Jump to content

User talk:Rossrs

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rossrs (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 21 May 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

file:National Highway Australia.jpg file:Cedric Hardwicke fsa 8b09659 cropped.jpg file:LesDessousElegantsMars1910page51cutC.png file:LHand tools.jpg file:TowerCrane.jpg file:JacarandaWooroolinAustralia.JPG file:Roger Moore at the sets of Sea Wolves cropped.jpg
Main Talk Contributions Useful things Sandboxes Gallery Amusements


To begin a new discussion, please click here.

Archive
Archives
  1. January-December 2005
  2. January-April 2006
  3. April-December 2006
  4. January-June 2007
  5. July-December 2007
  6. January-June 2008
  7. July-December 2008
  8. January 2009 - February 2009
  9. March 2009 - June 2009
  10. July 2009 - December 2009
  11. January 2010 -

Maureen O'Hara

Hello Rossrs, I read your note about the notes being too detailed, and I do see that. I'm reading the autobiography at the moment and its handy to add notes as she discusses the films as I'm reading the book. My idea is that then at the end of my reading, the notes section will be a kind of warehouse and I can distribute the info from the notes to the main article or to the film articles, leaving just a sentence of notes on each film at most, in the filmography section. If other editors don't like this then i'll stop using this way of adding the info, but I don't intend to leave the notes on each film so detailed in the end. Sayerslle (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I won't object, although it is an unconventional approach and may well attract comment. I suggest putting something at the talk page to explain and refer to that in edit summaries. Rossrs (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable Filmographies

Thank you! :) I was clicking the buttons trying to figure out what made the sortname and so on different from the rest, but I couldn't see a difference - maybe I need new glasses, heh.

Will do that, though. :) ♪Your Opheliac♫ 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. There are editors that can help you with anything you may be unsure about, and I'm ok with the basics. ;) User:Jack Merridew (who is currently editing infrequently) and User:RexxS are very helpful when it comes to anything out of the ordinary, and with a little discussion, out-of-the-ordinary issues can be dealt with quickly. Drop me or them a note if you find difficulties and someone will help. Rossrs (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation

As a respected WP editor, you are invited to participate in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination)

Hey there! I'm starting an informal peer review process of James Cagney, and wondered if you'd be interested in having a look at it, as you were involved earlier in its development? Feel free to add comments to the talk page. Cheers! GedUK  14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make..

Hi, the point I was trying to make here is what Sandy Georgia is making now under the slippery slope comments, at least most of them. WHL did keep saying the same things about Jack following her to articles like Gimmetoo has said and also not following WP:CITE. Your right though, most of the problems she had was that she couldn't discuss things rationally after awhile allowing her anger to take over. Her anger was not at all helpful. That being said, Jack does impose his preferred way of doing things no matter what an editor says about it. If the editor disagrees with Jack, Jack seems to go to that editors list of articles and does the same edits to those articles that he is indispute with on others. He cannot be allowed to continue to do that because all it does is inflame the issues even more making it harder for all the editors involved to discuss that matters calmly and unemotionally. I believe that this was one of the problems you agreed with back then was Jack needed stop going on through an editors list of articles to continue his points and that he should back off and finish the discussions going on at the original locations, or am I remember incorrectly? The way he does it now causes it to cloudy the water and make it more difficult for conversations now that more editors become involved in the dispute no matter their opinion of who they should agree with or not. Basically, Jack has to stop forcing this down the throat of editors who disagree with him instead of going on to continue the same behavior throughout that editors watch list. That's the points I was trying to make with his behavior with WHL. She was and wasn't a victim because some of it was of her own makings but Jack did go to over a dozen, I believe that's right but the page is now deleted so I can't see it, articles on WHL's watch list to make the exact same edits to antaginize her. He also did say multiple times that his goal was to see her banned or chased off the project because he felt that she was a person who didn't admit she was socking and just now Lar finally put that to rest saying that WHL had a friend using her computer that she wasn't socking. Why he didn't do this long ago is totally unknown to me as it could have saved a lot of the crap going on between these two editors I think. Anyways, I wanted you to know what it was I was trying to say. I don't care how the AN/i turns out but I did want to clarify my thoughts with you. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine Crohnie. I understand that's your opinion. I'm sorry if you've felt reluctant to contact me presumably because I didn't reply to this. I felt the need to reply to your statement at the ANI because I thought that that being a public forum in which I had commented, that if I left it unanswered that could be interpreted as agreeing with it. Other than that, I really do think I've said enough on the subject, and I'd like to let it rest. Rossrs (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to place it on FAR, because of citations and some unsourced paragraphs, including citing books without page numbers. But you were the nominator originally so can you keep it to FA standards? Thanks Secret account 00:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I won't nominate it because it was you that originally brought the article to FA standards, if I could get the book on the subject, I would help out. I'm going to check if my local libraries has it, or if not, how cheap it is on amazon. Thanks Secret account 02:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bern RfC

Hi. Hope all is well. I come asking for a favor :D. If you're not busy, could you pop on over and give your opinion on the Paul Bern RfC. I'm at my wit's end and could use some additional opinions regarding the cause of death categories. If you need me to bring you up to speed, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Pinkadelica 03:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie was nice to to pop by and comment as were a few of her talk page lurkers. Thank you taking a peek and I appreciate your input. Stay well. Pinkadelica 08:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filmographies

Hi :) I saw something on another page and started wondering, and since you seem like the friendly sort, I thought I would ask you.

When editing filmographies, are TV series/TV films and feature films supposed to be sorted into separate sections?

Thank you!

♪Your Opheliac♫ 00:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you. I try to be the friendly sort. To answer your question, there's no rule and there's nothing to even suggest that one format is used more often than an other. There's a discussion you may be interested in reading, and commenting on which started about the use of seperate awards tables, and I put forward a suggestion for including a "medium" column in the general filmography, which could serve the purpose of presenting the credits in chronological order, but which could be made sortable and therefore allow TV or film credits to be looked at individually. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Awards and I also started a sandbox at User:Rossrs/Sandbox/filmography and awards. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Rossrs (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you succeed! :) I didn't think there was a rule, but when I edited Summer Glau's filmography (it wasn't sortable and it looked kind of messy the way it was), another user reverted it because "TV series aren't films". I thought it was all one and the same, since they were all filmed. I didn't want to mess up hundreds more articles though, so I thought I would ask someone who seemed knowledgable. :) It made me smile to hear that my thoughts would be welcome about that, and I'll be sure to give the discussion a read through once it's not the middle of the night. :) Thank you! ♪Your Opheliac♫ 07:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youropheliac (talkcontribs)
And yet Summer Glau's body of work that includes film, TV and video games is in a section called "filmography". But they ain't all films! I preferred your edit. It looked much tidier, in my opinion. The only error was having "films" as the table header. Aside from that, I think it was fine. I think the word "filmography" is misused in numerous articles. Rossrs (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that the rowspans broke the sortability. Even if the other editor doesn't personally like the tables to be merged, the removal of rowspans was an improvement in terms of WP:ACCESSIBILTY. I always link to that in edit summaries. At least it gives other editors a chance to read it, and hopefully discourage them from reverting. Rossrs (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of colour in awards tables

I have been watching some of the discussions taking place on the use of colour (the pink and green) in some of the awards tables. It looks like these discussions are getting nowhere and maybe now is the time for a RFC on the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers talk page. It seems odd to me that one person choose those particular colours quite awhile ago and forced them on the project without consensus. Or was there consensus? I realize this is not a major issue in the scheme of life but it has become more irritating lately as people have been trying to clean up and raise the standards of these articles. What do you think? - Josette (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My opinion in a nutshell is that when there is disagreement over style, we should go with the broadest community-decided style which in this case is the plain table. There's no question that it has community acceptance and consensus to support its use. I think it's fine to be bold and offer variations, and if nobody objects, there's no problem. There's too much of an attitude throughout the project that says consensus must be reached to remove something, even when that something was added without consensus. I think the colours were devised and implemented by a small number of editors - it would be wrong to attribute it to one, as the template talk page shows a handful of editors who commented. I don't recall it ever being taken to any project page to discuss. I watch WP:ACTOR. I do not watch the music projects and the coloured tables also appear in music related articles. I've removed the colour from a number of articles and I've watchlisted those articles and waited for comment. Only one editor has commented/objected and only at those articles that particular editor is concerned about. I guess I can do what I want with the rest of the articles, as long as I leave those couple alone. At least, that's how I'm interpreting it. That's an observation rather than a criticism. Most editors don't worry about changes until it happens to an article they are watching, but I have to wonder where all the other editors are. I think the issue is larger than the actor project and to focus discussion in that area would fail to include interested editors from other projects such as music, and probably a bunch of others. Should the aim be to address specifically the award/nom template or the use of colour in general? Roger Federer employs colour with more abandon than Jackson Pollock, and I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series)#Finalists also reeks of colour, and in that particular one very helpfully distinguishes between three different shades of green as worn by the participants in a TV talent series, and having recently watched said series, I can tell you the Wiki colours aren't close enough to the real colours to make them useful in any way. I guess what I'm trying to demonstrate is if a discussion focusses on one use of colour, regardless of the outcome, it leaves a whole range of situations undiscussed. The common question to ask in all situations is "does the colour add enough context to aid the reader?" If yes, leave the colour. If no, remove the colour. I've seen comments saying they are widely used, people like them, and they do no harm, from a few different people but I don't think they are good reasons for going against a guideline. I would like to participate and have commented at length, but in less than 2 weeks I will be absent for about 4 weeks, and even in that 2 weeks I'll be very busy, and for that reason only, I am very unlikely to participate. If you look at my edit history, it's dropped considerably over recent weeks. Like you said, this is not a major issue in the scheme of life, but in the scheme of Wikipedia, it is pretty important. Rossrs (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here, I hope it's ok for me to add a comment about this, if not, Rossrs feel free to remove with no hard feeling on my part. I just did a search on WP:Colors & WP:Colours, it's really quite interesting too. Colors gets different responses at different locations which is something I didn't notice before when we had the RFC about it at Actor and the one at Moonriddengirl (MRG). I know the one at actor's ended with no consensus mostly due to too many different things being discussed. I'll be honest, I don't know how it ended at MRG's RFC she set up for everyone to discuss it. She was kind enough to set up the RFC after the actor one went nowhere and feelings were hurt. I didn't follow it because I was too personally involved so my thoughts were not open enough to be fair to the discussion, things have now changed for me so that I can discuss this with an open mind. My personal opinion on colors is that the color 'steel blue' should be used because it's helps people see things easier with sight problems. I can't find the dif for this sorry but it was stated and agreed to at WT:ACTOR plus as you know I was having some sight problems and it did make a difference for me. I don't understand why the Simpsons articles got a pass to use the yellow on the articles. I don't know where this got approved, just that it was repeatedly said at the different RFC's. I think maybe an RFC on this would be good at here or any of the other location in WP policies that talk about color usage. Then we can tell the different projects in a neutral message where the RFC is located along with the different editors interested in this though we have to be careful of canvassing violations. I think this way we can get more involved, hopefully, and if or when a consensus is made, the proper policies can be adjusted. Do a search of Color and Colours, it's spelt both ways to see what I am talking about. Anyways, this is what I think about things, I hope again it was ok for me to give this opinion. I have a lot of watch page lurkers so I would be willing to put a notice on my talk page too to get editors interested. Of course the notice would be written neurtrally just describing that there is an RFC about the use of colors and editors interested are welcomed to come and comment or something like this. Either of you can write it up for usage, I have no problems with that either. This can also be put on hold until you return, say like the first of the year since this is something that keeps coming up. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crohnie. As far as I'm concerned you're welcome. Your comments are really interesting. Help:Using colours is a "how to" guide. The interesting thing is that it's not a "why to" guide. A "why to" guide, or even a "why not to" guide would be great. "How to" assumes there is a reason for adding colour, even if there isn't. The other thing that dawns on me when I look at Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates or WP:Color is that it discusses how to choose the most accessible colour and why we shouldn't edit war over this colour or that colour, but it assumes that use of colour is a given. It's not a given. It doesn't address colour vs. no colour. A lot of people have gone to great lengths to establish which is the most widely accessible colour choice, without seeming to consider "hey what about no colour at all?" My main concerns are consistency and professionalism. Consistency and professionalism should mean editors complying with whats best for the project and all professional sites, publications, encyclopedias etc are consistent. Click on a dozen random film bio articles here and you're likely to see a dozen different styles, so rather than continue along the lines of which colour is best, why not just go with black text on a white background? That's something everyone can see. Rossrs (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention, I don't understand why we make a special consideration for The Simpsons. It strikes me as self-indulgent, gimmicky and placing undue emphasis on one aspect of one television program. Also, there would be no problem as far as canvassing is concerned. It's necessary to notify people and a neutral message would serve the purpose. Rossrs (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comments you make is the reason I said to search color and colour. There is a lot said about using color but I personally didn't find anything at all about not using color which actually surprised me. I understand professionalism and consistancy but some color isn't harmful for say like different project or some other good reason to use color. I'm not saying bold colors like the Simpsons yellow nor colors like purple, red and so forth. I don't like what you consider the standard color of that silver or whatever it's called. I have noticed though that filmography tables have the steel blue in it but up top in the info section there is the mustard yellow which is horrible. I think if anything, if color is used it shouldn't be bright and the same color should be used for both sections. What do you think? Also, I'll help get the word out. We can figure out here or my talk page the best neutral way of saying things and then split up where to tell it that is of course after we decide where the best place is to have the RFC to begin with. I really don't think it should be held at any of the projects though. So, with that said, what do you think? --CrohnieGalTalk 22:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Since we all have issues with colour and no one seems to agree when, where or how colour should be used, maybe the best answer is to avoid colour all together - that has been my argument all along. I, too, am busy in real life and would rather wait until Rossrs has the time and will to devout to a RFC. Take care. - Josette (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. There are probably a number of editors with views on this subject, both pro and con, and I think it needs to be discussed in a wider forum. I mean, honestly, does Halle Berry represent the entire project? We can leave it for now, and look at it again later when time permits. Thanks for raising this discussion. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy, too, in the same vein as yourself. Most colour use here is gratuitous and unwarranted. We let anyone edit here, including the vision-impaired; i.e. it's a wiki. A wider fora than WT:ACTOR is best per WP:CONLIMITED. See: User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC#personal Opinion for DGG's take, which I support. Oh, and those 'X' are ass-backwards, ffs; 'X' indicates 'not' in most western cultures. Someone cut it. all. ;) Jack Merridew 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whether or not we like it, Wikipedia is now a serious research tool, not merely a hobby. Amateurs have produced such tools before, but not on so wide a scale , with as many participants. The more people join--the more will need guidelines in matters of presentation and style. the key factors to consider are clarity and professional appearance, which go together. Extensive use of color is typical of underground publications, children's books, and advertisements. Restrained use is typical of material intended for practical use. sometimes color is needed for clarity, and in such cases the only consideration is soberness enough to avoid confusion and unreadability But highlighting is sometimes appropriate also, and color is the most intense form of highlight, and should be kept for when highlight is appropriate. It works better when used with restraint. Among recent examples mentioned here, [1] is right--it highlights the most important key feture in the table at the bottom. [2] is wrong--it's used for several contradictory purposes. In the finals table it impairs the basic feature--the course of successes by year, which is the default sort. The need to divide up by event is real also, and can be perfectly shown without using color by sorting by the event column. The point of using one especially garish color in the final table to highlight the Olympics seems unnecessary: the wording of the heading does all the emphasis necessary. For the single tables, the boldface W' for win does all the highlighting necessary--the color requires a preliminary step in reading--deducing what it represents.
more generallyI agree with Jack: just as roman lower case is the default for text, and italic and capitals reserved for specific cases, just as left aligned paragraphs are the standard, with indentation or centering used for special purposes, so white background is the default both in test and tables. for highlighting text, if bold and italics and indentation isn't enough, there's the use of bordera, even colored borders. For following across lines in long tables, there is a very simple convention, very light grey dotted background in alternate lines (tho I don't know how easy it is to code for sortable tables) Any use of color needs to be justified. (and, in my opinion, , the standard colors we use in table are much too garish--a Wikipedia page can look alike a child's coloring book). If there's an argument , then the answer should almost always be no color.
Though I think this should apply across Wikipedia, could someone please copy this over to the relevant subject workgroup page). If we need to propose this as a MOS change, will someone experienced there please propose it in my names and let me know. I normally do not follow that particular central location for the lamest arguments on Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on these charts please

Hi, I think this is tacky is doesn't do anything at all for the article. What do you think? It takes up a lot of space too. If it's important, which is iffy to me, then it can be put in prose but this chart is just so tacky to me. I'd appreciate your opinion because my first instinct is to delete it to be honest with you. :) I decided to also ask at the talk page here. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Tacky doesn't even begin to describe it. Rossrs (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Image to Commons

I've found a wonderful image for an article (it isn't a screenshot of a movie, TV show, or a derivative work of any kind that Commons states), and I want to upload it to Commons, but I don't know how. Every time that I try to upload it, when I fill in everything, it says that I didn't fill in the original source or the original author. Can you please help me? Dorothy Shaw98 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's happened to me too, and I don't really know why. Here is what I suggest:
  1. Go to Commons and find another image that is similar to the one you want to upload, in terms of licensing.
  2. Click on "edit" and copy the content
  3. Go back to the upload page and click on "it is from somewhere else"
  4. Paste the information into the upload window, and change all details that relate specifically to your image/source/licensing
  5. Upload
  6. Double check all information and if anything is incorrect or incomplete, go back into edit, and fix and save.

Hope this helps. Let me know if I can help you any further. Rossrs (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ross! I've uploaded it successfully. Thank you again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothy Shaw98 (talkcontribs) 00:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Mae West

Hi, Ed Fitzgerald here. I'm looking for a usable (i.e. PD) full-body shot of Mae West in her prime to use in the Sexual attraction article as a contrast to Brigitte Bardot, and you were my first thought for someone who might have a lead on one. Any ideas? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone with a painting by Rubens in the meantime, but I think West might have more impact, and make the comparison explicit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me. A couple of years ago, I was embroiled in discussion relating to images of West, and I tried then to find something suitable, but without success. I can't think of anywhere to look, that I haven't already looked. That said, I think the Rubens compromise is perhaps more effective anyhow. Bardot and West are vastly different but they occupy roughly the same portion of the sexual attraction timeline. The Rubens' gals broaden both the historical and cultural context, but the article only barely brushes the surface of the subject. I also question whether West's main impact was in her visual presentation, although it was a factor. I think her sexual persuasiveness lay more in her manner and her delivery. Always good to hear from you, but sorry I haven't been much help on this occasion. Rossrs (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your input is insightful and valuable, as always -- and greatly appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Bening

Do you think you could write a could introduction on her page? All it says is that she "is an American actress" and that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstraw (talkcontribs) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Ross

Seeing the news out of Brisbane, I hope you and those you love are safe and not seriously affected. Take care! Cheers Tvoz/talk 18:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking of me. I am safe, and my family and friends are safe, and none of us seriously affected, but it's very hard to comprehend what's happened here. Rossrs (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to hear that. You are, on my page, always "Ross from Brisbane", so I immediately thought of you when the truly frightening reports started reaching New York. Stay safe. Tvoz/talk 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear the above ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jack. Just got back from a volunteer station. The City Council was bussing volunteers to some of the stricken suburbs, but too many volunteers. I couldn't get near the place, and the roads are choked with people all out trying to help, which says something good about the community spirit, although it creates its own problems. I'll try again tomorrow. I checked to see that John has been editing, so he must be ok too. Rossrs (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is huge, bigger than Katrina; knocked right off the US-radar by Tucson, though. John's rather busy, as am I; we'll talk soon, and I'll fill you in. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to some reports, four times bigger than Katrina, at least in area, and the economic damage will be something to behold. I can understand the US focus being on Tucson. Yep, talk soon. I'll be here.  :-D Rossrs (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reviewedfairusedisputed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th

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

Question

Hi, it's been awhile, hope all is well. Happy New Year to you and yours. I have a question that you might be able to answer. I've understood that movies and the like shouldn't be added to filmographies of actors until they were released to the public since things can change which I thought fell under WP:Crystal. An example, the Robert DeNiro article includes 2011 films that haven't been released yet. Lately it seems like a lot of films that are not released are being added to actors filmographies. The Avatar films 2 and 3 are constantly added. I got told on my talk page when removing films that were dated 2011-2014 that I was wrong to remove them and got reverted. Now to me it doesn't make sense to post films like this. The film can get cancelled, delayed etc. So what are your thoughts on this and would you mind pointing me to something, anything that will clear this up for me? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes all is well, and the same is true of you and yours. Happy New Year too. I think it falls under WP:Crystal pretty clearly but I think you are also fighting against a fairly widespread practice. I think it's fair to remove them and reference back to WP:Crystal, but I'm not aware of any discussion. It may be worthwhile starting a discuss, perhaps at WP:ACTOR or even RfC if you don't get much reaction at ACTOR. To me it's very fancrufty in nature, that is to say Mr De Niro should be assessed for his completed work not for having his name attached to a project that may or may not eventuate. The problem is that there are a lot of people who like cruft in its various forms. Rossrs (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that settles it for me, I'm going to continue to remove such things since I've only had one editor complain. I know agree with you that there are a lot who go for cruft. Take a look at WP:ELPEREN's talk page. The Find a Grave site is spammed all over the place. The same goes for imdb.com. I don't know how it got started to allow these two sites to be continually put into EL but now to get it to stop will take magic or something. We can't even get told a location to attempt another try for a consensus though I doubt one will be had since for some reason a bunch of editors feel these sites are a necessity for articles to 'survive'. It's all very frustrating to me to be honest. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I took your advice and posted here. Your comments would be appreciated. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'll keep an eye out for future discussion on this subject. Thanks for the alert! :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colour of Anne Frank's Diary

Hello Rossrs. In January 2005, when you made an "extensive expansion and rewrite" of the article on Anne Frank, you said that the autograph book that Anne received for her 13th birthday, which she used as her first diary, was "bound with a red and green checkered cloth". A few months later, I changed "red and green" to "red and white" because in photos of the diary (such as the one here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V2hxUD8yUlk/TEhQM6AjG3I/AAAAAAAAAoY/LcxE2Q-3bcI/s1600/frank622+Correction.jpg) red and white seem to be the predominant colours. In August 2008, an anonymous editor changed it back to "red and green", and this remained until last week, when I noticed it said "red and green" again and added a comment on the talk page asking for a source for this claim. In response to my comment, another user changed "red and green" to "red and orange", claiming that Miep herself was reported as saying it was red and orange in Anne Frank Remembered: The Story of the Woman Who Helped to Hide the Frank Family (p. 235). Could you clear this matter up? What was your source for your original claim that the diary was red and green? Thanks. Marsoult (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marsoult. I can't believe that was 6 years ago. I did that while I was stuck at home sick with the flu. I'm afraid I can't remember where I originally got that from. I agree that it looks like red and white in the photo. There are often inconsistencies between accounts of Anne and sometimes I defer to Anne Frank House, or some kind of "official representative". Even though they could be wrong, I think they're in the best position to be accurate, and are probably more strongly motivated than, for example, the work of biographers etc. [3] says "Anne Frank’s original red and green checked diary has always been on display in the museum..." and "Anne was given the red and green checked diary on her thirteenth birthday on 12 June 1942". I can't find my copy of Anne's diary, but I'm almost certain that she didn't describe it. I could be mistaken. That's about all I have to offer. cheers, Rossrs (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the swift reply. As I've said on the article's discussion page, I agree that it's best to defer to the Anne Frank House, so I've changed it back to "red and green". Marsoult (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Rossrs (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the award items that I missed when I was editing Helen Mirren's article this morning. I know that I had it in mind to check the table after I hit save but my mind must have wandered off somewhere. I appreciate your cleaning up my mistake. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. No problem. I fixed the formatting on it yesterday without noticing that the awards had gone back in. Rossrs (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Stanwyck

Simple — I didn't realise that free images were already available. Image has been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Overactive Imagination

Thanks for catching the fake credits at Joe Pesci & others. This guy has used 3 IPs to add a ton of fake film credits for a lot of actors, and it's one hell of a mess. Any contributions from 75.194.32.164 (talk · contribs), 75.213.146.101 (talk · contribs) and 75.194.206.202 (talk · contribs) should just be treated as vandalism due to his unreliability.[4] Cheers :> Doc talk 08:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll keep that in mind. Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should qualify that: he did make at least one correct edit. That's what made it even more annoying to sift through ;> Doc talk 14:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's extremely annoying. Sometimes I think everything a vandal does should be removed, simply because I don't see why anyone should waste time distinguishing the crap, and if they can't make all their edits good or at least make them in good faith, they don't deserve to contribute. And Wikipedia won't collapse because a couple of the "good" edits get tossed aside. I realize that's not a popular attitude. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filmogs

Hi, thanks for your comments. I know about the sortkey function but when I'm just doing drive-by updates of the table styles, I tend to leave it out (same with leaving in <br /> instead of replacing it with the ubl template). One thing: I've been away from WT:ACTOR for a bit and notice you're a supporter of an alternative table style, with the film title in the first column. Are you advocating the eventual roll-out of this system in all actor articles? Bradley0110 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the title is the key field, I also believe that a filmography is supposed to be a chronological list of an individual's work, and shunting the year to the second column demeans this. My second concern is the darker shading in the title column means our attempts to remove colour from these tables for ease-of-read is now being reversed. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I maybe didn't get the message across properly by saying "demean". I'm probably more concerned about the use of two different styles of filmography - there is the potential for conflict. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be an idea to somehow work out a way of tagging articles with "outdated" filmography types; untabulated, non-wikitable, unsortable, etc. And it would be lovely to purge that awful baby blue. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start a subpage on my userpage for anyone to record filmography conversions they've done -- to whichever of the two prominent styles we're using. After a certain amount of time the project can look at the dominant style, discuss the pros and cons of each and then hopefully come to a decision. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fever

Dear Rossrs, hope you remember me? I was wondering if you have any Kylie biography with you. And if so, does that have something about Fever and the album's background? Mine doesnt have much and I am helping developing Fever for GA. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legolas,
Yes I do remember you, of course, and I'm glad to have heard from you again. I'm sorry that there has been such a delay in my replying. I have two books that go up to the Fever timeframe, so if you could just let me know what kind of information you're looking for, I'll see if there's anything suitable. The books are:
  • Baker, William; Minogue, Kylie, La La La, Hodder & Stoughton, 2002. ISBN 0-340-73439-6
  • Smith, Sean, Kylie Confidential, Michael O'Mara Books Limited, 2002. ISBN 1-85479-415-9
(The second one is as cheesy as the unimaginative title suggests, but there may still be something useful in it.)
Cheers, Rossrs (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying Rossrs. Well, if both of them have any info in terms of the album's background and development and inspiration, can you please send me scan of those pages? — Legolas (talk2me) 13:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look, and will let you know. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through both books - Kylie Confidential is useless trash. I may as well throw it in the rubbish bin. There's nothing suitable and the author should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for producing a "biography" of an artist and not discussing the most successful phase of her career. La La La has some suitable material, although it's almost entirely from the POV of Minogue and/or William Baker. I'll update the article myself as time permits. There's not much, especially in the background of the album, but there are a few interesting things, such as how they approached choosing the album cover artwork etc. I don't think it's what you were looking for, but I'll contribute these few points to the article as time permits. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rossrs

I sent you an email. I realize you are busy and very popular, but I hope you get a chance to read it. Thanks, Chandler75 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandler75 (talkcontribs) 04:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being busy and being popular don't necessary go hand-in-hand, but thank you for putting a positive spin on my lack of reply. I have been busy. I've sent you a reply. Cheers, Rossrs (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]