| Revision as of 15:21, 11 November 2019 edit2607:fea8:57a0:de0:2421:28d4:835c:c131 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:32, 11 November 2019 edit undo2607:fea8:57a0:de0:2421:28d4:835c:c131 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| :I use the Sandbox a good bit (see ] for some ideas that have started there in recent months), but on the Peck article I'm interested in whether the encyclopedia actually reflects the assertions made in reliable sources, so there is no role for the Sandbox in that case. | :I use the Sandbox a good bit (see ] for some ideas that have started there in recent months), but on the Peck article I'm interested in whether the encyclopedia actually reflects the assertions made in reliable sources, so there is no role for the Sandbox in that case. | ||
| :I could try to find some photos if you're requesting help with it; it's something I've done before (see my File contribs) but not particularly a strength for me. There is also a template that you can place on an article talk page to request images from others, though I can't remember the exact syntax of it right now. ] (]) 12:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC) | :I could try to find some photos if you're requesting help with it; it's something I've done before (see my File contribs) but not particularly a strength for me. There is also a template that you can place on an article talk page to request images from others, though I can't remember the exact syntax of it right now. ] (]) 12:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :::I am getting to the point of giving up. A month ago I just wanted to add some more info to the lead section. Then over time to satisfy JennBlurrs (based on what she objected to in other articles) and you I have ended up spending vast amounts of time doing more and more work and research. And you and her keep changing what is acceptable and allow all sorts of things to stay in other articles. This is clearly the most thorough, detailed article on any star and yet you are still not satisfied. Articles I have mostly written on tennis and renaissance art are still the same as I typed a year or more ago. I feel like just deleting the entire amount of stuff I typed in for Gregory Peck and reverting it to what was there before. And I have 2 contacts who totally agree with what I have done - not sure why you two over rule 3 of us.] (]) 15:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:32, 11 November 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
James Garner Links
Hi. Is there a Misplaced Pages standard requiring that an external link description on a Misplaced Pages article mirror word-for-word the title or name of the site to which it links? I included the "Family Authorized" term to the external links I added because this was requested of me by James Garner's daughter, Gigi Garner (her identity is easily verifiable by visiting the pages & website linked).
On hindsight, I tend to agree it isn't needed for the Twitter or James Garner charity. However, there are a number of Facebook fan groups dedicated to James Garner which are not "official" or "authorized" by the Garner family. As Gigi Garner and her mother (James Garner's widow) are the sole legal representatives of James Garner's name and certain related content public & private, Gigi (who controls the legal rights) wished to establish clarity; to allow the public the knowledge that while certain fan websites and social media pages & groups dedicated to James Garner are recognized as such, they are in no way related to, or controlled by, the family of James Garner.
I hope I haven't convoluted things here! Thanks for your time. Jameszerukjr (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don’t have a strong opinion on this issue, but usually we avoid adding descriptors to these page titles. The other thing to consider — and this is a hard one to think about — is that Misplaced Pages and other encyclopedias don't typically consult with article subjects or their family members about article content. With that said, when subjects (or anyone else) reach out to us, we strive to correct inaccuracies in a manner consistent with reliable sources. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification! Jameszerukjr (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Barnstar!!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Misplaced Pages from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Misplaced Pages. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 12:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC) |
- Thank you! Very nice note. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Christopher Lloyd
I realize that you have good intentions for deleting my additions to Lloyd's page. However, I'm absolutely certain that he's a comedian. In much of his work, he incorporates unexpecting wit and humor into his roles, even if what he's working in isn't a comedic role or project. Taxi and Back to the Future are definitely among them, because he incorporates remarkable humor and sense of improvisation throughout.
So, if you don't mind, I'd like to add in the term 'comedian' back onto Lloyd's page. The same with Paul Giamatti, as it's pretty much the same with him.
A person doesn't need to be in stand-up to be a comedian, really.Austin012599 (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- I know that you also have good intentions. I would just ask you to understand that our own certainty is nearly irrelevant on Misplaced Pages, since we base our assertions on reliable sources. If reliable sources usually characterized Lloyd as “actor and comedian Christopher Lloyd”, then I think you would be on the right track. As is, most RSs don’t use the definition of comedian that you are using, so they don’t call this type of actor a comedian. Accordingly, we should not do so either. I appreciate your understanding. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Sandbox
If I am editing text that I inserted I will not use the sandbox - why did you not use the sandbox? If you want to be constructive why do you not find some photos for the article and insert them?Informed analysis (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I use the Sandbox a good bit (see User:Larry Hockett/sandbox for some ideas that have started there in recent months), but on the Peck article I'm interested in whether the encyclopedia actually reflects the assertions made in reliable sources, so there is no role for the Sandbox in that case.
- I could try to find some photos if you're requesting help with it; it's something I've done before (see my File contribs) but not particularly a strength for me. There is also a template that you can place on an article talk page to request images from others, though I can't remember the exact syntax of it right now. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)