User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 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) 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken assumption

You wrote "Perhaps I lose something by having worked on Wikipedia for years rather than since November"... in one of your postings.

You probably would not be surprised to read on my home page that I have been a heavy contributor in the past under an assumed name. I believe my edits were 40K plus, editing since late 2005 or early 2006. So actually, your assumption is quite incorrect. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your user page actually says "A heavy contributor to Commons and other wikia under an assumed name". All anyone has to confirm your length of participation is your contributions list. "Other wikia" could mean many places. However, this is a miniscule point fairly lost in the context of everything else. But if you have been around for over three years, surely you have learned what constitutes a consensus to support a proposal and how to arrive at one so that it is clearly stated to whomever might look. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is true I was vague. The 40K only included foundation wikis. For wikia, the numbers are substantially larger. Of the 40K foundation edits I'd say that better than 2/3's are commons.

I understand assuming good faith and avoiding making appeals based on anything else but the merits of the arguments. Let's work together and find some common ground. We both want the best for wikipedia. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look please

At the Zodiac Killer article, specifically the section about Jack Tarrance? There is discussion on the talk page but no one has taken action lately. Personally I think it should be removed do to possible WP:BLP, Crystal ball and a slew of other reasons that I am having problems thinking of at the moment. I had minor surgery two days ago so having a bit of a struggle. I really do think though that the whole section also give way too much WP:Weight weight to it. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what I can do here (not looked at it yet) it is certainly not my area of expertise you sure you got the right guy? But yeah I will check it out. Copied to my own and to yours depending on where you prefer to look. Will check the talk pages on article (useless aren't they). SimonTrew (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill Bryson

Thanks for the revert there. All my books are in store so I couldn't check; the first I thought oh maybe it was a silly addition that has been legitimately removed, the second I kept my eye on to see if any more would go, one by one. You were quicker than me, I would have waited at least until the third.

I assume you are correct in your reversion. He does have quite a lot of stuff doesn't mind picking up a gong it seems.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(in case you ain't monitoring my user page) My bad reply:

I think I did, I just looked at edit history. I am now totally in a spin. I got a request to review an article which is way out of my subject area and somehow managed to cock it up in replying. Sorry about that. Yours is good. SimonTrew (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah I think I see what I did. I looked at your edit history rather than mine. Well I still hope she gets better. SimonTrew (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You're lucky I spent last night creating a stub article on Six Mile Bottom railway station. Gosh the excitement I have in my life. It has been a redlink since Noah came out of the Ark and I bet within about a day it will have people slapping "citation needed" notices etc all over it. SimonTrew (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(I dunno where you prefer replies so am doing them both places. Isn;t wikipedia talk rubbish.)

Yeah me too. There I was thinking it was supposed to be constructive. This night I just had a guy-- far enough he apologised-- who took my delete OFF an article and inserted a completely, ridiculously, incredibly wrong reference which he "found on Google in 15 seconds". Well that would be why I could not find any references to it in half an hour-- cos my son the place you are talking about is 50 miles away from where this article is based, and shares a name. That's why it took you 15 seconds you pillock. Yet he has people who worship him, it seems. I notice he this morning has "tidied up for April" i.e. got rid of the fact he had to admit he was wrong. Yeah yeah bad faith-- not bad faith, he was just plain fact wrong but didn't like saying so. When I am wrong I say so. Says it on my front user page.

I am kinda proud of my little stub page it is only a stub but all the refs are good it has infoboxes and all that and all the links work and I edited a load of linked articles along the way. God knows why Six Mile Bottom only has a population of 83 and I am not even one of them any more. So, 82 then. SimonTrew (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a counter-rant (well more a co-rant) on my talk page. SimonTrew (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well ....

So I'm not imagining it. It's really there isn't it?  :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

!!!!!!!

AARRGGHH!!!!!

Rossrs (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all

Please don't think I'm trying to sting you with my comments. You simply misuderstood everything and misinterpreted it as being cynical. Let me tell you that it's not my style. I think I said more than once that you are a great editor, and your way of handling the situation was led by a good purpose and intentions to improve. I seriously mean that because I've always been aware of your work and your username has very often popped up on my watchlist with edits that I respect a lot.

• "calm down" - I said that because it was not the first time I felt you were taking it personally and felt somewhat displeased by my appearance on the talk page. You said "Don't put words in his mouth" while it was clearly not what I had done. The editor supported the general inclusion of the awards section and that's what I said. How exactly it will be done is another story and I did not talk about it.
• "But I wanna know what way you want this to be done, with or without Razzie awards, with or without "other awards" - that's something I'd prefer others to decide." - you really misinterpreted my comment. I meant what way you guys, all of you, want to do that. I mean, with or without Razzie awards, with or without "other awards", not the discussions or whatever. What is now important to me is the re-addition of the awards section - the major awards. My meaning was that the inclusion or non-inclusion of other things I prefer you guys, all of you, to decide. By saying "that's something I'd prefer others to decide" - I meant I'd prefer all the editors other than me to decide. I mean that I want all of you to decide (including you, obviously), not me, and that I don't want to be a part of this decision. Although if my opinion is needed I'll be happy to opine.

I hope I made it clear. I just really think the awards section is necessary. It gives a quick glance and an exceptionally effective look at all the major awards an actor has won without having to go thorugh the entire article. It is much better organised. I definitely do not have anything against you. On the contrary - your opinion as to how this should be reorganised (with or without Razzies and other awards), matters to me. Take care, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you explain this to me?

The most recent photo of Charles Manson was deleted, why? The editor closing said the result of the discussion was to delete. I don't see such a result with the few who did comment. I would have commented myself had I known about the discussion but I missed it. I think the photo did add to the article. Manson has been on TV recently so if it needed more info incorporated into the article that could/should have been done.

A search I did found the following CBS news with his first mugshot and the new updated one along with a story., ABC, [1] and there are more. So shouldn't this be updated into the article where it was? It looks like it is in fair use but I admit I have trouble understanding the fair use policies. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reagan and Kings Row

Yes, I think that your intervention in this helped defuse the situation. Still not sure the WP:OWN issue is resolved, but we shall see. Stetsonharry (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I might have a chance to work on the filmography further. As for the main page, I think you're right but at least there have been no further reverts without explanation. However, there is still a failure to engage in substantive dialogue on that section, as well as the proprietary attitude toward the article, a "don't worry, we'll handle it" attitude that is not helpful. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: WT:ACTOR

He's done it before elsewhere and I wish he wouldn't, not least because it makes the discussion hard to read when other people have responded to his comments. From past experience I would say that he simply no longer wishes to be part of the discussion, but it's a question he's best answering himself. PC78 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is clear my comments or my outlook on the subject clearly means nothing and that I'm wasting my time in trying to make a point that a summary of the most important awards is actually quite helpful. It seems the same decisions are made by the same group of editors every time these days and anybody who feels differently is sadly sidelined. I agree with the removal of most of the awards for the record especially the other awards and Razzie awards. However I thought a basic summary of things like Oscars, BAFTAs, Golden Globes etc was pretty harmless and wouldn't bloat the box if we filter out the lesser awards. Thats my take on it, but my opinion seems to count for nothing these days. We can live without the awards in the box, it is more a frustration on my part that people continue to make changes to templates week in week out and form "consensus" between only a few. In my view a lot of the changes are not necessary and often actually hamper navigation or useability of the pages. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If more people see the awards in infoboxes as an awkward thing rather than a help then I have no objections if people really want to remove them, as I said its more a frustration that people feel the need to keep changing things with infoboxes and templates especially in regards to the recent template deletions and removal of imdb links from the infoboxes and it just seesm to be one thing after the other. As I said the bulk of information should be written in the articles although I would like to see some of the scruffy lists in award sections cleaned up somewhat. I would support a summary of the most notable awards in the infobox but we would have to decide what or what not should be included. In my view we should stick to the most acclaimed awards and remove all of the other awards. If however people like PC78 think it is problematic adding any to the templates as it is diffcult to draw a line I have no objections. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Speck

I agree. My impression is that it's not a problem of being too technical, but too detailed. It just goes on and on. The article is overwhelmed by it as it is discussed in more detailed than any other aspect of the article, and the tone of this section is very different to the rest of the article. Whether it's OR, I don't know. It reads as though it's supported. I think the whole thing could be summarized into one paragraph, and for the purposes of the article, that would suffice. Rossrs (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Baby Face Nelson

This page has the incorrect information, "He was credited with killing more than a dozen law officers." This error was caused by the original writer misinterpreting the NY Times article he referenced(Clyde Barrow killed 12 law enforcement officers and Nelson killed 3 FBI officers.). I attempted to change this on March 16 but my edit did not stick. Wildhartlivie was listed as undoing my edit with this comment: (It has been written BY WHOM? POV speculation unsourced).

Needless to say, I'm a novice at Wikipedia and also quite busy but this mistake needs changing. --TL36 (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and edited the Baby Face Nelson entry again. See its talk page for the details.--TL36 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Robin

I'd get a Snuggie for those cold chills ;) Read this. I've been here longer and have yet to get that much attention. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the backtracking on the Turner article. Too little, too late much? I have a hard time taking any of it seriously considering the sheer volume of complaints regarding a user who has been here less than a year. Too much smoke for there to be no fire. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The backtracking is sublime. I enjoyed every insincere keystroke, although I note that there is no change in the POV stance. She's still the best, simply or not so simply. Interesting. Rossrs (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Mickey Rooney

"If you can reason with the editor, please, please do" - Trying to reason with people like that is useless. They are fueled by attention, whether it's good or bad. What I wrote was actually a warning before going to administrators. If he's sincere about quitting Wikipedia, then I guess it's a good thing. -- Lyverbe (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

"...please don't cite my comments when you are approaching other editors about this. I will go along with what the majority of editors support..." - fine. If you don't have one determined opinion, it is your right to go either way. I don't think I did anything wrong though. I did not, as you would probably call it, put words in your mouth, nor did I mispresent what you posted on my talk page. Obviously I won't do that again if you feel it isn't appropriate. As for "what the majority of editors support" - I don't know what they support. That's why I want to find out what the majority opinion is. I think the previous decision was extremely hasty, and not well handled. If the final conclusion of this voting was really what the majority of editors support, I'll be even happy. I don't what you or anyone to think I'm enforcing my personal preferences. If--after making a new voting and after requesting for comment, which will give a broader number of editors' views--the majority view will be equal or similar, I will nicely end this story up. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine if you think so. I want to know if this would have been the same if more time had been given. I'll probably start a new section, something like "Should the awards have been removed?", in which I'll request editors to give their views if to keep or remove, and place it on RfC. I think it will attract a broader number of editors. Whatever opinion they may have, I'll respect any. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The request for comments is not on a separate page. I'll place this section in a list of discussions that are requested to have community-wide attention. The editors will participate in the WT:ACTOR discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't quite understand you. I will place the WT:ACTOR discussion at RfC to call editors to opine on the WT:ACTOR discussion. The discussion will take place only on WT:ACTOR. There's not gonna be a separate RfC discussion. Do we misunderstand each other? :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Take for example this: Talk:Richard Gere#Gerbil - editors requested for comment on this section and it's had a great deal of editors coming to review the matter. This is what I want to have ith the new WT:ACTOR discussion I'll start. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by opening an RfC?? I'm not going to open anything separately. I'm not interested in two separate discussions. I want to open one discussion on WT:ACTOR, and cite it here to invite editors to participate in this discussion. I want this this issue to be discussed only on WT:ACTOR, but as you know, many editors are not aware of this page and don't nother to come. Those who are interested in arts will certainly be interested to give an opinion on WT:ACTOR and their opinion matters. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I can only say that everyone has the right to take part in WT:ACTOR. There is no such thing as "editors of WT:ACTOR". It is done in one discussion, and there's nothing wrong about inviting editors to participate. We are all Wikipedians, we are all people of the same interest. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish I understood why you think I shouldn't do it. That will bring a large number of editors to the discussion on WT:ACTOR. If there were two separate discussions instead of one, one on RfC and one on WT:ACTOR, I would understand your concerns. But it is one discussion on WT:ACTOR, listed on RfC to invite editors to participate in it. People will go through the RfC page, will notice the discussion and those interested will come to opine. I think it's wonderful because then we'll have a clear consensus. Don't you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What is opening an RfC according to you? The new polling you mentioned is the only discussion where I want this issue to be discussed in. It is not discussed somewhere else away from WT:ACTOR, it is discussed in a WT:ACTOR section only, not elsewhere. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I do think it's a kind of a consensus, but many editors have been unaware of this, so we need more editors to opine, to make this consensus clearer, if there will be consensus eventually. As for the RfC, the editors are most welcome to hold their opinions and remain steady about what they think in the new discussion. I just want more editors to participate. There's nothing wrong about it. Then we will know if number 8 grows or number 3 grows. It was suggested to me by the one who deleted the field by the way. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Actors

Lots of people start projects and then leave them to others to deal with? I started WP:Actors and I find your comment completely misguided. I;ve done a lot of work setting the project up and organising articles, I have however been very busy of late with geo articles and haven't had much time for editing actors and films or taking part in discussions. That doesn't mean I "leave it to other people" or somehow don't care about the project and its interests . Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 01:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Oh, how I cannot wait to oppose. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And so I have. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny

Hi there, I love this, from Ray Milland: (and I won't change it just yet)

"Milland died of lung cancer in Torrance, California in 1986, aged 79. He was survived by his wife, the former Malvina Weber, and children in Torrance. He was 6`2" (1,88m)."

Usually we only deal with age at death, but I guess height is good too.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Alistair Sim - you are so right. They both have that wild, half-crazy look going on. Rossrs (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the wild, crazy eyes. Rossrs (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have a pretty busy day ahead of me, so I'll be going offline for now. Will be back tonight though. I wonder what new and exciting things today will bring! Rossrs (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I, Garion96, award you the original barnstar for your work on WT:ACTOR and keeping a cool head under way too much pressure. Garion96 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie,

This is not the first time I've found you saying what I'm thinking, only better and cooler. If ever an editor deserved a barnstar for grace under pressure, this would be the time. Rossrs (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

More like a barnstar for successfully beating off objections and successfully removing the awards section you mean. Just kidding. Nah I also appreciate your efforts for WP:Actor too but now the awards section has been removed I expect those who supported the removal to completely clean up every article they were in follwing Garions example with Spielberg (preferably with a bot?) COuld you organise a bot to do it seems as the removal of the section was important to you?. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men

I never said there is a policy that requires it. You can take a look at just about any list at WP:FL and you'll notice that they all use "class=wikitable" in their tables. My problem is why the aforementioned list should be any different. WP:ACTOR and WP:FILM are not policies either; it doesn't matter what they require. I noticed this table today and changed it. It is stupid of you saying that I should have brought that up in January because I can bring anything up anytime I want to. WP:BRD means everything to me; I was bold, then reverted, now am discussing it. Saying plain and unattractive is very subjective. To me, it looked plain and unattractive when I first saw this page.--Crzycheetah 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Caught this discussion while Recent Change patrolling—I agree with Crzycheetah. I supported this article's promotion to FL status (and still do), but the table should be in wikitable format, something that was overlooked at the FLC. A WikiProject consensus does not overrule a WP-wide standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "title line"? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to change the color. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Help:Table is a handy link. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changing! I have a question, though. What is "border="2" cellpadding="4"" for? ...because I previewed without that line and saw no changes on my screen.--Crzycheetah 06:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah I keep forgetting about the browsing differences. I use IE7 and I am guessing it's for Firefox. Thanks.--Crzycheetah 06:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's because it is discouraged to color the title row due to WP:ACCESS. Wikitable already has a gray background for the title and you're trying to override it every time. In my nominations at WP:FLC, I had reviewers who were against coloring the title row.--Crzycheetah 07:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:Actor

No, I wasn't aware of User:Shshshsh's plans. He seemed to be asking for comment, but I see now that he wants to go the RFC route. You are correct that my only intent was to bring the whole hullabaloo to a final and satisfactory conclusion. (I know, I know -- stupid idealism). Anyway, I'll sit back to see if it all finally exhausts itself. I don't think double-polling is an issue -- it's like the Afd process where people are welcome to open another Afd on a kept article. However, it usually works against the nominator because multiple recent Afds are considered pointy or even disruptive. As far as your thoughts about quitting, I understand completely. While bending over to help, it feels like you've been kicked in the ass. That whole gang aft agley bit. From my viewpoint, and it appears the majority of editors involved, your efforts were solid and well-intended to solve one area of continual bickering. I hope you remain active in the project. I also hope you've had a great Easter -- chocolate eggs can do wonders. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Heath Ledger

I had Kansas City listed, just that I was told to format the list another way, which led me to go to the original setting I had the awards before. I added a couple more. Thanks for letting me know that I forgot to list them, 'preciate it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Yeah, I don't know how that one slipped by me either. Luckily IP, 67.32.164.125, caught my eye. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Well I am aware of the instructions. It may have been unnecessary, I removed it. Thanks for the notice. I hope this RfC turns for the better, no matter what the decision will be. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Honestly, I'm thinking of quitting WP:ACTOR altogether. This whole thing has disheartened me completely." - could you please tell me why? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer in a few minutes. It'll take time :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand that, and I understand the stress you have felt while dealing with what the discussion page was going through. I'm sorry if I'm one of the reasons you feel this way. This project deserves to have such good editors like you.

I've closed the RfC for now. You can delete the entire section if you like if nobody opposes. I have to think about that. Both Rossrs and you have presented valid arguments on my talk page which I have to think about. I'll take my time. Maybe I'll eventually make a new voting as suggested by User:CactusWriter. As of now, it's closed. I'll take my time.

Now I'm going to watch Baby Boom. I'm bored.:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey great work on the Kate Winslet and Heath Ledger articles. They deserve to have good articles on Wikipedia, and I think both qualify for a GAN right now. I mostly work on Indian film and actor articles (well, after all I'm Indian). And hey, why nobody says "good work on Preity Zinta" to me?? ;)

I will be more than happy to help you and Ross on anything you do. I think Ross is an amazing editor and I'm aware of your collaborative efforts. So I'm in!

Baby Boom was great (although I'd seen it so many times before). I simply love Diane's comic timing. "Every actor has great films, but their smaller ones often get overlooked" - so true! It always reminds me of Kathy Bates (one of my favourite female actors). I just can't get how her performance in Dolores Claiborne did not get any notable recognition. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Johnny Depp

You're welcome. Unfortunately, I suspect we'll need more protection after a month! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Words and numbers IAW MOS

Hi, I noticed that you reverted a contribution from an anon IP (diff) in order to change words back to numbers. Generally I believe it good practice for plain English or prose to write out small numbers (such as seven years) and WP:MOS#Numbers as figures or words appears to agree with that style. Was there another reason that you reverted this editor's changes?—Teahot (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I've reverted the changes to the anon person's preferences.—Teahot (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re

I'm fine, just workin' on my tv articles. I got your emails and I'll watch the articles. Get better soon! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I did. I've got my fingers crossed for ya. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Get well

Hi very sorry to hear that. I hope they can correct the problem with your eyes asap, I'd hate to have anything like that. Appreciate your efforts, Best Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

Sure, no problem, will keep an eye on it. All the best. Garion96 (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming bot run

I am proposing that my Bot, User:MandelBot convert articles from a special purpose new plain text templates to another. The object is to remove the -year templates since they are obsolete. I do not imagine this is controversial from your POV, but I have been wrong in these sorts of assessments in the past. You may wish to review the change and ask any questions regarding it at: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Announcing_a_bot_run. Regards, -J JMesserly (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Kate

Indeed! Yay! I think it would pass GA, depending on the reviewer of course but it's stronger than many other GA's. The British thing - there's always Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom to refer to but it doesn't exactly answer the question. Rather, it makes me think of questions I hadn't thought of before! I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) deals with the American issue. "United States" for the first instance and then "U.S." for subsequent. Truncating the line seems to be a good thing to me, and I guess it would be a case-by-case decision, but the line break would effectively deal with that. (I had no idea about the needing infobox category. There are soooo many and many of them I've never heard of. There's a project for a rainy weekend!) Rossrs (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

how odd! I missed that. I wonder why? I wonder how he found the sandbox? I wonder who he is? It never occurred to me that other people might be visiting. Now I'm gonna have to reign in my sarcasm! Great !! (nahh) Rossrs (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The GA/FA thing. Totally agree.

Telly, yes that's interesting in a crazy-bizarre kind of way. Here's another Karl Malden (born March 22, 1912) is an American actor, known for his expansive manner. Now, I've known about Karl Malden for years but I have to admit that I've been oblivious to his "expansive manner". Still am. I have no idea what it means. I can only imagine that he stands with his feet wide apart before delivering his lines, and if that's his style, well, I guess it's worked for him. I've got a checklist on the sandbox page - User:Rossrs/Sandbox2#Reviewed as satisfactory (or better) - and it covers quite a bit of what you mention. Feel free to add to it. I found it use to link to templates and pages on it, so my addled brain doesn't have to remember where to find everything. I haven't updated it with Find a Grave etc. Rossrs (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

When you say Matt Dillon, are you referring to the "Academy Award-, Golden Globe Award-, and BAFTA Award-nominated American actor"? (shudder) Because if you are, I think it's clear from his Wikipedia article that he's talented enough to play 29. I don't know why it is but the males alway seem to be accepted if they're the older in the on-screen love-match. It's unlikely we'll see Matt as the love interest for Jane Fonda or Gloria Stuart, but I wouldn't rule out Miley Cyrus in a couple of years, or Hillary Duff ;-) The whole age thing is puzzling. I watched Taken last night, in which Maggie Grace aged 25, played a dizzy 17 year old. Convincingly, I may add. I was surprised when I looked at her article to see her age. Rossrs (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why, no you haven't told me that you are two-degreed from the esteemed and occasionally nude Mr. Bacon. How so? We must compare notes. Rossrs (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I follow. I'm familiar with this actor, at least I recognise his face on IMDb, and I've watched a number of the things he's been in - particularly 24.

I don't know what my 'Bacon number' would be. I'll work it out one day. I've got one 'one degree' - Joanna Lumley. I was looking in a shop window in London and she walked up and stood next to me, and started talking about the thing we were looking at. She was pleasant, friendly but it was very brief. A few Australian celebs as well, that you wouldn't have heard of. I've been about 3 feet from Olivia Newton-John, and I'm 2 degree to her as a friend of mine was a friend of hers. I've got quite a few 2 degrees, but that just means my damn friends meet interesting people when I'm not with them! ;-) Rossrs (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I used to love Little House. It was one of my favourites, and I can still remember bits and pieces, though I haven't seen it in years. Here's another degree related bit of trivia - and it'll be the last because it ends on an macabre note. I'm 4 degrees from Sean Connery. He was married to Diane Cilento, who is the daughter of Sir Raphael and Lady Phyllis Cilento, who are buried next to my father. I noticed the markers on a visit to the cemetery a long time ago. I recently read a little of Diane Cilento's autobiography in which she described the funeral of her father, and it was very evocative for me, as she was describing the exact place that I stood in similar circumstances a couple of weeks after she did. Reading it took me straight back. On another bizarre note, the woman on the other side of my father was in the adjacent bed to him in hospital about 4 months before he died. She had a very unusual name, so I know it's her, and what makes it even more odd is that she is on his right, as she was in the hospital. Rossrs (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm off soon too. I know you must be worried about your aunt, but even younger people would take a while to recover from something like that, and for an older person it's always slower. Easy for me to say though. Rossrs (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Adoption Categories

Wildhartlivie, I understand you are trying to help Wikipedia, but so am I. I added my thoughts to the discussion page. I don't have a bot, so creating these categories takes a lot of time. Please, if you have a suggestion on this, talk to me first. Thank you. Tobit2 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Now I need your help. I made another typo. The following category requires deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Adoptees_adopted_by_family). Could you tell me how to process this? Thanks again. Tobit2 (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Tobit2 (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Wildhartlivie, and Tobit 2.

I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia and currently in the process of learning all about how to contribute to Wikipedia. Please excuse me if I am just not "up" on discussions or terms. I noticed this subheading "Deletion of Adoption Categories" and would like to know more about it. I have always taken issue with the use of the added term/adjective "Adoptive" when making reference to one's children or relatives. I will try to reserve the rest of my comments for the discussion page on "Deletion of Adoption Categories". Unfortunately, I was not able to find the discussion page but will continue to look for it.

I hope I have selected the appropriate section for leaving a message.

Thank you.irshgrl500 —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

Bea Arthur

I want to cry, but I can't. She was too magnificent for tears. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm saddened too. Rossrs (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bea Arthur was a true "Golden Girl". Irshgrl500 —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

Filmography

Could you please take a look at Debra Messing. I've updated the filmography and merged the awards into it, similarly to the many film actor/awards. As she is mainly TV, I've put TV first, but I'm most interested in the awards bit, specifically for Will & Grace. Do you think this is OK for awards/nominations over different years? Rossrs (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also... the dates for the series in the left column. I can't get them to display without breaking onto 2 lines, and the look is not good, IMO. Any suggestions? Rossrs (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you gotta sleep! Thanks for the tips. It's exactly the kind of detail I was looking for, but failing to see. I'll update it tonight when I have a bit more time. Good news on the dancing front. That's a good sign! Rossrs (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You know, I didn't fix anything so it must be a browser thing. I looked at work - I never look at Wikipedia at work - to see if it was right on a different browser, and the dates are still showing on two lines. I was surprised to see the table on a different browser. It looks so different. I wasn't sure which one was the mdash, so I used the larger of the two. That's right isn't it? Rossrs (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a good look, is it? Mind you THIS was in the infobox for the longest time, so it's all relative. I really wanted to photoshop that big dreadlock away. David Shankbone's added a beautiful one for the infobox, quite recently. Rossrs (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

True. I can understand him being protective, because they obviously represent a fairly substantial investment in time and effort. I don't like the Uma Thurman pic, to be honest. She looks too unkempt. The Meg Ryan one is an improvement, but she's become an odd looking woman, and I think this is probably as good as it gets. ;-) On the other hand Gena Davis and Aidan Quinn are wonderful. Rossrs (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Confused

I apologize for leaving this question on your talkpage (it should be sent to Wikipedia Administration-I think) but I am confused as to why at the bottom of my contributions page there is an icon which is an image of a person embossed with a blue circle with an "i" in the middle of the circle? When I click on the icon the term "User ino-SVG" comes up under the image name. Could you please direct me to the appropriate page or Wikipedia link where I can address questions about my account and also questions on building a solid and active account as a Wikipedia User? Thank you, and I appreciate your previous reply. I have actually been contributing to Wikipedia since 2006 or 2007; I just don't think I know what I am doing when it comes to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Irshgrl500 —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

This I think is in your field of experience

Hi, I thought you might be interested in taking a look at this pretty new article. With your experiences in the serial killers articles I thought this one might be of interest. It is under review for deletion but though I voted I am now thinking about this a little more and respect your opinions. If not interested, please just ignore, no offense will be taken as usual.  :) Take care, leaving the computer here soon for a doctor visit. Talk to you again soon. Momoricks, you too might be interested in this article. I don't have time to pop over right now, hope you are well too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Member removal from WP Crime

Heya, the user who removed User:LOTRrules from the inactive members section didn't leave a great edit summary, but it appears LOTRrules is indefinitely blocked. Perhaps that was the reason for removal. momoricks 05:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Guess I shoulda looked into it a bit more thoroughly, huh? Congratulations on your ginormious edit count! ;) momoricks 05:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Username removal

They are removed to prevent newsletters being left for them, and to stop other users of the wikiproject from leaving them a message which is a waste of time. If they are ever come back, then there's no problem in re-adding them back. Is there any other reason for them to be on that list?--Otterathome (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know severeal admins are looking into the bully tactics of user:Otterathome. Please can you provide the evidence here? As you know I am banned becuase I lost patience with Otterathome (and for, accidentally, not knowing sockpuppetys wasn't allowed). Obviosuly I cannot supply the evidence as in the next minute I'll probably be banned for sockpuppetry. Please supply the info. Otterathome wants to be an admin someday. Can you imagine if he did? He's be the worst thing since ever to Wikipedia. (Also Otterathome himself is suspected of sockpuppery...) LOTRrules3 (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Page Move

I moved Holmes page because most of the other people in the pornographic actor categories have the qualifier of "pornographic" in their titles unless they did non-pornographic work. I was merely attempting to make the title conform to the category. Asarelah (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Kirstie Alley Page

Hey, I just wanted to let you know, the recent adding to Kirstie Alley's Page, was not done by me, someone had my password, it was pretty a simple password! It's changed now though, I just wanted to let you know i would NEVER write or phrase any comment like that! Thank You for the corrections!

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 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) 07:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Line bre....

Ya' know, sometimes I get halfway through an edit summary and I just think "eh, who cares? they'll figure it out". And not to be rude, (well just a little), but when you say "afoot", I say "atool".  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks.

Hi Wildhartlivie,

Thanks for your explanation regarding the Charles Whitman article and WP:CRIME's position.

I disagree with your description of my addition as 'irrelevant', as it is probably better known in pop culture than the majority of the other entries in the article. If it is indeed irrelevant, then by extension of the same logic, the entire section should be stricken. I'm not passionate about this single entry, only about consistency.

I also appreciate your strategic suggestions, as I am new to participating in Wikipedia. Now if I may suggest a future strategy to you:

When working on an collaborative project, dismissing the contribution of a peer with a 'cute' note such as "just...no" is insulting and counterproductive. Removing an edit is fine, but a polite explanation of your reasoning is crucial. Please don't discourage the free flow of ideas; Wikipedia's continued growth and success depends on it.

Thanks,

Walt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.67.95 (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

29th Golden Raspberry Awards

29th Golden Raspberry Awards

Thank you very much for your comments - I responded to your points at the peer review subpage. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Penny

I have to ask - do you think Penny is wearing the dress, or merely standing behind it? Rossrs (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well! I was just starting to talk, coincidentally. I was going to say how much I enjoyed seeing the same word mangled three times in one edit, and I'm sure you know which one I mean. Rossrs (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as do I. I was watching DD last night in It's a Great Feeling. I didn't see it all, but it was a nice bit of pleasant fun. Have you seen it? It's full of cameos of Warner Bros. people playing themselves, including Joan Crawford. DD says, "Oh, I love Joan Crawford (tiny, tiny pause) in her films." I wonder if the pause was intended? While I was watching it, it occurred to me that she was the only person in the film that is still living. Rossrs (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a hint of sarcasm!  ;-) I sometimes make snarky comments out of frustration, but whether anyone but me is amused by any of them, I don't know. This is not snarky, was purely unintentional and is now part of the permanent record to puzzle future Wikipedians. It makes absolutely no sense. I was tired, and in my rattled brain, I thought I was adding the name into the search field, instead I was making a reversion and giving the name in the edit summary. I only realized when the page didn't open like I expected it to. Of all the stupid things for me to revert! I didn't see Eleanor or Patricia so I wasn't even thinking about them, but you're right, they're still with us. Rossrs (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here ya go. In the spirit of Wildhartlivie. Now I really must stop playing this game before I ruin my good name around here. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe her next birthday will do better. I don't know if LOINLO added that point. I didn't bother checking. He/she seems to edit pop female bios and albums, and I don't really get involved in those articles much. I do like to pop into the Britney article from time to time for chuckles, and I'm never disappointed. I don't think this will ever be beaten though : "On the evening of January 3, 2008, after not sleeping for over four days police were called to Spears's home...." I see things like that, and I know that they have to be removed, but sometimes I'm so reluctant. Tired and grumpy police officers being confronted by Britney and Kevin in full flight, when they should be back at the station sleeping.... That must be, like... hard. Rossrs (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I love the original, and I think that Harry Hamlin was better cast in that, than in anything else he did. He's not a sensationally good actor, but he was just right for the mood of the thing. I hope it doesn't drown in special effects and become boring as a result. At least this has Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. Rossrs (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that edit! The things you write about! I remember seeing that and when she said what she said, I could not believe it. I thought it was an utterly sublime moment and I bet Parker didn't mind that kind of promotion in front of millions of people! That formatting thing on my page was there this morning and gone tonight. I have no idea why. Weird, huh?

Good! Rossrs (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Wildhartlivie. Your analysis of the topic of Internet homicide [sic] has certainly made quite an impact on other participants in the discussion there. I believe you may not be all that hot on the topic's even receiving its own article-space treatment but, be that as it may, I've just now suggested a new name for the article (which does exist, for the time being, in any case) here: Talk:Internet homicide#Proposal. If we'd be so lucky that you've a spare moment to comment or share any preference you might have wrt a title for the article that will exist at least for the time being, I'd greatly appreciate it. (p/s Should you comment and should your choice happen to be "Internet killer," on the theory perhaps that a topic on a tabloid meme should have the name most closely associated with the meme, if you'd also consider suggesting a secondary choice, I'd appreciate that too. That is, if it would seem that a majority of others disapprove of this term for a title on the theory that acceptance of it would be too much like WPdia was endorsing some of the common suppositions behind the meme; that said, should there come to be substantial support for a straightforward title of "Internet killer," I wouldn't mind since in sincerity I don't have much of an aversion to it. Little long-winded in that last sentence, though: sorry.) ↜Just M E  here , now 07:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Talk:Zodiac (film)#Differences from reality

My suggestion would be to simply drop this discussion. The editor in question seems much more interested in scoring points and making insults than trying to participate in a good faith discussion regarding the article. He has been warned twice by you and now once by me regarding behavior and lack of assuming good faith and seems quite determined that he score points on the page rather than discuss what are, as you said, qualitative differences regarding the various articles. Leave him to do whatever and if the FA status of the article is jeopardized, then nominate it for reassessment. The way he has taken the discussion is non-productive and unnecessarily stress-provoking. Regards, LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pay for view external sources

Hi, I need your valuable opinion. Is there any policy about using pay websites for sourcing. I've been expanding Celia Johnson - (I'm a little surprised at how interesting I'm finding her, and I'd be interested in your opinion, especially as the article was most recently assessed as a stub). I'm not near finished yet, as I have to add filmography etc. There are a couple of fairly minor points cited to Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which I suspect is a brilliant source of material but to access it you need either a British library card (I'll be sure to sign up for a card next time I'm passing through Old Blighty) or pay a 205 GBP fee, which I'm sure the average Wiki-source checker is unlikely to do. So... is it OK as a source? I can't find anything but I'm sure I've seen discussions about it. Rossrs (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When I heard Kirstie say what she said, I really wasn't sure exactly what she meant, but I agree that a little ambiguity is good, and I tend to agree with your interpretation. I wonder if it's found it's way to You Tube. Everything seems to be there, doesn't it? The site used on Celia may be a book, or I guess it's an online version of a book. I don't know as I've never seen it. I'll see if I can find a more accessible way of citing the same information and if possible change the cite. That should only leave one thing cited to it and that is a quote about her being fabulous and uber talented or something, and I'm sure that can be changed to something else. I'll see what I can do. It's probably OK as it is. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! I didn't look at Celia before I replied to you, and you've done the filmography. It looks great. We're fortunate that such a resource as IMDb exists, but isn't it a shame that there's nothing that allows a comprehensive listing of theatrical performances especially for someone like Celia who did more stage work than film or television. I have a book about John Gielgud (ooh, I can be the first to write a customer review, and I just might!) that lists everything single thing he ever did, and at the back of the book his stage credits run for 6 and a half pages. There's really nothing on the net to match that, and it's a shame, because I don't have a book about everybody. Rossrs (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that British theatre is not represented by an equivalent of IBDB. I'm sure that one day it'll exist. I decided to take a break from removing deprecated fields - I was working my way through the Emmys, and I made a pretty good start on them, but I found myself getting distracted and dejected by some of the truly abysmal articles I was stumbling upon. I'll resume it, but I think the main thing was get the high profile, current articles sorted out and the rest can be treated with less urgency. I also enjoyed John C. Reilly in Chicago and the "Mr. Cellophane" song is a highlight, but then again, all the songs are great. I was lucky enough to see the stage show in London and the role was played by Nigel Planer - did you ever get The Young Ones? A new production of Chicago is coming to Brisbane soon, and I've been thinking about going. As for Mr. Reilly, I so wish he would desist from his unfortunate habit of making films with Will Ferrel, who I believe to be the most overrated person currently working in any medium. Rossrs (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's sad about Dom Deluise - I can hear "Texas! Has a whorehouse in it!" I loved Charles Durning in that and his "Sidestep" routine is one of the best things I've ever seen. Deluise was also brilliant in it, and only Durning got the Academy Award nomination - a bit unfair, I thought. I feel that Reilly may have gone off the boil a little. When he did Magnolia (great) and The Hours, Chicago etc all in close succession, I thought he was going to be one of those great character actors, kind of a throwback to the 40s type of supporting player but .... I guess there's still time. I found his final moments in The Perfect Storm shattering, when he's drowning and he mentions his "little boy". There was so much in just that tiny moment, and pretty gut-wrenching, while Clooney's demise was a bit (to me at least) ho-hum. I didn't realize you were such a musical talent. I love live theatre as well. A little while ago I saw a stage version of The Woman in Black which is essentially a Victorian era horror story. Genuinely frightening -with the mood set by sounds effects and lighting. I enjoyed thinking about how it was achieved, as much as I enjoyed the piece itself. I should check more often and see what's on. I think I miss a lot simply by not bothering to check. Rossrs (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw The Perfect Storm before I knew it was based on a true story, or even what that story was, so I was kind of taken-aback by the fact that they were all lost. I expected a Hollywood miracle, you know. I can understand what you mean by claustrophobic though; there was a sense of containment and part of the containment was the open sea because it was so overwhelming. If I remember correctly the scenes showed more sea than sky, but the sky was a constant sort of grey too, wasn't it? There was a sense of the foreboding and inevitability too, because of the flashback element, so I guess I was prepared for something bad to happen, but I underestimated what was coming. It's a while since I've seen it. I've not heard of Wristcutters: A Love Story but I've had a look through the article and it looks interesting. I kind of like alternate reality/parallel world type themes, and the afterlife/supernatural element too. Sounds good. Rossrs (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. There's not many left on any of the lists. I was looking at Melvyn Douglas earlier, but then I decided he'd made too many films and I kind of drifted away. I've seen Longterm Companion, and it's not exactly a feel-good film is it? It's starts off on a nice note with the beach scene, and I think the song playing is "The Tide is High" by Blondie? Then when they read the newspaper article about the strange illness .... it then has the same kind inevitability about it. I thought the way it jumped forward in time in a couple of places, and then referred back to someone's death, was more effective than actually showing it. It focussed on the "loss" element rather than just the death. I found it very powerful and it stayed with me for quite a while, unlike some films that just kind of wash over me without having any impact. The final scene where everyone is "reunited" was quite touching. Perhaps a little out of step with the rest of the film, but touching just the same. It's not one I want to go rent again in a hurry though, I must say !! ;-) Rossrs (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

another day, another BLP concern

hmm, I don't know about this issue. It hasn't been a huge story here, I guess. I agree that the writing style wasn't appropriate, so I've watchlisted it. I've often wondered how much money has passed his way, especially with Crocodile Dundee. It must have made a fortune. My sisters went to school with John Cornell's (Hogan's manager, also mentioned in the article) wife, Delvene Delaney, and one of my sisters was at one time a friend of hers, and I gather that they are very rich. Hogan even more. Thanks for moving my sandbox. As usual I was totally oblivious. Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite misleading, and I think, intentionally so. I don't think someone could inadvertently misreport it so badly. Speaking of Mel Gibson, the same sister also knew Robyn, the soon-to-be-ex. Sorry. I think that's all. (but she didn't like her)  :-) Rossrs (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim Jones

Someone had obviously snuck that one in earlier. There seem to be more minor vandalism incidents on a number of pages lately. Mosedschurte (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Caine

Finally got around to fixing the Michael Caine filmography. Rossrs (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you also please have a look at Bing Crosby filmography. Not happy with it at all. The film section is OK, but I haven't tabled the shorts - I don't know how relevant they are, but I'm thinking "not very". The TV appearances are very selective. If you look at IMDb he has numerous TV appearances, some as himself and some in acting roles. Not sure what to do. A full list would be a mile long, but I loathe "selected" filmographies. To me they always read as "ones that I've heard of, and possibly like". Rossrs (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'll leave Bing's shorts as they are for now, but I think some of them are probably of the newsreel variety, and I see them as the 1940s version of a Letterman appearance. Your Bruce Willis example put it into perspective for me, so when I go back to it, I'll list his television acting appearances, and the variety specials, but I won't include his interviewee appearances (I think there were a substantial number of those). Maybe that'll be sufficient. In the meantime I've started on Ernest Borgnine. Who'da thunk the man had been in so many things! I agree that the Carl van Vechten images are pretty interesting; the Mostel image is kinda quirky. There's also a handful of Yousuf Karsh images that I like; the ones being used for Joan Crawford, Humphrey Bogart and Peter Lorre are beautiful. It's a shame there are not more. I do refer to your awards list regularly. It's the best labour saving device since the vacuum cleaner. Rossrs (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Helpy? Helpy?

This is SO not high priority, but if you have a spare second, could you look at Ann Bilansky? This is a stub I came upon after recently climbing back onto the banner side project wagon. I presume the lead name is her birth name, but can't verify it due to the restricted internet access at my cube farm. I'm also curious about the external link. Thanks! momoricks 02:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Helpful indeed...muchas gracias, momoricks 03:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. I gave up on that compilation of criminal bios with notability issues because most of the pages I've come across fall into that category. Once we get the banners slapped on them, maybe a deep cleaning can be done...if we ever get any other serious members, that is. momoricks 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

1. Hey, I just wanted to let you know, the recent adding to Kirstie Alley's Page, was not done by me, someone had my password, it was pretty a simple password! It's changed now though, I just wanted to let you know i would NEVER write or phrase any comment like that! Thank You for the corrections!

2. Lehrke was Augusta Gein's maiden name. Forgetting South Park for a moment, there was no reason to take out Augusta Gein's maiden name. I'm sorry to see that you are in poor health and I wish you the best, but please stop putting down what I am trying to add as constructive edits.

Chlotrudis

It's looking good. That'll be something more for you to add when you return to filmography tables! I know what you mean - I keep going back to Ernie Borgnine and doing it bit by bit, but I couldn't sit and do it in one stretch, and Bing is just too hard. At the moment, I'm just randomly selecting articles to update infoboxes etc, but I won't be around much longer. I've got two days off work and guess what - I have a bad cold. I've got a list of things I want to do, and another list that I have to do, so I'm pretty annoyed right now. On another note, I watched Au revoir, les enfants for the first time over the weekend. What a powerful film.

I'm waiting for someone to come and trap a trichosurus vulpecula that is living in my ceiling. Sounds frightening, doesn't it? He's been there for a while and he's hard to get rid of. This will be the second time a paid professional has tried to remove him, and when the last attempt failed, I decided he was harmless and could stay. Although he's chewed a hole in my kitchen ceiling and he sticks his head out and looks at me. He's not the least bit timid. I should upload a photo for the article. That's all well and good, and we've managed to co-exist for a while, but in the last couple of days he's gotten into the electrical wiring, so he's become dangerous. He's protected, so they can only seal up where he's getting in, trap him, and release him in my backyard, where he will hopefully find a tree to live in. They're very common here and very territorial. Basically if you take him out of his own neighbourhood, he'll die. It's illegal to move them, so one way or another, I'll have him and his descendents for life. Just as I've had his ancestors for about the last 20 years. Then after the man visits, I have to go out. I really don't want to. Rossrs (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen A Thousand Acres, but I studied King Lear at school. Man, was that tough! I could probably cope better now, but back then Shakespeare may as well have been Swahili. I wanted him to just get to the point, and stop making it all so flowery. I had no idea. Yep, my possum is quite cute. It has a very round face, fluffy and soft looking, with long whiskers and huge staring eyes. It's about the size of a cat. I do like them, and this one lets me get to within a few inches, and I talk to it and it just stares at me, and it's the stare that really gets me. Then when I move away it moves a bit closer. I probably shouldn't have made it feel so welcome, but on the other hand, it moved in without an invitation. One of my nieces raises orphaned wildlife, usually possums or wallabies, so I've been given a lot of information about possum psychology! When I was in New Zealand, I was a bit shocked that the locals consider them such a pest that they actually encourage people to run over them in their cars, so the roads are just littered with squashed possums. Granny Clampett would have been in heaven. Rossrs (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess there are only so many variations to a theme, and I suppose every instance of "star crossed lovers" would hark back if only vaguely, to Romeo and Juliet. I saw Silkwood when it first played, and I bought the DVD a couple of years ago. I still haven't looked at it, and I should. One of my aims is to hunt down and find films that I've never seen. I recorded The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie last night, so I may watch that later. Never seen it. I only thought of it when I was working on the Celia Johnson article, but I particularly like Maggie Smith. I better get moving now, before possum man gets here. See ya. Rossrs (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it means the fool who gave me a written quotation and a written confirmation that he'd be here between 9 and 11 didn't turn up. And when I'd waited until 12.30, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because tradespeople are always late, I phoned him and he said he had me down for tomorrow. So, I pointed out that I've been sitting around waiting all day, and ........ he's here now. Grrrr. There's something about him that gives me the creeps a little. I can't say why, you know, some people are just like that. So I've watched Inside the Actor's Studio with Ricky Gervais and now I'm just waiting for him to go, so I can go out and do what I need to do. Julianne Moore's lead isn't adequate, is it? There are so many that just fail for one reason or another. I'm surprised that there are not more people actually focussing on specific articles. Some of the other projects seem to get much more of a community involvement. I've often thought that the actors project could have a "task force" or an "article of the week" that several editors could work on raising to a better standard. That would be good, but then despite all the names on the project list, there are so few who participate in discussion. One day, when I'm feeling positive, I might just make the suggestion. Rossrs (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's very bad, but quite funny in a misplaced, random kind of way. "She also won a Volpi Cup at the Venice Film Festival." Also??? Lucky she won that Volpi, or what on earth would we say about about her? I've had a quick scan through it and I've got a couple of ideas, so I'll work on it next. For now, I'm going to be off. Possum man has set his traps, and hopefully my little friend enjoys apples because that's what he's being tempted with. The two cages are in the ceiling in the only manhole in the entire house, which unfortunately means the traps are directly over the bed. Can you image an angry frightened animal, the size of a chubby cat, trapped inside a strong but relatively light mesh cage, thrashing about in fear of its life - an they're noctural, so if he's caught it'll be above the bed, right when I'm trying to sleep.  :-) That man is creepy. I had another little chat with him while he was leaving, and ... yes creepy. Rossrs (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I just checked World Time Server and it's 3.15am in Indiana, 5.15pm in Brisbane. So I'm 12 hours ahead. Maybe the possum man was working on Indiana time. Although, if he was, he should have been here yesterday. MOS:FILM is the guideline you're referring to. I suspect there would be comments that MOS:ACTOR should come under MOS:BIO, and I don't know. Still, there must be a way of formulating a guideline and sitting it under the project banner. I'd like to see Brainstorm again. You have Natalie watchlisted, don't you? More activity. You can guess. Anyhooo... I recently got rid of most of my old videos. They played OK, but the ones I really liked I had already replaced with DVD versions, and the rest I copied onto DVD. So I've still got them. I can't believe they lasted so long, and I also can't believe what I used to tape from TV. It's kind of fun watching them for the circa 1983 advertisements. They have not dated well. Rossrs (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Make that 14 hours. Sheez, I'm no good with numbers. Rossrs (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at Julianne. I'm kind of happy enough with it, except I used the term "betrayed wife" in relation to Far From Heaven. That's not quite right, although I think the part was so notable and appeared to resonate more strongly than her others, it needs to be distinguished from the rest, without going too far, of course. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(losing my marbles - I posted all of these on my own talk page!) Rossrs (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be a packrat too, or more correctly, I think I'm an acquirer. I enjoy finding interesting things more than I actually enjoy having them, to tell you the truth, but I don't like parting with them. I'll buy DVDs that look interesting, especially older more obscure films that I think won't be making to TV any time soon, books in second hand shops... can't bear to part with any of them and I'll usually watch/read it once if that, and that's all. But I just might want to refer back to it, so it stays. Some of the books come in handy here - I never anticipated that when I bought them. Getting rid of all the old video tapes, once I decided to do it, I went through everything very carefully but then I got it all into the bin very quickly before I had a chance to reconsider. As I said, I didn't lose anything really. No problem, re Julianne and her offspring. Rossrs (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think I may call it a night. I'm tired and missing silly things like the Mel Gibson tables... ;-) If you have a moment, could you please have a look at Humphrey Bogart and Talk:Humphrey Bogart. I've rewritten the lead, as I was a bit concerned by the way it was written. It's not the best lead I've ever written, but I was mainly looking at the balance and emphasis. I know some people are quite protective of that particular article, so I'd value an opinion from you. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

re: User-08burgelaura

Thanks for you amusing comment. I would offer that suggestion to User-08burgelaura, but Arcayne apparently feels that I am biting the newcomer. The usual pile of crap (although well-intentioned) of letting newcomers get by with reckless editing and arrogantly refusing to be helped, but quickly reminding the regulars who actually give a shit about a quality encyclopedia that they must tolerate it. Like I said, well-intentioned but it doesn't really do much for the project. Cheers! Ward3001 (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My furry friend

"You'll never catch me!

Photo taken 15 minutes ago. He's smiling, isn't he? It's not just my imagination. Rossrs (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not long after I posted this, I heard the trap go off, and it's in the ceiling right above the bed, so it was very noisy in the dead of night and he was rattling around for a while. I got up and went out to the kitchen, and I heard rustling - he then put his head out and went "nyah nyah nyah, take another picture". So we chatted for a while and I went back to bed. The possum man is here now. Furry set off the trap, tried to get the apple, but wasn't caught. I feel like he's "Road Runner" and I'm "Wile E. Coyote" standing here with my useless Acme mail-order possum catcher. Rossrs (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

True. It's not like the possum trap exploded in my face, and no I don't actually want eat Mr. Furry, though I'm sure he'd be yummy with potatoes and carrots. ewww! Well, gotta go. Work is calling me. I'm calling back, "no.... leave me alone....." But it's still calling. Rossrs (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Just wanted to let you know I'm going away from the weekend, so apart from a possible couple of edits tonight, I won't be around. Don't want you to think I've blown myself up with my latest Acme contraption. Just away eating, drinking and being merry. Love the Jodie Foster book review, and the edit summary that removed it. See ya Rossrs (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is so funny. I won't fix it yet. First, click on Samantha McLeod. Note the infobox. OK, now we've established her name. Good. Fabulous. Now click on "edit this page". Look at how many fields there are in the background, and not one of them completed. Gotta love it. I especially love the optimism that suggests that all of those award fields may have eventually been full of data. I removed the gallery of one unfree image but other than that, I've left it. Her career section is unintentionally hilarious. Rossrs (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your last message. I had a lovely weekend, thanks. It went too quickly though, after all the planning and the anticipation. Would you please stop ruining articles? Rossrs (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But it had "a lady in it", Wildhartlivie! What will they think of next? Perhaps it'll catch on. I like Downey too. I thought he was brilliant in Zodiac (and Iron Man too), and Chaplin. You know what I really like? Heart and Souls. It's one of those whimsical-and-appealing films that come along too infrequently. Sherlock Holmes should be interesting too. It has a lady in it. So there! Rossrs (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:your message on my page

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

Farmer Frances

Heya, I hope is well with you. So, I've wondered about this for a while. Is the Frances Farmers Revenge site considered a reliable source? I've always considered it to be dubious, especially because my McAfee SiteAdvisor always blares a red alert when I visit. Thanks, momoricks 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I sure could use your expertise at the Zodiac killer

I left a question at the talk page. I sure would love it if you and some of the editors I know who watch you page would comment to my question. If you have time (and anyone else please) I sure could use it. I did the research right I think but in my condition right now I sure could use extra eyes on what I have done in reverts to an EL and checking the name of the casino out. Right now there are a bunch of articles being changed so I thought it should be verified that this is the correct name it is being changed to. Thanks for any help here as I am confusing myself with all of this. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you ruin my article about John Dillinger?

You could have just left it alone but then you had to go and ruin it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.227.154 (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it was about Dillinger, wasn't it? You just went ahead and ruined it, didn't you? Why don't you just keep your opinions to yourself, okay? I'm mad aat you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.227.154 (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put it back the way I had it tomorrow. It makes it a much better article. It is friendlier and more current, as in current events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.227.154 (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Jane Fonda women in war categories

I saw your edit summaries regarding Jane Fonda. While I can concede that perhaps the Women in 20th-century warfare is perhaps inaccurate, why do you object to my narrowing the Women in war category to Women in war in Asia? Asarelah (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps I could remedy the problem by creating a female anti-war activists category. Sound reasonable? Asarelah (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Wildhartlivie!

The reason I say thanks is because I'm still learning how to contribute to Wikipedia (I've only been here for about three weeks). The information on the top right, on the "Mickey Rooney" page, is the final "updated" one, and should be included in the article, as the information concerning those are indeed accurate, and from the books I listed (John Dunning's and Arthur Marx's). I hope I remember the "standard signature" as well.

Informationfountain (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

AN3

Re [2]: I think I've been imflammatory enough elsewhere tonight, so I'll simply note that in order to support his decision not to act upon is incorrect: I haven't ruled on this, indeed I quite deliberately didn't. The case is still open, as indicated by the absence of anything other than whitespace between the colon following the word result and the enclosing bracket in the header. If you did oblige me to rule on this, which you can't, I think I would probably decide that you've broken 3RR too William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob Hope Show

freeotrshows link is to javascript page with ads these are direct links to mp3s. Is that your moneymaker ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Moneymaker? I don't have a moneymaker on Wikipedia and there's nothing to accessed on or from a Wikipedia article that does that. However, there are specific policies regarding what can and cannot be direct linked on Wikipedia pages and links that directly trigger a download or require other applications to access may not be directly linked. The links you've tried posting to Bob Hope fall under that policy. A link to a page that lists files is acceptable if those files are directly relevant to an article's subject, but not the file itself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"what can and cannot be direct linked?" Cite the policy on links. point to it. freeotrshows Is that your website (with ads) ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

hayden panettiere

it was never confirmed she was dating milo but thats on there end of.i wont discuss it anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanpotter (talk • contribs)

Ann B. Davis

How's this for an edit summary? Succinct, to the point..... Rossrs (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Table

Great job formatting the Fawcett filmography! Abrazame (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. It looks great. Watchlisting B&C. I saw a preview for the upcoming Public Enemies last night, and it looks very good. Another one to add to my list. Rossrs (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The timing would be a bit off though - the Academy Award considerations are usually end of year/early new year releases. If this is released May/June it'll be old news by the timing of voting. At least, I think that's how it usually goes. Christian Bale looks interesting and Marion Cotillard (!!) manages a reasonable sort of American accent (at least to my Australian ears). I watched Burn After Reading last night. I've never seen Brad Pitt do comedy. Not the best film I've ever seen, but enjoyable. Pitt was funny. George Clooney wasn't. Frances McDormand was. Richard Jenkins was touching. Tilda Swinton made me hate her. John Malkovich was just kind of there. It's not a film that's likely to stay with me. I think it'll be gone by about Wednesday. Rossrs (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Johnny Depp is one of those "inevitable" winners when the time is right. Kind of like Kate Winslet was this year. One year, whether it's this one or next, or whatever, he'll be the one that nobody wants to overlook. Hopefully it'll be for a great performance, but I think he's a certainty in the next few years. That's my brave prediction. I think I'd put Brad Pitt on the same list. Rossrs (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I enjoyed Benjamin Button, but it's one that I probably won't look at again. (Unlike Changeling, which I think I'd happily watch a couple more times.) It has a kind of a fairy-tale quality to it, that reminds me a little of The Green Mile. Brad Pitt was excellent, but Sean Penn as Harvey Milk the right choice, Oscar-wise, I reckon. It's like comparing apples and oranges; not fair, but that's how it goes. Tilda Swinton is in it too. Come to think of it, she plays the same character in Burn After Reading, except in Ben she's partially likeable and in Burning she's dislikeable. She's perfected the "cold fish" character. If you've seen The Chronicles of Narnia, she's superb as the Ice Queen. By the way, did you know that Tilda "is an Academy Award-, BAFTA-, and Volpi Cup winning British actress". I read that on Wikipedia. These actresses just love winning the Volpi Cup, don't they? Rossrs (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on those gangsters, and yes it's surprising they haven't attracted attention, considering that they are on the main page. As for Halle, well I think there are some editors with the best of intentions who don't evaluate things like this keeping in mind to provide balance and context. Sources can be manipulated to say all kinds of things, but anyway, I've commented at the talk page. I'm sure if Halle died today, the headlines would say something about her being an Academy Award winning black actress and former model. I doubt that hit and run felon would figure anywhere prominently. There's a similar thing at Dawn Wells. Half her article is about a driving misdemenour and the talk page has attracted a fairly aggressive editor. It's on my to-do list, but very low on the list. Rossrs (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Felon" was just a throw-away word from me, but yes, there is a distinction. The thing that bugs me with edits to Halle Berry, Natalie Wood, Madonna and a bunch of others is that some editors seem to have decided what they want to say and then selectively find the sources to back it up. Sometimes I think it's better that the article say nothing, and this whole "the public has a right to know" doesn't wash with me. The "public" does not have the "right" to know. They want to know - and that's entirely different. The Dawn Wells thing. Again it started off as a minor mention and in her nearly 70 years of life, a minor mention seems fair enough to me. Then it grew. The fact that Bob Denver named her as a supplier years before and then recanted - I don't get how it's relevant to Dawn Wells. She may not have known he said it, he may have been joking (with her squeaky clean Maryanne persona it's conceivable that an oddball like Denver might say it as a joke). Who the hell knows? But once again, he said it, it's sourced and so that's good enough for us. We'll just slap that onto Dawn Wells' article without a second thought. That's very wrong in my opinion. Rossrs (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd indeed. I have nothing against Alyssa's dog. He was probably a fine animal. People get bogged down in such detail, don't they? I remember a huge fuss over Anne Frank's cats. (since deleted-whew!) I mean, I've read the diary several times, visited the house, read the biographies and seen the films. The cats don't figure strongly. I guess Anne loved them, but obviously not enough to write about in any depth, much like she didn't write much about the chair was sitting on, although I'm sure she was sitting on one. I also remember when I nominated Anne Frank for featured article, one editor objected a couple of times because there is an asteroid named after her and I didn't mention it, and refused to include it. So that counted as an object. He didn't comment on anything else in the article, and may not have even read it. But yes, it was all about the asteroid. In the mind of one editor, Anne Frank's contribution to the world is that her name is attached to a far-off asteroid that she knew nothing of, and that none of us will ever see. Odd. Rossrs (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear

Always check your top is buttoned before you smile for papparazzi! Rossrs (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it's great that actresses put on festivals for the sake of their fans, regardless of how carelessly they attire themselves. It's a nice photo really. Relaxed and natural. Rossrs (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kitty!

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Cause Kitties make everything feel better! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Aww. YAY! I love cats even though I'm deathly allergic. I've owned two and have taken lots of anti-allergy medicine. I still want to get another one some day. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rex Harrison

I've already asked Rossrs, but would you mind popping over to Rexy's page and giving an opinion about his alleged bisexuality? I already left a minor rant on the talk page and I suspect (all while assuming good faith) that this is the work of one Harvey Carter. Note the POV wording and the lack of a page number in the reference. Thanks! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page comment. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Check

Your email.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Again.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ann B. Davis

Hi, Would you mind taking a look at Ann B. Davis and see what you think. Do you think that based on the editing history over the last few days, it should be semi-protected? Also, you were right about your comment yesterday that sometimes people do object. I feel I may have fanned the fire, and I feel bad about that. But you know how long it's been going on - I get so frustrated by the same sequence of events over and over. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hateful, yes. That sort of thing usually doesn't bother me, but how bizarre - someone tendentiously ramming a bit of unrelated trivia into an article where it doesn't belong calling me moronic? Yeah right. I'll see what happens. If it gets reverted again, I'll file a protection request. I notice Mel got semi-protected for 3 months, which is excellent news. I can see more publicity coming soon regarding his pending divorce and the pregnancy of ... whatever her name is, I can't be bothered checking. And Bonnie and Clyde just came up with a protection note, so that's good too. Harrison is only semi-protected for a few days, but that's OK. It's so obvious who it is, and he'll just move on to another subject eventually, like he always does. I've lost track of the names of all the dead actors that have attracted similar attention. I guess who gets targetted next depends on which book he 'reads' next. My theory is that he stands in bookshops, looks up the word "bisexual" in the index and takes it from there. There's never anything useful, just salacious. I've finally done something that has been bugging me for ages - Judi Dench's lead section. She now has one that doesn't just blurt out a list of her numerous awards. Quite happy with it. Rossrs (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you like it. It's funny but I make gazillions of little edits here and there, and then occasionally I do something that I'm really pleased with. I can't tell you how many times I looked at the original lead, and thought that fixing it would be too hard. When I actually started, it took about 10 minutes, because everything is in the article. But boy, there are some bad articles. I just worked on Ava Gardner and really, for someone so prominent, the article is lacking. I'm not a fan, so I don't know much about her, but she's on the AFI top 25 list (for reasons I can barely fathom). I've also noticed the comments being made to Excuseme. I think it was the Madonna page that drew people's attention and now they've gone back to other articles that are not so much on the radar (like Natalie Wood) and seen some of the issues. It's good. Rossrs (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Cyndi Lauper - did you happen to see the American Idol final? She did a beautiful acoustic rendition of "Time After Time" that was exactly the same as the beautiful acoustic rendition of "Time After Time" that she did on Australian Idol. Oh well, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. The Jane Alexander tabling looks brilliant. I think this is the perfect table format - the table itself looks great, and the way the awards are represented, is excellent. I'm very good at adding {{filmography table head}} to articles with an existing table in another format, and I updated the award format for Audrey Hepburn yesterday but I've decided that making tables from scratch is not my thing. I will one day finish Agnes Moorehead and Ernest Borgnine, but they don't fill me with anticipation. Rossrs (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Justthefacts 101 appears to be edit warring at Karyn Kupcinet.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Spaces

Save some server space. Every little helps. --Jimbo^[online] 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bit more than I expected then. Your opinion has been noted. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tables

I can understand that you're feeling attacked. I read through the discussion and I have to admit a lot of it was above me. I can see that accessibility could be an issue, but on the other hand I've never added any kind of custom settings and I can see the table just fine - I don't know if that means everyone else can. I was thinking myself that infoboxes use various colours, and with album infoboxes for example there's a different colour for different types of album, and the discussion that led to their use was very much of a "I like that colour best" variety. There was nothing scientific about it. I like the idea of standardization generally, which is why I get pedantic about commas and capital letters in infoboxes, because I do think there should be a sameness. Standardization is a loose concept here anyway, not only in terms of colour but in article structure, table structure - why else are there about 10 different ways that awards are conveyed for example? So the concept of overriding the standard (whatever it may be) to customize to a particular taste seems to happen all over Wikipedia. If the standard is the basic colour and the option still exists to use custom headers, that's a bit of a pain to anyone who doesn't prefer the standard version, (like you and me) but it still makes is useable. If not, we couldn't have the hideous Katharine Hepburn filmography with it's blazing sunshine-yellow boxes. Or have I got it wrong? Looking at it from a completely simplistic viewpoint, we're no better off, but no worse off than we were about 6 weeks ago.

Reading through the discussion, I know that going through everything point by point has irritated you, but it may not have been his intention. It may be his way of being thorough. So many times I've asked a detailed question asking for help or information and I've been given an infuriating three phrase reply that makes me feel like my question wasn't completely read, and it wasn't worth someone's time to give a thoughtful reply. Given the choice, I'd rather have the reply that you've had. He hasn't agreed with you, but he hasn't dismissed you. A couple of times he's said that he also prefers the colour choice and suggests nominating it as the standard. I think he's just sticking to the idea that he'll favour the standard format whatever it is, although the exact style isn't his first choice. I really don't think there is a single thing you could say to change his mind, and he's effecftively said that. I think that if customization exists as an option and is widely used throughout Wikipedia for different reasons, there should be no reason to chide you for electing to go back to the customized version. All you've done is revert those tables back to exactly where they were before the "new" table was made.

To less complicated issues - the close-up Mae West picture is a stinker. It's too grainy and out of focus. It's the sort of image that Commons should encourage deletion of, but the process of getting an image deleted from Commons is torturous unless it's a copyright violation. Then it disappears like a flash of light. I actually think the "Diamond Lil" photo would work better for the infobox. It seems a little unbalanced to have I'm No Angel represented by two images when the rest of her film career (obviously because of copyright) isn't represented. The one in the body of the article looks good where it is, and it's nice to have Cary Grant as a co-star rather than just Mae everywhere. Just a thought.

As for Greta, I agree the Genthe image is more representative of her overly dramatic/melodramatic style. The Garbo-in-a-coat image is not typical of her "look". It has the look of a costume test shot, and to me it looks like a photograph of a coat. The coat's being worn by Greta Garbo, but it's still a photograph of a coat. The other editor asks "what constitutes the common view" and I think that's a fair question, but the common view of Garbo was never to merely look blankly at the camera with a feigned smile. Of all the photos I've ever seen of her, the Garbo-in-a-coat is unusual in it's lack of flair. She was usually about drama and effect and it's just not in that picture. Commons has quite a few Garbo images but most are not good.

Ann B. Davis got protected for 3 days. Considering the number of abusive edits yesterday and today, that seems a little mild, but better than nothing. Rossrs (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see that accessibility could be an issue, but on the other hand I've never added any kind of custom settings and I can see the table just fine - I don't know if that means everyone else can.

There is nothing about the nonstandard table style that makes it inherently inaccessible (which is why I would not oppose a proposal to make it the new default). The problem is that it lacks the code that enables users to tweak the tables' display to accommodate their unique needs.

In other words, the standard table style presents accessibility difficulties for some readers too, but it can be overridden on a user-by-user basis.

I was thinking myself that infoboxes use various colours, and with album infoboxes for example there's a different colour for different types of album, and the discussion that led to their use was very much of a "I like that colour best" variety.

Right, but those colors convey information to readers. The use of a subjectively prettier table style in arbitrary articles does not.

Reading through the discussion, I know that going through everything point by point has irritated you, but it may not have been his intention.

It certainly wasn't (and isn't).

It may be his way of being thorough.

Precisely. I know of no better way to address a large number of statements/questions in an understandable manner. If I were to simply type all of my responses in one big lump (without quoting the text to which I'm replying), they would be less clear.

A couple of times he's said that he also prefers the colour choice and suggests nominating it as the standard. I think he's just sticking to the idea that he'll favour the standard format whatever it is, although the exact style isn't his first choice.

Indeed. For the record, I regard the blue coloring as slightly nicer in appearance than the default grey (which also seems fine to me). I'd be happy with either as the standard, but the current mixed use only makes the encyclopedia look less professional (in addition to the aforementioned accessibility issue). —David Levy 18:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Janis Joplin

The important thing is it got done. Thanks.

I'm not good with templates but I just happened to see that problem. The important thing is to have the link for someone who knows what to do.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hubris

Indeed! LOL!!!--Victor9876 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Tables2

Hi, I saw you adding filmographies to many articles. Is the current layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography the prefered one at the moment? I noticed some discussion lately about awards/oscar and other filmography related questions lately but kind of missed the conclusion (if there was any). Garion96 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Find A Grave corrections to be made

Hi, Here are the wiki pages that generated errors at Find A Grave today (duplicate entries have been reduced to a single line):

This list is getting fairly long. I don't want it to take up too much space on your page. But I don't know what the Wiki protocol is for deleting content from another user's talk page. Feel free to delete them as they are corrected or continue with the strike-through method if that is more inline with Wiki standards. GraveGuy (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with this! It shouldn't be anywhere near this long again and should eventually taper off to zero as the links are corrected. Sorry for the double spacing. When I single spaced them, they wrapped like a paragraph?? GraveGuy (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 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) 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Case Of The Missing Awards - and - The Man Who Died Twice

Hi. I know I've read and I would swear I even participated in a discussion somewhere where a consensus had been reached that a reasonable amount of eminently notable specified award nominations and wins were perfectly acceptable in lead sections and did not fall under WP:Peacock or any such nonsense. I recall Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman coming up in particular. Now for the second time in a month or two I'm observing an IP user engaging in wholesale removal of such content. As I noticed you on their talk page, I thought I'd duck on here instead of splashing back onto some project page to rehash this. I see you're part of WP:ACTOR. Do you recall offhand and could you direct me to wherever this or some equally relevant consensus is corroborated, so that I can A) be sure I'm not in the wrong by posting a warning at such rampaging editors' talk pages, and B) be sure I'm not in the wrong by in some cases reverting the info.

The same editor is removing the age at death of several of these actors. I can't for the life of me figure out why they would take issue with such a thing. As I explained to the anon, infoboxes automatically calculate the date. Though their age at death is reported in the infobox, however, it's hardly redundant to mention it in the body of the text as well, in the section that addresses their death. Is there some policy or consensus somewhere relating to this of which I am unaware? Thanks for your help, I'll watch your talk page for your response. Abrazame (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate issues at work here. It is entirely proper for a lead section to contain reference to notable awards. On the other hand, it is a problem when the lead sentence contains wording such as "Academy Award-winning, Golden Globe-nominated actor". The lead sentence should be a brief summary of who the person is and what it is that makes them notable. That someone like Alan Alda is an actor is what made him notable, the awards he won came later, although they may tend to enhance the notability. WP:FILMS has a manual of style that addresses that for the lead sentence, but WP:ACTOR doesn't have a separate MOS yet. However, the third note in the ongoing tasks mentioned at WP:ACTOR#On-going projects/to do lists page says: "Remove lead sentence mention of "______ Award-winning" and/or "______ Award-nominated". This can and should be included in lead sections, but not in lead sentences." I agree with you, however, about the age at death. It is really fine to mention the age at death, although it doesn't have to be. Hope that answers your question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

More about lead sections. In a great many cases, the lead section of actor biographies are deficient in size and content. Another ongoing project with some members of WP:ACTOR is the effort to bring more articles to a higher class of quality and a lot of that encompasses writing more thorough lead sections. We've got lists of actor articles at User:Rossrs/Sandbox2 and User:Rossrs/Sandbox3 with assessments on what is needed and a major part of that is to expand the lead. From the Lee Grant article:

Lee Grant (born October 31, 1927) is an American Academy Award-winning, Golden Globe-nominated theater, film and television actress, and film director who was blacklisted by the Hollywood movie studio bosses in the 1950s.

This is the sum total of the lead as it currently exists and that is hopelessly inadequate. However, that's mostly why the awards are mentioned in the lead sentence. It should be at least two or three paragraphs long, part of that including mention of the awards in a subsequent sentence. Even one longer paragraph would be an improvement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think the task should read "Move lead sentence mention..." instead of "Remove" it, because newbies probably don't grasp why half of the job isn't helpful, and mass removal is what is happening. Even though it ultimately doesn't belong where it is, it's better for it to be there when a constructive editor arrives, so they don't have to re-research such things or open another window and trawl back through edit histories if subsequent edits happen in the interim.

And I love Lee Grant! Fantastic actress. Such a depth and intelligence comes through. Cannot believe she was born in 1927! She's always looked at least ten, fifteen years younger. (Though I haven't seen her in any new footage for a couple of years, and looking at her filmography, I'm realizing I've only seen a tiny bit of her work.) When I get a chance I'll try and help get a little more meat on that page. I've copied down those two Sandbox links. But in the near term my focus is on the Farrah Fawcett bio when I can give it my full attention. (Often I'm fiddling at Wiki during or between other things and can't really give something here my full attention all at once—or am burning the midnight oil and loathe to start a major, challenging project because I know I should go to bed, like now!) Thanks again, Abrazame (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would "move and/or expand" rather than "remove". This really interests me, and it is something that Wildhartlivie and I have discussed at some length. There are two ways of looking at it. On the one hand saying someone is "Academy Award-winning, double BATFA-nominated, Tony Award-nominatated....star of stage and screen" falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and for that reason I don't see it as vandalism. I see it as "maybe" a case of someone "fixing" one problem in good faith (maybe) and creating a new problem in doing so. It's much better to say "X won X award for X reason" and give it context, and that can only be done by expanding the lead, in my opinion. I've probably removed some myself, but usually this is when the award is already mentioned later in the lead, and I don't see that it should be mentioned more than once. I've been working on expanding leads and I think that's a better way to go. For example Jessica "I am just an actress" Tandy to Jessica Tandy, Julianne "I won a Volpi Cup" Moore to Julianne Moore and Judi "I've won everything but the Nobel Prize" Dench to Judi Dench. I don't think the anon is helping to provide context by removing a couple of words, even taking into account "undue" and "POV". Unfortunately some time in the past someone went through and added Award-winning or Award-nominated to every Academy Award, Emmy, Tony, Golden Globe etc..... person. Interestingly, the music project decided to avoid "Grammy winning" in the sentence. I think the awards are hugely important but I think the lead should be constructed in such a way that they become part of the story, rather than the whole focus of it.

Lee Grant - I agree she's wonderful. The lead section mentions that she's a Golden Globe nominee but fails to mention that she's an Emmy winner. It would be great to (as you said) "add a little meat" to it. It's strange that some articles are so neglected and brief while others are the opposite. I was constantly irritated by edits to Viola Davis - someone added "Academy Award nominated" several times, but was completely not interested in the fact that she is a Tony winner. I could never understand it as she's been primarily a stage actress until now - and a Tony is quite a big deal. Rossrs (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had a Louis XVII chair

... I'd go and scare him with it. To answer your question, yes I do and no I don't. The image of him compulsively obsessively telling people that he's compulsive obsessive even if they don't want to know.... and no I don't think it was intentional. It would be less funny to me, if I thought it was intentional.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I love that he turned it into a positive by using it to bond with Warren Zevon. Oh the fun they must have had. Rossrs (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The werewolf thing looks more like a philia than a phobia. Just to let you know, I'm going to be away for a day or so, so I won't be editing at all. I've noticed an edit summary at Elizabeth Taylor that I disapproved of, and have left a message at the user talk page. You can guess who. I don't know if an ANI or whatever is due. On a lighter note do you think it's possible to forge a close friendship in a carpark? Apparently it is. Rossrs (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cusack and tables

Thanks, I also reverted it from other articles. Regarding tables, have you added any filmography layout you really like recently? I will then simply use that one. What is with you btw that editors start discussing you instead of the topic? The same happened with that weird awards discussion. Bad karma or something? :)

I still want to improve the Michael Palin article, so might as well start with the the filmography section. I did the lead and "Early life and career" section but stopped for the rest. I saw you have that article (probably) on your watchlist. Do you see any things which stand out immediately as need fixing? Garion96 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I have a "good article". :) Never saw that nomination which happened pretty much right after I cleaned up and expanded the article. I don't know if it actually passes for that. The first section is ok I think, but everything afterwards needs work. Will start working on it and definitely will use your templates/text for that.

And no, I don't think it's you. At least not from that surreal discussion about the awards in the infobox. The only discussion I basically read till completion. People just get excessive about stuff. Which seems to be happening more and more lately. Good luck with your surgery tomorrow. Garion96 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

Check it.--Victor9876 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at 2help's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mail

You have mail. It's just a short yes/no question. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt Damon

Of course I know that your intentions for the article are good, you've beat me to vandalism reverts numerous times. I know nothing of the sockpuppet issue except for what I read at AN/I. I would just recommend in the future to ensure that you don't risk 3RR, if there's a troublesome editor for whatever reason, there will be someone else to revert them. If you need help with anything let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Note on the Manson Scenario page

Thanks for letting me know the editor was identified as a sockpuppet and blocked. — I hadn't visited any of the Manson pages for a few weeks, I think, until a few days ago. I'm glad to see you still patrol them.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh

Yes. Why delete just that part of it? It's incomprehensible. Rossrs (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. It seems to boil down to the simple fact that our basic policies either have not been read, or have not been understood or have been dismissed as unimportant. If I was a newish editor and everything I did was either challenged or reverted, I'd start to wonder what I was doing wrong. I guess some people never consider that they may be wrong. Rossrs (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Forbes

I will look for source material for Meryl Streep. Have you seen the Forbes 100? Angelina Jolie is number one, Meryl is number 54. I am outraged - I can't believe that Beyonce got $87million for doing whatever it was she did last year. Are there any celebrities that you can not abide and perhaps can't even explain why? For me, it's Beyonce. 87 million! Rossrs (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of celebrities that I like, and often the reasons are equally irrational, but I'm ambivalent about many of them. Ryan Seacrest is overpaid to put it mildly. I see him as a bit of a buffoon, though harmless. The only other one on the list that I feel strongly about is Kate Moss. Do you get that TV advert where she advises everyone to "get the London look"? I can't remember what product she's hawking. Well, if the London look involves lying in a gutter with a bottle of champagne in one hand and my dress up around my armpits, then no thanks. I have this image that a day in the life of Kate Moss would look something like that. Obviously I'm wrong and there's more to her than that, but I don't want to know.

Meryl Streep online and Simply Streep - The Meryl Streep Archives both link to a lot of material. Both are very pro-Meryl, which is no big surprise, but I'm exploring through them. Rossrs (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm now working through some of the sites. I've done a bit of a copyedit up to 1990 and now all I'm seeing is a lack of depth permeating the entire article. I'm probably overcompensating now. I like the Roger Ebert comments about Streep - his overview may well come in handy. I've quoted a bit about preparing for the role of Karen Silkwood but I don't know how to site it. The weblink is Google Books, rather than directly from the book. Could you please have a look - the edit is here. I've left it unsourced for now. I'm perplexed. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And, Magic Meryl - it's great. There's a lot of information there. Excellent. Rossrs (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't sure so I'll cite it just as you've suggested. Rossrs (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Yes, it's a tabloid. It's definitely not the worst of them, but if you're asking if it's a strong enough source, I would say probably not. Rossrs (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Gossipy rubbish. At least the source was careful to use the word "alleged" or "allegation" three times, and "claimed" once. Whoever added it to the article was far less cautious. Meanwhile a couple of Australian soap opera celebutards have gotten themselves into trouble this week, and of course the need to include a breathless and half-coherent report of it here is more important than WP:BLP. Frustrating, ain't it? Rossrs (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good intentions, yes, I can see those, but ..... misguided. I find all those succession tables to be a complete (insert rude word of your choice here). They look tacky and unprofessional, and the last thing we need is more of them. We have lists for stuff like that. How innovative is that? You can see all the winners in one glance without having to plough through them one by one. Seriously, I think the person who added them will also be thinking about how much time it took to add them, so (I'm sure you've thought of this) - you may need to brace yourself. Rossrs (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also been avoiding that particular article, but I've had a look now and it seems to be dealt with satisfactorily under the circumstances. Rossrs (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re a note

One of the reasons I removed it was Rossrs comment above, I still had your talk on my watchlist. I really don't see any point in those. I also removed them from Judi Dench, probably won't stick but hey. At least it's better indeed than the "4 awards" section. Which was already mentioned a few times in the article and boxes and tables. But to have this separate for a POV of what awards are "the four". :) I really have to make an essay called "why do editors prefer infoboxes/navboxes/templates over actual prose?" Garion96 (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll put my money on "Because reading prose is almost as hard as writing it." And please call it "Why do some editors...." Seeing as you're always watching.....  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Big Brother is always watching you('re talkpage). :) Also, more important than "four awards" and oscar award winning actresses, how did your eye surgery go? Garion96 (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tatum O'Neal

Hello. In this article, her age keeps changing from 9 to 10 when she won her Oscar. I just changed it back again (to age 10). You had changed it from age 10 to 9 a day or so ago. Is there any reason why you believe 9 is correct, over 10? Am I missing something? I am confused about this. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Enough is Enough

If you've had enough, don't put up with that stuff. Don't you do it!

I don't look at Cher very often, so I've only discovered this morning that we couldn't buy CD singles in 1999. I must be hallucinating the "Believe" single that I have, in all its plasticky realness, as well as all the other singles I bought in 1999. It's ridiculous. I've yet to see this editor make a single useful contribution to Wikipedia, but I've seen numerous instances of him/her wasting time and attracting disagreement. I'd much rather be thinking about Meryl Streep's article (or any other article) than anticipating what happens next at Natalie Wood. Rossrs (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Robey

Thanks for the note on the alleged husband's talk page. I went to get a cup of tea and you beat me by three minutes. It's sort of amazing how her ex and now her hubby have taken to Wikipedia to fiddle with the article. How do I keep finding these messes? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 17:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I know....I think I'm a glutton for punishment or something. I saw the Excuses mess(es) last night and almost thought I was dreaming. I found the debate about who took Madonna's virginity to be most amusing (I wonder if she even remembers!). I'm not gonna touch the rest of those articles, but I'll clean up ol' Bob Wagner's page. I don't subscribe to the theory that he killed Natalie, but I think I can still work on the article anyway. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 17:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin

Well, what I'm trying to say here is that it makes no sense to just have a random sentence starting with 1) a lowercase letter and 2) without a noun or clause. The picture "interrupts" the flow. The header "Alec Baldwin" indicates the box is preparing to give information on that individual. Take a look at some of the following BLPs that use captions after the picture in the infobox: Rihanna; Jessica Biel; Chris Brown; Jerry Springer. They include the name, even after the caption box's header. Some exception may be Jerry Seinfeld, but it clearly only indicates the picture's origin. If you wish this to be the case, delete "at a..." and say "Photograph from a PETA event." Thank you for your understanding. At this time, I will return Baldwin's name into the caption, as per my rationale. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

Take a look at my recent contributions, I just uploaded 41 new images (I got really lucky with an amazing author who has let us use many of her images). It took a couple of hours to upload them all, but it's definitely worth it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 09:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A flash from the past

Just FYI, User:Britneysaints seems to be out and about again - see Talk:Louise Brooks and File:Canary Murder Case.jpg. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported him at 3RRN Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart

I'm afraid the disambiguation question you refer to isn't something I'm clear on. I'm not sure what's being proposed. All I know is that I believe that the article on Stewart the actor should be entitled "James Stewart", not "Jimmy Stewart." If the disambiguation question presents an obstacle to that, I think I would be opposed to that as well. If it doesn't, then I'm not. As long as I've been contributing to WP, there are still some things that confuse me, and this question about some kind of shift in the disambiguation notice is one of them. Thanks, and thanks for taking an interest in this. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Louise Brooks

Hi. In your last edit you wrote that images should not go directly under section titles? Why is that? Does it do something funky on your set-up, 'cause it looks perfectly fine on mine? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I think you were probably referring to the Pandora's Box image, which had been on the left, and which I didn't see you had changed. I only saw the change to the Canary Murders image, and thought that was what you were referring to. So, I'm now assuming that you were objecting to the PB image on the left, and the way it caused the next section title to be indented? Or...?? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find that guideline, because I don't recall anything like that, and it's something I do quite often. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this, from MoS:Images, what you mean? Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two. If so, it doesn't apply, since the header the PB image was under was a level-2 header, not 3 or lower.

In any case, if the layout's OK for you now, I'm OK with it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Would you and Ross look at File:Louise Brooks in Europe.jpg and tell me what you think, please? I removed it from the Louise Brooks article because I didn't think it really added anything, and was hard to see even after I fiddled with it. As an orphaned fair use image it's been marked for deletion, and I wanted you to double check me on it - should it be restored to the article? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Scanners

An invitation to take a look at this and see what you think. As always, no expectations, no hard feelings. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Users Think I was a Vandal

Geez Louise, and other users called me a vandal over the years I was on this website. You should try the user who is vandalizing Guiding Light, 2009 in television and 2010 in television. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian McKellen

As part of the GA Sweeps project I have reviewed this article and reluctantly concluded that it should be delisted until concerns over referencing and the lack of broad scope are addressed. Comments have been left at Talk:Ian McKellen/GA1 suggesting ways in which the article can be improved. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The tag on cite #8 was a mistake, I have removed it. If you look at my talk page you will see that another editor likes the highlighting, it helps clarify and saves reviewers from copy pasting entire paras into the review. With regards to Tiscali I have not seen any evidence that it is a RS with a reputation for fact checking, editorial policy, citation by other RS, etc. I was posing the question. Do you have evidence that it is a RS? It is a good biography and in fact could be used for many statements in the article if it is OK Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Pesky! Looking over the article/review I would say that the article should have been placed on hold (if the tags had been there for a while, then it should have been boldly delisted). However if the reviewer added all of the tags, then a week hold should have been done first to allow the editors of the article ample time to attempt to address the issues. I only boldly delist articles if there are major issues such as no sources at all or large portions that are unsourced. Concerning the highlighting, I would recommend only adding citation tags to individual statements that need to be sourced, not the entire paragraph (unless it needs to be completely sourced). Film roles do not need to be sourced (that the actor appeared in it), as the film is a reference itself (such as when detailing the plot of a film). The notice shouldn't be at the top of the talk page, it should be moved to the bottom as with any other discussion. Obviously since we're dealing with a BLP here, a large majority of the gay issues need to be sourced, so many of those tags do need to be addressed. Since the article has already been delisted, you can contest it at GAR for a community consensus (where people may agree/disagree with the reviewer's method, but will probably agree with the suggested changes). I'll leave a note on his/her talk page clarifying some of the reviewing details. Let me know if you would like further clarification on any of these points. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent the reviewer some comments on the review so hopefully further reviews wouldn't encounter the same kind of issues. With television episodes, it's hard to source because many other editors and reviewers can't view the episode to see the actual claims. I always try to find another source if possible to go with it, but if the episode is a reliable source, there's no reason it can't be used. Like I said on the reviewer's talk page, every editor reviews articles differently, so different methods are used. When I reviewed GANs (would like to get back to that when Sweeps are over, hopefully in the next few months!) I usually did not correct issues with the article myself as I wanted the nominator to correct them to prevent them from making the same mistakes again. I prefer editors do that for me for my GAN/FACs so that I can continue to improve my editing/writing skills. If the reviewer didn't make significant changes to the article (was one of its contributors) prior to the review, then it should be acceptable if they want to make some copyedits. For Sweeps, I try and fix all of the minor issues as I don't want to place an article on hold for a single missing FUR or a few grammar mistakes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the major reason I delisted was that there is an entire section of McKellen's life missing from Bolton Little Theatre to his appeaarance in films. Putting that section in will undoubtedly take time, hence the delist. I have now specifically shown which bits need citing and why on the GA reassessment page. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and with reference to Paris-Roubaix, I have made copy-edits where neccessary and left the article on hold for other points (e.g. where I have no sources, rewrites need to be done, sections need clarification, etc.) That is SOP for GA reviews. If you check out the review for that article your will see it all spelt out there. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment

Cheers, All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Stanwyck

Hi. I am currently adding reliable references and eliminating unreliable ones in an attempt to get this article to Good Article status. Please don't delete the references I am adding. Thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I have changed the references to "Bibliography," which is an academically-accepted term for relevant but not necessarily cited sources.
2. I have been specifically told during successful GA reviews/FAC candidacies that IMDb is not acceptable, ever. Nor is All Movie. Sorry.
3. Citations are not required in the lead, and thus neither are citation needed tags. Ricardiana (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Health issue

Hi - I just now saw the notice about health issues on the top of page. Whatever the problem is, I hope it gives you the absolute minimum of hassles and annoyance. My very best to you, Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a drag - puts my own eye problem – Fuch's heterochromic iridocyclitis which caused a cataract removal earlier this year, rather earlier than is usual (55 y.o.) – to shame. I hope the laser treatment helps. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Brad Pitt

Its fine, I was just assuming good faith, like I always do. :) I was curious what awards you added and saw Eric Bana's name in the Mr. & Mrs. Smith column and I'm like 'What's going on here?'. I could tell that you didn't mean it, so don't give yourself a hard time. 3 a.m.? Yup, 3 a.m. does indeed enjoy messing with people's minds. ;) Hey, on totally different topic, though still on Brad Pitt, do you by any chance know a copy-editor? Reason I ask, Pitt's article didn't pass FAC, due to the article not having "good" prose, and I was just wondering if you knew anyone. Also, I apologize if I seemed rude on my edit summary. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cause I saw my edit summary and I was like 'I may have sound harsh.' But, I'm glad its cool. Yeah, before I merged the awards to the filmography, the article had an awards/nominations section. That was my fault for not merging the entire awards to the table. I thought that awards like "Best Male", etc., were only supposed to be included. But, I wasn't sure. Oh, Rossrs, yeah I've seen him around. Okay, I'll ask him if he can help. Thanks, man. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know there's that whole debate about adding the "important" awards, as opposed to the "popular" ones. Like I said, that was my bad for removing the awards you wound up re-adding, cause I'm my rightful mind they didn't seem notable to have. Oh, well I guess. You're right, every award an actor/actress receives needs to be known and not be biased. To be honest, the Razzie awards are a joke and don't deserve to be included in actor's articles. Oh, I'll probably stop by and say something. I actually don't support those succession boxes in the articles. They just take up to much space, in my opinion. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

fyi: „Seit den Dreharbeiten an "Flightplan" habe sie sich in die Stadt verliebt und bedauert es, nicht besser deutsch sprechen zu können, weil sie sich gerne mit den Fans unterhalten wollen würde.“ [3] --88.73.43.102 (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you suppose ...

... that this could have been written without mentioning the suspicious circumstances or would there have been no point in the edit without it? I suspect the latter. Rossrs (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Kissel murder case

Heya, what's your opinion on this page name and topic? Apparently it started as a separate page from her biography page and they were eventually merged; see the discussion at Talk:Nancy Kissel. I sometimes view appending "murder case" or "trial" at the end of a page name as a way to bypass BLP policies, although I don't think that was the case with this one. Why is her page about the murder case when her brother-in-law Andrew Kissel gets his own page? Doesn't the international coverage of the case make her as notable as Stacey Castor? Or is Kissel not notable enough because she killed only one husband? Wow, I'm in a ranty mood today. Must be lack of sleep. I'm probably way off base here. Hope you're doing all right today! momoricks 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the input. I'm gonna make a couple page move proposals. Talk to ya later! momoricks 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL...enjoy! momoricks 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All righty, I made the page move proposal for the Andrew Kissel page. Think I'll do one at a time, as Nancy's might get stinky. momoricks 06:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Succession stuff

The irony is that I am working from the those nav boxes I detest so much. :) Like Template:Academy Award Best Director. Garion96 (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the Natalie Wood vandal, I encountered him before. Btw, what do you think of this successionbox. That one has got to be the worst of those boxes I encountered. Garion96 (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a prod deletion. If you want, I can just restore the article. Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix Film Critics Society is restored. Garion96 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

In response to a seemingly knowing comment re: using images sparingly and with a purpose Rossrs made at [4], I initiated a discussion at [5], if you care to comment. Thanks. P.S. I'm sorry to hear you're experiencing health issues. I hope you're feeling better!!! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

re Ann B.

You are most welcome. Thanks for taking the time out to thank me! Most appreciated. :) Cirt (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Otto

This made me laugh. Imagine being so impressed by your own performance that you'll take calls from Steven Spielberg! I notice you've got Ann B. semi-protected again, and that's good. The obstinacy + the edit summaries = no more good faith. Rossrs (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Case

thanks for letting me know. I'll monitor the case. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuseme99

In case you haven't heard... User talk:Excuseme99  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm seriously convinced that there's a Dooyar School of Socking somewhere on the internet. Good job on getting yet another puppetmaster blocked. Pinkadelica ^♣ 05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, three socks on one talk page? That takes me back to the old days. I'm impressed that they knew exactly what was going on in the Wood/Wagner household before and after Natalie's death. How is it that us mere mortals with one lowly account don't know the "real" story, but editors who create multiple accounts always know "the truth". Pinkadelica ^♣ 06:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice Natalie is being edited by an anon. Coincidentally the point is the same. Why are there so many anonymous people in the world who think this point about being the youngest ever three time Oscar nominee, is so important? (I'm not sure I'd put a lot of faith in Who's Dated Who?. I have looked at it, but that's mainly when I want to know who dated who, and that's not often.) Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Just an FYI

Thanks. I had dealt with one of the socks on an occaision or two. Dismas|^(talk) 02:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Supporting actresses

Yes, I was working down the list last night. I was only looking at the winners, rather than the nominees. I went from the present to about 1950ish, and the older ones were already done. Rossrs (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

SLJ

Yeah, I know what you meant, I know your intentions are always for the best. A lot of my older GAs definitely need to be cleaned up and expanded (the last major revamp was to replace a lot of unreliable sources a few months back). I'll probably devote more time to the article once my current FAC passes/fails. And don't ever worry about me, I enjoy hearing new ways to improve articles. I can easily point out issues in other articles but have trouble spotting them in ones I work on. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, I was just trying to point out my interpretation of the criteria. If I came across as a problem, I apologize. Maybe a little bit of my wanting to protect my baby GA caused me to defend it, but I didn't have the intentions of scaring off potential constructive criticism. I have no problem with going with consensus concerning the merge, I just realize that this will set precedent for other actor articles and if it does result in split, we'll soon be having numerous other split off filmographies. The reasons that I worked on the Schwarzenegger and Eastwood lists was because they did have reason to be split off. I had initially considered the Jackson filmography, but decided against it for the reasons I stated on the talk page. It's great that so much effort went into developing the filmography, but I don't believe arguments should be made to split it off solely because it has numerous sources, especially after many are likely not needed. Anyway, that's crazy that there were that many sockpuppets in the case. It amazes me the steps people take on here sometimes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is something that I considered as well, and I've seen editors do this before (although it wasn't with filmographies). If you take a look at John Wayne's filmography, he has so many films that it's split up into three different filmography lists. The size of that filmography, as well as the length of his article, definitely warrants splitting it off. Sometimes its not a clear cut decision, but hopefully consensus through merge discussions such as this will help in determining how articles are set up in the future. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Filmographies were one the main things I worked on in the first year or so here, and it's been interesting to see them change over the years (wow, that sounds like a long time). Every once in a while I'll add one to an article missing them or flip the years around if its going in descending order. Looking at the Category:Filmographies, I'm not sure all of the filmographies need to be split off, but there are definitely some that needed to be. Hopefully the article gets more feedback from other editors so this can be closed soon. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

James Stewart

I noticed that with the page hits and I thought it was very convincing. How do you get those figures? Someone said something about how many times Judy Garland was viewed when it was on the front page, and I was wondering how we know this. I went through and fixed the linking for all the James Stewarts and I don't know if anyone else did any, so I only know about the ones I did. Out of how ever many there were, 5 pointed to a different a James. I found the whole discussion a bit odd. I can often see both sides of the story, but in this case I just plain couldn't. EdFitzgerald called it a "no-brainer" and that's what I was thinking too. In fact, that's what I thought 5 years ago when I moved the page. Rossrs (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a handy little thing, isn't it? Made a good case for James Stewart,that's for sure. Rossrs (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A follow-up to this question: how did you get the stats for the time period of Jan 1, 2009 - present? I see in the "Page view statistics" tool it only displays month by month, unless I'm missing something. Did you select each month back to January and add them up? I ask because I think Born2cycle's concerns at Talk:James Stewart may be addressed by simply subtracting the page views at Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) from the page views at James Stewart (actor). This would result in a conservative estimate as to how many viewed James Stewart (actor) intentionally, as it would subtract all those who were looking for a different Jimmy Stewart (who would, theoretically, notice the hatnote there and click onto Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation)). -kotra (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment on my talk page. -kotra (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd-ball Johnny Depp

Hi, I think the lead looks much better. I notice that most of the "background" section is about his personal life. I've added a comment to the talk page, but I think it's similar to the Nicole Kidman issue. Career first, personal life second.... What do you think ? Rossrs (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It just nneds some juggling and I think it should be easy enough to fix. I'll keep it on a "to do" list. It needs doing but not urgently. I honestly think that some people really are focussed on the personal life and the career is incidental, and while that's a good approach for People or E News it's not so good for any encyclopedia. It's frustrating, but I think it's all done in good faith. Actually, I think that makes it more frustrating. Vandalism and fancruft are sometimes easier to deal with than choices that are harmless but inappropriate. Johnny will always attract more than it's share because Johnny Depp "has been viewed 357727 times in 200905. This article ranked 291 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org." I wonder what the number one ranked article is? Rossrs (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really interesting. When you see the number of times an article has been viewed, it's surprising that there are so few edits. Rossrs (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm fascinated. I picked the most obscure actress that popped into my head and she's been looked at 115 times. Who are the other 114 people???? Rossrs (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you haven't already seen this, you must check out the pictures from the upcoming Alice in Wonderland film - Depp, Helena Bonham Carter (she looks great), Anne Hathaway and Matt Lucas. I love the look of Tim Burton's films, and this looks appropriately surreal. Rossrs (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Depp article talk page discussion

You might take a look at the IP that started the talk page discussion and Brendan Heron's contib pages. They are remarkably similar.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Advice/Involvement

A dispute over a Controversy section in The Little Boots article has gotten out of hand. The issues involved are similar to the ones we wrestle with in The Amy Winehouse article and indeed the Winehouse article has come up in the "discussions". Before acting I request you look at the Little Boots article, its talk page, my personal talk page, The Biography of Living persons noticeboard. Edkollin (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your valuable time and wading into this mess. And best wishes with your health issue.Edkollin (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

?

Also this. Looking at his mainspace edits I would say that there are no constructive edits and given how he reacts to boilerplate warnings I think his behaviour needs to be brought to wider attention. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I am somewhat staggered that after a (what was in my eyes) polite explanation of why we don't put "the late" he went are reverted it back in to the Mick Jackson article. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. Sorry he didn't, my eyes are playing up. But looking at your list of edits I didn't realise he'd jumped on to IPs to make even more edits. I would guess he will log on and remove your comment and label them as vandalism, then go about reverting stuff and calling that vandalism. If he has any sense then he will blank without comment, but going by his edit history I would say that sense is not something associated with this user. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No I hadn't heard

...when I saw your message I put on the TV and it's the lead news story. What a shock. It's hard to believe. And Farrah Fawcett too - I always liked her so much. Rossrs (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for our all-too-brief discussions together. Your honesty and intelligence and courtesy has been greatly appreciated by me, more so because such attributes seem to me to be sadly lacking among the great majority of Wikipedians. My best wishes to you for the future, online and in the real world. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino

I've been bold and reverted your reversion to Rudolph Valentino because the IP's edit which you reverted broadened the scope into a more balanced survey of literature on both sides of the argument, and because you gave no reason in the edit summary for your reversion. If you feel you reversion should stand please feel free to edit the article accordingly, but please explain your reasons either in the edit summary or the article talk page. Many thanks Timberframe (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood Babylone

Once you stop being bitchy, would you mind cruising on over to the Hollywood Babylon (ugh) article and letting me know what you think of my rewrite that will surely be challenged and completely changed? I thought a lot of it was added by the anonymous IP who has never, ever edited the article under a different name was unneeded and weighty. Without getting into too much debate, I can think of a few rumors Anger started that trump ol' Olive Thomas dying in a velvet cape alone (see Marie Prevost). Thanks! Pinkadelica^♣ 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no hurry on the HB crap, it ain't goin' anywhere. I barely edited yesterday because of all the brouhaha. Too many ghouls comes out of the woodwork when a celebrity dies and I had my fill last year with Heath Ledger and Brad Renfro. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So easy

Wow! That was easy wasn't it? I thought the whole process was supposed to be torturous! It's amazing how some people never know when enough is enough, but they can't quite figure out how to change their game so they don't stand out so ducklike.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

well, not yet. Everything in moderation, as they say. Rossrs (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonestown

FYI, it is on the Neutrality noticeboard right now.

[[6]]

PS: Cogent comments on the talk thread. Attack and defend pretty much sums it up.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, this will end this craziness.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the ANI board's suggestion, an RfCU was started instead that is here. Per the RfCU rules, you should probably certify, and also include efforts to resolve disputes (with a diff) in the appropriate section. Two people (I'm obviously one) are needed in 48 hours for the RfCU to go forward.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Dahlia

There are several key facts that can be stated regarding the murder, such as the separation of the body, the lack of blood etc. The article omits mention of the leg wound. A few seconds on Google confirms this fact, and it is supported by contemporary photographic evidence. I was suprised that it wasn't mentioned. I do not consider it to be a small issue worthy of being removed repeatedly - a source was provided, and it was still removed, hence why I consider the removal of valid, referenced material to fall under WP:OWN. The source was chosen at random to highlight why it is not a random fact, I have no interest in the promotion of any individuals theory, it can be replaced by another. Thedarxide (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)