User talk:Mr. Split

Welcome!

Hello, Mr. Split, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 23:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Hello. I don't think saying that Capucci is Dalton's wife is a spoiler. It just adds reference for the character. I don't think the word eventual is necessary though. It's already mentioned that Dalton gets married in Italy in the plot synapse. I think it just adds context to the character. You really feel it should be excluded? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm the one who added the information about Pussycat from the Family by Ed Sanders. I don't know the sex or gender of Pussycat, so in good faith I can't refer to Pussycat as a she or her. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I added the information nonetheless because it's the only reference of someone named Pussycat connected to Manson in real life I've come across and knowing the amount of research that Tarantino does, I believe the name is referencing this event. However in citing the information I can't put something I don't know to be true or allow others to as well. I hope you understand now. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Marvin Schwarz is who is portrayed in the film. He's not Marvin Schwartz. They are two different people. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Kasabian driving off like that is most definitely a reference to Manson driving off. It was put in that scene because the other murder night is not portrayed in the film. That's why it's Kasabian, not Manson. That's also why Atkins has the line about getting revenge on Hollywood. Not Pitman or Good. In a film there's just not enough scenes or time to make sure everything happens as it did in real life especially when it's altering history. Grogan getting beat by Booth is a way of Tarantino writing in a stuntman' revenge, even though Booth isn't Shea. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

By any chance do you know how to import a photo? I think it'd be great if we could get one of Dalton and Booth together for the fictional characters part. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think you can only use what's available at Wikimedia Commons here...Mr. Split (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I personally think it'd be best to put everyone in the cast section but like I said others were adamantly against that. I felt this was an opportunity to include them. From what I understood, it was agreed that Manson Family characters with names were able to stay in the cast section. I really think we need to keep them there, especially Qualley, Fanning, Herriman, Butler, Hawke, Beaty, and Madison. It won't be a good idea to put more cast members down there because of another issue. Two separate editors, one of whom is an administrator started talk pages saying the cast section was overly detailed. A third, also an administrator put a tag on the page saying the cast section was overly detailed. It's why I spent hours moving things around and creating a new section. Now I realize they were right. It looks a lot better. However, if we start to merge the two sections more, I'm sure they'll notice and the division won't be as clear. I think your point is that it's not as clear now because cast members are listed there, which I understand. I just thought now that the section exists it presented an opportunity to include them. Personally again, I'd really like to include them. I understand your concern though. Now that you are aware of the history of the talk pages, are you ok leaving them? Do you have any other ideas? Maybe somewhere else to put them or a way of reworking the sentence that doesn't involve adding more cast members? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to keep them. I also asked someone in person and he said he liked it there. So for now we'll keep them. However, if you like you can bring it up on the talk page and that way if I'm out voted we can delete it as well. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I just want it to be crystal clear that they're referred to as land pirates in both the movie and actual show. Especially because I don't think it's ever vocalized in the film and the two characters have different names. Also even though many of the characters are the same there are variations. For example, Trudi is only in the movie. If Caleb and Day had the same names it'd be different. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Honestly, with all the work that's gone into it. I think we should just leave the cast members where they're at. If it's really bothering you, maybe you can put the members who are listed in the character descriptions into the cast section instead. If you do it that way and just don't delete them I won't stop you. Just make sure you get all of them. Putting more cast members into the character description will make it more of a cast list and I don't think that's the right move after all the discussion. There were two or three editors who would delete the cast members I listed on the character description from the cast list. The one who brought it up on the talk page hasn't seemed to be around for a while so maybe no one will care. I don't know. I told him I wouldn't do it though, so I won't have anything to do with it. Also it may lead to more deletions, so honestly I'd prefer to let sleeping dogs be. If they get deleted from the cast section I might be able to add them back into the character description. It just seems like unnecessary work and struggle to me though. I'll try to find a source and add a sentence or two that ties them in. Let me do that and then get back to me. I know I rambled on but I was thinking as I was writing. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I've thought about it and my vote is to leave it the way it is. The Manson Family had about 100 people and I believe part of the film's vision was to represent that. That's why a lot of people were cast as members and that's why I thought it was important to include all of them. Some are at the end of the character section. But so be it. I think we could mention the Manson Family had about 100 people but I'm not sure we need to. It may tie it in better though. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

No to adding the cast names to the character descriptions. We have a cast list. I very much don't want to revisit the talk page conversations about that. Plus it's unnecessarily repetitive. For now, I'm going to reword the last sentence about the additional cast members. Check it in a few minutes and see what you think. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully it reads better now. Also, I think it's fair to assume that if people are reading the character descriptions and wondering where the other members of the family are, they'll look at the cast list. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Still let me know what you think. To me it's not as confusing though. I see what you were saying. Also, I think the reason people had issues with these folks and not the pirates is because the land pirates are all credited and have names, even though most of them are just the actors' names. Some of the Manson family is uncredited. All the people mentioned in the description part are uncredited and their roles are listed as Manson Family. One is credited as hippy. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's because those seven have character names and it's not a good idea to turn the character description into more of a cast list than necessary. I really don't know how else to put it at this point. I don't know if we'll find out more about them or not yet. I haven't stopped researching and more information comes out every day. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not my objection. It came from two separate administrators with years of experience and hundreds of thousands of edits. Plus another seasoned editor. I created a new section away from the cast list for that reason. I'm now repeating myself. So, DON'T add anyone from the cast list to the character descriptions. DON'T add any cast names to the character descriptions. You said earlier you'd let me decide to keep those names there or not. If you mean it, then leave it alone. Because I want them there. If you don't, then delete them. If you delete them and add them and add them to the cast list I won't interfere but others might. That's all I have to say on this. My opinion is you're creating a problem that doesn't need to exist and requiring a lot of time for something simple. But just so you understand I'm saying this one more time. Whatever you do, DO NOT add anything from the cast list to the character descriptions. Thank you. Feel free to message me in the future but on this subject I'm done. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I say my opinion is to leave it alone. An administrator put a tag on the page saying the cast section was too detailed and specifically the descriptions. Another administrator started a talk page saying the cast descriptions were way too excessive. A third editor was also on the talk page saying the same thing. That was there opinion. Not mine. However, I came up with a solution, which was to create a section for character descriptions that was separate from the cast list. I spent hours doing this. So, in my opinion to then add people from the cast list into that section will not only negate that effort but also disregard those other editor's concerns and opinions. It will create more drama and in the end either lead to where we're at now or more deletion. Which I'd absolutely what I don't want. I think the worst possible way to handle this is to add ANYTHING from the cast list into the character backgrounds. The reason I added the names that I did into character backgrounds is because a totally different editor started a talk page addressing those folks and so we deleted them from the cast section long ago. And I told him I wouldn't add them there. So in order to respect and honor these agreements you and I and every other editor cannot add things from he cast section into the character backgrounds. In order for me to honor my word and the other editor's concerns I can't add those other names into the cast section or recommend anyone else does, even though, as I said, I don't personally have a problem with it. So being that's the situation I want it to stay as is. That's all I have to say. We are wasting time and energy by discussing it further. If you're still confused please consult all the talk pages that are labeled anything to do with cast. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Also you can consult the character descriptions section on the talk page Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There were no other roles of Dalton's shown in the film. Only one of his Italian films was shown but I decided to include all of them because there are filmed within the movie and it show the posters. The western schwarz is watching is a real movie starring Ritchie and Wilcoxon. We don't see Dalton in it and I don't think he mentions the other films name. The ones that are important are there IMO. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

He has a full filmography but I don't think it's worth adding. That's why I did a select filmography. If the character gets his own page someday his full filmography can go on there. I may add more to it but that movie isn't worth adding for this page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No. I completely disagree with you. Also, you had no business deleting that picture. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the movie playing. I know you are but I'm not. I didn't see Dalton in it. All that is scene is a brief glimpse from a real movie which may or may not be standing in for something else. Schwarz also mentions at least two or three TV shows Dalton guest starred on that are also on his filmography. I'm just not sure it's necessary to put all that. I understand your point. I disagree with you. It's not that you're necessarily wrong. It's that I think it may not be needed for the purpose of the page. The clip from the movie as well as the TV shows Schwarz references are in pop culture references. I'll think about it though. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding the roles Schwarz mentions. I'm just not sure how much it will improve the page. I find it interesting and clearly you want it. It is part of the movie though, so I'll probably add them. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Added it. It's Tanner. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You can if you like but I'm 100% sure. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about them being right. The reference is solid. I just didn't know what value they added but after I thought about it I thought they were valuable. In the film Schwarz says, "I had a Rick Dalton double feature last night. My wife, Mary Alice and I watched Tanner. After she went to bed, I lit a cigar, poured myself some Cognac and watched the 14 Fists of McCluskey. I love that stuff. All that shooting." As far as the character names and everything the citation is there to click on. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The clip they show is from an actual film. They didn't film anything or alter any footage for Tanner but it's the film Schwarz is referring to. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Acceptable or not, Tarantino did it. If you look at the filmography I've now put TV shows or movies that are referenced or appear. Not roles that appear. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've told you how I feel. Without anything to add, repeating names is just excessive. The easiest solution is to leave it as is. Your other options are to delete the cast names in character background. Or delete them and add them to the cast. You're aware how I feel. You're aware how other editors feel. The only editor who is vocalizing a problem with it is you. If you change it others will have problems. Why do you keep asking me? I'm not the one who started those talk pages. Those are other editors. I can't speak for them. If you ask them it's going to start another debate. If anything I think they'll just want to delete more. But for now the compromises have worked for everyone except you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not done yet but I red linked those on purpose so the names stand out. People do that on other pages too. It allows readers to notice those names and also for editors to see pages that need to be created. If you're up for it you can attempt to create those pages. If you do make sure you use references. The Lake one should be fairly easy. If not, that's cool but I think they should stay red. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

DO NOT remove the red links per Wikipedia guide lines. Look it up if you need to. They indicate articles that can be created which is why they're there. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

In general you shouldn't edit out of ignorance. For example, don't remove links without knowing Wikipedia guidelines. Don't remove pictures or information because you're not aware of something. Either message the person who added it or start a talk page. You didn't know Leo's age, when if you clicked on his link it was right there. In general, I suggest you research something or ask about it before editing. However, little things, like the parentheses in the filmography can be deleted when you notice they're not standard practice on other pages. I do appreciate your consideration in asking me though. Just in the future, that's my advice. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe I'm the one who's wrong about Rick. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

For the most part I like your grammatical edits. I think they generally make the article smoother and read better. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

How does the name appear in the actual credits? Follow that. Not IMDB. Is it "Squeaky" or "Squeaky" Fromme? If you're not sure leave it. If you know it's different, change it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It'd be great if you want to research those other Manson character names. I still have no specific knowledge of them. I feel like eventually something will surface. Those Manson, Reservoir Dogs similarities are trippy. I'm wondering if he did that on purpose. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

All Manson members should have the note. Otherwise it'll just be confusing to the reader. I thought you were saying Fromme wasn't part of the credit. Just Squeaky. Either way just leave it for now. As for the other names, I believe the names are fictional. However, it doesn't mean the characters are not based on real people or composites. Also, the names came from somewhere. Did those actors name their own characters like Sundance? If so, how? If not, do the names represent other aspects of the Manson Family? That's what I'm talking about. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Message me before you delete one of my edits. We've been through this before. There most definitely is a German page for her. When I added it in character background it goes directly to it. The other one goes to a page where you have to then click on her name. It's pretty obvious. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The name needed to be capitalized. If you notice something is off try to fix it before you throw it out. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't. Direct link it if you like. There's also the one in character background. And two movies in other music that have Italian pages. It might look better that way. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. So Danielle Harris was actually pregnant when she filmed. I don't know if that's why she was cast or not. Angel Kasabian is a boy but I've thought of that as well. Also according to the whole Helter Skelter thing the Beatles were the four angels of the apocalypse and Manson was the fifth. Also he claims the Charlie's Angels is about him and his female followers. Orlovsky isn't a famous poet but nonetheless I tried to figure out if he was actually with a member of the family but I didn't find anything. So I don't know if Delilah Mae Glutz is someone specific. Froggie and Tadpole must have some connection. That's obviously not just a coincidence. They all represent something though. Either through what they say or what they do. Sundance represents different aspects of filmmaking. First the fact that the actress is a stunt double and worked as one for Tarantino and that's obviously a big theme in the movie. Second that she's also a professional equestrian and wrangler and worked as one for another Tarantino movie and in this film her primary mission is to race to someone on horseback. Tarantino is extremely knowledgeable and tricky. Either those names, or the roles, or the actors, or a combination of those things have meaning, either to the Manson Family, the movie, or both. Delilah could be a reference to that poem but I doubt it. I think there's something deeper. It's actually possibly a Black Dahlia reference because they're two versions of the same name. I don't know though. Screen Rant has gotten things wrong and lately they've mostly been copying my edits on here so don't put too much stock in them. They have helped me as well but as far as moving forward with those characters they aren't going to be any help. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Unless you have a source that states the character being pregnant has something to do with the movie, or of a Manson family member being very pregnant in February of 1969 there's nothing to write. The actress was pregnant. It may be as simple as that. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There may be. Keep in mind that this movie isn't even two months old yet. I'm sure other information will emerge in time. An hour and 40 minutes was cut. So when the full version hits Netflix or deleted scenes come out a lot more may become clear. A lot of the Manson Family stuff was cut from the theatrical release. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also the screenplay hasn't been published or released yet. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No. The two characters the movie is about are fictional. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I could use your support on the talk page under character descriptions. I've already changed the page a lot but it looks like people are trying to delete a lot of the page. I don't know how you feel exactly but your opinion may be helpful. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. You can always put in your two cents. You obviously don't have to agree with me. Just a heads up. They're getting ready to delete most of the pop culture references and production stuff. Maybe more. So if you have an opinion now would be the time to voice it. It doesn't mean you have to get into an argument. Sometimes I think people who've been doing something longer can't see things from new perspectives as easily. Either way, do what you want. Thanks for getting back to me. I wouldn't edit the page at all right now. However if you want to trim things down or make them flow better that might be helpful. Especially if you can make the the pop culture and QT universe references sound more like an articl than a list. We certainly won't be adding anything though. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't delete that. If you remember I wanted to keep it shorter than you in the first place. Regardless it won't matter. Everyone wants to delete different stuff. Either way I'm not the one to talk to as I'm done with the page. I've been pushed out. I can tell you you're the only one who's mentioned deleting that and it won't stop them from deleting anything else. They're not the ones who added the tag. That was someone else I messaged who has a different perspective than them. Everyone wants something else deleted which shows you that each section is important to someone. If you want to be part of the conversation join the talk page. Otherwise trimming is fine in the mean time without deleting content. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to go to bed now. I think there's plenty more tightening that can be done though if you feel inclined. Thanks for your work. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know if you're still looking at it but I thought you might be able to trim and condense still if you want to go through it again. I did a little more but it could probably still use some if you're up for it. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. However because I was outnumbered in the conversation on the talk page and I reached out to someone else who added that tag, it seems as though a number of other editors may disagree. Of course a lot has been done since then. Still, if we can remove excess it won't hurt. Even if it's just here and there. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is because it covers more than inspirations. It also contains contextual information. Influences wouldn't be as appropriate. Right now, I believe the only thing to do is tighten the article. I'm not sure exactly how much you understand some editors want to cut. So IMO spending time and energy on anything else isn't worth it at this point. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that one thing is the word count should go down so changing contractions when not necessary may not be the best strategy. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I see. I didn't realize that. Thanks for the info. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't cut the actor who plays Beausoleil as he's an important historical character. Being that, I don't see why you need to cut any of them at this point. I don't know what you mean by over 100,000. I have no idea what you're referring to. I also understand that no matter what I say you'll never care when it comes to that subject. I don't agree with you. I'm not saying it means I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just saying we've had this discussion far too many times already. Although I am curious by what you mean by over 100,000. Keep in mind that the Wikipedia beurocracy seems to only have created guidelines in order to push their inner circle's agenda. My opinion of course. Not fact. But they're subjective guidelines and apparently they don't apply to every article or editor. And they apply differently to every article depending on how some interpret it. Again, that's my understanding. Not necessarily fact. So it's up to you how you interpret guidelines and wish to use them. However, please explain to me what over 100,000 means to me as you provided no link or specifics and I am curious. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Like I said. I'm aware of your opinion. I don't know how your reading that size. I'm not sure it's still that big. However, if it is can you let me know how big Pulp Fiction and Titanic are because I'm sure they're over that as well. That's why I'm saying those guidelines aren't rules and are subjective. Also, are you including references? Because I'm not sure that's what it means. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to clear up something else for you. The tag was edited by an editor that I reached out to. Not one of the editors who brought the issue up. She added it after I told her there was a talk page and she told me she thought the article could use trimming and rewording. I don't think it was meant to highlight anything specific necessarily. I asked if she could help with the editing process but she told me she was too busy with other things at the moment but could look at it further down the road. Putting those tags was her way of contributing to the editing process. I don't think she's checking the page but I really don't know. That being said, and also because the page is being looked at and edited I don't think the tags need to be there anymore. IMO they can be removed now. It doesn't mean editors won't cut more out now though. I can't offer you anymore insight. You can always message her if you want to understand her perspective more or ask something but that's my understanding. Also the conversation I had with her is on her talk page. Reading talk pages helps as well. At least with me understanding where editors are coming from. Even if you don't participate in them, reading them can help you understand where different editors are coming from. I have one more thought on the names I believe you are referring to but just to clarify, do you mean uncredited names or the names of cast members without character names? If you mean the latter, I'm not stopping you from deleting them but my opinion hasn't changed. That doesn't mean I don't understand your perspective or how it's more relevant now that the page is being trimmed. I also think I may be the only one who wants them but I don't know. So, delete them if you want. I'm not telling you not to but it's nor what I would do. I have nothing else to say on that. However, one of them is credited and there are others who are uncredited but play historical roles plus Tarantino and Tony Basil. I think those should stay because of there significance, although I don't think it's what you were referring to. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

So you're talking about removing Bobby Beausoleil and Pebbles from the cast list? Or are you talking about the the actors who don't have character names? Do you know what uncredited means? Are you talking about the sentence with Tea Jo? Because she is credited. I think you may have incorrect information and you're confusing me. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Also I don't see any of the information you're referring to. Keep in mind that I'm on a mobile device and so the page and edits read different on here then on a laptop or desktop. I don't see anything about 128 or 100 anything. Also, have you checked the other movie pages I've mentioned because I'm sure they're higher. So again, the guidelines seem to be arbitrary to me. But then again I didn't create them, so you're asking the wrong guy because, personally it doesn't mean much to me. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't want to delete sections. Those are other editors. It was discussed on the talk page and I was outvoted. I argued my POV but so be it. I accepted it and so I've been trimming to help with the communal view of the page. There is a conversation on the talk page if you wish to understand the perspectives of those editors better but it is not my perspective. I do appreciate you consulting me but if you want my personal opinion here it is. The page is good but can still be trimmed and keep its content at the same time. I think the guidelines are not meant to be concrete rules and have been broken many times but they're not my trip and personally I think having so many guidelines is ridiculous and unnecessary but I didn't invent them nor do I run Wikipedia. I can't speak for any other editors, just myself. Thank you for being so considerate of my perspective though. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. So I was able to check on a laptop. I didn't see anything about the 100,000 so I'll just take your word for it. I did see the 128,000. Also the Pulp Fiction page is at about 125,000 and the Titanic film page is over 150,000. So, it looks like I'm right about the guidelines. Don't take them too seriously. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw it now. Again though it's clearly just a guideline, not a rule and obviously isn't followed consistently. My guess is, if we checked other pages, we'd find other long ones. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing that picture is up to you. You're the one who added it. IMO this page has to address historical characters and events, including controversies surrounding them. Something that Pulp Fiction has none of. That's not necessarily the stick to measure it by. Keep in mind that more is coming anyway. Home release, awards, Netflix. I messaged the editor who added the tag. I didn't not know if she's looked at the page since she's added it, which was after I contacted her. I'm sure she wasn't specifically referring to that count though. So, remove the picture if you like. Also I think you could probably remove the tag as well. If editors still want to cut a lack of a tag won't stop them. They're not the ones who added it in the first place. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No. The dog's name isn't doctor. You're taking it too literally. There's another source as well. Unfortunately another editor who deleted a bunch of stuff deleted the citations. I found one and re added it. I'll find the other at some point. He did some reckless editing. The reference is still good but most importantly we want to stick to reality, so if the reference writes something incorrectly, we don't repeat it's mistake even though the information is still good. You can look up the cast credits of the film on IMDB if you like. You'll see it is Sapirstein. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Either one sounds good to me. I trust your judgement, as long as it has the I, not the E. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

So I've been reluctant to edit the portrayal of Bruce Lee because of issues I had initially with the anonymous user who added it and accusations. However, with all the other trimming we've done, it could clearly use some. IMO, it has unnecessarily long quotes and probably excessive quotes as well. Can you look at it and see if you agree with me and if so, trim it down? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Not sure if you care or not. But the crazy extremely pro Shannon Lee editor is back and attempting to make bizarre edits to the Bruce Lee portrayal section. He's continually reverting the edits you made in trimming down quotes saying that it was to create a narrative and not to trim, which is clearly wrong. Of course he's also saying I made the edits even though I didn't. Nonetheless you may want to message him in order to explain why the editing was done. I'm not sure he'll listen as it seems he may believe the whole thing was some sort of conspiracy but it might help if he actually hears from you and gets another editor explaining it to him. It's been quite frustrating. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not able to trim that section now because I was warned about the edit warring. The other guy just got blocked for 36 hours. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. The other quote he added back was one you had deleted. Like I said I'm done with the section. Personally I thought it was still excessive. So trim it if you want to. Don't if you don't. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sia

Stop edit warring. I have opened a discussion thread on the talk page and you need to DISCUSS the matter on the talk page, rather than continue to force the issue. Please also not that deletion is not vandalism, and you are strongly advised not to accuse other editors of vandalism unless you have very good reason. You should also note that the version of the article that passed GAN did not have those fields, despite your claim that it did. - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

An infobox is supposed to be for items that are so important to the artist that they need to be mentioned even above the Lead section. If you really think Guetta is so important to Sia's career, then make a well-written, well-referenced case for it in the article before you shove it into the infobox. Currently, the article states only that he was involved with one song that is important to her career, "Titanium". -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought the last edit had been undone leaving out a valid addition, but if you say so.. I'll just re-add the character link.Mr. Split (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Grammar check

Hello. Been a minute. I hope all is well. If you ever fill up to checking the grammar on Once Upon a Time it would be much appreciated. With the novel and new interviews a bunch more info came out. Plus I went back to repair refs and fix issues. Mostly technical stuff but also incorrectly cited info and incomplete info. However, grammar is most definitely not my strength and while I think I've gotten better at it and others have worked on it as well, it would be nice to get you to really go over it. Only if and when you feel like it. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll get on it one of these days. But is the whole article in need of a look, or just specific sections?Mr. Split (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it's good. And there's definitely not anything too bad. It flows well and has decent punctuation but as I said I know grammar is not my strongest ability. So, if you look at it you may see commas out of place or where a semi colon should go instead of a comma. Those kind of little things and I believe I remember you mentioning at some point that you look out for those kind of things on here. So, I would say when you feel like it start with the section you're most interested in and check it out and go from there. If you do some that's great. If you feel it's better to look at all of it and you're up for it, I think that's better. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably the best way. I still have a few things to do before tackling a big edit though.

Sounds good. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The novel page looks good! Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey... I almost lost a big edit because edit conflict (and my connection failing at the worst time) but I could save it. Would you mind waiting until I'm done before doing new edits? It might take me a couple days, I don't know.Mr. Split (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to message me on my page or tag me like this @Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: if responding to me, so that way I get notified too. Thank you. I've been checking on here but that way I'll get your messages in a more timely way. As far as your request I'll try but if I read an article and I find something or am listening to a podcast I'll forget it if I don't add it within a couple of hours or space it out most likely. As far as the editing, I've made sure to put wording like murder vs. kill when appropriate. I've done a crazy amount of research and made sure to use the correct terms and language. Like Manson girls instead of women for various reasons. I know I asked you to do this and I appreciate your time and energy but as far as semantics I'd appreciate if you don't alter that too much unless you find something clearly wrong. As far as making it flow and punctuation and grammar you're doing great. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey man. I think we had a misunderstanding. I appreciate what you did but I'm noticing things you're changing in the language that read awkwardly and aren't improving the article. Can you please stop? I'm sorry. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As you wish... @Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: but that's how I roll; if I see something that I could use a change, I do it. I guess the character sections were the ones more in need because of the novel, but if there's another one in need of a look, call me up.Mr. Split (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sia

Please *do* comment on the Talk page. I would like to delete this sentence from the Lead for exactly the reasons you state. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Will do. Mr. Split (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion to consolidate the discussion of the film under one heading. I don't think there's a WP:CONSENSUS to take it out of the Lead yet. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you! Mr. Split (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)