User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 4

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for September has been published. October's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

---

Helpful templates

Just cut an paste them when you need them from this page, I keep them on my user page. The dates are always formatted correctly, just remember to increment the date, as often as possible, as I sometimes forget to do.

• <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2007-10-31 |quote= |publisher= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |quote= | url= |isbn= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |publisher=[[New York Times]] |date= |accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref>

Revert of edit

If you'd like, feel free to comment on your revision of my edit here: Talk:Columbine_High_School_massacre#Edit_reverted - Connelly (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Image

Hi, again...sorry to bug you but disregard the paragraph below...I found the second image. I just can't fugure out how to get it on the page.Jameszerukjr (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you, but it seems my images have been deleted...or I simply can not find them. I do remember seeing the upload in the history. Can you tell me if this os the case; that they were deleted? The second image went up today, that one should not have been deleted...especially since I made a solid argument for its fair use and included 2 copyright tags! Thank you.Jameszerukjr (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Entwistle Image

Hi, I uploaded another image. This time used 2 tags and what I think is a compelling argument for the image's use on WP. Does permission have to be granted by WP before this image is up on the page? If not, can you please tell me how I actually get it ON the page? Thank you. Jameszerukjr (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Entwistle Page

Thanks for the help! As you can see, I've still much to learn...and practice! Jameszerukjr (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Entwistle

Hi, thanks for the help. I will include the titles if there are any--sometimes it is just a news item or announcement without a headline or author...such is the case in the "Amusements" section of the NYT when general info about Broadway regarding upcoming events or openings is mentioned. I will add a page number when this is the case. It wiil take some time but I'll get it done! Also, regarding your earlier advice about including too much about others in Entwistle's page...I think you may mean the Laurette Taylor edits. I did this only to show that Alice Sit-by-the-Fire was not a flop, that it had only ended early because of Taylor's problem. I wanted to set up the back story as to exactly why Entwistle's last Broadway appearance ended abruptly. It seems to be a consensus in several books and just about every newspaper and site that Entwistle had a string of stage failures in a row (7 or 8 depending on the source). It didn't help that Harold Entwistle either was misunderstood, or simply hadn't paid close enough attention to Peg's career. But I do see your point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameszerukjr (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 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 any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Language of references

As far as I'm aware, we don't require sources to be in English, although we prefer it where possible; see Wikipedia:CS#When_adding_material_that_is_challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged. — Matt Crypto 09:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Johnnie Ray

I have the page on my watchlist, but if more issues arise and I don't pop up, feel free to let me know. Also, if I can be of help in any other way, I'd be happy to.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Manson imdb

Have you noticed that, in the Charles Manson article, your revised versions of the imdb links (in "Documentaries") don't display the titles as you entered them? Instead of saying "Manson" and "Charles Manson Superstar," both say, simply, "Charles Manson." If you won't mind my saying it, I'll mention that it confuses the reader. If there's no way to avoid it, you might want to put the links back in their original form.71.242.195.148 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good fix.71.242.195.148 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Yeah, I'm alive. Just lurking about. Pinkadelica (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...do you know anything about Afghanistan or Pakistan? From what I'm gathering, they're two separate countries but hey, I could be wrong. Some anon IP keeps insisting that Adnan Ghalib (Britney Spears' boyfriend du jour) was born there and changing up the source to reflect that. Here's my edit versus theirs. Something about their source rubs me the wrong way especially since it seems gossipy and it doesn't state he was born there. Just that he is of Pakistani origin. If you feel like changing it, go for it. Pinkadelica (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, he's not notable except for dating Britney which is why it's hard to find any info on him. Bringing it up on the talk page is probably useless as it is a anonymous IP editing and they rarely get involved in discussions regarding content. I'm thinking of just leaving it since the whole article shouldn't be here to begin with IMHO, and changing it back will only ensure an edit war that I'm not interested in. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel like weighing in? No one else seems interested in helping me. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Lord, THANK YOU! I've asked two different editors to at least weigh in and no one can be bothered. I think the guy's article should be deleted too and I even voted to have it deleted, but this person's instance on saying he was born in Pakistan with no references is annoying. Thanks again. Here's a little something for ya. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping...again! Pinkadelica (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much

First of all, thank you so much for your contribution. I was told it was about to be deleted so yes I was quite concerned. My aunt died on Sunday night and my life has been a blur the last couple of days. I will get to this as soon as I am able. Sorry. Again, I am so grateful for your help. It was terrific. Will do my best. If there is anything else you can do, I will be most indebted. Thank you. Thank you. K W LaQua (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

YES, Please Help

I started looking at the article again and thought that each time I move on this it seems to be wrong so, yes, I would like your help in re-writing this. Would you be so kind? Will find more citations but your help is humbly requested. K W LaQua (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken Cookied

I went in and placed citations as recommended. After my aunt's funeral I will try to do more editing. So what you are saying in the cookie message is that it doesn't matter, you want the article deleted? I thought you wanted to help? Are Pinkadelic and Wildhartlive different people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K W LaQua (talk • contribs) 05:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Appreciate the clarification and the assistance. Thank you. Have a great day. K W LaQua (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Janis Joplin

Why am I resonding to an old post? Well it just annoyed me so much I had to answer whether or not the guy would pick it up. (83.13.39.98 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Hayden Panettiere

Looks like it's probably from WireImages. I'm doubting the tags as well because it looks a little too professional. Aside from the dubious authorship, the original picture was fine and shouldn't have been replaced. This current one is....odd. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you're not a shrew. lol You're always very courteous even when others aren't. Speaking of others, that anonymous IP editor at the Adnan Ghablib is back. Looks like it's protection time. Sicne I've been writing this, they've already reverted my revert! I'm so tired of dealing with the whole page because it shouldn't even be here! As far as that picture on the Hayden page, I just don't think it fits in an encyclopedia. There's already one picture of her in the article and frankly, since her look hasn't changed that much from image to image, I think two photos of her is overkill. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That tag has already been there but thanks for doing that. I'd like to renominate it for deletion. Would you support that? I'm actually quite tired of these stupid battles over a man who has seemingly done nothing to include an encyclopedic entry. Do you think a speedy nom would be appropriate? Pinkadelica (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

lol @ Britney's bore. I figured speedy is the best route. Last time, a consensus couldn't be reached so why go through it again. I so don't want to deal with the headache of a content dispute over that dude anymore. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Janis Joplin

Hi:

Thanks for your messages re: my editing the Janis Joplin entry. I apologize profusely for any trouble I've caused during my constant editing and revising. I have been using the preview button, but sometimes I'll notice small errors or I'll want to expand the narrative, which obviously creates havoc.

I think it's best if I stop now, so as not to try your patience any further. It was fun and, as this was my first time editing an article in Wikipedia, I feel as though I'm really starting to get the hang of it!

The remaining places where citations are still needed I've been unable to verify using the numerous references I've been citing.

I was going to add some stuff about Joplin's relationship with Kris Kristofferson; some more about Joplin's complicated and somewhat ambivalent and contradictory relationship with Peggy Caserta; and some stuff about Joplin's alter ego, "Pearl," a persona she developed to protect the real Janis Joplin: a sensitive, vulnerable and insecure young woman. Perhaps you - or someone else - may wish to do this, as I feel I've tried your patience enough.

Cheers!

Poiluj (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb 2008 spelling issue Cary Grant article

Please see your previous (Aug 2007) posting on my Talk Page "Variations of Spelling" and my reply. It too related to the Cary Grant article. I believe every article needs to stick to one spelling version, and have taken into account all the considerations you have brought up both in August and today. Is there something I am overlooking? --User:Brenont (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Helen Gibson

Thank you for your advice, I will rewrite the article and incorporate your points. In your opinion is the difference between a B-Class and an A-Class in this instance, due to my lack of style or the contents? This article contains about 3 years of research, if I find much more to include I will be shocked and amazed. EraserGirl (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Again I thank you for your input, I took a cursory pass at it. I will fiddle some more when I get more content to add. (and also when i get more fluent in wikistyle) My major problems with references is that there are only 2 or 3 that are original source material and I despise using derivative works as references, most especially when they have also passed along incorrect data. I was able to cross check some of the content with her personal letters in my possession. Alas no one cares but me and thee. EraserGirl (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comma matter

I bring to your attention "Comma and quotation marks," a note I've just left on the talk page of the Charles Manson article.71.242.195.148 (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On the same talk page, I've placed yet another comment on the subject.71.242.195.148 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kuchera

I agree. Most of the content is unenclyopedic and seems like original research (the friend's first hand knowledge, I'm assuming) and I've found nothing on this guy that makes him notable. I checked the external links hoping to find something there and two of them (this one & this one) are expired. I'm not having any luck finding out any more info on this guy which means he probably doesn't need an article. I went ahead and tagged it for reliable references, tone & notability. I'd say give it a week (since someone seems to be adding to it on a fairly regular basis) and if it's not rewritten and resourced by then, it needs to be tagged for SD. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Same can be said for the Ricky Dominguez article (sans the interesting part!). I'd love to tag that puppy, but knowing my luck, the same person who kept putting in the Youtube link as the kid's official site will probably challenge it. Thanks for tagging it by the way, the whole thing is a waste of space. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the copyvio aspect is too big of problem as it is rewritable should anyone care to invest the time to rewrite it. Its big problem is the lack of sourcing, the very unencyclopedic tone and - importantly - the lack of notability. Everything else is fixable, but we can't make him more notable. It seems to be all very well intentioned though. Perhaps the contributor would respond to being gently pointed towards the general guidelines for writing articles, but ultimately that would mean deleting a lot of stuff that the contributor obviously considers important, so it might be futile. I don't see a lot of potential in the article. Rossrs (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A favor..

It's that time again. Could you look at this version and then this other version and tell me if you think my description of the poster was wrong (check out the edit summary)? I'm fairly certain I see the girl holding a VHS box just like the one that was uploaded and is current featured as the "theaterical poster". I'm seeing that the current photo is actually a picture of the VHS box and the girl in the poster is holding the exact same box. Stupid squabble, I know, but those second edit summaries really grind my gears. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After checking up on it, yeah, you're right. Ah well. Thanks. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Thank you for your honest assessment at Talk:Brook Silva-Braga. It is very helpful. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Manson's mother

Just alerting you to "Married or unmarried," a note I've left on the Charles Manson talk page.71.242.195.148 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Adnan

How do I do that? Pinkadelica (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I did this right so you can go weigh in here. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it make sense that someone removed the pending deletion and notability templates from the page? This place is getting unnerving. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I came across the article though WP:PRODSUM, and not thinking, assumed it was the similar looking the PROD template. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

I went ahead and weighed in over on the talk page. I believe that the editor knows that tabloids aren't reliable but just wants to include every bit of info around. I think it's common knowledge that tabloids are full of lies and the British ones are particularly vicious and false. They're notorious for that. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the article on my watchlist, but I'll put it on there. Scaling back on the tabloid fodder would be best, but her drug use and personal problems are part of her life, they should be covered. There are plenty of third party sources that aren't tabloids that can reference that. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider trying to judge British sources I have found the The Sun trashy as hell but have also found stories there consistently confirmed later on by “respectable” sources or official spokespeople. Examples include A day before Winehouse’s arrest the Sun wrote a story saying what was going to happen, The “drug video”, The “braless walk”, Lily Allen’s pregnancy and unfortunately her later miscarriage so as an editor it is not my job to judge sources on my like or dislike for them but their reliability and The Sun has passed that test in this area. I just got tired of waiting for “respectable” sources because I like them more. Of course if the same story in both The Times and The Sun I would put in The Times and I have used the Times (London,NY, and L.A.) several times.

When using these sources I take care to parse the language carefully using words such as “tabloid” “claimed” “alleged” etc.

In the specific case of the alleged Blake overdose I put it because not only the Sun but three separate sources were claiming similar things, the allegation was that the “contaminated heroin” was purchased by selling of her pictures which is about her and their marriage has had a documented effect on her career.

I and do not put in "every piece" of info nothing about the "other Blake" or her alleged moving into Kelly Osbornes place(I would never put in a celebrity's address out of concern for safety)

You are probably correct about undue weight but I find time usually takes care of it Edkollin (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I am taking further discussion to the Talk Page Edkollin (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Forrest from the trees

Those remarks were "inspired" by yours but not directed at you personally. There are many goods things about Wikipedia but this a mentality I have found quite often at Wikipedia that in my view has not been the best thing for our readers. Using an example that is right in front of the editors seemed obvious to me. I will acknowledge that using the word “mentality” can be perceived as a personal attack and your suggestion for a better choice of language would be appreciated.

I may not agree with certain ways you want to edit the article but I have never questioned that your intent and I would expect that of you. I did not find that in these remarks ”I believe that the editor knows that tabloids aren't reliable but just wants to include every bit of info around”. Speaking of Wikipedia Guidelines that is a violation of Good Faith Edkollin (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for Good Faith Edkollin (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...

I was just thinking about that situation and how happy I was that it was gone. Wishful thinking on my part. Pinkadelica (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Priorities

I think it's definitely worth discussing, and I feel there are numerous disparities in the assessments. I think particular individuals need to be discussed, and perhaps we can work out who the 100 should be, and perhaps even see if 100 is a realistic number. Count me in on any discussions. I would say Bette Davis without hesitation, Vivien Leigh - her film career rests largely on two exceptional performances/roles, but whether that's enough, I don't know. But there are some names that should be so obviously on the list - I'll give it some thought. Rossrs (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Well if you start the discussion I will definitely comment. I've had a look at the list as it stands and already disagree with a couple of names listed there, so this will be fun.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good starting point, but I think discussion of names to be added should be dealt with at the same time, so I would suggest starting the discussion with a statement of the overall aim, and leave it somewhat open ended. But yes, we need to try to establish the integrity of the existing list fairly quickly. Rossrs (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I know - it's so weird. I found exactly the same thing. The "listas" parameter should work as that is what it is designed for. I looked at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock simply because he was one that displayed correctly and there was a defaultsort template under the project templates, and I have no idea why it worked, but I tried it on a few (Talk:Joan Crawford and a few others) and ... voila... it worked. Don't know how, don't know why and don't know if this is going to cause another problem elsewhere, but I can't see that it's corrupted anything. Rossrs (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Dora

Yes — even though I was sarcastic about it in my edit summary, it had amusing elements.71.242.128.70 (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Adnan deletion

Do you know of anyone who can weigh in so we can finally have a resolution or at the very least come closer to one? I'm wondering if I should ask all those who voted "Redirect" to change their votes since that doesn't seem to be an option. Pinkadelica (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that suggestion to the whole Adnan debacle. I was thinking about doing that days ago, but everyone who has voted so far (aside from you) seems very ambivalent about the whole matter. As far as the Winehouse article...yikes. That's a whole can of worms right there. How is deleting an entire section without consulting anyone else not a violation or at the very least, inconsiderate to others who were involved in an attempt to remedy the situation? I got griped at for removing useless trivia that was sourced from IMDb, the worst source in the entire world! I'll weigh in over there in a bit, but I must say, the atmosphere isn't very friendly. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

As a regular contributor to the Amy Winehouse article, you are invited to join the editing process of the article's personal life and controversy sections, temporarily located here. For discussion on recent issues, go here. For current discussions, go here.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you weigh in please? I'm trying to hold on to my sanity! Pinkadelica (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for alerting me regarding Amy Winehouse. Unfortunately I was busy, and couldn't intervene until now. But I'll take a look at what's been going on, and see what I can do. Kind regards, --Catgut (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree with your correcting my assessment of Reese Witherspoon. Btw, are there any specific rules for film directors, too? See my edit regarding Sergio Leone, who without doubt must be looked upon as one of the iconic European filmmakers, and whose spaghetti westerns have had a lasting impact on cinema worldwide. If there is any discussion going on dealing with the assessment of actors and directors I'd love to make my voice heard. --Catgut (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! You'll hear from me asap.

And, yes, I had been astonished how that, well, rather daring edit erasing the whole private life section, and later the request for full protection (of the incredible shrunk version, of course) went so smoothly. Anyway, things have obviously changed for the better! --Catgut (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor old Johnnie Ray

And so it begins.... Pinkadelica (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to revert for not providing sources because that's a valid reason to do so, but I just didn't feel like getting into a whole to-do about it. As long as it's been, it really hasn't been long enough and I don't think I've built my strength back up. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look at your project and lend a hand if I can. I've been attempting to get around to my own list of TV stubs that need to be expanded and/or cleaned up. That's a task within itself. I've already found a few references for the Ray page so I'll throw those in. Like you, I just don't feel like dealing with drama anymore. To me, the concept isn't hard. If you add content, add a reliable reference. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I found something that contradicts the info in the Ray article regarding his alleged Native American heritage. I have no idea how valid this is as this little blurb doesn't reveal its sources. What do you think? Pinkadelica (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that little notice at the bottom which is why I didn't change the content. I think it's interesting nonetheless because I can't find any sources that state Ray was of Native American ancestry. I also found this, but again, I'm not sure if it's reliable. The whole thing just strikes me funny. If someone is such a expert and is so through with their "research", how would this mistake get in? Pinkadelica (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that for a minute! There is deep research going on there! There's no way either of us can poke holes in solid research like that. It's not like we've ever been able to before. Neither of us have ever proven that an editor completely made up stuff just to push their own agenda. We're just not that smart or savvy. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You should. Hopefully you can get your college tuition back. In the meantime, I'm going to smack my mother for teaching me basic common sense. She should have taught me how to made up my own version of reality, facts be damned. I should sue her. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

article improved

Hi, I don't understand, i've improved this article [1] with images (with OTRS permission) and other things requested, but someone (not registered) now has attached this template... --Carlons (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

article

I've asked it to you because you have let me this: I have to wonder, if you felt so strongly about this article that you lobbied for its retention, why you haven't done anything in over 3 months to expand and improve the article... etc do you not remember? ...anyway I'll try to improve it --Carlons (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem

Ok, no problem... I'm trying to improve the article. May be you can have a look at it later... Best --Carlons (talk) 01:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)