Jump to content

User talk:Wildhartlivie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.128.20.15 (talk) at 19:07, 28 August 2009 (→‎What is your involvement not to discuss actors salaries Wildhartlivie?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Template:Archive box collapsible


Referencing

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

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 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) 01:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I unfortunately couldn't attend Comic-Con this year, so I instead went through Flickr and looked at all of the CC images available that had not been uploaded yet. I think I found 12 images for various articles and that was one of them. No worries with the touchups, you've improved several that I've uploaded in the past. Usually, I just do a quick crop and upload it, just to get it on an article. I'll try and keep an eye out for a Gordon-Levitt image. I need to make an audit list of all of the celebrity images I need to look to replace or significant ones that are still missing. This article was quite the inspiration. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks those lists can be helpful. Images are always a side project to everything else on here, so I namely search for replacing really poor images or ones that are completely lacking an image. I've already got one contact that is planning on letting us use the images from an upcoming film festival in September. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fight Club redux

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

Anne Hathaway

I've reverted the addition of the photo, but I suggest you start an RfC or something because (s)he seems hellbent on the photo being included (gee...wonder why?). I thought there was some sort of policy regarding "civilians" being in photos...something about they should be cropped out if possible. Maybe I dreamed it. Either way, I don't see the point in removing a good photo for a self serving one. Also, thanks for the revert on Mae West. I was just thinking how nice it was that that particular debacle was over. I thunk too soon. Pinkadelica♣ 07:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing ever is done here....just wishful thinking on my part. I've been ok, just puttering around the web and working on articles here and there. Pinkadelica♣ 08:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pink, and I don't know if there is a policy against including civilians - there should be. What is bothersome about this is that it removes a lovely, free image of Hathaway and discards it like it's a piece of trash (and god knows, lovely free images are not exactly thick on the ground,) and replaces it with an inferior vanity shot. I say vanity, because it seems to me that the main aim is to introduce the civvie and Hathaway is incidental. Why else use a lower quality image of Hathaway? Rossrs (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's a bit of both. It's an ugly vanity picture. That's two reasons I don't like it.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the picture pusher got blocked for edit warring. Perhaps someone at Commons will just delete the damn thing as it's fairly useless here IMHO. Anyhoo, I haven't been checking my email much which explains why I haven't gotten any emails. Sorry 'bout that. It's hot as ever here, but I'm used to it. I do believe my transition to hell will be a smooth one :D. Oh, and no, I didn't mean to remove content regarding West's second marriage. I don't even think I manually removed it, but it's possible I did. I get the heebie jeebies every time I have to deal with that article. Pinkadelica♣ 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope...just kept forgetting to count the cds I don't keep right in front of my face. Outta sight, outta mind. Pinkadelica♣ 04:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DWTA

I thought Wikilinking would be easier in terms of explaining, if you're interested, so... and I hope Ashton comments.

In order of appearance:

I just watched it again, and I do love it. Nice to see that fun can be contagious. I think they nailed it!  :-) Rossrs (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more funniness - click here and count the "Jessica"s. I found 8, and 1 "Jess". Rossrs (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thorough maybe. It was pretty easy copying and pasting from the DWTS WP page, it was just getting it in order. I suspect the young lady's name is Jessica, although the article is a little vague on that point. I'm worried that if I start fixing articles for minor Australian TV performers I may well go insane. I'll keep it in mind for one day. Who knows ... the same soapie that Lincoln Lewis and Luke Jacobz star in, also brought us some rather well known performers, including at least one that you like. If Jessica (or Lincoln or Luke) heads in that direction, I'll be happy to fix her/their article/s. I wish them all well.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not

The one person in Hollywood who could choose anything as the next project, chooses this ?????? I'm perplexed. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Re this, it may fall under WP:BLANKING since the actual block notice was left on the page. I don't think we have to worry overly much; the user is being watched closely.  Frank  |  talk  13:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Borden and Elizabeth Montgomery

There is text discussing Borden and Montgomery in the Lizzie Borden article, but it is hidden. I don't know where the text is from, but since it was hidden, I un-hid it, since it introduces Montgomery who is discussed in more detail on the next line as being cousins with Borden. I thought it would make the Borden-Montgomery-cousins discussion flow better. Why did you hide it again? What is the purpose of text and information if it is hidden? Why not just delete the text if you don't want it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ow my brain! (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Columbine High School massacre

Nope, I just did a history merge on the article to fix an old cut-and-paste move. Graham87 03:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding unverifiable sources

I found lot of articles related to the 5 carat diamond, but was just unable to find a good reference. But can that be added and then wait for someone to cite the information?Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this link be treated as authentic [1]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh J. Acharya (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a good ref [2] but the size is not mentioned. So, I will add the details of the massive diamond ring without the size for the while. :) Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, content should always be sourced, to a reference that meets WP:RS and WP:V. The lovetoknow.com website cannot be used, it is written by contributors, much like Wikipedia. The burden of sourcing falls to the person adding the content. This is even more crucial for articles that are designated featured or good articles, but it is important for all of them. The criteria for featured and good articles are even more exacting and I'm not entirely convinced that including a description of engagements rings would be considered encyclopedic and the only thing I can see that you could include in the Katie Holmes article about the ring itself would be the words "massive". The encyclopedic value of that would be challenged by editors who work on featured and good articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will add the details of diamond ring as the information is available. Again I am researching the topic engagement rings for my personal research work, I thought of updating wiki with the same.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Spacey

Looking at the image, it looks kind of weird with his suit "invisible" at some points. It looks a little "space-y" (sorry, couldn't help myself). I'd say change it back, but it's not going to hurt my feelings. I'm only responsible for getting the images up here, not how they stay in the article. The headshot seems to work, and another free image can always be pursued down the line. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at the image earlier today on my iPhone, it came out as all black (not the checkered pattern I see on the computer). The current headshot isn't zoomed in too much compared to some images, and it is likely that a new image will be found (especially with him having new films coming out). I was glad to get a new image (even though it's in 1978) for Rodney Dangerfield today, I've been searching for one for months (earlier I only got his tombstone). I was at a red-carpet premiere for G. I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra all day today, and although Stephen Sommers, Channing Tatum, and Marlon Wayans were there, I forgot to bring my camera. Hopefully some of the hundreds of other people there post them on Flickr. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot my camera in the car, and I was also worried about not getting into the theater to see the film. I've been to dozens of screenings and sometimes the guards won't let you in if you have a camera. I also was in a poor viewing position, so the images would have came out like some of the bad images that I'm always trying to replace. Gordon-Levitt wasn't there, but his role in the film was quite interesting. After hearing his voice in the film, I initially thought it was Justin Long. Fraser had a small cameo (probably two minutes) as some no-name Joe watching two other Joes training. As soon as his face appeared on screen, the audience all made this funny shriek. With Arnold Vosloo playing a role in the film, it was like The Mummy all over again! I was actually impressed with the film, and I would have paid money to see it. It of course had its problems (way too many flashbacks), but some of the action sequences were amazing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't tell you the bad part. The ticket said the screening started at 4:00 pm, so usually you have to get there two hours early to ensure you get a seat. At 4, they told us that it actually started at 7:00, so we were in line for five hours to see this film! I think that's a record for me and hopefully I never break it again! I would actually enjoy seeing the King Tut exhibit, and I always like going to the zoo (to the annoyance of family members and friends). It's great having the large San Diego Zoo so close by. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been fortunate to be able to travel to the majority of the U.S. and a few countries. I love traveling and would like to return to the East Coast and Europe again. I'm considering getting a life-long pass to the zoo here, since I plan to stay in this area for quite a while. I'd probably only do it if I could get a great deal on it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ack!

I'll send you an email. momoricks 02:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent it. Hope you're having a good weekend. momoricks 23:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett and Sharon and Dawn and Kylie

Scarlett Johanssen looks very good, and you should be proud. I see that it's been saved as a GA, so good for you. You've done a lovely job, and I think you are fully entitled to mention it on your user page as an accomplishment. My eye was captured by a picture of Sharon Tate on the main page. It had escaped me that 40 years was approaching and, well, now it's here. There may be a spate of edits to Manson related articles, and I'm sure you've already anticipated this. The only one I closely watch is Sharon Tate's, and so far so good, but I'll keep an eye on the others as well. I'm still a bit concerned about Dawn Wells. I appreciate your comment and your edits, and removing the section header is a good move, but I'm not convinced we should even be discussing it. I'm still wading through the confusion that is Kylie Minogue, but I think I finally see light at the end of the tunnel. Rossrs (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to wait and see about Wells. I've reverted some stuff from Susan Atkins. It was kind of rambling, and unsourced although I think I've read something similar before. I wouldn't believe a word that came from Susan Atkins, and for it to be presented as fact, well it won't do. It's interesting that Squeaky is going to be released. I just wonder, what does a woman like Squeaky, who has been incarcerated for so long, do when she is released? Rossrs (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I thought WP was not supposed to help people improve their vocabulary! Well, imagine my surprise! With the help of my trusty dictionary, I now know the word "prurience". I can't imagine ever using in a sentence, but if such a sentence ever comes up - I'm ready. Rossrs (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go to work now. I'll check on Dawn Wells later. It's not vandalism and if anyone needs to read own.... Rossrs (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy the Kid

What part of my entry is POV? There is significantly more POV in the existing article. All of my entries are verifiable. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordontaos (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. So... lets try it again, this time on the discussion page.--Gordontaos (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Thomas_Dillon.jpg

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Thomas_Dillon.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Just a note

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

BejinhanTalk 05:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie

I'm flabbergasted by the whole misinformed thing, but especially : "The victim would not be alive today anyway, or in poor health." Someone really thinks that???? This is just a wild guess, but I suspect Rosemary LaBianca would have preferred to live into her 40s, given a choice, which she wasn't, and not be hacked to death. But yes, she - and "Abagail" - would have died one day regardless. Gee whiz! Rossrs (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is in the second last paragraph of this I agree with you to a point, but I'm torn. I believe that if Leslie had committed the same murder independently of the Mansons she would have been out years ago. It's difficult and complicated, and I'm glad it's not my decision. Rossrs (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see. It's a very young viewpoint. Noticing the post below - I watched 10 Rillington Place a few weeks ago. Very good movie, but unremittingly grim. Rossrs (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Christie (murderer)

Hello there. I've requested a peer review for the article on John Christie (murderer) and I'm looking for feedback from people interested in serial killers. John Christie was a British serial killer from the 1940s and 50s who murdered a number of women but was also controversially involved in another murder trial, where he gave what's now considered perjured evidence against a fellow tenant. The case generated a lot of controversy in the UK. I'm hoping to turn the article into a featured article, so I'm looking for any comments about potential problems or if there's anything that needs improving. The peer review is available here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Wcp07 (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sssoul in distress

hello again Wildhartlivie - i reckon you'll notice that the Little Richard article is still pretty beleaguered; among other things, the same editor (but not logged in) is offering to beat me up on the talk page.  :[ i've already put in a request for a WP:MedCab mediator, but: is this getting out of hand? please let me know if you think this should be reported somewhere else. and ... not that it should make any difference on Wikipedia, but i feel like clarifying to someone: i'm a she-sssoul, which makes this "man to man fist fight" jazz seem even more ludicrous. anyway thanks for your input; and i wish you a smooth recovery from those health issues. Sssoul (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) (you can reply here if it's convenient - i'll keep it on my watchlist.)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that it hasn't let up, but there is one point in his favor - he did back down from the MySpace, perhaps someone else speaking up did help. I'm not sure mediation is called for yet, it seems to me to be an issue of convincing this person that certain things violate policy. Personally, what I'd do is put in questions elsewhere first. One might be opening a request for comments, which will open the issue to a wider group of editors who often weigh in on issues. Another is to take any questionable sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. Then there is the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, especially when he crosses the line into personal attacks and policy violations. You would need to decide if he's posting under the IP purposely to avoid scrutiny from the registered name, then there is the possibility of a sock puppet investigation. It's borderline right now, and I would probably react differently if it were me he was disparaging, you're demonstrating remarkable restraint and patience on this, I must say. By the way, I do know how I hate it when editors just assume I'm a he. This week, an adminstrator made a very hard point about another editor not bothering to even discover my gender - and the editor was flip about it. Personally, whenever I run across an issue with another editor, I always look at the userpage to see who it is I'm dealing with. Cheers. I like your username! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, Wildhartlivie - for the understanding and for the ideas. yes, it's encouraging that the point about that myspace page finally seems to have sunk in - thank you for that! if there are any more personal attacks i guess i'll report them at AN/I; i suppose i should also consider just staying away from that article, at least for a while, but something in me rebels against letting bullies take over. sigh! thanks again, and take care. Sssoul (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not let this make you back off the article. If you have strong opinions on the article, which does need expansion regarding his career without engaging in hyperbole, then don't let it deter you!! I did leave a warning template to the registered username regarding the personal attacks, which made me think he decided not to use that account for a little while because of it. Even last night, he was being snarky about your intent, but don't allow that to bully you away. That's often the tool that is used to chase people off from issues. If you believe in what you're saying, stand by your convictions! Never say quit. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the encouraging words, Wildhartlivie, and for your ongoing interest in getting the issues with this article sorted out. just wanted to point out that thę lavish terms in the first paragraph *are* sourced - the quote is from the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame website. whether it belongs in the lead is a different question, but i don't want the Smoovedogg to trip you up on a technicality, so to speak. Sssoul (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I revised my comments. The article needs a lot of work and it's not all about that Hall of Fame quote. However, I'm not sure the quote should be so completely used, it borders on copyright issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for attempting to "gang up" on me. i am trying to improve the article but keep it true to the artist and as unbiased as possible. i do not find hyperbole in the opening paragraph. please respond with the gross exagerations. i am willing to stand corrected. the little richard mypace site citation, which violates wiki rules, was acknowledges when I read the rule itself. i am also wondering about the use of the direct quote from the rock n roll hall of fame website. if allowed, it is a wonderfully collection of words. if it is allowed, it is not too much, as more could possibly have been 'copied'. if it is not possible to quote the source word for word, then i will pray to find wording to capture the essence of the rock hall quote. and if it is not allowed, then it should not be allowed in the chuck berry wiki article. that is much more of a mess and has many uncited contributions. the influence section in that article misteriously surfaced in the Little Richard article. i did not put it there. i liked having the most significant artists of the genre quoted higher up in the article but compromised with the Influence section. i look forward to your/sssoul's feedback. and i am not a bully. i am a gangsta lol - just kidding. what do you call it when two people gang up on another. play nice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.211.70 (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... after some thought, i've decided to respond to Smoovedogg/142.165's post here after all, just so it's on record:
Smoovedogg/142.165, i courteously pointed out to you several times that certain aspects of the article were violating Wikipedia policies; your response was to revert my edits and insult me. it was only after other editors pointed out the same problems to you ("ganging up on" you) that you apparently took it seriously enough to actually read the policies. that's progress - good! please do keep reading - and abiding by - Wikipedia's policies; WP:Simplified ruleset is a good place to start. and yes, "playing nice" is a good idea - you'll find the Wikipedia policy on that here: WP:No personal attacks. Sssoul (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Kelly Preston

Thanks for your message regarding my assessment of High importance on the WikiProject Australia. I was looking at this listing [3] of popular pages on the WikiProject Australia and noticed that Kelly Preston was listed at No. 55, and did not have an importance assessment. I checked the |Wikipedia article traffic statistics and found that the article attracts 50,000 to 85,000 views per month. I am unfamiliar with her rating as an Actor, but on that basis of the articles popularity I assumed a rating of High importance for an Australian article. I have no objection to you varying this rating, but figured some sort of rating was better than none. Regards. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Susan Atkins

You are most welcome. Oddly enough, after I made that post, I got to looking at your contrib history and interests and wondered if I know you in Real Life. Our interests and views overlap a fair amount. You and I are constantly bumping into each other's edits on more than just Crime articles!

Not to sound like an old fart but "these kids today".. all they see is the stuff on the net which is so heavily biased towards The Family that they neglect to seek out any of the primary sources. I wonder if Susan's little fan has even read her book! The admissions she makes in that book, Child of Satan, Child of God are enough to make your hair curl. The most interesting of the autobiographical books, to my mind, is Paul Watkins' book, My life with Charles Manson. Because of his early death in 1990, his viewpoint has pretty much been excised from the online version of events "these kids today" are reading. it's a shame too because he was one of the few relatively clear-headed Family associates, comparatively speaking of course. Barbara Hoyt's versions of events became incredibly tainted by her associate with Bill Nelson and his ongoing desire to cash in on the backs of former Family members & associates. If they didn't keep coughing up ever more despicable revelations to him and allow him to frame their stories on his website, he'd turn on them like a beast and air every piece of dirty laundry he had on them and even stalk them. At least Greg King's book exists. He managed to gather together a fairly complete if succinct narrative. if you haven't read it, you might want to check it out. He was very careful to source every statement so folks could judge their reliability for themselves.

Well, I'll do my best to support your efforts at keeping the creepy crime articles in line and I thank you for the time you put into trying to explain and re-explain what WIki is and isn't to those who need to know. Incidentally, Susan's husband has sent a letter to one of the Family "friendly" sites that brags about how well Susan is doing now. He says she's talking, joking, praying with him and singing with him, and that the docs have decided she doesn't need another round of Chemo since her brain cancer seems to be under control read letter. Of course, this is not what he brays whenever a reporter comes near him with a microphone. When that happens, Susan is a comatose multi-amputee with aggressive, untreatable brain cancer who is gonna die any moment. Since the CA DOC doesn't divulge the health status of prisoners, there is no way to know which is the truth or if any of it is the truth.LiPollis (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you didn't know

..just how bad Ruby Keeler truly was! Rossrs (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I've ever seen a bundle of sticks rolling down stairs. I may have to watch 42nd Street and find out, or I could just get a bundle of sticks and roll them down the stairs. I can easily find someone to sing offkey while I do it, so it should be easy enough to recreate her performance. It seems like an unusual combination of talents on which to build a career. I assume it's true about Penayloppie, which makes me even more sure that a reliable source will come along and the conjecturing can stop. Speaking of bundles of sticks rolling down stairs, I'm with you on those Willis girls. Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of the Little Richard article...

... it has now been granted mediation. You may (or may not) want to check it out [[4]]. Seduisant (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please see here and here as well Sssoul (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Gertrude Baniszewski

Hi Wildhartlivie,

You recently undid my edits to the article on Gertrude Baniszewski, putting the bit about depictions back in. You made into a different section, which is better than in the intro like before. Still, what bugs me is that the section only gives An American Crime as an exemple, but it does claim that "[t]he case has since been subject to numerous fictional and non-fictional adaptations". I'm not familiar with the case and just yesterday I stumbled upon the horrible facts of the article, so I wouldn't know any other adaptation of the Baniszweski case. To keep a balanced section, perhaps some more exemples of adaptations should be added? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're right, it does need to be expanded. For now, I've copied over the depictions content from the Sylvia Likens article. I was growing up not far from the place where this occurred (and still live fairly near), though I was quite young when it happened. A few years later, my group of friends all read The Indiana Torture Slaying and we were both fascinated and terrified by the whole thing. Then Charles Manson hit the headlines and any semblance of innocence was forever gone. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and getting the article a bit better.
It is horrible what people do to each other. Did you ever heared about Marc Dutroux, a Belgian pedophile and serial killer? He abducted and raped several girls, a couple of he killed and tortured. That was big news when I was growing up... --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jackson

I was almost considering uploading the uncropped version as well, just to show the change in weight. I initially didn't recognize him when I was flipping through the set. It was a bummer I couldn't get the rest of the District 9 people's images up before the release in theaters, but the author didn't get back to me soon enough with the permission. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Roberts - factual error

I tried to edit an incorrect date in the Julia Roberts article. The material is in the middle of the "Filmography" table and my editing skills just couldn't cut it. The Law & Order episode Roberts appeared in aired in 1999, not in 1990 as listed in "Filmography." My citation is NBCs episode guide:http://www.nbc.com/Law_and_Order/episode_guide/199.shtml
It's possible that whoever created the entry used IMDB, which lists TV episodes by the show's premiere date rather than the episode air date. I'm contacting you because I saw your name in some of the JR discussions, and you seem to have an interest in actor bios and the knowledge to either fix or ask someone else to fix the entry.
Thank you very much - I appreciate the help. Entrancer (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dottie Day

Do you think this edit summary makes a confusion for reader? I ask because it made a confusion for this reader. Rossrs (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you saw it. Soon as I clicked on "my watchlist" the confusion was gone. Rossrs (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen the film. There are so many well-known films I haven't seen. I've only seen snippets of it, but yes, those two certainly were lovely. Imagine those two pairs of eyes in one film! I was going to call the section "Doris Day" but I thought, no, that's boring. Rossrs (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your friend may be right. According to our Wikipedia article the film "muted" some of the more sensitive topics that allowed the play to convey homophobia and racism. It says the television version with Tommy Lee Jones and Jessica Lange is truer to the original. Still, Tommy Lee is not Paul Newman, and Jessica Lange, bless her, is not Elizabeth Taylor, especially if our infobox image is anything to go by. I would like to see the film also for Judith Anderson. It's too bad she only made a few films, but she always had an air of disdain about her. Aside from Rebecca, in which she is so malignant, I also liked her in The Ten Commandments. She is meddlesome and Anne Baxter says to her "one day your tongue will dig your grave." I like that line, especially the way Anne Baxter delivers it, over-emoting all over the place. How did I end up on Anne Baxter?? Rossrs (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher Christian

Can you please explain why you reverted my edits on the Fletcher Christian page? Please join the discussion on that page. Thanks. Dhris (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Miranda

That one user Tacv is now at 7 reverts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 reverts is good. 4 reverts, someone might argue they lost track of the clock. Not 7. I'm subliminally reminded of a scene from Young Frankenstein, where Elizabeth (Madeline Kahn) says to the monster (Peter Boyle), "7 has always been my lucky number!" :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, warning him after 7 reverts that he "may" have broken the 3 revert rule, reminds me of a scene from Love and Death, in which Sonja (Diane Keaton) is fooling around with a large pistol, and it goes off with a loud bang, and Boris (Woody Allen) tells her, "Be careful, that gun 'may' be loaded!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paying a little more attention, I see you're a film buff, and here I am quoting scenes to you. Taking coals to Newcastle, as it were. Hey, do you know whether Carmen actually wore the tutt-fruiti hat in more than one film? I think someone asked that on the talk page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Son of Sam: "Mystery Woman"

Thank you for being the devils advocate regarding my research and such... there were many that risked their lives and reputations in this case, known and unknown to the public. "SOS" was not the first nor the last case I have been directly or indirectly involved/consulted in such nasty business from the law enforcement side and the price we all have to pay with little or no thanks from the get go. I count my blessings that I am alive and not a satistic. David Berkowitz played such a fall guy... and it took some of us all these years to bust his false confession. Just like the false confession of David Berkowitz, many law enforcement and psych. professionals built their reputations on a Berkowitz's red herring... and it is hard for them to swallow that "They were wrong". Truth be damned. Aedwardmoch (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet category template

When creating sockpuppet categories please use Template:sockpuppet category. Example. Thank you. --Pascal666 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Day Page and Copyright Issues

Hello. The message I received from you (below) informing me that my submission to the "Music" section of the Doris Day page has been deleted (by you) has left me with some questions: 1.) Why were the lyrics included in my addition to the page be deleted when several other references with lyrics remain? 2.) I get no more warnings? As you know, I received none. If you had an issue with the contents, why didn't you contact me and explain, instead of leading me to believe my insert simply didn't take? You would have saved us BOTH the inconvenience. 3.) Who the heck are YOU, anyway? If you presume I'll know – or care – simply because you send an incendiary message signed with some screen name, you're mistaken. STOP.

Btw, "placing Wikipedia is the same predictament?" That would be, "in the same predicament." Boicevox (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manson Family

Category:Manson Family was placed by someone, I have no idea who, in the Category:New religious movements, which would seem to be a clear indication that someone, whoever placed it in that category, sees them as being a religious movement of a kind. Also, for what little it might be worth, I thought it was a good idea to make sure we knew about both the good and bad sides of NRMs. Granted, with Aum Shinrikyo and Branch Davidians we already have some fairly negative material, but knowing about all the "bad side" seemed warranted. If you believe the categorization of the category is inappropriate, by all means remove it from the NRM category and it will be removed from the project as well. But part of the difficulties in setting up any new group is that you find that the work others have done before you isn't always acceptable, and so I kind of expect that there will be some "problems" of one sort or another in the beginning. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it might be worth, Cults is one of the most important topics to this group, partially because no one else really deals with the topic very much yet. Some of the more modern cults are overtly religious, and some others, which have been called cults by governments as per List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents aren't so clearly religious. By saying this, I'm not trying to influence the decision one way or another, just pointing out maybe one factor which might be worth considering. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Entwistle

Howdy, stranger! Hope all is well! I see you are still hard at work making Wiki a better place for all...thanks! I've been very busy with the PE bio and am awfully thankful you are stil keeping an eye out for our gal's Wiki page. Her family, namely her brother Milton and his daughter Lauretta, are grateful to you as well.

September is around the corner and I and my Gal-Pal Vicki will be visiting the Sign on the anniversary of that fateful weekend...I'll lay down a gardenia in your name at the base of the "H" ... I think Peg would like that since you are--in a way--a friend to her.

Be well. Jameszerukjr (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl

Just to note, one of the articles I had to fight with that now banned editor from Karyn Kupcinet also made a lot of edits to Janis Joplin. I think I managed to bring her/his roar down to a dull one on the Joplin article, there might be leftover garbage that I missed from all of that. I'd be ever so proud if we could make her article a good article! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll do it. It can take a bit of time, especially with large subjects such as Joplin, but I have some experience of both writing and reviewing Good Articles, so we'll be able to do it before the end of the year. SilkTork *YES! 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie and Clyde

Thank you for the kind words, sir/ma'am — they mean even more coming from your esteemed self. I think we made the B&C page better. Ain't this place a great concept? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your help to understand

(EC) Hi an editor is adding DEFAULTSORT to articles but I don't understand the purpose. I've read the sentence or two about it but written to understand it is not. :) This editor's contributions shows he has put this in a few articles. Apparently it's another hidden thing that can be done to articles, I really do not understand hiding things in articles, I personally think it's silly but that's me. ;) Ok to summarize, I think I am an idiot because for the life of me I don't understand the use of this at all. I just did a search of Defaultsort (in all caps), also Default_sort_key and also breaking these in different ways to see if I could get a clean explanation, I didn't. Would you happen to know a simple description of what this is for and what it does when added to an article which doesn't make my brain go into freeze mode? I would appreciate it if you have the time, thank you. Until i figure this out, I don't know if it is right or wrong to be in an article. Oh just so you know, I originally came across this in Zodiac killer. I hope you are feeling better. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV networks

Hi, I was wondering about edits like this that add the network name before the title of the TV program. Is this an American thing? Is the network relevant generally considered relevant because I think it would be like saying "Kate Winslet starred in The Weinstein Company's The Reader". Which, of course, she did, but it doesn't add much to Kate Winslet. I'm a bit perplexed because I see this so often, but am I missing relevance because I'm not American? Your American viewpoint would be appreciated. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your involvement not to discuss actors salaries Wildhartlivie?

Can you answer question Wildhartlivie? You threaten to block me and you threaten to allow me any discussion to improve an article about Reese Witherspoon & Angela Jolie's salaries?

What is your point? This is not a soap box discussion nor is it inappropriate either. I noticed you deleted the discussion on your homepage and theaten me with blocks? Shall I use another Ip address and continue this discussion with you?

Now explain your quest to disallow actors salaries in the articles? What is your involvement? Are you working for an agent company or related to these actors in the media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.20.15 (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guessed it. Everyone on Wikipedia is secretly employed by various stars to keep discussion that is essentially fodder for a chat forum off of their talk pages. Or at least from the various postings you've made on talk pages of people reverting your copy & paste postings across various article talk pages. Bad form, dude. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why remove a salary issue then? I mean if these women are making $15 to $18 per film or movie, why erase that? It is public information, you can Google their salaries, why not and them

to the pages? Personally I think it is greed to get so much a movie but that's why they like their work. Since they are the limelight and in the media all the time, they pay the price because of they lavish luxary lifestyles, they wages should be page of their wikipedia pages. It's no different if they got a DUI or had a personal affair or etc, what there roles are, nothing says their salaries can't be included. If you want behind the set and ask all the day labors if they think the actors salaries are fair next to their salaries, you would see a stike of argny people in Hollywood.

Jesse James

I understand. For his part he's certainly not making things particularly easy with his bad edits and rude talk page comments. I had hope that he would follow Master of Puppets' polite suggestion that he stop edit warring, but that was evidently to much to ask for.--Cúchullain t/c 12:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wildhartlivie&oldid=310589299"