| Revision as of 00:24, 28 September 2023 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Jamie Lee Curtis/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:25, 16 November 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Jamie Lee Curtis/Archive 1) (botNext edit → |
| Line 31: |
Line 31: |
|
:Refer to ]. Misplaced Pages is written under a ] point of view respecting ]'s lives. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 04:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Refer to ]. Misplaced Pages is written under a ] point of view respecting ]'s lives. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 04:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
::At the same time she was a bit public about Thomas becoming Ruby. ] (]) 07:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
::At the same time she was a bit public about Thomas becoming Ruby. ] (]) 07:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== ] issues == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{u|Cryptkeeperfun}} seems to be displaying blatant ] by blindly reverting mass edits with nary an explanation. ] (]) 18:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think the same can be said for you. You are the one removing established content, not me. Don't be a hypocrite. ] (]) 18:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Explain your reasoning instead of resorting to ]. ] (]) 18:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please pay heed to your own advice. ] (]) 18:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I did. Now your turn. :) ] (]) 18:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, you didn't. You are removing mass info from the heading for no valid reason, which appears to be vandalism, when I'm only restoring established content. It's clear you have an agenda and have resorted to making me an enemy, when I'm not. You're behaving like a brait and you should be ashamed of yourself. ] (]) 19:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Firstly, it's called the ], and not a "heading". And it's a summary of the article, and not a listing of her credits. Also, please understand what ] is. There is no such thing as an "established" content. An article, especially a B-class one as this, can and should be improved. And thirdly, and in more severe terms, calling people a "brat" and a "hypocrite" is exactly what ] asks you not to do. ] (]) 19:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I do understand what ] is, do you? That's why I was reverting your mass removal edits. Anyone reviewing our edits can clearly see you began threats and hostility towards me, nothing you can reply to me can change that. It's now up to other edits to restore the edits if they see fit, I'm not restoring anymore content from your mass removal agenda. ] (]) 19:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Jamie Lee Curtiss screen debut was in 1976 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie Lee Curtiss screen debut was in the 1976 Columbo episode The Bye-Bye Sky High I.Q. Murder Case - she played a waitress in a cafe and is credited as such at the end of the episode. ] (]) 15:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:A ] for this content is needed in order to include it in this article <s>or at ]</s> (already listed there). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>] </sup> 15:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}} Also, the air date of that episode was '''May 22, 1977''' (not 1976). This is after her '''February 18, 1977''' appearance on '']'', which is already noted as her television debut. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">]</span> <sup>] </sup> 15:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request == |
|
== Edit request == |
This is false they adopted a daughter named Annie and son named Thomas. You can add the Thomas transitioned and now calls themselves Ruby but to omit all reality, and change factual history, is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia.
The first paragraph after the lede states that Jamie Lee Curtis played Laurie Strode in “seven of the Halloween sequels”. This is incorrect and the citation does not state this. Curtis played Laurie Strode in seven Halloween films total, including six of the sequels. It’s not a big deal, just a wording issue, but it is incorrectSamRCossey (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Done
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. According to our article on the title (The Right Honourable)), Barons and their spouses may use this honorific. PianoDan (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)