Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I didn't think about it being her birthday. I've sometimes thought about people who have died young and how old they'd be if they'd lived. Carole Lombard would also be 102, Jean Harlow 99, Vivien Leigh 97, Ingrid Bergman 95 - likely they'd be gone by now. (Although Luise Rainer and Gloria Stuart are still around). James Dean would be 79, Sharon Tate 67, Natalie Wood 72, Marilyn Monroe 84, Jimi Hendrix 68, John Lennon 70, Steve McQueen 80, Anne Frank, Audrey Hepburn, and Grace Kelly all 81, Judy Garland 89. Hard to imagine them as elderly people. Rossrs (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that removing pictures you think are bad is quite the same thing as improving the quality of the pictures in an article. While the trailer picture from The Women is pretty blurry at all sizes, the one from Marie Antoinette looks fine in the article, it only looks blurry when it is blown up. Since trailer pictures (which are in the public domain) fair use images from the films cannot be used because they are replacable by public domain images. You say that you are okay with all the images except those from trailers, but in many cases, trailer pictures are the only public domain pictures of old actors acting. And shouldn't an actor's page ideally have a picture of them acting if such a picture exists? After all, ideally an athlete's article would have a picture of them doing their sport and ideally a singer's article would have apicture of them in concert.Givememoney17 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not as if she is dead. For a living person, an image from 2004 should be in the article instead of one from the 1950s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Closeminded8 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that you once again put "What's My Line" back to the present tense. You state that it is still an active program or show. Where is it current or active? You need to spell out where the show is active, if you want to keep in in the present tense.
- Dan Dobson~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.160.161 (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wild -
You wrote, "It doesn't go away. Please look at the standards used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television for television shows. They are referenced in the present tense since they don't cease existence because they are no longer broadcast."
Well I went to the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Television for television shows" and I failed to see the standard that you claim that exists that television shows are always referred to in the present tense. What Section and / or sub-section are you referring to? I did not see it.
- Dan Dobson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dann Dobson (talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wildhartlivie, I've replied on my talk page. XLerate (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to point out that you have adopted a range in WP:FILMS' Tag&Asses drive that still has articles left to review. Do you think you're going to be able to finish this range before the end of the month? We want to make sure that all of our unassessed-class articles are assessed, and if you are facing time constraints or have other projects, I can assist you if you'd like. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do you know if there is any policy/guideline to say we should use the more recent usable picture in the infobox? Or is it just something that is "unofficially" adopted as a common practice? Just wondering, as I notice the 2009 of Betty White has been moved to the bottom of the article and replaced with a 1989 pic of her. I'd also prefer to use the cropped version of 1989 - these anonymous people in the background would in theory be protected by the same "personality rights" disclaimer that applies to White, but the difficulty is that we don't even know who they are. It's not a big deal, but it's just one of those things that irritates me more than it probably should. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Why was my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reese_Witherspoon&diff=355091381&oldid=355080277 reverted?
I copied some good sensible statement from an old version to address a problem raised on the discussion page.
123.3.110.165 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
And the sentence I added was supposed to make it look like an opening sentence. It has the word "first" in it, and sounds like a natural opening to me. Anyway it was there when the article reached Featured Article. I just copied and pasted. The sentence starting with "in 1998" is the awkward one, because the year 1998 just came out of nowhere. 123.3.110.165 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Erm, as I said on my talk... eh, just read it there. Your points not actually verified anywhere... I'm not gonna stick the OR tag in the body text right now so you don't have to 3RR... I'll OR tag it Tuesday (which is probably your Monday night)...• Ling.Nut 05:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Does he mean the entire book? All of 'em? That's got to be so bad for his throat. Rossrs (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Your options here are to look at some form of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and in particular Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. If you don't think it needs the full works then Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts might be able to help. something lame from CBW 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks like more edit warring over at Ingrid Bergman for the same material as before. I added more comments to the talk page after their last deletion, but nothing seems to sink in. Any ideas? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
"You've got mail!" Doc9871 (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Why did you revert my latest edit to Ben Affleck? I thought you agreed that what's good for the GA-status nominated version, should remain intact... I was the one had originally changed Ben Affleck to Benjamin Geza Affleck and then removed the Boldt, and I think it is wise to return it to its original, Better state. You can see that I made the change here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Affleck&diff=prev&oldid=341881863
I thought we had reached a truce? What's the issue now?Hutch y2k (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, is silence a form of consent? I haven't heard from you - should I assume you are cool with restoring the lead to the aforementioned form? I don't want another edit war. Hutch y2k (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I despise talkback templates, and would not be seen in public associating my name with their use. I think should they all be summarily deleted... Off with their heads!... but I replied on my talk. • Ling.Nut 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wild, Okay, since you haven't objected to my suggestion of reverting to the original lead of the GA-nominated article, I made the change while I was updating the article about the Eastern Congo Initiative. I hope that is fine, man!!! If not, please leave a message at my talk page. Hope you are doing fine. best, Hutch y2k (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. After I did that, I realized that there must be a better way to go about this (given the giant backlog of unassessed articles... though the subcategory for actors is pretty well-managed). I snooped around a little to explore and then got distracted.Hutch y2k (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
As you've been so helpful with Corey Haim's page, I though I would ask your advice... when I was linking Haim's page to "The Two Coreys" (TV series) page, another page came up which has sections for the Coreys as an acting team and one for the show itself -- which seems like a good idea, as anyone searching simply for "The Two Coreys" can get both lots of info, which is interrelated anyway. Obviously there shouldn't be duplicate pages, and I'm not sure of the protocol. It looks like the table showing the episode guide from The Two Coreys (TV series) should be integrated onto The Two Coreys page, and The Two Coreys (TV series) should be deleted.
What do you think?
Page for "The Two Coreys" with sections for series and the actors as a team:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Coreys
Page for "The Two Coreys" (TV series), with ep guide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Coreys_(TV_series)
Thanks again --Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry to bother you, but I was really hoping you might be able to help me regarding the filmography tables. In the past, you have been a good source of help at the talk page. Editor User:Jack Merridew recently corrected me for "fixing" the filmography of Jayma Mays here, as per the standard listed at WP:ACTOR, due to an ongoing discussion. I see that the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers has been closed and I was curious as to the consensus, if any. It doesn't seem to me that there was one. So what do we do? I left a message for this editor but he really didn't give me a good answer.
My further research led me to notice a war at Anna Kendrick and I realized that this editor might not have been the best person to go to after I was reprimanded. He seems to have an argumentative opinion on this and is clearing all code on filmography tables (as he "tidies"), or is making fancy ones. (Geez, what's up with Anna Kendrick? Yuck.)
In the past, the table at WP:ACTOR is what I understood was "the standard". When I had further questions regarding "preferred style", I posted them on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers. The editor who corrected me has said a few times that this isn't really a "standard". Not even a guideline. The only standard is to use "wikitable". I am so confused. What's the purpose of the table at WP:ACTOR?
Can you please advise me on what to do? Are we allowed to alter filmography headings at all? Should I still stay away from them? (Gladly if it causes more edit wars!) Obviously, I don't want to get in trouble again, but sometimes I think it's necessary to create a table and I have no idea what format to use.
Sorry again to bother you with this. I really don't want to cause any additional problems (or wars) about the subject with other editors. Maybe it would be best if I avoid filmographies at all costs. Unfortunately, clearer guidelines would help on this issue, but it's obvious that isn't going to happen any time soon, if at all. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Likewise... very recent revisions to the filmography table on Corey Haim's page?
Thanks for your vigilance on the page, by the way. Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wildhartlivie reverting endlessly. Thank you. Jack Merridew 05:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed the main photo of her (taken in 1958) to one taken in 1985. You reverted it, without explanation. A 25-year old photo is more appropriate than a 52-year old photo.
You wrote this on Jane Fonda's talk page:
An editor came through and removed the 2005 photo of Fonda File:Jane Fonda 2005.jpg and replaced it with one from the mid-1990s File:Jane Fonda Cannes nineties.jpg. I reverted that mostly because we tend to use more recent photos in the infoboxes and not ones showing the currently working actor from a previous decade. Another editor reverted me, saying "Bzzzt; Cannes photo is perfectly acceptable". Yeah, well, it's a photo, but it's at least 15 years old and doesn't represent Fonda as she looks today. Consider that she's still a working actor and we should present her as she looks now. Thoughts and comments please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why this shouldn't apply to Taylor, since she is around the same age and still has a presence in Hollywood. I am going to change Taylor's main photo.Closeminded8 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there some reason why you just had to put your foot in your mouth on your very first edit? Please take some time to research WP:COPYVIO. Most things posted on YouTube, including the copy of A&E Biography which you returned, are copyright violation s and are therfore not permissable links to include for citations. Learn a little bit about acceptable sources and what is and is not permitted before you go off shouting in edit summaries about things being removed "without just cause". Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you inflexible about the edits made by editor LaNaranja to the Bonnie section of Bonnie and Clyde? I thought they were good: each of the birth/death dates for the parents has a flaw, and should go. The extra info about mother Emma helps flesh out Bonnie's childhood and is a good addition. The revision about her high school performance (which ended at 15) is far more accurate than what had been there — her award history was a single win at a "sub-junior" spelling bee at age 11, according to the cite. And the cites are all better in the LaNaranja edit: Parker/Barrow/Fortune is the seminal book on the subject, Guinn is the latest (and perhaps best)... while the Internet Accuracy Project is anything but accurate, and the Texas Hideout is a trove of photos, but a cesspool of badly flawed history scholarship. (Sorry, it's something I feel strongly about.) :)
In short, the LaNaranja version is more accurate, more complete, and has far better sources — I hope we can figure out how to keep it.
Oh, also, the final paragraph of that section: Jimmy Fowler is an entertainment critic reviewing a one-woman show about Bonnie Parker that ran briefly in Dallas in 1999 — he is not writing about the actual historical figure. The "authorities who shot her down" did not make any such concession... there is no evidence that she wrote any poetry in her truncated high school career... her introductions (plural) of politicians was a single episode when she was about six... and Shirley Temple didn't make her first feature till the year Bonnie was killed. Bonnie was not the "mini-celebrity" this quote avers — Phillips and Guinn and Knight (all the heavy hitter authors) agree that she was already on the road to trouble several years before she ever met Clyde. Anyway, I'm still searching more legitimate sources for something more accurate to go into that slot.
Hope we can get together on the first two paragraphs of the section. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Never mind meaningless stuff like edit summaries, let's talk about the direction of the Bonnie and Clyde article ;) -- LaNaranja (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie, I hope that you wont drop out of the B&C article, because I know you're a perceptive editor and I have a great deal of respect for your ability to recognize and express minutely fine points clearly. It would be wonderful if you'd choose to contribute to it beyond just the watchdog work, which we all do and continue to do.
I'd be happy to show you the problems with the article and Im sure HarringtonSmith would, too. The B&C article gets thousands of hits a day, if memory serves. Shouldnt we create a article we can be proud of -- that we know is "honest and upright and clean"?
I'm really not a bad person out to hurt you or upset you, and I suspect that's the case with most people who get irritated when you revert their work. But of course you know that other people have pride and feelings too, not just you, and they will defend themselves. So never mind pride and don't worry. Let's be friends and work together, this hysteria is just silly. -- LaNaranja (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
i see that you undid my edit to the Robin Williams page. Mr. Williams was indeed featured in A Wish for Wings That Work. it's even mentioned on the page in the TV special section. it is also confirmed on the special's IMDB page. is there any reason you feel the world shouldn't learn this when visiting the page dedicated to him? --Sadchild (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Wild, I have a question for you that I thought you might know the answer to offhand: Is there a consensus on whether the domestic or worldwide gross revenue of a film should be listed in their infobox? I've seen both figures presented in infoboxes for notable films; it just seems as though there should be some measure of consistency (with qualified exceptions, of course). I'm guessing that we should put the worldwide bo in the infobox, but would like to get a definitive answer from you. Thanks! Hutch y2k (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wildhartlivie. I have been noticing these Special:Contributions/Jordancelticsfan edits by User:Jordancelticsfan. You dealt with him on the Jack Warner page. He seems to like to change peoples nationalities. Most edits are of the busy work kind. Some of it is okay but some of it seems unneeded. He later returned to that page and edited as an anon IP Special:Contributions/174.23.72.231 making the same kind of edits. Considering that the IP is from South Jordan, Utah I think it is safe to say that they are the same person. He has also been adding categories and that jogged my memory. A few years ago we had an editor somewhat like this who was always making up new categories that were deemed unnecessary . I think that they were eventually blocked but I could be wrong. I am wondering if you remember any of this. If you don't don't worry about it. I hope that you get to feeling better and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Haven't you heard him speak? He doesn't sound Australian at all--in fact, I didn't even know he was Australian until reading his bio. Blueboy96 22:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
As You point out a discussion. The disputed materials were reversed with out any comments from you, let me ask you. How would that information be included form a neutral POV. JGG59 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
In the filmography table of Rachelle Lefevre, you removed the film *K-11* with no reason. Do you have a reason for removing it? --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Because it has nothing to do with Alyssa Milano anymore, I guess I'd continue it here. How am I personally attacking you? I've read the guideline. The 'blackmail' thing was a remark that if I don't receive any objection, I suppose I could realize my plans. Which I was allowed to do in the first place, but I supposed I'd be that polite to discuss it first. It seriously wasn't meant as 'blackmail'. I don't like being portrayed as this monster who wants only to violate every page on Wikipedia, because my intentions are good. It's regrettable that is has to come to things such as double account accusations.
Thanks. Moviefan (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest that you withdraw your request for comment for the time being? As it stands right now, it seems premature and heavily skewed. I say it's premature because WP:RfC requests that the issue first be discussed on the talk page before outside opinions are solicited. Neither yourself or the other editor attempted at all to discuss the issue before the RfC was requested. And I say the RfC is skewed because WP:RfC requests that your statement be brief and neutral (the word "neutral" being emphasized) whereas your statement cleary suggest a preference for a specific outcome and is thus non-neutral. I worry that editors might see it as canvassing that you requested comment after being involved in an editing dispute, placed a non-neutral statement and then notified two Wiki projects to participate.
Perhaps a discussion with the other editor is in order and, if that fails, an RfC might be appropriate to discuss what's best for the article. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Why are you worried about the fact that i edit the pages of twilight actors? They happen to be on my watchlist, i dont see how thats worrying. And i gave them that warning because we were having a dispute, the paramore links were a mistake, i was also looking at links to paramore that i had been sent and i must have mixed them up. apologies. but i must ask, are you following my edits? (im trying to make this message sound polite but im not good at that so im sorry if i cause offence) --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wildhartlivie, I didn't want to undo your change just so I can make a comment, so let me do it here. Look at Evan Hunter's novel Lizzie. It's almost complete fiction, unabashedly, from top to bottom. His "solution" for the crime is pure entertainment, nothing to do with reality. There is no evidence for anything he writes and he doesn't even pretend to have solved the case. So to withdraw the Girl Detective book because it is fiction and "can't be proven" sets a criteria that only provable events are allowed to be referenced by Wikipedia. If you hold that criteria, you have to take down Angela Carter's short stories, the Elizabeth Montgomery movie, and half-a-dozen other creative and artistic takes on the Lizzie Borden character. Despite the cutesy title on the Girl Detective novel, it's more than a one-shot joke. It's more like Shakespeare In Love was about Shakespeare. The author of Shakespeare in Love doesn't even pretend that such events happened to Will, but he uses his fictional Shakespeare to illuminate the historical one. Why don't you take down a real piece of "fluff" like MonsterQuest where some "ghost hunters" are pretending that they are getting paranormal readings at the Borden House. Everyone knows that the B&B puts on a show for tourism, and that the MonsterQuest episode was pure fabrication. I guess I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just trying to get a sense of why one creative piece gets nixed while others that are clearly more irrelvant and fluffy get the royal treatment? As for the Girl Detective being "non-historical", well...it's fiction! Other novels about Lizzie, no matter how outlandish, and Evan Hunter's novel is incredibly outlandish to the point where Lizzie Borden experts despise it for the liberties it takes, do deserve to be noted, if anything to show how Lizzie Borden has influenced our culture, both historical or artistic. Agne DeMill's ballet, the Lizzie Borden opera, numerous plays and endless novels all take wild speculations and some of them just flat out create a far-fetched fictional character. And the recent Lizzie Borden rock opera in New York shouldn't be taken off because it shows the Borden family as rock musicians singing in front of microphones? And in the opera, isn't Andrew Borden a preacher? These are all artistic liberties, which I'm sure you have no objection to at all outside of Wikipedia, but why would one artistic liberty be edited by you and others go completely uncommented upon? Do we slice them all off of Wikipedia? That's my argument, please let me know what you think.
Why have you deleted my edit on the John Wayne Gacy page? All that was added is the current film name, Dear Mr. Gacy, which was based upon the book The Last Victim by Jason Moss.
Thank you
``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digby scallops (talk • contribs) 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
With respect, I see the entire IN Film section has now been deleted on the Gacy page. I don't know who placed the embedded message there, but it begs the question, Why not simply go through the entire Wikipedia site and delete all film references to all mass murderers, ie: Berkowitz, Bundy, Jim Jones etc , etc. All the section did was point out to the reader the various films out there depicting Gacy, none by the way in glamouous fashion. It seems to me one of the purposes of Wikipedia is to provide information, not necessarily comment or to put forth one's personal opinion on any given subject. I believe the In Film category should be rerturned together with all three film references.
Thank you Digby scallops (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I apologize for the manner in asking the question. I am not that experienced in the various communications functions on Wikipedia. It was not meant to be deceptive in any way. I was unaware the Help Desk function should be used only after attempting to contact the user who removed the edit direct first. Having said that, I certainly did not take being told "to leave it alone" from another user to mean if someone chooses to undo an edit, that is the end of the issue. Rather I felt it was more a courtesy about getting into what this has developed into.
As to the actual issue, I fail to see the difference here between deleting film references to John Wayne Gacy and doing the same to say Hitler's page or any other person. As to IMDB, I am well aware it is not considered a reliable source. All that was done was to link the film to their web site, which has been done countless times on Wikipedia. If you go to the Dear Mr. Gracy page or Jason Moss's page, I believe you may see similiar links. It was not as though I was citing the info on the IMDB site as to Gacy , Moss or anything other than pointing the reader to the film.
Thank you Digby scallops (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. This will be my last post, as I believe I understand where you are coming from. Based upon what you have written, am I correct if we look for example at David Berkowtiz's page, the "Depictions" heading & its contents should be deleted, as it references several films about him? If not, I'm afraid I don't see the difference. And looking at Ted Bundy's site, there is an IN FILM heading as was the case with Gacy.
regards,
Digby scallops (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi and welcome back, you've been missed. I hope you are enjoying your new keyboard. :) Lot's to do I'm sure. The vandals have been quite busy lately. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually yes, Bloody Disgusting and DreadCentral are reliable sources. Without those sites, horror film articles wouldn't exist. :P Mike Allen 03:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Funny. I was sternly warned (with a block threat) not to post to a certain someone's talk page; I abided by it and he did not. I took the high road, though. Others can choose the low road and still get away with it (go figure). I can still post here, right ;> Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
why are you making revisions to a page being improve, more of a setback, bonnie & cylde offcial 2011 relased, foodfight! not offcial put on unrelased so either 2010/2011 relased on unlisted, be more organize please, notes unneed unless appropatie take a look at the notes put, for ex one can be, [ex: 2010 | stay cool | premiered at 2009 summer film] (just an example) so pls use conceous, pls improve, tahnx :) Loquesoy (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Care to give me some advice here? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
It is absolutely, positively beyond the meaning of ridiculous to say that. He barely has Canadian roots whatsoever. The only thing to support that was that he was born in the great country of Canada. His parents were Polish Jews, who moved from the US to Canada, and Jack Warner only spent the first two years of his life in Canada and that was it. He doesn't have Canadian ancestry whatsoever. He considered himself American. Its a fact, I'm not trying to take credit for a great Canadian, because he wasn't. Calling Jack Warner a Canadian is like calling Canadian Steve Nash a South African. I'm not going to get in an edit war with you, because that is absolutely useless for my short life. Jordancelticsfan (talk) May 14, 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning Xtinadbest makes me wonder. Think he finally gave up? It's been a while.—Kww(talk) 21:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
As you probably realize, I do have your talk page on my watchlist. Sometimes I think I'm pedantic and excessive with edit summaries and then I see something like this. Your edits were all in line with WP:BLP, and even if you'd made 10 reverts to the same material, it would have been acceptable. Actually, more than acceptable. If we see something that violates BLP, aren't we supposed to remove it? I mean, we don't just remove it because it's a nice thing to do - we're required to remove it. It's clear as day that there are people waiting and hoping for you to make a mistake so they can pounce on you, except that you didn't make a mistake. But welcome back. You must be so pleased to be back. Rossrs (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there is a conversation going on at the talk page that you may be interested in here Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I think I made good edits to The Game. I corrected errors in the old version like tense,cast, and more. The upfronts happened in April so new information in known. I added that new information. I explained my changes on the discssuion page. Look there. Thanks. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I want to apologize for thinking you were in the wrong on the Game article. I could still be wrong but this does appear to be a bad-faith user from where I'm standing. It's good to open up cases at ANI or WP:SPI in these situations, so you at least have something to refer back to in the future, when someone like me comes along and doesn't fully realize what's going on, so you don't have be bothered with explaining the history of the situation each time. Equazcion (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that it may not be reasonable to use multi rowspans for the roles, it just seemed uneccessary to keep repeating the same thing underneath eachother. However, he has signed on for breaking dawn. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150179422020005 and it is official now. i didnt want to revert your edit immediatly so that we can avoid any type of war. but it is in production now, and he is in it.--Stripy Socks (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I understand why it cannot yet be entered to the filmography or the issues with the rows and I was wrong. However, i do not see how deleting it from the paragraph was neccessary as it will not affect anything. Perhaps the source was not reliable, but i was not the one who entered that. --Stripy Socks (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Is IMDB enough to go by? --Stripy Socks (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The page for Breaking Dawn on IMDB has him listed as Carlisle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbYc4aNhTQU&playnext_from=TL&videos=1DN0L7LgLMg&feature=sub This video promoted it as well. http://movies.sky.com/twilights-cullens-sign-up-for-breaking-dawn and SKY news, though i seem to be wrong about what sources are reliable, so i would like to leave this to you to decide upon for now. If you need something more reliable just let me know and ill find it for you. --Stripy Socks (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, my problem is that you removed it from the career section when it can be included without disrupting anything. i have given you sources that deem reliable and so there should be no issue, yet somehow, there is. --Stripy Socks (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I will look for one and show you tomorrow morning for your approval (i do not know what time zones we are working with here), but may i ask, as a general question, why Sky News is shakey? Sky is a major company that deals with pretty much everything, it just made me curious. --Stripy Socks (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Understandable, i have found three sources that are not fan sites which may deem useful.
--Stripy Socks (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Then it is ok to add it into the career section? It wont start filming until late this year so we can leave it out of the filmography table. And also, thankyou for your help on this, im still fairly new to wikipedia. --Stripy Socks (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This website clearly states that Lucy Lui and Sandra Bullock pratice Krav Maga Dwanyewest (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Just curious. Not experienced with the ways of Wikipedia--how is it that an inaccuracy can be introduced into an article without consensus, but a verifiable correction needs consensus? Again, just curious. 174.25.148.83 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It was my pleasure, thanks for the note. As to the rest, unfortunately I'm not nearly that cool. Thanks again. — e. ripley\talk 12:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
You might want to add this to your watchlist. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed on the other's Doc's page you were cupcake deficient ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
You'll never guess - my talk page just begged me to archive it. Of course, it had a valid point. Rossrs (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello if you are on or any of your page watchers are on, the vandal claiming to represent Wiig is back removing the sourced content about her marriage. If you can help keep an eye out, I have already reverted twice. Active Banana (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you look at Natasha Kinski's photo, which was tagged and responded to by me, to see if the image is OK to use? More details explained on photo talk page. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Been meaning to ask if we should include mention of his latest charity website called Crowdrise. He's apparently, according to RS, the guy who created it. Where should it go in the article, if at all?Malke2010 21:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear WHL,
Thanks for your vigilance over Haim's page. It's kind of bugging me that no-one is developing the page by adding new info, but just altering what is there to their own personal view. But I figure that's part and parcel.
As you may know, his nicknames were The Haimster and Space Ace, and in fact he had a Haimster tattoo. Should this fall under Alternative Names (I guess it's not strictly an alternative name), or just quoted in the text? Not sure whether it's too trivial to be in the text...
--Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi again,
Could you please advise if this is a valid source? It is a rare interview with Haim in his wilderness years by a professional photographer and regular contributor to magazines, and is part of a series of interviews she did with people associated with Alphy's Soda Pop Club. As you can imagine, this early detail on his time at school and experience of his fame at its height etc is incredibly difficult to find, especially in his own words.
If it is admissable, I'd like to integrate some of this carefully into Haim's page and start another (brief) article for Alphy's. There are other mentions of the club from teen celebrities of the era, and it has an active Facebook page devoted to it with original flyers and photos etc.
Anyway, enjoy. The part about the jaguar in the limo is pretty extraordinary.
http://jjstratford.blogspot.com/2010/03/rest-in-peace-corey-haim.html
Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Shame. Though it won't hold up in Wikipedia's eyes, having logged hundreds of hours researching this dude, I recognize his signature turns of phrase and do believe the interview to be genuine. I'll try and find out whether it was ever published anywhere.
--Tarrant on Wiki (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why Scream 4 isn't in production? Filming is set to begin in July. Pre-production is not considered in production? Also it's already been confirmed that Neve will be in the film (see film article for sources). Thanks. Mike Allen 05:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Happy to look at it, but none of those old user names seem to exist.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC) [1]
So Sorry. I meant to send this to you this morning: Please checkout the Ryan Seacrest article. I spent several hours reorganizing, and categorizing the article, only to have it mostly reverted. I thought categories were far more appropriate than years, have not seen that before. To call the stalking incident " Personal life" has a familiar ring to it. Categories subject to change but a total revert? Input please. Looking over my shoulder... I spent a lot of time rearranging and categorizing. Categories were removed and a timeline format was reinserted. I have not seen an article set up with a time line. Is this usual? I would like to know what ya'll think of my changes as I am planning on changing them back if you agree and this is my first attempt at a total reorganization. The "Personal Life" change is her style. Later... Have a great weekend! Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A discussion in which you offered comment has been returned to deletion discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Double check those edits. I didn't do anything to the birth name, you might be confusing me with someone else.Closeminded8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC).
The May 2010 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) 03:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you intend to delete Colors (1988) from Filmography/Features? He directed it. I added it back, since all the other films he directed are there. --Lexein (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wildhartlivie. I know you from the Stephen Moorer AfD discussions. Would you mind terribly taking a look and voting/commenting on my deletion review for my article on a German actress which was suddenly speedily deleted even though it was still a stub and even though it gave credible importance? Article: Deletion review: . If you can comment, thanks in advance. Softlavender (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Now the article (Antje Thiele) has been AfD'ed by the editor who speedily deleted it. If you consider it worth keeping, could you vote in the AfD? (PS: The article is still a stub). Thanks so much for your time. Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You removed two edits I made to the Salma Hayek entry deeming them of "minimal relevance". The book cover perhaps is, I will be cross referencing other actor entries to verify, however, the Coca-Cola television spot definitely was not. It was part of Coca-Cola's "Real" campaign airing completely unedited on both English and Spanish-language television networks, something quite uncommon in advertising. I may even provide a citation explaining the socio-cultural aspect behind the ad. Regretably I failed to make a note of what I was editing.
I actually take great care when editing the Hayek entry; the great majority of citations on that entry were added by me. I will be undoing your edit and I'd encourage you to remove the book cover note if you please. The note on the Coca-Cola spot is quite relevant. If I am not following Wikipedia guidelines please let me know. Light Bulb (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
For you and your talkpage lurkers, some good advice. Let me know if this is getting worse with the socking with difs so I can take it to Vassyana to see if I can get them interested in the SPI case. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearing up Anne_Hathaway_(actress) spiritual philosophies. When reading the article, the wiki quote seemed out of place and strangely abrupt, so I checked original source, and sure enough it was taken out of context. The wiki quote states her religious beliefs as "nothing", but the original source states no such thing. [2] The article states that her move to the Episcopalian denomination didn't take, with Hathaway responding, "I'm nothing...fuck it, I'm forming. I'm a work in progress." She is not describing her beliefs as nonexistent here, just her denomination and/or affiliation. She had previously identified herself as a "non-denominational" Christian, so this is largely in line with that earlier statement. In the spirit of her original intent and quote, the reference to this article should be reworded as Hathaway states her religious beliefs are a "work in progress." That is her last word on the topic via the original source and is obviously much more indicative of the intent of her statement. My hope is that this explanation will end this edit battle and I hope more so that this constant re-editing of my more accurate contribution isn't an example of Wiki-bullying or some goofy atheistic bias or quote mining, In good faith, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here, however. --Biaspo (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see the article The Deliberate Stranger and it's talk page. An editor is removing things because he says on the talk page that it is confusing to other projects having this be a movie and a book. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure where to go with this, but I decided to come to you since you have been active with the filmographies at WP:ACTOR. I have come across an editor who continues to convert filmography tables to lists. (A few examples: , , ) I have left a few messages about my reversions of these edits, and tried to explain that tables are preferred. Unfortunately, that was over a week ago, there has been no response, and the editor is still doing this. (e.g. ) What, if anything, should I do? I'd appreciate any advice, even if it is "Just ignore it". ;) Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I've read it. The link you provide is dated and so I added updated news. Moreover, it seems that we both rely on .com sources for this page. You only cited one where I have five. I'll be happy with your edit if you can offer more "reliable" sources. Until then, it seems that we're both speculating. I, for one, am more content with updated, more researched speculation. Loftymuses (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
At the Sandra Bullock there is an editor who is reverting out a name here. Now s/he has four edits about the same items. Now my silly question, does the first edit count for a breach of 3 rr? I seriously don't know which is why I'm asking. :) I'd appreciate it if you would take the time. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
On May 31, you effectively reverted changes I had made regarding the Follieri case the day before, as well as all the other more minor improvements I had made. Your edit did not include any summary of what you did or why. You even went so far as to put back the dead link I had removed in the Follieri section. You also apparently didn't think it was necessary to even consult with me before undoing my changes. Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Let me know if you think this editor returns. If it's good enough to run a CU, technical evidence might quickly put the sock to bed. Cool Hand Luke 12:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just found this myself so I thought maybe you'd like to comment too. Here you go --CrohnieGalTalk 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think you're "jumping the gun" here, just a little bit? Wouldn't it be best to withhold those kinds of edits until the discussion has been completed? Chickenmonkey 08:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
That was some good luck on those autographs. Diane Lane is great. The Lovely Bones is pretty good; Stanley Tucci makes it 200% better than it would have been without him. The music is also very good. Chickenmonkey 19:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, in case you didn't notice, the latest protection at Diane Downs was hit by the banned editor about 5 edits or so back from protection of the article. She is still at it, I'm sorry to say. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you should know about this. Editors have been informed that were active in the conversation at MRG talk page about this. You are very active in this area, so you should also know about the RFC to help set it up if you are interested. I think this is going to be announced in multiple locations too. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.