User talk:HarringtonSmith

Bonnie and Clyde

I wanted to take a minute and thank you for your additions to this article. In many cases, when a relatively new editor starts making changes in articles, I keep close watch, mostly because of frequent inaccuracies, vandalism, etc. After the first few changes you made, I stopped checking because I saw that your additions were good, you cite them well and they help the article. This doesn't happen often enough with these sorts of articles.

Also, to address a question you posed on Talk:Henderson Jordan (Louisiana sheriff). If you have issue with any of the sources being used, by all means, change, delete or fix them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can be a wonderful place. Then again, it can be a royal pain. Lately, it's been good! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eeps

[1] Ah geez. I was tired when I wrote that edit summary. The wording struck me as hilarious at 3 in the morning (the wording about the 1 year assault). I hope this wasn't offensive! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imposing

The reason I removed it was because the rule of thumb for here is that when we use an adjective like that, we should have a source attached to it to support it. Otherwise, we are basically describing it ourselves, which is considered original research/POV/etc. If you have a source to back up the use of the "imposing" descriptor, then sure, it can go in! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Great finds! I'm uploading the crop of the Frank Hamer photo. I wanted to mention that we should probably remove the forced sizing on the ones you uploaded. There's a couple reasons, but the most prominent one is that there is a default size built in to Wikipedia that allows users to set their own image sizes, depending on their preferences and needs. Usually, we try to allow for that by not forcing the size of the image on the page. The other, less important maybe, is for balance of the photos through out the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I adjusted the sizing and am adding the Jones image to his page. I did force the Jones image to a smaller size because it just seemed to overwhelm the other images without it. Thanks for all your work! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, but I moved it down into the media section only. I don't like how it looks when images stagger across sections. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I did. It probably got caught up in an edit conflict. I'll fix it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamer photo

I suspect the problem is that you need to clean out your browser cache or just need to reload the page. In many cases, a new photo won't show up until the cache is cleared. I don't know what browser you use, but for mine, I use the control key (held down) while hitting the F5 key. The cropped photo shows up for me, and there should be no problem in displaying for someone who hasn't visited the page. Try that and see if it helps. If not, let me know! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me, I'd remove that meanfrank post above. Personally speaking and all. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I get hate posts. This happens when you thwart vandals, POV warriors and the mundane well-meaning but clueless editor. I just delete it and go on - well mostly. Sometimes I respond, but only if I am annoyed too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hamer

Good job on the Hamer article and getting the photo!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC) It's cool, I trimmed it from a longer version, actually!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim

Your edits were great. I had just added the names of law enforcement officers that weren't specifically named and added the Officer Down references so that all relevant persons were cited. I've had a touch of bronchitis lately, but hey, it's a break from the mundane health crap! Thanks for asking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Crowder

Stop removing the name of the inmate who raped Clyde Barrow for over a year in prison. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. It's beyond me as to why you insist without consensus to remove the pervert's name from the article. Let me also remind you that you do not own the Bonnie & Clyde article. Caden ^cool 08:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that a discussion was opened regarding the use of the name "Ed Crowder" and you were the only one who spoke up to keep it. It is not relevant who the person was, he was a non-notable person and the other editors on the page agreed it wasn't important enough to keep, especially since he's not important (notable) enough to warrant an article. Let me remind you that you don't have the authority to come in and overrule a decision regarding an edit that was, in essence, voted down. You don't own the article either, despite having declared "His name stays". Kind of sounds like a demand to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why girls love sailors

Just re-add. The edit gives the impression the film is hard to get hold of when its not. You just go on the internet and import it to whereever you like. Its not important. Regards. Szzuk (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Man

Looks good to me, but I don't know anything about linking between wiki projects. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dr. Strangelove

Saw your comments on the talk page. If you are interested in giving more criticism about the article or helping me work on it, that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for answering. Sure, I'd love to help on a Strangelove reconstruction — a word I choose carefully, because I think that's what it needs. As I wrote on the Talk page, it seems to have evolved into a series of recapitulations of the same material, as can sometimes happen when editors are tinkering here and polishing there and not really keeping track of the whole. If it were my project — and mine alone — I'd pitch the whole thing and start fresh from the top, but the dozens of folks who've worked on it already might frown on that. So I think the best approach would be to fix a chunk at a time, being mindful of the special-interest consituencies who'll be waiting to pounce if we screw with their own centers of interest (in the Strangelove case, it might be the aircraft people). I had good luck with this approach — which I only just stumbled upon by accident — on another page which had been the site of a lot of contention and had several disparate groups of editors pressing their own agendas.

I would offer the Tender Mercies Wikipedia article (which just earned Featured Article status on Friday) as an example of a well-turned-out movie page: it has lots of beef, thematic insight, and is the result of a collaboration primarily by two editors. I'm not really seeking an FA trophy, but I love working on a top-drawer project.

So, Viriditas, how can I best help? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me check out that article and review Strangelove. I won't be able to respond to your point until tomorrow night, but I think we'll make a good team. I also think you're right; we'll have to eventually rewrite it. Here's the thing, though. Given that there is so much information available on the subject, perhaps you could write an outline to get us started? Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still collecting sources, but I see several things right off the bat: The lead should be expanded to discuss all the essential details. For example, the actors and Sellers unique performance and his role in bringing Terry Southern on board as a writer; development background of the film and how it changed from a drama to a comedy; the historical context and its influence (Bay of Pigs, JFK assassination); its status in film history as the first commercially successful or viable political satire, which enabled and established Kubrick as an auteur; the awards and legacy/status as one of Kubrick's best films. Much more to come... Viriditas (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I have several things to nail down, then I need to watch the picture again, I'm realizing. Did you notice an editor called "Burpelson AFB" made a few edits? Sounds like s/he might be a fan! --HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've got more than enough film articles on my plate; Strangelove is only one of about a dozen. Happy holidays and thanks for your input. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I haven't fully followed what is going on over there. I saw a call for a vote but it didn't say what the vote was about, which seems to be quite important. I must say, one of the editors there seems to vehemently defend me, even when I don't require it. There is some ugliness going on right now, but it's not related to Bonnie or Clyde. I'm fairly well, thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance

Harry, you have made clear you consider me an odiously bad person who has no interest in good editing, but you are a good writer, and one of the few people I know on wikipedia. Therefore, if you would be so kind, I would like your opinion on a section I added on Artifical DNA and Crime Scene Fabrication at the DNA Profiling Article. [[2]] Why you? You have made some very good edits here, and you certainly won't spare my feelings if you think the addition is bad. I do not wish to add a section that is not informative and well written. Thanks in any event, Pv86 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, 86, I do not consider you an odiously bad person — just someone who'd be better-served by research, writing and editing, rather than posting to the talk pages. I am angry at you about one thing, though — your fussing drove away LaNaranja, who is the best researcher/editor in the whole group of Barrow articles. What you don't realize is that she is not some blind fan of Hamer, and that if you had not shooed her away, she would have come up with better stuff about those five murder accusations — and all the other of Hamer's "warts" — than you and I together would ever unearth if we worked till we were a hundred. That Hamer page was a work in progress until you came in and ran her off. So I hope you're satisfied about that. Maybe she'll come back, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I read your DNA section, and it's good. I took the liberty of putting a light polish on it — nothing major at all, just a tighten-up, and all easily revertable with one keystroke 'cause I purposely kept it all together as one edit. My only point of major concern is the last paragraph, which really reads like a commercial, which is frowned upon at Wikipedia. You need to be thinking of an alternate way to wrap it up, because someone will likely jump on it. Otherwise, I think you did a nice job on it.

It is indeed informative and well-written — and frightening, a story that had escaped my attention completely. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, first, thanks for taking a look at my first section in a wikipedia article. As to the last paragraph, if you can think of a way to say that no one knows which, if any, departments have adopted Dr. Frumkin's verification test, (while FSI is saying they all should!) I would welcome the assistance. I appreciated your help. If you don't think of a better way, I will ponder it tonight, and rewrite it tomorrow.

As to LaNarnja, I am sorry she left, but I honestly don't feel I "drove" her off. She wrote that she was outraged by the new person who said leave the "like B & C the way it is." I had no association with that - it certainly was not one of my former students, two of whom are in the process of reading the Bonnie and Clyde books. I would not encourage anyone - including myself - to write anything without research. And actually, you had predicted that otherwise uninterested "wall people" would emerge, and you were right. While I don't feel I am responsible for LaNarnja leaving, I am certainly neither satisfied nor happy she did so.

I am glad you found the Artifical DNA issue interesting - and you are absolutely right, it is very, very frightening. Right now anyone with 10 grand or so and access to an undergraduate student in biology with a lab could fabricate DNA evidence wholesale - and not one single police lab has publically said they have adopted the verification test. Scary indeed!

I will close by saying I have decided not to quarrel with you over Hamer. It does not do either of our hearts any good. I want to contribute positively, and I will find areas I can, as I did with the DNA article. Thanks again, and chow. Pv86 (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being a weisenheimer when I suggested you think about taking on the Ted Hinton page as a project. As you know, Hinton was a fascinating character in his own right, a loyal and compelling friend to the Barrow and Parker families, there are many sources for ready research and many photos to enhance the page. And it sure could use a hand; it's the barest of stubs right now, so it's ripe for development. You like Hinton — so why not think about it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about it Harry. I need to do a lot of research first - and we would have to reach some agreement on how to present the article. I still think the Hamer article needs at least a section that explains his trials for murder, the fact that he either never ran a warrant check on Bonnie, or lied openly about her being wanted for murder. (and yes, they used warrant checks back then!) Fliers were made up by anyone, without having to reflect actual crimnal status, but smart and meticulous investigators like Hamer also checked for active warrants. In Texas, especially, Bonnie had none. Either Hamer was not as good an investigator as reputed - and I don't believe that - or he lied, and just did not care that the woman was not in fact a murderder, or even wanted for murder. No good investigator depends on rumors and the papers for his facts! Just some thoughts for you to ponder. I am going to leave it to you, even if I find better sourcing, to put it in the article. I truly do not wish to quarrel with you. Pv86 (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Hinton article, you wouldn't need to do any consensus-building because there's no controversy; just do some research and start filling out the article. You become the Hinton authority and people ask your opinion about the things they add. That's why I suggested you develop that particular page. Plus the sourcing is easy because there are many sources all over the place.

Regarding Hamer, the warrant discussion you mention would need to include Lee Simpson and Governor Ferguson as well; they're the authorities who charged Hamer with his task. I'm particularly eager to see some material on the five murder trials — which would make a dandy section, wouldn't it. I have some fish other than Hamer I'm hoping to fry, so I won't be doing much research myself. That's why I lament the departure of LaNaranja. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent for more books, and will research Hinton. I would like your opinion on any changes - it pays to have an additional viewpoint. I am sorry LaNaranja is gone - hopefully she will come back. By the way, I made changes in the last paragraph of the DNA article as you recommended, thanks again. Well, have a nice weekend, I am going to get up and try to go to church with my grandchildren for the first time in three weeks! Pv86 (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back from church, and oh, that was a trial! Getting old and sick is no fun at all...enough moaning. The reason for this "PS" is to ask if you noted - and I am sure you did - that neither the Governor nor the director of DOC gave Hamer an order to kill Bonnie or Clyde, unlike Hoover, who flatly ordered the execution of Helen Gillis. I am trying to locate an article I read in an old magazine where it said that they did not have to order Hamer to kill - they knew he would, based on his record. Just as businesses hired him for his meanness as a strikebreaker, they knew the letter of the law was not a great concern for him. If I can find the article, I will send you how to locate it, and you can evaluate it for enclosure in the Hamer article, or not, as you chose. Pv86 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, as the books come in, and I get caught up on reading on Ted Hinton, I will be revising that article. I would like you to at least look at my work, and make sure it is balanced. Please? Also, I was thinking of writing a separate article on the development of "fake" (because it is really not fake, it is artifically revised) DNA; thoughts? Pv86 (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you're going to tackle the Hinton page. It'll be good for you, and good for the page. I'll agree to keep an eye on its development, but what I will not do is debate the same old points — Hamer, Bonnie, warrants, shoot-on-sight — on Talk pages. When your research unearths new information, properly sourced and cited, then weave it into your text - that's the way it works here. I simply will not answer matters of polemical argumentation on a Talk page, I just won't answer.

Speaking of Talk pages, I want to move this discussion over to Talk:Ted Hinton from this little backwater page. Interested parties might look in there, and you might pick up a few ranch hands to help with some of the work, which you're going to need. When you open your DNA page, we'll talk at its talk page.

Before we "go public," though, let me say one thing, in a totally friendly way. You still strike me as being out to win some of the arguments surrounding these long-ago events and long-dead people. Tip: There is no winning of these arguments. Not by you, not by me, not by anyone. Take a look at The Dallas Morning News edition of May 24, 1934: on page one alone, there are four conflicting accounts, by Jordan, by Hamer, by Alcorn and by Hinton. Not even 24 hours after the shooting stops, and already the waters of truth are muddied thick brown. Don't try to win, 'cause you won't be able to.

Okay, switching to the Talk:Hinton page... — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie and Clyde hoopla

I notice the hoopla about the Bonnie and Clyde article has died down, or at least gone underground. I'm still not sure what it was all about but I'm somewhat glad it's stopped. I hate it when relatively good articles get kicked asunder by well-meaning but ineffective editors (saw this happen on Charles Manson and it still hasn't recovered). Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad to know that this isn't anything new. It will be all be straightened out in the end, I'm sure. I just noticed the hooplah was quieted. I was a little disappointed over football, but my god-grandson was gobsmacked and wiped out. What can you expect from a 9 year old, though? He cried real tears when the Colts lost. Poor little guy. I'm sure Payton Manning felt just as bad, but then again, he DOES have his ring, doesn't he? Glad to know all is well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

If you hadn't reminded me about the boxes, I would have nominated the list of veggies for a PR and made quite and exhibition of myself. Thanks for the reminder. :-P Kayau Voting IS evil 07:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oakley question

I think it should either in the death section or better yet, in the aftermath section. I think it's good and valid content and should stay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ibid

We don't routinely use that sort of citation, we use <ref name=??> because the earlier reference can become lost in intervening content additions. Just so you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can formulate them the way you want. For instance say you have a cite to a book by Barrow to page 294, the first ref would be <ref name=Barrow294>Barrow, p. 294</ref> and each successive one to that page would just be <ref name=Barrow294/>. Does that answer your question? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown

You made this edit: [3] but the claim this IS in the cite at the end of the paragraph... it's available on youtube, [4] about 7 minutes in. --74.138.229.88 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]