Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:48, 26 September 2009

Wildhartlivie is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Referencing

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

Thanks!

I'm glad someone notices when I come and go. ;c) I meant to stay away longer, but I can't help myself. I visit to look up a topic then have to fix punctuation or add WikiProject banners. I'm an addict, so help me Jebus! How u been? I don't think I've ever seen your talk page this empty. Heh, momoricks 03:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ya know, SSDD. My work shift was bumped up two hours recently, so I haven't been getting enough sleep. The story of my life. momoricks 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Doh! I can never remember what bumped up or bumped back means. My shift starts two hours earlier than before, which I like, but my body doesn't want to go to bed until around 4 a.m., so I'm basically a zombie. :) momoricks 00:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too...it's quiet, most people are asleep. I do like the earlier shift because traffic isn't as bad on the way into work. Ah, gotta love freeway driving in a major metropolis. momoricks 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to come visit and take you for a night drive. We'll call it "Driving Miss Wild." Although I reserve the right to get incredibly lost. momoricks 01:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I like that! momoricks 01:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

At least! momoricks 03:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 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) 04:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you there Wildhartlivie, it's me....Pink

Oh mai...you really are all knowing . Pinkadelica 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Traceroute. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn

Yeah, I'm tired of all of those who are wrongfully making that claim. We all know that she's the grandmother of Michael Jackson through her legitimate child Princess Diana!! Have a great day! Skier Dude (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Rome

I see you have an interest in ancient Rome. Take a look at some of the books by Ramsay MacMullen. They are not the easiest to read. Kazuba (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding overlap with table work

Hello, do you want to decide on how to separate the Academy Award pages so there's no overlap? For example, I was not sure if you retrieved my revision at 55th Academy Awards. (This discussion makes me think of Fight Club's nameless narrator and Marla Singer splitting up therapy groups. :P) Do you want to tackle the 1980s, and I'll tackle the 1970s? And we'll keep in touch about what decade we'll do next? By the way, I responded about your music question at my talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy filmography

I believe this page could work because it is a tribute to his film career. If Katharine Hepburn has one so should Spencer Tracy. Mr Hall of England (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(I think a size guideline might work, Wildhartlivie.) The main problem with the article is that it is very brief for an actor of his stature. I think, get the article complete and then see if the filmography fits. If it doesn't, then it may be time to split it off into its own article. Moving it now is premature at best. Filmographies are NOT to serve as tributes, so if that's your aim, you're in the wrong place. Write a good solid, well sourced, neutral article about Mr Tracy and let that be a tribute if you like, but moving a list of his films from one page to another wouldn't even achieve a tribute. Rossrs (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hurt Locker

Thanks for fixing those source links and doing that clean up. There has been a rash of recent changes to that article and some have neglected to keep up the links (BTW, we have a lot of similar interests! Gene Wilder is so underappreciated...). Thanks again. Inurhead (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Serial killer categories

There are different categories that are tracked for different purposes. "Executed serial killers" is a subcategory of "Serial killers" and "People executed for murder". However, the only way to get an article listed under the category of "Executed people by crime", an article must also carry the separate category of "People executed for murder". When you remove one or the other category, the article is no longer listed in categories which are relevant for different reasons. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is so, why don't you put ALL executed serial killers under the People executed for murder category, (i.e. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Harvey Glatman, George Chapman (murderer), ect.)?

71.225.223.11 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jahailyass

Good eye spotting that hoax. I just wanted you to realize (if you had not already noticed) that not only is this user creating hoax pages about himself (I'm assuming there is the "ultimate COI" here, noting the similarities between the subject of the hoax page and the User ID), but he is also:

• Posting his own blog in articles as an act of vandalism
• Stating in the blog that he called the parents of the Jonas Brothers and then posted what he claimed was a quote from their conversation , when in actuality the quote was a statement released to People Magazine's online site
• Contributed this little nugget to the article about The Holocaust.

If you still think it's best to report it to the AN, I would agree. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Saa19952

The editor in question likes to make small edits which seem to be a cover for introducing either false info,bad edits or reverting false info and bad edits by 200.116.62.130 (whom I strongly suspect they are , look at my talk page to see the similar broken english from both editors ,reverts of each others edits on the SMG article ) .In this case I made a misjudgement when considering their edits because of those small edits .Garda40 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Josh Golden

Hello. Just wondering why you removed Josh Golden from Pedro the Lion's Personnel table. Golden's membership in the band is well established. --Mattbrundage (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I've reverted your edit, as the Josh Golden in question is obviously a different person from the 15-year old drummer. IMHO, neither Josh Golden deserves a wiki page, so I've de-linked his name in the table. --Mattbrundage (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlize Theron's Nationality

Um, I think we are basically in agreement and just trying to find the best way to word this. I agree that she became notable well before acquiring U.S. citizenship and is thus more usefully described as South African. I could also live with "South African-born American" or some such. Just not "South African American", which is technically true but could apply equally to a third-plus generation American with South African ancestors. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your latest looks good to me.--CAVincent (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The never-ending oddities of the Jim Morrison article

... or should I say, the contributors it attracts. You're right. The IP editor was just trying to help. I'm not sure how I wound up with the impression they had added the booklist. I think it's all cleared up now. Uh... for now. It is the JM article, after all ;-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

yep

thanks for watching. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

James Garner

Thanks for the updated URL for the _8 Simple Rules_ Bio. The one that was on the Garner site before did not work, so I found the filmbug one. I'll put that one first, then the filmbug one. Yes, the filmbug one seems blogged, but seems more detailed.

Okay. Thanks for the comments and the reminder about reliable sources. Also thanks for revising the sources on Garner's page. I think even with the sources, the Cherokee page editors will probably remove his name as well as Kristin Chenoweth's. Apparently they only want people who are members of the Cherokee Nation. It is too bad because both Mr. Garner and Ms. Chenoweth are proud of their heritage and aren't using it to gain more fame. Mr. Garner in fact is involved in many causes to publicize the history and the needs of the Cherokee people. Neither are Johnny Depp, Kevin Costner, and several others using their ancestry to bring attention to themselves. There are those who fake their ancestry to get attention, but none of the people I named people have a reason to do so. Also, there are people of Cherokee ancestry who for whatever reason cannot join the Cherokee Nation, especially those like Chenoweth who were adopted and may not have the paperwork showing her lineage. Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks again for your sharp eyes. --Gmosaki (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Um ah

Brrrrrrriiiinnnnnnggggg

• Me: "Oh hi, I ....."

• Random employee selected because she has a smugly superior phone voice that makes her sound like she comes from one of the better suburbs of Sydney: "For your account balance, press 1. To check your last 10 transactions, press 2.... "

• Me: "God, that should be a 2 not a 3." Click

Brrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnngggg

• Me: "I bet she's out."

• Female voice: "Hi, this is Wildhartlivie. I'm out. Please leave a message after the tone." Tone

• Me: "Oh hi, I was glad to hear from you. Well, it has been a while, yes. I haven't logged in for a few days. Nothing's wrong or anything. I've had a busy week, and I've been a bit ill the last couple of days. OK today though. So, I haven't been the near the computer for a while and have spent the last couple of days watching DVDs. Mainly "The Night Stalker" - one of my favourite shows of my younger days, and which I bought recently when I discovered the entire series was on DVD. Well, that's a happy memory ruined. What a bad show it was! How on earth did it give me nightmares? Will I watch the entire set of episode? Yes, I will. We took the puppy to the beach today and the sea air cleared my head, which is a relief, and we're having a week away in early November on North Stradbroke Island. I'm looking forward to it. The last time I was there, I was 18, and even though it's almost in my backyard, you have to get a ferry there, and it's not the easiest thing. You certainly wouldn't go for the day, but a week is another story, and to have that time to do nothing but relax will be bliss. Sunshine, sea, sand and DVDs. Ahhh. I have to say, I feel like I'm at a bit of a crossroads with Misplaced Pages, and I suppose not feeling well hasn't helped. I feel a bit like I'm always trying to keep nonsense out of the same articles over and over. I've felt like this before and have always snapped out of it, so I'm sure I will again. Rossrs (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound you out...

Hey Wildhartlivie, I see you around a lot and you do great work, and judging by your interactions, I think you would make an excellent admin. Are you interested? I can offer to nom you, but as a brand new admin myself (only 2 weeks) you may be happier with another nom, and I'd be happy to ask anyone on your behalf. Let me know what you think, :-) Maedin\ 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that all sounds perfectly reasonable and, moreover, sane! I have to agree that it would be a shame for those two projects to lose some of your time and for your excellent work elsewhere to be minimised by adminship duties, :-) I appreciate that you took the time to explain so well your reasons for declining. And of course, please do let me know if you ever need a hand with something, and I'll do whatever I can. Kind regards, Maedin\ 07:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

Your comment re the GAR is well taken. I've noted your concern on the reassessment and at BLP/N. My first encounter with this process, and I may have been overenthusiastic. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to be sure that I followed the proper procedure! I guess the advantage of the GAR is that it is drawing attention to this article from uninvolved editors like you and me. I'll take a look at the edit warring you describe. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

burgle vs burglarize

I have left a list of references on the Manson talk page supporting the fact that American English prefers burglarize and British English prefers burgle. My printed copy of Black's Law Dictionary also supports it. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Game discussion

Are you allowed to delete some1 else's comments from discussion page of an article? I didnt think that was allowed. I see you deleted my response to you, and that is your right as this is your page. But please do the posted comments on The Game discussion so that we may figure out what to do with the page content.70.108.89.47 (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I get why you posted this, it is about my reply to Pink. I'll go back & delete a pink, but my comments stand. 70.108.89.47 (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Election 5

The coordinator elections are upon us again! I don't suppose you can be tempted to put your name forward this time? ;) PC78 (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no pressure. It's entirely up to you of course. :) Hope you are currently in good health. PC78 (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Published" sandbox page

I ask you to read "Wells book," which I’ve just posted on the talk page of "Helter Skelter (Manson scenario)." It will direct you to a "sandbox" page that I have just "published." In the sandbox page, I request the assistance of Misplaced Pages editors and administrators in bringing specified copyright questions to the attention of the legal department of Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you will go to the sandbox page, read it, and bring it to the attention of any Misplaced Pages administrators or other higher-ups you know.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a minute?

Would you mind popping over here and giving your two cents please? Pinkadelica 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, I've noticed you've gone around policing my edits no matter how sourced they are. It's also stated in Misplaced Pages that when making an edit change 'explain in the Edit Summary'. This is obviously for people who are not good with Citations(im not good with them either, Misplaced Pages should make them easier for users or find another way of verification). The information is not necessarily controversial as it's from a published author, matter of fact from several published authors which is criteria enough for Misplaced Pages. Please dont take sourced information as controversial 'just because you may not like it'. Koplimek (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A published source whether it was on the Google Books or if the book was placed in front of you is credible information. Or more precisely that the source exists and not made up. Thats why I purposely mentioned the Google books as it verified the published source which most people would not have had in front of them. Another example used is the New York Times archive. In placing an edit summary and then asking for a citation, it is doing the same thing twice. Then there's several instances where someone's citation is incorrect information. These errors slip through because people look at the procedure of a citation, not the validity of the content. Koplimek (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the first paragraph of the reference link states that a 'reference' should be added. Nothing about citations. Once again, concerning the statement about Harlow's abortion, the published account referred to Hughes(in a single sentence) not wanting the child, nothing about a forced abortion. My input to the Carole Lombard links section was reverted by you, with no explanation(that would seem to be a requirement if not a politeness). The only reason I didn't change back your revert to what I had is that the site doesn't load quickly in a hyperlink for some reason. And also that people need an updated browser to really enjoy the Corbis site IMO. So I agreed with your revert on the Lombard links. To be short and simple I dont have problems with citations per se, just the way they're done at the present time. If citations were the only true verification, then there would be no need for the edit summary. It's double the work and it's not user friendly. There should be some way at Misplaced Pages to simplify an in-line citation such as software that crafts an entry from the summary and converting it to citation when the page is uploaded. That's my pet peeve with the citation element and it would seem many others pet peeves as well judging from how many contributions are made 'without inline citations'. See what Im getting at? People have made jokes about Misplaced Pages Citations in the past on venues like television, cause they dont understand them and it's a mute point when a citation needs a citation needs a citation... and so on. It's just my argument about the current way citations are done. Misplaced Pages has been around long enough to upgrade this phase of citation input. Thanks. Koplimek (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've never added citations as long as I've been on Misplaced Pages. That doesn't mean I haven't tried. The Ignore all rules is one of the fairest, most impartial and sensible guidelines that Misplaced Pages has to offer, within reason of course. It's one of the ways people can work together and improve the encyclopedia. The way the citations are done shoul be modified(IMO) to make it palatable to the multitudes of Wikipedians who never cite content they add or change as they dont understand it. Citations don't correct or stop willful acts of vandalism. It is a shame about the vandalism, as Misplaced Pages is a great online source for information if used correctly. Going back to the Harlow story, I've known about Harlow's story, amongst others, long before there was a Misplaced Pages. I didn't just stumble on to her or Howard Hughes, Rita Hayworth or Marlene Dietrich online though several new published works on several of the people mentioned have appeared in the last number of years. Much of the information on Harlow is not new or controversial. Shocking perhaps, but not controversial. I don't see any of the published information, concerning the people the edits were made on as controversial, as all of the people are deceased ie Harlow, Hughes, Dietrich, Hayworth. Im in agreement with you that their names or reputations don't have to be sullied by controversy just because they are deceased. If this information was unsourced gossip, slander or innuendo, I wouldn't waste my time with it. I believe we agree more than we differ in the long run. Well thank you Wildhartlivie. Koplimek (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wildhartlivie. Thanks for the response. To be realistic Misplaced Pages could always be hit with litigation in lieu of citations. I've learned over the years that anybody can sue anybody over anything at anytime. To deny any author the right to write freely about subjects, no matter how unpopular, would eventually end up as a First Amendment case in the United States. As with the Seigenthaler story it wasn't litigation, but ridicule of Misplaced Pages that was the result of unnoticed vandalism. If rules are going to work for any one faction then the rules will have to work for all of us. That's why tabloid newspapers can publish without too much litigious reprimand. The very movie industry, of which Harlow, Hughes, Hayworth & Dietrich were involved, benefits tremendously from having that first amendment right. Im sure they would agree. It doesn't mean they can't face lawsuits based on whatever the subject is. It means they can display subject matter. In parallel to the Dillinger lawsuit, which is a great point, in 1997 James Cameron and Paramount Pictures released a movie called Titanic. Im sure you've heard of this movie. In the movie one of the Titanic's officers William Murdoch is shown shooting a man during the sinking and then committing suicide by putting his revolver to his temple. This dramatic license by Cameron has never been proven and the real Murdoch's nephew in England detested his uncle being shown committing suicide when it was never proven. There was no lawsuit against Cameron or anyone involved in the movie but Cameron did go to England and personally made amends with the Murdoch family. True or untrue the scene remains in the movie as Cameron could express his dramatic license. That's all I'm really getting at, everyone has to benefit from freedom of speech & expression. Im not crazy about the current trend of hanging out celebrities' dirty laundry but from my observance many famous faces from Britney Spears to Princess Diana aided & abetted their own controversial reputations. All in all, today it may be Darwin Porter or David Bret, who may want to get something said that somebody may disapprove, tomorrow it could be Koplimek or Wildhartlivie. ...........Thanks so much about mentioning Wilbur's birthplace, I believe it was a farm at the time of his birth. Mrs Miller, Ivonette, I believe got a lot of the Flyer's original fabric (replaced in the 1927 restoration of the Flyer) in her inheritance. I may be wrong, but I think it was from Mrs Miller's batch of the fabric, that Neil Armstrong took a piece to the moon in 1969. Koplimek (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hi. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of Highly active users on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running for administratorship, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny

"almost regularly" ?? Rossrs (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on Harlow and Dietrich if it continues. I don't know about the "Hollywood Fixers" book, but I own the Darwin Porter book about Hughes. It probably says Harlow had an abortion, and it says a whole lot about just about every Hollywood person from the mid 1920s to the late 1950s, and the sordid details of their deviant sex lives, although it carefully discusses only those celebrities who are now dead. I don't know where he sources his material from. It's all very gossipy and he's able to relate, in detail, conversations that happened 80 years ago, and which he wasn't present for... it's trash. I'd put Porter on a rung below Boze Hadleigh on the credibility ladder. What also bothers me is that editors can take a book, that should give a lot of information about the subject, but they choose to add only the salacious tidbit from it. It's the same as the Harvey Carter sock does with all the bisexuality stuff. He supposedly has a highly regarded Rex Harrison biography, but the only bit from it that he thinks is worth adding to the article, is the vague suggestion of bisexuality. It's the same here. Not relevant to the article, but it satisfies a kind of morbid curiosity. Anyone interested in Harlow or Dietrich would be interested in expanding the discussion relating to their respective careers, but that ain't happening. Even if it's true, it isn't useful. Rossrs (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same about authors like David Bret. But Bret and Porter and their bretheren are published people. To say "Even if it's true, it isn't useful". Well who's to say, that's a judgement call by you. If that was the case then the Elvis Presley article wouldn't be as long as it is. That article tries to state every little breath that man made. People like Bret and Porter seem to have interviewed former servants and low tier coworkers and the like but I agree their info is still questionable. That can be said for anybody ever written about. To say Porter wasn't there to witness certain goings-on is a mute point. Most authors are never there. Example, if we were to take everything ever written about George Washington, how would we verify it? There have been a ton of authors writing on Washington for the last two hundred years but all of the information they write could easily be disputed no matter how verifiable. Where does it end and more importantly, who's to say? Well, that's all. Thanks Rossr Koplimek (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Published, yes. Reliable, not necessarily. Verifiable, maybe not. They should be treated with caution. Porter's "biographies" are not really biographical in nature. There is very little depth given to any aspect of the person, other than a detailed run down on their sexual exploits. So the first thing to deal with when dealing with Porter, is that he has a clear agenda of sexualising his subject(s). This is true of his "biographies" of both Hughes and Humphrey Bogart. What little I've read of his Marlon Brando book is the same. Interesting to read in a National Enquirer kind of way. He may have spoken to low tier employees etc and they may be quite happy to relate gossip that they didn't witness first hand, but there's nothing to say that Porter has made any attempt to verify or support any of the "anecdotes" (his word) that he relates. To say it "isn't useful". Yes, that is a judgement call by me. Misplaced Pages is made up of numerous people making numerous judgement calls, hopefully in-synch and with a common purpose. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I'm sure some would. The Elvis article is overblown, but two wrongs don't make a right, so if that article has problems, that's another discussion entirely. I'll explain why I commented about Porter not being present. I agree that all biographers convey information that they did not witness first-hand. My problem with Porter is that he goes to great lengths, to not merely describe an event, but to write it in a style of prose that is more suited to fiction, while passing it off as fact. He goes into too much detail recreating conversations and "quoting" people at length, describing their actions, and even their thoughts in such detail, that no amount of reliable sourcing or interviewing could establish. But his research doesn't fit what most people would consider as "reliable" - the information is all at least-third hand and he himself admits that the anecdotes have passed through several people - Hughes's friends/Hughes's enemies - before reaching Porter. So when he relates a conversation between Hughes and Harlow, or maybe Hughes and Lombard, he is recreating something that took place, in private 80 years ago, from an anecdote that has passed through who-knows-how-many people before it's reached him and been printed in his book. He seems to accept without question, the story as related by the last person who told it, and we as the reader are also supposed to accept this without criticism. Some biographers are scrupulous in the way they check and cross-check their information, and provide extensive details about their source material, in their published work. Porter is not such a biographer. Rossrs (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well put, I agree. Those guys are book ends, Porter and Bret. Porter and Bret do manage to find publishers, as in the case of Bret with his recent Doris Day book, who stand behind the writers' information. It goes even further as with Bret's already secured rights to, and now titled book on Elizabeth Taylor("Elizabeth Taylor: The Lady was a Vamp") that can't be published until after her death because of so-called 'explosive' content. This all with Taylor's cooperation herself. Go figure. Koplimek (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

I didn't upload that one, but I'm glad somebody added it. I was actually looking through Flickr for recent free images and was going to upload that image of Portman, but somebody beat me to it. We should still continue the hunt until we have the token head-on image. I was only able to get a few images this week: Gabriel Macht, Jacinda Barrett, and Howard Stern. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well about a week ago I uploaded another image of Stern, but several IPs said it wasn't him (I don't keep up to date on Stern's appearance). Then the author asked for payment for the image, so I just went ahead and deleted the image to avoid any issues. The main reason I was looking for an image of him was to finish the last of the two requests from The New York Times article (the other being Julius Erving which I got two images for, including the awesome slam dunk!). If Howard Stern wants a better image, he can send his own headshot (still amazed more celebrities aren't doing this). Although, Kristen Wiig's publicist did add an image to her article recently, even after I added several new images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't too happy with some of the issues raised in the article either, especially since one of the images I uploaded was mentioned (it wasn't that bad). The thing that kind of bothered me was that there was no mention of some of the good pictures that have been added. Many editors have uploaded/got permission for some quality images that could easily appear in a newspaper article/magazine. I'd hate to see the state of the articles if editors hadn't searched Flickr or asked for permissions all this time. Sometimes I hope that even for the bad quality images I upload help to inspire the particular celebrity to say "Hey, I have hundreds of pictures of myself, why don't I use that great one of me in Hawaii/award show/home for the thousands/hundreds of thousands of people who look at my page each week?". Right now there must be so many celebrities out there viewing their articles, thinking "You know, I look really good blurred, turned to the side, with red eyes, and fourteen people crowded around me. I think I'll let that picture stay up to educate the world on who I am." Sometimes I'm baffled at articles I look at, and I think that is further inspiration to look for better images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's cool with him directly writing back to you. You got to keep pushing him, let him see how the article would improve further if he let us use just one image. Maybe celebrities are scared that the press is going to pounce on them if they find out that they contributed to their own article in any way. Maybe similar to the politicians who got caught having their staff put a positive spin on their articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't jumped on to Twitter yet, but it's good that you're also using it to try and improve articles. Let me know when you get your first image from a celebrity from Twitter, I'm curious to see how it turns out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Film Critics

I have a website if you want to have a look. Enjoy!! Mr Hall of England (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

re: Erm...

But what have you done lately...?! :)

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, Lugnuts (talk), hereby award Wildhartlivie the WikiProject Films Award for your valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. For your work on getting one article to a Featured List status and two articles to the Good Article standard. Awarded 08:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem! Your award page was sadly lacking the above anyway. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded to Wildhartlivie for totally livening up the joint. Keep up the silly work, dude. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD comment

Is this comment in the correct section? It seems like it may belong in the section immediately below. --RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dolly

What's wrong with "pornclassics"? Really, Wildhartlivie, we should be more open-minded. They don't waste their time with garden variety porn, just the classics, like Dolly's distant cousin. Kidding, kidding. "Pornclassics" sounds very tabloidy. If I was ever going to write an encyclopedia of world porn, I would call it "Encyclopedia of World Porn". It sounds much more scholarly and worthy. If I was going to write it, and quite frankly, I don't see it happening. Rossrs (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe I could start "Wikipornia".  :-D Rossrs (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The (neverending) Game

Seems like Jayron32 protected the article already so I don't know if I need to comment on the AN/I. I'm doubting this is actually Jawn Murray pushing the link into the article. If it is, his writing outside his blog really sucks. Pinkadelica 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Ping, you have mail! :) Thanks for all your responses to me, you help me remember why I'm here. --CrohnieGal 13:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tina Turner discography

Please refrain from adding Tina Turner awards into a the Tina Turner discography page. This also means no renaming the page as well. These are two completley different ideas, which should obviously be kept on separate articles. The discography is a place for albums, singles, music videos, and other appearances. Awards do not belong there, if anything. Thank you =) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Leelee Sobieski preggers

File:Leelee Sobieski pregnant Shankbone Metropolitan Opera 2009.jpg. Couldn't resist. -->David Shankbone 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)]]

Hey, dude!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :) Just wanted to swing by and say yo. I don't know if you like beer, but it's Guinness' 250th birthday (nom, nom) and I'm feeling all wiki-lovey. Signed, The Dudette aka momoricks 22:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

momoricks has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Travolta

Hey there. I realize that Scientology is a hot-button issue and I don't want to edit war. You deleted mention of Scientology from the section on Jett Travolta's death, saying that that's not the issue. I actually think it is a central issue to this. The whole scandal about Travolta and autism is that John didn't treat Jett's illness because his religion doesn't recognize it as real. I haven't found refs that back this up to the standard I think we need here, but I do think they're out there, and I do think this is the issue. What do you think? Conical Johnson (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree about everything you said about this. I don't want to put anything there that isn't sourced. All of the news articles that mentioned him confirming the autism also mentioned the Scientology link, so although I won't revert your edit to what I wrote, I stand by it as not being a synthesis. I didn't write that Jett died because of autism, only that Scientology does not recognize it, just as all the articles from major news networks did. I'll hold off further editing until I find a source that specifically outlines the connection. The point isn't whether you or I think it's true, the point is whether this subject has been covered by many reliable sources, and I think it has and will continue to be in the coming days.

If Scientology isn't the issue, why would it even be news that Jett was autisitic? Conical Johnson (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Dahlia

Thanks for your note! Editing mostly in the visual arts, I see a similar kind of listcruft: if a vaguely Toulouse-Lautrec related image appears in some video game (say Dynasty Warriors 5), somebody is sure to add that factoid to Toulouse-Lautrec; oddly, they never think to place it in Dynasty Warriors 5, where it might be relevant. Ewulp (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt

Hey there. As you were getting so stressed about my unsourced commentary, I've now sourced it, especially for you! How do you like those eggs? ROFL! Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kate Bush

I'd like you to clarify why using the noun "perfectionist" is perfectly okay but calling an artist who's had one top 40 single in 40 years of activity "essentially unknown" isn't? As you've deleted my "essentially unknown" comment, I've repaid the compliment with the "perfectionist" statement. So we'll call it a score draw and leave it there. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, don't play games. But at least answer my question : If "essentially unknown" is a point of view (which I accept can be construed as one), then why isn't "perfectionist" considered one too? A case of picking on the newcomer methinks. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't try to play the wounded newcomer card so soon. The edits you are discussing have been reverted with edit summaries, and the comments on your talk page have been helpful in so far as they have directed you to the relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Most experienced editors will try to help newcomers in such a way; nobody should have to help you with politeness but ... please look at the tone of your comments. Consider that a 'tit-for-tat' edit to Kate Bush does not result in "a score draw" regarding edits to Linda Ronstadt. Two wrongs rarely equal a right. I see nobody "picking on" a newcomer. The basic issue relates to edits to the Linda Ronstadt and Kate Bush articles, but you make it about the editor with your "How do you like those eggs? ROFL!", your "repaid the compliment " and your "picking on the newcomer methinks". If you are going to be wounded by other editors respectfully disagreeing with your viewpoint, I can only say that you are in for a bumpy ride if you choose to continue editing here.

"Essentially unknown" is a point of view in my opinion, and you accept that it can be construed as such. Lack of chart success does not necessarily equate to lack of recognition. Joni Mitchell, for example, has had one British hit, "Big Yellow Taxi", which reached number 11 in 1970. In the USA it reached number 67 but is still considered a "signature tune" for her. Her highest USA chart placing for a single is a number 22 hit in 1974. Is she "essentially unknown" in either the UK or the USA? It would be fairer to say Ronstadt achieved more success in the USA than in other parts of world, but it's more difficult to measure how well known she is, especially when you consider that she had several successful albums. The edit to Kate Bush is a different story, and I partly reverted it. It is clear that the paragraph in question follows one line of thought - it is one point being made and even though it takes several sentences to make the point, it does not automatically follow that a cite is needed at the end of each sentence. The paragraph as a whole is cited, and if you look at the title of the Q Magazine article used, it also points towards "perfectionism". Could it be cited more strongly? Perhaps. Should it be removed simply because it could be cited more strongly? No, I don't think that's helpful. There are comments throughout the article that also support this term, but it seems to be only your pique that supports the use of "egotistical", which you say you added with the aim of equaling a score (that exists only with you). Perfectionism may derive from ego, and ego may be one element that separates an artist from his or her audience, but unless someone is directly stating that Kate Bush is egotistical and it is attributed, it's not appropriate to use. "Perfectionism" is a broader type of word anyway, but before this becomes a discussion of semantics, the point is that it's used in a suitable context, is sourced and is generally supported by other article content. The article is a featured article, and although this does not mean it's perfect, it does indicate that it's gone through a more strenuous critical assessment than, for example, the Linda Ronstadt article. Rossrs (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dusty

Hiya, did you see 2009 Australian dust storm on the main page a few days ago? It's the most incredible natural phenomenon I've lived through. There are some great photos on the page. Sydney received worse than Brisbane, but this picture was taken in Brisbane. Our black puppy was red when we got home. LOL Poor thing - I was just relieved she hadn't choked to death. Not much fun for anyone accustomed to breathing oxygen, but we survived, and another one is blowing in tonight, according to tonight's news. They say it's not going to be as severe, but it's looking a little hazy already and I can taste it. Nothing like the taste of the Australian outback! "Dust in the Wind"..... Kansas never said that it tastes bad and makes you sneeze. You have mail, BTW. Rossrs (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Wahlberg

Hi, as you know I am trying to get back to doing things on the project that I enjoy so a question. ;) The Wahlberg article is starting to look like a list already. What are your thoughts about maybe making a list about his music, have to admit I know nothing about his music and am surprised he did so much, so that his article is less list and more well article? Also since I don't know much about his music, hopefully you do, maybe you can look at this latest stuff since it's mostly redlinked? I have enough trouble typing this right now but I hope real soon to be able to start doing research again. Thanks as always, in many ways, --CrohnieGal 14:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced Stuff on Susan Atkins

Oh, please please, tell me the Misplaced Pages policy that says that positive UNSOURCED things can be included in the page for a murderer. Lol. Sorry but it has to go. Its been unsourced since May 2009, thats 4 months. You've been on Misplaced Pages for 3 years. Do you know anything about WP:CITE? --Matt57 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

That's one thing about a death, it brings out everyone to start picking on small points in the larger scheme of things.

I think you need to look at this issue from a non-emotional rational point of view. I guess now I have to quote CITE for you. Misplaced Pages:CITE#Unsourced_material says:

If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Misplaced Pages, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.

which is why I said the thing has been there for 4 months which I believe is reasonable time. Cite doesnt say "oh if the person has died we should feel sorry for them and let some unsourced stuff stay in", lol.

In addition, WP:CITE says:

Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged

So in summary: I have challenged the unsourced statement. It has been there for 4 months. For anyone to now put it back, they have to search for a source. Simple.

It is amazing and shocking that for someone to be on Misplaced Pages for 3 years who knows about WP:CITE to think its ok to let 4 month old unsourced statements remain in articles. --Matt57 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I saw the article again and right near the very top there's a statement:

Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Lol what a funny statement! --Matt57 17:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)