiting the signs of ownership, but I would like to get those citations for you before I do. Answering those questions I posited would go a long way toward enabling my understanding of what's considered a citation and what's not.

I'll give wikipedia the last word: "... it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, ... it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her—regardless of whether or not he or she "owns" the article." Wontonkok (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Information about adding citations can be found at WP:CITE, but let me suggest that you begin by reading WP:V, WP:RS, and especially WP:5P. You can also place {{helpme}} on your talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the references. Wontonkok (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: Does the "Hometown Legend" line have a source, or was it an oversight? Also, since there are no wiki-pages for some entries, shouldn't the brackets creating links be deleted? Also, is every single one of those lines in Filmography using wikipedia as its citation? I can't figure out how WP:CITE is to be applied without creating a ton of additional entries in the References section. I am very hesitant to use Wikipedia as a source due to its known high levels of inaccuracy and the eventual circular references, which are obviously counter-productive. Wontonkok (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Questions: Are all these entries in Gary Oldman's Filmography cited correctly? What about William Hurt? For James Callis? How about the DVD Nominations in 33rd Saturn Awards? If these are all properly cited, I don't see how they are. Wontonkok (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive linking in the main paragraphs?

  • Posit: After having just gone and put brackets around numerous items in the main paragraphs, I can't help but think this is cluttering it up unnecessarily. TV shows and movies which are part of the Filmography section are already expected to have such links. Therefore, I would like to remove such unnecessary linking, leaving intact links to people or events which are not otherwise in the Filmography lists. Thoughts? Wontonkok (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It looks a lot better to me. Wontonkok (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received this message when trying to restore a link that was deleted:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Lacey Chabert. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


These are the entries that were deleted:


My reply:

The first link leads to a fairly recent interview and other biographical information that is not found anywhere else. It discusses the subject in ways that WP:ELYES encourages linking to. It is not a fansite. The link has been in the article for years.

The second link leads to many of the news sources that are used for much of the first part of this article. I have used it in the past myself to find other articles of value, and I'm sure others have too. WL:ELMAYBE and WP:ELYES indicate that such a link is a good addition. It is not a fansite. It is not selling anything. This link has also been here for years.

The links that were left behind sell subscriptions to themselves, and could be considered advertisements.

I did not add these links, I restored them due to sudden and inexplicable deletion of valuable sources of information and links to further information that are not sufficiently obvious in a Google search. For the second link, I also removed the reference to it being a gallery, because that is not its primary purpose. The fact that the subject of an article isn't hounded by news crews shouldn't be held against the news source.


Relevant quotes from Wikipolicies I linked which indicate what should be linked to:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

"A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations."


Your repeated alteration creates a WP:3RR event. I have followed your suggestion by creating this topic to avoid WP:EDITWAR, and chosen not to send you a 3RR warning at this time. Please explain to me why the links that were deleted are not appropriate, but the links that remain are. Please also explain why you chose to violate 3RR instead of creating this topic in the talk page yourself. Thank you for your attention. 24.233.151.108 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there was no "WP:3RR event" and I did not "violate 3RR". Read the policy before you make false accusations. And remember that false accusations constitute a personal attack. Secondly, I clicked the links and saw almost nothing but photos of Chabert. Thirdly, you conveniently ignored some other policies that pertain to external links:
Now, if you can obtain consensus on this talk page to override these restrictions, then feel free to add the links. But wait for the consensus in order to (to use your words) "avoid WP:EDITWAR". Ward3001 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A quick look at the two links offered don't provide anything by themselves which is unique. Both are more useful for providing links to other sources, which themselves might be useful to add, but only as references. Tabercil (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linking all those sources instead of just the one or two would be a collection of links. I did not see anything in WP:ELNO that forbids allowing people to see additional information and make their own choices for what they want to see or learn in a section whose purpose is for further information of this sort. It was better to retain a single link to other links instead of trying to argue that dozens of links should be added to replace it. Knowing where to find information is as important as having it, but takes less space. That a gallery exists there matters not, because both of the remaining links also have galleries.
I am not interested in fighting with you, Mr. Ward. You clearly violated the intent of WP:3RR by making a third change to a specific piece of data in a short period of time when clear justification was provided for it being there. This action, the years you have left this data alone, and the large number of times you have modified this article and left this data alone, all indicate that when it became obvious there was a debate to be had, the information should have been left alone until consensus was reached. You have more than demonstrated a willingness to spar, for good or ill, and to just do things with or without consensus on your side. So if we could stick to the issue at hand, if you could please answer the questions I posed, and in plain English, I believe the discussion will be profitable to us all. 24.233.151.108 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not violate the intent of WP:3RR and I insist that you stop making false allegations about me. I'm serious. If you continue, there will be consequences. Between November 10 and today I made exactly two edits to the article. Please tell me how that even comes close to violating 3RR. And don't tell me I do things without consensus. There is no consensus here to add the links. If anything, the weight of opinions is against it. And the fact that I have modified the article and "left this data alone" is irrelevant. An editor who adds information or corrects a problem in an article is not required to fix the entire article. I didn't notice that you fixed everything up to get this article to Featured Article status when you made your edits, and I doubt that you have done so on any other article. You really need to brush up on editing standards and Wikipedia's policies, not to mention your grasp of fundamental logic.
You completely misunderstood Tabercil's statements. Tabercil did not suggest adding all of the links to the External Links section. He stated that, at most, the links could be used when citing sources in the article. There is a tremendous difference between citations and external links.
This is my final comment on the matter, unless you decide to make additional false accusations against me or you decide to edit war. I don't care to debate endlessly when no new information is added to the debate. Per WP:CON, it's time to see if others have an opinion. Ward3001 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

I have just fixed a bug recently introduced to the table in the Filmography. I notice that some of the films have also been removed. Any particular reason for this? Yaris678 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of surname?

Does she pronounce the "ch" as in "chain," as in "champagne," or as in "chasm"? Also, are the vowels and "rt" pronounced as in "paydirt" or as in "Javert"? 165.176.7.3 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Lacey Chabert is currently ingaged to charles Linhart, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.170 (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia (1997)

She was the singing voice of Young Anastasia. I'd add it myself but I always wind up messing up the tables.. Maladroitmortal (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lacey_Chabert&oldid=436423952"