User talk:Rossrs/archive11

And to you

To repeat what Dick Clark mumbled on the TV: May you have a happy and healthy New Year! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How funny

that I was actually watching Mr. Ed on television when I got your note. Poor SJP, she takes hits from all sides, doesn't she. This is just proof positive that the lyrics to Mr. Ed are suspect:

A horse is a horse of course, of course,

And no one can talk to a horse of course,

Unless of course, the talking horse,

Is the famous Mr. Ed Sarah Jessica Parker.

Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You should be aware that there is now an official "Conspiracy of bullies" at work, of which, me, User:Vidor, User:Crohnie and LaVidaLoca and certain unnamed administrators were fingered as members in a complaint filed at WP:WQA#User:Wildhartlivie by SkagitRiverQueen was listed, if you are interested. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Image

Hey Rossrs, you are right, I confused the non-free reduced tag with this one. Thanks a lot for explaining it to me. No offence intended. :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Kate, Daniel, Forest and Ben

Hi. Thanks for reverting vandalism on the Winslet article. Someone has opened the good article nomination on the page and I have Daniel Day-Lewis waiting on its GAR review to be done. My plate is piling high. Meanwhile, we've got Forest Whitaker and Ben Stiller up for GAR and I'm hoping you might help a little. I'm looking at Whitaker, which seems to be fixable. Not so sure about Stiller, though. I posted a request for help at WP:ACTOR but so far, no one has volunteered to help save any of these GAs. Do ya think ya might?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Any help is good help. Nehrams2000 offered to help on Whitaker, too. Daniel Day-Lewis seems to have flown through recertification, which is a good thing. The reviewer on Kate's article wants the lead rewritten. I'm in dicussion over that. I've proposed on Whitaker's that removing part of the filmography decreases the comprehensiveness. Any port in a storm, eh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That works too. Nehrams is working on Stiller (whew!). Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Kate

WHY did that editor wait until now to jump on this article and knock it out of GA criteria by rendering it unstable??? What does he think he is doing?? I'm sick to my stomach over this. What does he think he is proving? Why is he doing this???? I want to cry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Huge thank you for your comments. I felt the righteous anger coming through. For what it's worth, I think Tony is ignoring it - he continued to check fixes and posted new comments, so I think it irked him too. Bless your heart. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. Every once in a while, we all need a knight riding a white horse to come to the rescue. Here is my thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Welllll, I appreciated the stance you took. Skag took me to AN/I tonight over "rollback misuse". Nothing much happened except she made a stink. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Winslet GA nom

Watch the talk. I will comment. I am slow. Watch the article. There has been a POV editorial issue during the nom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not a WP:FILM person. The current WP:LEAD is shaped by my vision which is in the GA discussion. I am open to opinions. If the opening 2nd sentence is a bit heavy let me know. It is a vast improvement over the submitted lead in terms of summarizing her life. That is why I made the comment in the discussion and steered the lead in the current direction myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rossrs! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Jon Blair - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Kim Carnes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Manual of style

Hey, I believe you were one of the contributors a little while back from that discussion of a user, Jojhutton, who kept removing the country from infoboxes. Well, I noticed that he continues to do this, and says that the MOS is saying to only mention the city and state. Is he right? I thought many were against this. Tinton5 (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kevin Spacey

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kevin Spacey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday (a day late)

I saw from here that it's been six years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ

While it's normal for editors to comment from time to time on each other's behavior on article talk pages, that has never proved to be constructive with SRQ. She isn't interested in listening to other people's opinions or advice on the way she conducts herself. She thinks she's always right and isn't open to any other possibility, so such exchanges always deteriorate and fill talk pages with endless bickering. It's best to avoid them completely. If you see her behavior as an ongoing problem that needs to be dealt with, as it seems some other editors do, an RFC/U may be warranted. Short of that, for now, on article talk pages especially, it's probably best to ignore the problematic remarks and focus on article issues. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:27, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Rossrs is completely aware of this editor and is up to date on her. I would venture to say that a response that boldly laughs at what he says would get a comment in return. Rossrs is one of the most fair, calm and even editors around. If his feathers get ruffled, I'd say his response was deliberately solicited. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Giving her what she deserves" (not a direct quote of course) may be satisfying, but not really that helpful. Not that I think that was Rossrs' intention, but that was in response to your justification, Wild. The idea with SRQ in my mind is to avoid the drama that so easily develops when she's involved. I'm only suggesting a way of doing that. You can choose to continue to be pulled down into those useless exchanges, if you find it too unbearable to let her remarks stand unretorted. But if at all possible, it would be best to generally let her have the last word, if she desires it so vehemently. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:37, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

My point actually was that this is the most even, fair and hard to ruffle editor that I know of on Wikipedia. I've never seen him get pulled into a huge squabble and his opinion is sought from editors who are looking for an honest and well-considered opinion. It's unconscionable that anyone would actually outright laugh at something he's said and I personally don't blame him for responding. Why would anyone have to adapt a different approach to any one given editor based on that editor's lack of social graces? I don't know of a guideline or policy that says we should "feed the bears", although there is one about feeding the trolls. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not blaming him either. As I said, normally it's fine. "Don't feed the trolls" means not responding to a provocation. That's exactly what I'm proposing. Don't respond. And it's just advice for the future, I'm not berating Rossrs. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:09, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is that usually, when one comes upon a bear or a troll, one can readily identify the subject as a bear or a troll. It's not the same when someone has to go around explaining and giving advice about how to deal with a given person because they tend toward this behavior. There is no magic sign to know not to cross the water. That's the biggest problem I see here. An innocuous statement can be made into a major battle without one knowing it is going to happen. How do we deal with that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm dealing with it here by warning people that there's a "troll in disguise" roaming the woods. Trolls are rarely all that conspicuous, though. That's how they operate, by deceiving people and luring them into senselessness. Once you realize what you're dealing with, you do your part to try not to feed into it.

The only permanent way to deal with this is with an RFC/U. My concern though, as is always a concern in these cases, is that the problem is somewhat ambiguous, tough to describe to an outsider, and even harder to prove. If anyone wanted to give it a try, though, I'd be behind it. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:33, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is coming, very soon. This sort of upheaval cannot continue as it has been. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"you do your part to try not to feed into it" - how funny. I made a similar comment elsewhere just a day or two ago. Although I used the word "follow" rather than "feed". Anyway, back to me. Firstly, whew, nobody is blaming me or even berating me. Why would anyone blame or berate me anyway? I fully appreciate that talk pages become part of the permanent archive, and I never say anything unless I accept that it will end up there forever, for all to see. If one day it blows up in my face, so be it. I weigh up what I want to say, and even whether it's worth saying at all, and if I decide that is, I will go for it. In this case, I saw a comment I had supposedly made, being mocked. I know very well that I didn't say what I was being mocked for and I chose to respond. I can recognise tactics when I see them. You don't know me, but trust me. The manner in which I comment, well that's my choice. It was never intended as "giving her what she deserves" but was only "setting the record straight". I don't know that you've necessarily helped the situation by speaking in the manner of another editor. I think you've potentially fanned the fire and the comment actually makes you look worse than anyone else. I'm sure that was the last thing you intended. As far as I'm concerned, we need to focus on Susan Atkins, don't we? Rossrs (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you were doing and again am not blaming you. Only offering advice for the future. The root of most disputes with SRQ are each person saying the other misinterpreted them, which is precisely what I think needs to be avoided, if possible. As for my comment, it didn't have the exact effect I originally intended, but it did end up working out anyway. You and SRQ both turned toward me in agreement that I was the bad guy, rather than continuing to argue with one another, which is fine by me (in small doses), so it became within my power to stop the whole dispute by not responding (which I've done, and it now seems to be over). Equazcion ^(talk) 05:06, 26 Jan 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Well it's stopped whatever the reason, and I recognise what you were trying to do. It's not the path I would have chosen, but then you wouldn't have chosen my path either. We'll see. Rossrs (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kate

I just want this to finish, ya know? Going on 3 weeks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It didn't take this long to create, touch up, finish and pass my featured list, from start to finish! BTW, §. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Tall woman

And why didn't you CROP her???? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sooooo relieved! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My new project

Hi there. I've started a new project, awards and nominations received by Gangs of New York. It's at User:Wildhartlivie/More articles worked on. I'm running into problems finding some sources. I need a source for Motion Picture Sound Editors Golden Reel Awards, Phoenix Film Critics Society, Russian Guild of Film Critics and San Diego Film Critics Society if you happen across them. Couldn't find 2002 awards on the critics society websites. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about Movie City News, but perhaps it will take, if nothing else comes up. Sometimes I've had luck on the Los Angeles Times site, but not for this round. I watched the film last night and thought, "Oh what the hell?" Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah. In passing, we're going to be published: [1]. I've started putting a few reviews on my userpage in case all 100 of those people who watch my pages take a look. Might sell a book or two. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing you're referring to Gangs of New York, re: Cameron Diaz? She was tolerable in it, DiCaprio was okay and Daniel Day-Lewis was wonderful. He filled the screen and stole the show. And are we moving on to FWFR on the rest? Not Another Teen Movie was okay. I loved Fried Green Tomatoes. It made me cry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll never believe what I got in the mail today!!! Did I tell you that I talked on here with someone who said she worked for Val Kilmer about working on his WP article? When we were done, I told her to tell him I thought he should have been nominated and won an Oscar for Tombstone? She said she'd send me an autographed picture and today I got one. Wasn't from Tombstone, was from Top Gun, but still! AND it had a CD of his music in the package. How cool was that?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is true that it isn't who you know, but who you help that comes through sometimes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And I happen to have a copy of Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe signed by Fannie Flagg. And a copy of Welcome to the World, Baby Girl! signed by her as well. Great writer. Good stories. Homespun and full of love. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That I do. I have a hand obtained signature from Stephen King that I mounted with a photo we took of him holding his black cat when we were in Maine. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd estimate an authentic Carole Lombard at about US$1500 right now at a high-end dealer. They are becoming rarer and rarer. She's from Indiana, you know. Fort Wayne. (And I didn't even look that up.) Heh, I used to get a Stephen King book every Christmas back when he was producing them each year. At least until they started to become too long. (Likely excuse.) Speaking of Frances Farmer ... we have... um. Never mind. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, don't go by History for Sale's prices, they are about 3-4X what other dealers sell for. And I have two Bette Davis - one is a vintage 1930s era and the other is from around the early 1980s. Anything signed by Garbo is going to run into the higher thousands, even into the tens of thousands, as would Basil Rathbone, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, and all those really HUGE vintage stars. Ya ought price a real Harlow sometime. Or for that matter, price the Frances Farmer. It's an 11X14 studio portrait, signed to a costume designer. Sheesh. But yeah, you shoulda. Then again, there are lots of things we shoulda done! I still yearn for some cool 30s era photos that I can't touch.

And I'm off to bed. It's tomorrow. Night!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tension breaking

To me, Didion's comment was regarding the division of class. Throughout the 60s, there was a terrific division between "establishment" values and those liberal ones being embraced by the younger population. Free love, free living, free drugs, sex and rock and roll, lack of "morals", if you will. The established and more conservative of the population had been viewing this new "freedom" with growing disdain and distrust. Parents shaking their heads over the mores of the younger, old society shuddering as things like the San Francisco and greater California subculture became more rebellious. Woodstock was happening. I think it created a fear in the older conservative society to accompany the wildness of the times. You often read comments today about "it was a different time, things were different". The flower power ideology was broken with the Tate/LaBianca murders. Newspapers later wrote about the "dirty hippies" that perpetrated it. Hippies suddenly weren't cool. The fears of society about these free living people were upheld. People didn't see a difference between the Manson family and the wider group of hippies. One in the same. I think the comment was along the lines of saying "the other shoe is going to drop, and it did." Paranoia equates to distrust and the killings solidly established a wide swath of distrust. People started buying guns. I mean, they packed weapons. No one in Los Angeles was trusted. Steve McQueen carried a gun to Jay Sebring's funeral where he delivered a eulogy. People looked on their neighbors with distrust and suspicion. It changed the texture of interpersonal trust and comfort.

How's that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting question. I think the editor is really trying to understand what the situation was, and that's good. Not understanding something can often lead to clarification. You're welcome. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hurrah!!

Put Kate Winslet on your userpage. It passed!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I say you "helped a little bit"? You helped a lot, especially during my enforced wikibreak. You deserve to claim credit for this every bit as much as I do. Take it, Prissy, take it or I'll give you one of those Scarlett slaps!!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's more like it. Tony will like that. I've look through his pagese before, he's a martial arts practitioner. Interesting person. Thank him for me too. Kate Hudson? Why?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, Cate Blachett isn't one of mine, I only safeguard her virtue, so to speak. I'm not all that interested in Kate Hudso, though. Heath Ledger is on my agenda, and Brad Pitt is on my telly. In Troy. He gets nekkid in it. Loverly. Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit that anything with nekkid Brad can disrupt one's concentration. Even in Legends of the Fall, when all he showed was his bare bottom. I like me some nekkid Brad. It's pleasing to the eye. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

De Niro/Scouts

[[2]]

Original edit that added claim - says 65. No sources for the claim of any kind, cannot find sources that say he won it at all except essentially wikipedia or sites that have copies of the de niro page. Might be worth removing it unless it can be verified. However if you read the claim itself:

Robert was also an involved member of the American Boy Scouts for several years and eventually earned his Eagle Scout rank, later becoming 1 of only 16 persons to earn a second Congressional Honorary Eagle Scout Rank for his excellence in theatrics at the age of 65.

I think it's clear that it shouldn't say 15.62.31.60.62 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely. The sentence does not make sense in the context given, (ie that is about his early life). If it can't be sourced to an independent reliable source, it's a problem. It's also of a fairly minor nature so the article doesn't suffer by it's removal. Thanks for checking. Rossrs (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sound sample box align left

Template:Sound sample box align left has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawn Wells (again)

Please take a look at Talk:Dawn Wells about this editor returning this very stale old story to the article. I've posted a request at WP:BLP/N#Dawn Wells once again about it. Please, and thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoo-ray for canvassing!—Chowbok ☠ 07:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing improper about notifying someone who previously commented on this issue that it once again has come up. Please stop stalking my edits in the mean time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing says "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions.." Considering that I was the only editor notified, considering that I raised the same discussion in August 2009 at Talk:Dawn Wells and have discussed this point several times in the past, and considering that Wildhartlivie only asked me to look at the discussion and comment without attempting "to influence the outcome", there has been no wrong-doing. Please don't leave sarcastic messages like this on my talk page. Rossrs (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It also says "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent" and "Remember to always keep the message neutral". Saying "this very stale old story" is not neutral, and it would be clear to anyone reading it how Wildhartlivie wants you to weigh in. Therefore it is canvassing. It's not sarcasm, I'm being completely sincere.—Chowbok ☠ 15:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: You weren't "the only editor notified".—Chowbok ☠ 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop being a dick and stop stalking my edits and stop being contentious. There was no attempt to sway the opinion of an editor who has clearly weighed in on this before and whose opinion has not changed. There is no attempt to persuade him what to think, there is no excessive cross posting, there is no campaigning, there is no stealth here and there is no disruptive posting or commentary. And I do believe you were clearly asked by Rossrs not to leave such messages on his talk page. Just because the majority opinion does not go along with you, there is no need to be contentious about it. And if I didn't say it twice already, STOP STALKING MY EDITS. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hoo-ray for canvassing" reads as sarcasm, rather than sincerity, unless you are genuinely celebrating the concept of canvassing. More neutral would be something like "Wildhartlivie, I consider your comment to be canvassing. Please do not do this." If you see a problem, you should post it on her talk page, not mine, because the issue is between you and her, if you choose to make it so, not between you and me. Obviously if I've commented on the topic before, my opinion is already known so to refer to the topic as "old" and "stale" isn't telling me anything I don't already know, and is not likely to "sway" my opinion. Surely there are more important things you could focus on. Rossrs (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A minor question before I respond...

Thank you for the time and care which you invested in your recent response to my proposal. I shan't let them go to waste. But before I respond, how do you think it best that I should respond: by breaking in under each numbered paragraph or below your sum total response? Cheers! (By the way, I just checked out your user page and I liked the image of the pelican on the Brisbane. It kind of made me think it was your mirror image. Not that I think you look pelicanish, but that spiritually it is reflective like you, except on the other side of the river. Hope that wasn't too poetic for your taste. I'm a novelist, that's my defense.)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA

If you read that guideline, it actually doesn't apply to this incident at all. Just a little aside, FYI, for the future. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:43, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Erm...

§, the most recent is important. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Betcha didn't know...

...about Tim Robbins secret life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't look much like Marlon Brando, but then I've never seen him with a kid that looks like Cartman, either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Actress

And your award is for the Academy Award for Best Actor - I found your apology genuine and quite believable. Good job! Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pre-code image needed

Hi, Ed Fitzgerald here. I'm looking for a good image to add to the Pre-Code Hollywood article. I'd prefer not to get into any fair-use hassles, so I've been searching through the Commons, but have yet to come up with anything really good. I'm looking for something that exemplifies the sexual suggestiveness of the pre-code film, but, of course, that's just the kind of thing that the studios didn't put in the trailers, the primary source of free images for this period. In a similar situation for Moral panic, I used a picture of Harlow, but I'd like something better, if I can find it.

I thought you or Wildhartlivie might have an idea of something that would work well, so ... here I am. Any ideas? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:MGM films

I have nominated Category:MGM films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, quick question

Its Tinton again, and you probably remember me from that whole incident with that other user who keeps removing the U.S. from infoboxes. Well, there is another user, User:Rodhullandemu, who is also doing the same thing, now when I edited the George Harrison article, he insisted that US does not belong there and according to WP:Place, it says that articles about a British subject should not include this. I am still unsure about his reasoning. I added back US and stated that the John Lennon article does include it. It doesn't make much sense, because Lennon is also British. That user avoided my reasoning and gave some sarcastic comments in return. I was hoping to let others know about this, and you seem to be the only one as of right now to understand what the deal is around here. I mean, Rodhullandemu may be correct, but I'm not sure. What do you think? Much appreciated. Tinton5 (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Madonna FA

Hello Rossrs, how are you? Well I have been working on the Madonna article tirelessly and believe that the article is worthy of getting back its bronze star. What do you feel on the newly improved version of the article? Hit or miss? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to collaborate with you on this. Please feel free to point out any discrepancies that you see, any sentence which you feel needs tweaking. Go ahead and start with it in as much free time as you get. I'm planning to nominate the article through FAC after two-three weeks. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Doris Day

Someone came along and removed the pop culture section of this article and Abrazame reverted it saying we had reached a "compromise" on the content. Funny, I don't see a compromise, and Abrazame did not respond further when you and I challenged his characterization of us as a tag-team. The editor who removed posted at Talk:Doris Day#In popular culture about this and I posted a supporting comment. Maybe you could too? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe you could re-read the whole thread, consider the points made, and post your actual thoughts, you know, the editorial approach you took before. The upshot of which was not unequivocal support of Wildhartlivie's apparent position to essentially remove the section entirely, nor was it as harsh and unfriendly and unyielding in tone or effect to opposing views. An approach which her suggestion above seems to suggest you should abandon in favor of seconding her support of a new argument the substance of which seems to be that Doris Day is not allowed any Popular culture section at all, on the grounds that (by this new arguer's account) she's not on a par with the likes of Groucho Marx and Judy Garland.

As to the characterization of tag-team, I apologize to both of you for using a metaphor I was unaware at the time was an official guideline/offense with its own page. Wildhartlivie co-opted the phrase matter-of-factly in her reaction to it, which seemed to make a response superfluous. It was not meant politically, I was simply coming up with a metaphor off the top of my head for a momentary perception of the way you frequently alerted one another to issues. One way of looking at that is simply friendship.

To Wildhartlivie's repeated implications that seeing it as anything but friendship is a wildly off-base accusation, it seems to me that Wildhartlivie letting you know the conversation has resumed is a collegial heads-up; asking you to comment is a step further, the request of a friend, still perfectly reasonable collegiality; but suggesting that you should support a particular view you had not intractably held before (with the suggested intent to establish consensus against me) seems to be a step across a line. Personally, given that you had expressed yourself as seeing both sides of the issue, I would have the faith that you would revisit the issue with an equally open mind as the first time. (Perhaps she does too, and is hoping to prevent this.) After all, it's the same issue. I should think it goes without saying that, having asked you to comment, and as she's unmistakably staked out a position, she would like you to come down on her side (who implies consensus needs to be reached and then invites people to vote against them?). So to actually state the obvious, when doing so takes her into to the tag-team territory to which in the same post above she takes such lingering offense, is the sort of perplexing dichotomy that suggests she sees me as an enemy rather than a colleague and nothing I do or say could change either her opinion on the subject or this dynamic.

Only three things have changed regarding the Day conversation, one of those being that I now have more of an editing history with Wildhartlivie, having supported her in some situations and disagreed with a well-presented argument in others, with the reaction from her being either nothing or a fair amount of vitriol. Perhaps that vitriol is due to the tag-team reference? I will elaborate on the other two differences at Talk:Doris Day, as it's more germane to that discussion than this side issue. I lament elaborating about this here, but given that Wildhartlivie brought it up again both there and here, when the original exchange remains in that discussion, makes it clear it still bothers her and she wants to make sure that if you don't review anything else about the discussion, you bear this one off-topic remark in mind. It just seemed less appropriate to go into this personal aspect at Doris Day, and it seemed more appropriate to respond to what she has already raised here than for me to bring the issue to Wildhartlivie's own talk page.

For what it's worth, to the "did not respond further", I began to compose a very detailed response to the thoughtful comments you made at Doris Day; I recall examining your point about the celebrities named in "Bette Davis Eyes". One reason I did not finish and post it there was because subsequent editing of the section made it seem that the editorial issue had been settled. Being unaware of WP:Tag team, I dismissed her comment about the phrase there as digressive prickliness and not an objection to the use of a technical term. Frankly, another reason I did not perpetuate the discussion was because, since it no longer seemed the editorial result required further discussion to resolve, I didn't want to be hypocritical in light of digressive discussions I often step into and try to rein in and wind down that often mire several threads at once at the talk page of another article I frequent. Best, Abrazame (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I will re-read the whole thread and consider the points made. That has been my intention, and I've been thinking about how to respond, and driving home from work (of all times to be thinking about Doris Day) a couple of thoughts came together for me, so I will comment on the talk page. I'll comment here, as you did, about the personal aspect. Yes, I do see both sides, and I think it can be resolved. I don't think Wildhartlivie's comment about context contradicts your point of view, so I do not think you're are coming at it from opposite viewpoints. It would be truer, I think, to say that you are not aligned. And I am not aligned either. One phrase that I think is significant from Wildhartlivie's comment is "relevant content should either be incorporated in a meaningful way into the article or removed", and I don't see that as her saying that she wants the content deleted, but rather that it has not yet been presented in a manner that she finds acceptable. If I'm reading her comment correctly, I think that's a fair stance, and it leaves the door open for further discussion.

I accept your apology regarding the tag- team comment. As you may have noticed on the talk page, I said I didn't know quite what to make of it. It was a jarring comment, in what I thought was an otherwise thoughtful exchange. I didn't like it, I have to say, but I was more disappointed than offended, and I was prepared to accept that the meaning I took from it may not have been intended by you. You've confirmed that, and from my point of view, there is no problem, and it's done with. I appreciate that you mentioned it here. It's interesting that there could be that perception of us tag-teaming, and I understand it. It may well appear that way, but you've recognised the truth of it, and that is simply that we are friends. We've edited a lot of same articles under WP:ACTOR and have similar attitudes and senses of humour - it's not surprising that we gravitate towards each other. On the other hand, there are articles that I care deeply about that Wildhartlivie cares about not at all, so I'm often found at those articles saying my piece, minus Wildhartlivie, and similarly there are numerous articles that she cares deeply about that do not interest me at all. I'm sure you are correct in saying that Wildhartlivie has alerted me to the renewal of discussion because she believes I may take the same view as she has taken, but considering that I started that discussion, and have commented at length, my opinion is already on record. Your message also suggests what you expect of me. There's not a huge difference in expectation really, especially as both of you have a reasonable idea of what I may say. I don't mind anyone suggesting what they think I should say, as long as they're prepared to take the risk that I might surprise them by not saying what they expected. I don't see any problem with it, and that's just the way people communicate. After all, no reasonable person would think "hmmm, that editor really really disagrees with everything I say and is just so hard to get along with. Better get him into the discussion right away so that I can have my views shot to smithereens." I mean, who on earth would do that? Not me, that's for sure. I'm glad you left this message. I will comment on the Doris talk page. Rossrs (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kylie-Minogue-Hand-On-Your-Heart-Vinyl.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kylie-Minogue-Hand-On-Your-Heart-Vinyl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kylie Minogue Confide in Me Cover 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kylie Minogue Confide in Me Cover 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diana Wynyard.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Diana Wynyard.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JillEsmondRandomHarvest.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JillEsmondRandomHarvest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Spinning Around.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Spinning Around.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.

• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And May I Say...

Happy Birthday, Bette Davis. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

102 years old today! Rossrs (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't have noticed if someone hadn't removed the "April 5" from her article and I reverted it. But yeah, Luise and Gloria are still around. Funny though, when I think of Gloria Stuart, I have always thought of her as "Old Rose". But Bette had a long life - she was 81 when she died, and look at the longevity of Kate - she was 96, and Christopher Lee, whose filmography I was just working on, is STILL working right this very minute and he's 87. Some live forever! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a cool thing. She was pretty, but then, she was a lovely old lady, too. I wonder how it would be to know you've lived through 2 world wars and the advent of the modern age. I often wonder about the perspective of my aunt, who will be 85 this year. I've asked her about some things, like WW2, and things then. One should never pass up the opportunity to ask about things while one still can. She remembers a LOT. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a wonderful story, and I'm sure that your grandmother lifted a lonely soldier's heart in a time when he needed someone to do that. He wouldn't have come back if she didn't mean something important to him. Maybe it reminded him of home and love and acceptance. Keep that story close to your heart. I'll email you a picture of my uncle that was taken when he was home on leave sometime during WW2, based on the insignia on his shoulder which was used from 1941 until 1947. It isn't dated, but he's in his uniform so it was a time when he was on active service. He was in the Army Air Force and 30 years later, he had night terrors about it, though he didn't talk about it or the dreams. He was haunted by what he saw. The pictue says so very much to me about his state of mind and his emotions at the time. I keep it on the shelf with other important pictures. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow

That image for Holly Hunter truly is good. It's probably one of the best images of her I've seen. I'm glad to see it and it's legitimate for Wikipedia purposes! Cool beans. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Betty White

I think that when an actor is still working, the most recent photo should be used. There is no valid reason to delegate a new photo to the bottom of the page in favor of one over 20 years old. Silly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bety White was an attractive young woman and she is an attractive older woman. I've watched her for years, from being on game shows with Allen Ludden to being on television programs and talk shows. She's got a wicked and somewhat evil sense of humor and I totally love her. She is going to host Saturday Night Live before the end of the season. I'd guess she's the oldest host they have ever had. And she will be funny. I love her. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh

Well, you know they say that Tony Curtis is multi-talented. He can certainly paint. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Other things

I sent you an email asking you to look at the discussion regarding Ryan White on my talk page and the other editor's and comment on what the other editor is claiming is original research in the lead that is based on sourced content later in the article. See my talk page for the post by Ling.Nut. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pitt

Yeah, it was the article's first FAC. I'm surprised you didn't comment in the second one. Oh well. Thank you on the congratulations, I appreciate it. I'm just glad that the process is done with, you know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate it. I only bring the images, but you do an excellent job in maintaining these actor articles. I stumbled across that image a few weeks back and tucked it in my Flickr file (which has dozens of other potential candidates). Unfortunately, I've had to slow down my requests as OTRS recently changed their approval process and instead of approving submitted candidates, denied them, so I now have to take on the fun task of tracking down authors again. However, the author of the Tucci image has offered to let me use some more of his images, so hopefully more can be found to improve various articles. Anyway, thanks again.

Dancing with the Stars

Check out poor Donny Osmond and don't miss the bottom of the page. Is there any hope? - Josette (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Images of Sonnie Hale

Personal issues aside (I don't actually feel any need to "interject" my "horrible" drawings "into something public" at the expense of Wikipedia, and the public imputation isn't calculated to encourage... WP:NEWBIES) I'd like to know how to proceed on this: is the approved approach for missing mugshots to copy a similar unattributed image off the Web (e.g. http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Sonnie%20Hale.jpg or http://www.richardcaswell.com/Sonnie_20Hale_20B_2002.jpg) and claim 'fair use' (as appears to have been done in the case of Jessie Matthews)? Or to crop material from what I assume to be very definitely copyright archives, e.g. Getty Images or the National Portrait Gallery -- which are, along with photos scanned out of the two published books about Jessie Matthews, the identifiable sources of most of the other material currently visible on the Web?

I'm afraid all the research copies of original material in my own possession are of rather poor quality and have in addition been obtained from archives on the strict condition that such images can be used for personal research purposes only: which I imagine absolutely to exclude Wikipedia. (I do have printouts of a few published newspaper photos pre-1939, which, according to the British Newspaper Library (which I had to pay to get them) are out of copyright under British law -- but being small newsprint images they are naturally of appallingly low resolution made worse by reproduction, such that I really wouldn't find them useful for recognition purposes if I didn't already know what to look for.) Igenlode (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops -- believe it or not, I hadn't actually realised that the Jessie Matthews image I'd picked as an example was one of your own contributions, not having bothered to scroll that far down the page! I only chose that one in the first place because it was linked directly from the Sonnie Hale page in question...

If you think that the best option is to select an image from one of the known archive sources, then I'd go for http://legacyeditorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=2663889&cdi=0 which is a characteristic likeness demonstrating the actor's "habitually cheeky expression", as one fan-letter puts it! I would however propose uploading the older cached version which I have on hard disc here and which bears the watermark across the bottom of the image rather than right across the middle of the face as in the currently displayed page, and/or cropping it off as has been done here. Would this be acceptable -- and would it complicate the question of attributing the image? My copy was downloaded from http://www.jamd.com/image/g/2661250 on 26 Jan 2009 (at least according to the datestamp on the file): the current version is not actually the same physical image, carrying the 'gettyimages' watermark rather than the old VIEWIMAGES stamp, and is no longer located at the same URL, although it's the same photo from the same agency with the same credits.

Also, would it be permissible to upload the image in question temporarily within my user space before submitting it, in order to illustrate to you what I mean? My reading of WP:USER unfortunately suggests that it would not (Do not include non-free images on your user page or on any subpage thereof...)

I probably deserved the comments on WP:ACTOR, having voiced equally tactless views on someone else's incompetence a few years back (I'm more used to reviewing old films than living people's work: I still think it was a very badly written story, but I didn't realise the author was going to be scanning the comments and needn't have been so cruel). I'm afraid encountering that thread did hurt like fury, but your gentle response has helped to draw the sting from a fairly miserable couple of days.

For what it's worth I tend to concur with the conclusion that user sketches are inevitably going to be too subjective, given Wikipedia's avowed aim of neutrality; in the case of a sketch which explicitly attempts to restore bleached-out detail to a seriously over-exposed reproduction, this is particularly the case. If this is going to be new Wikipedia policy, though (all the discussions cited seem to be of recent date), it might be a good idea to spell it out explicitly. (Not sure where: I remember going through all this stuff last year when trying to work out what images I had that could legitimately be used for the purpose under site rules, and the whole business is so labyrinthine that I can't even relocate the pages I was looking at then, alas...)Igenlode (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me rather belatedly that I can of course upload images much more simply into my own webspace as examples...

See http://ivory.vlexofree.com/Tower/Sonnie-Hale/sample/ for a selection of newspaper photos from 1926 and 1936 respectively (I'm afraid these are really the best-quality ones I've got, which isn't saying much -- save for the various archive-sourced photos which I can't use).

As I understand it these are all out of copyright now, having been published without a photographer's attribution over seventy years ago. Unfortunately I wouldn't have thought that any of them were of a quality that one would want to see as an illustration.

Alternatively it occurs to me that it might be possible to get a family snapshot from Robbie Hale-Monro, Sonnie's son and (presumably) heir -- although I don't suppose anyone would remember who originally took them any more, so the question of copyright would be confused to say the least...Igenlode (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that I can get Mr Hale-Monro to identify a suitable picture and get him to agree to donate it to the public domain (and assuming that I can actually explain all this!), how does one go about submitting such a permission from someone who isn't on the Internet?

Actually, looking through the myriad of Wikipedia pages and policies on copyright, I'm not sure I can explain it, not understanding it myself...Igenlode (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said...

Hi, I have been following and commenting ocassionally to WT:ACTOR. What you say here is excellent. It explains my feelings about what is going on totally. I really don't like and take offense by the use of the phrase "actor article police" that he keeps using now. It gets tiring already. Anyways, I just want to thank you for your explanation which you did much better than I think I could have done. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SirAlecGuinness.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SirAlecGuinness.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Amanda of Honeymoon Hill

WP:NFCC#8 has been addressed with extensive information about Cal-Aspirin added. Pepso2 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To comply, the article has now been revised extensively as per your guidelines. Pepso2 (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya think?

I actually had my computer back in operation several days before I came back. Chalk it up to not being in the mood to put up with being wikistalked and harassed. Look at the sort of crap I am being confronted with on about a daily basis: User talk:Doc9871#You're Welcome Here, Jack.... I know why people end up quitting. And this person has aspirations of being a sysop. Argh. But thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Madonna entertainer FAC

Hello Rossrs, I have nominated Madonna at FAC. There are some minor problems with copy-edit issues, which I am not able to solve. Would you please give the article a thorough copy-edit please> A humble request. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rossrs, thank you for those absolutely wonderful comments. You pointed out some important issues, which I feel was necessary. I addressed them. Will you look up when you get time? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly will Legolas. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated the changes Rossrs. I prefer the word subdue over restrain though. Hope its fine. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine with me. I don't have a preference, and I respect that you do. It's good. Rossrs (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rossrs, I have updated the Madonna article, with quite a few quotes, to balance the article. Will you take a look? And LOL at the below question answer conversation. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing Portal:Music of Australia

Hi my fellow Queensland Wikipedian Rossrs

I have a question for you - well two or three :)

I have spent the day leisurely roaming around wikipedia on a learning expedition.

Today, I added my name to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_music

that is about the level of my knowledge of wikiprojects - my understanding and awareness of their purpose was really not known to me before today and I am happy to help out on another wikiprojects where I have knowledge and citations to add to articles.

I would like to add some content here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Australian_music but I am not sure whether to do this as I am not sure whether I have rights to add content there - I am a little bit confused on this issue.

and I would love to create a portal for Guy Sebastian - but have no idea on how to do this - I can research but I was hoping you could point me in the right direction with regards to setting this up?

No rush Rossrs - thank you for your time! Diane (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply Rossrs! I just wanted to make sure about editing and adding content on the Australian Music Portal. Thank you also for all your other bits of information to help me out - I am most grateful.

Best wishes Di Diane (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Di. Let me know if you get stuck with anything. I'll probably be no help, but I will try.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Answer: "UMMMMMM... ARCHIVE ME!! ARCHIVE ME!!!" Question: What did Rossrs' talk page famously beg him to do? :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Answer: "OK, I've archived you to a sliver of your former self, you gargantuan talk page!!" Question: What did Rossrs reply to his talk page who famously begged him to archive?  :-D Rossrs (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's sort of disconcerting when inanimate objects find a voice, isn't it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fabulous Userpage!

Greetings, I've been an editor for some time now, but (being older and deprived) I don't even know how to archive my own talk page. Others have done it before when exasperated. Can you help me with that? I do have ADD, so unless things are listed, like, "1. Do this 2. Now do that 3. Ok now this here, etc... then I don't follow well, although once I learn it, I have a good memory & I'm intelligent. Also, my Userpage is running wild. Can you help me? About 50% of my editing time is spent on seeking out copyrighted photos of musicians (and a handful of architecture-related photos), and convincing/teaching photographers to use Creative Commons licenses so we can upload them to Wikimedia Commons. I'd like to keep my mini-gallery of uploads on the page, but I keep a list of close to 400 names of uploads mostly there, and I don't know how to create a "fold out" kind of thing, you know? The kind of thing a person can click for example on band biography pages, where there are a zillion members. Something you can click open or closed. Another editor recommended your help as you've got a great organization on your page. I'd really like to create two extra sandboxes for learning how to create album articles and to actually start some articles before placing them on the main viewing area. If you can help me with anything or point me to another person who can, I'd be very obliged!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Madonna's mother

Hello Rossrs. I know you were searching for something to tell how Madonna's mom's death shaped her into the woman she is. I found quite a piece by Taraborrelli and added it to the Influences part of the article. Could you please take a look? And what are we going to do about the personal life splitting as Moni3 suggests? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Which part do you think we can include in the early life section? Can you do an edit for it? I changed the film reception section and the wording. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee. Thought so. I liked what you said regarding the Like a Virgin controversial figurine thing. Definitely puts a new light for me when I think like that. Will try to put something for it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I did it, did it, did it!!! Check the article! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You sure did it! Did it! Did it! And I checked it! Checked it! Checked it! Seriously, my compliments to you. You've done a very good job with it. I edited out a few words that I thought weren't needed but I didn't change anything as far as content goes. I really like it. I noticed you added a photo of Mrs. Ciccone but I'm unsure what you intended with the image licensing tags. Although you have a non-free template including source and rationale, you have also added a public domain template. I'm not sure which one is right, but they can't go together. Rossrs (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)My mistake with the picture, I removed it. Also made some other changes including the lead as Moni suggested. It looks so much better now! I also introduced some changes as per Karanacs' comments there, though I kind of fear that the article might fail --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the moral boost Rossrs. It is true that the article looks so polished and better now, than it was when I nominated it. Even Karanacs thinks so. At this point I'm taking everything positively, just hoping for the best. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh couldnt have done without you Dear Rossrs. Well, finally the holy trinity of Madge, Kyle and Janet are FA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

Hello, I apologize for upseting you, truly! Since the photographs were of deceased people I thought that was the proper command to select but I can see that I was mistaken. I'm begging you please don't be mad at me and next when I upload a photograph I'll determine it's categorization more carefully. I am sorry and I don't want anyone at Wikipedia getting upset with me. Please don't block me or be mad at me any more, I promise not to do this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Rumage (talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Also replied at Josh Rumage's page. I was just tagging the photo of Sally Blane and sisters when your message came through. I am not upset or mad at you. Frustrated perhaps. Not mad, not upset. I wouldn't want to block you even if I had the power to do so. Please just take some time to read through the policies relating to image use and our copyright policy. There are links on the messages you've received about other images. It can be confusing, so if you don't understand something you should ask. It's not the end of the world if you make a mistake and upload something you shouldn't but if you keep making the same mistake it just shows you need to try to learn a little more. Ask questions when you're not sure. It's always the best way to learn. OK? Nobody's mad at you. Rossrs (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Marlon Brando discussion

listen here, my source was the documentation of brando video and like i was supossed to know name of it. my professor showed me this clip just for a few minutes, so thats why I don't know the name of this. Critizing a professor at Harvard University, how dare you.

when you said "the other gentleman was not alleged (until now) to have been Jack Nicholson, but was alleged to have been an esteemed British actor" ya about that, they lived next door to each other during that time (i think that info is on marlon brando page) so HA!!

Now im very disappointed about you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.17.152 (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF is this all about? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My best guess is this silliness. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see it. Geez, share why don't ya, Rossrs? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From my read this was nothing worth sharing. <grinning-big> --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Crohnie, you're right. "HA!!" is an intelligent and highly persuasive argument and I'm humbled. Actually, I'm embarrassed for you 68.61.17.152 and it would be more correct to say I'm amused that someone would "HA!!" me and still be completely oblivious to what I'm talking about and "think" something is on the "marlon brando page" without reading it. "Ya about that"? Clearly no idea WTF I'm talking about. From a present or former Harvard student? With a professor? I wasn't "critizing" the professor. I wasn't even criticising the professor. I didn't even know there was a professor to criticise. I disagreed with the nonsensical comment at Talk:Marlon Brando. How dare I? It's not often I'm pleased to know someone is disappointed "about" me, or even "in" me, but there are exceptions. WTF indeed. Rossrs (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Share? I agree with Crohnie that this is not a big thing to share, but OK. I didn't feel like telling the anon at the time, but here you go. The long-standing rumour is about Marlon Brando and Laurence Olivier seen kissing in a swimming pool during the time A Streetcar Named Desire was filmed. Supposedly seen by David Niven. It's a rumour of a gossipy tabloidy nature, unless the comment can be reliably sourced back to Niven himself, but it's the same story being bandied about by anon. How Nicholson ended up in the story is anyone's guess, but I have it on good authority that the Nicholson story originated from a Harvard professor, so it must be like, totally, ya'know true. Either that, or Marlon wasn't too particular about his swimming partners. Rossrs (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, crap, I've already heard that. I was hoping for some fresh gossip! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I try not to do new gossip. Feeling let down, huh? It may be regurgitated, stale old codswallop to us, but there will be some wide-eyed innocents who haven't heard it. Rossrs (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets just forget all about this nonsense we been talking bout

Natalie

I went to Durova to have her take a look at the photos that have been uploaded. Well, it's about what I wrote you about. I've got grave doubts on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

BD

That's fine. I'll take a look later, when I'm not so dizzy. I think I am developing scarletina. Had strep throat and now I've got a mild rash and running a fever. If it gets worse, I'll go to the emergency room. Argh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. My fever broke last night and other symptoms have convinced me it is something else. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I had a little bit of stomach flu and the rash seems to be poison ivy. Not pleasant but not dangerous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It means a lot really. My aunt calls and I have to nearly spell things out for her, her hearing is getting so bad. I have Ivy-Dry, which helps dry up the poison ivy, and hydrocortisone cream to stop the itch. It's not so bad with that. My home remedy for stomach flu is mostly sweetened milk toast (buttered toast sprinkled with sugar and covered with warm milk, I know - ICK!) and flat 7-Up. I can handle it but it's horrible to be sick and the only person who knows about it at first hand is the woman next door with the baby that had cancer. I'm almost ashamed to tell her when I'm sick because of that. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My mom had a really bad problem with stomach ulcers and while my memory may well exaggerate it, it seems to me that she had me make "milk toast" every evening. It seemed to sooth her. I got quite good at the proper proportions of milk, sugar and butter. Tradition is good. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My real comfort foods include hot cocoa with marshmallows and chocolate frosted malt (sort of like diet ice cream, I'd say). Oh, and Swiss-mushroom burgers. :) I've been quite engaged in making those lately. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Lord#Filmography

Hi. Care to review this? There are threads related to it on the article talk page, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:Maile66, and WHL's talk. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You know Rossrs, he wouldn't have brought any of this up if he hadn't been wikistalking my edits AGAIN. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wales

Oh, and what isn't particularly known are the contents of two emails Jimbo Wales sent me that reflected very clearly what his feelings are about the McCoy page and what prompted my comments at that AfD. He's quite bluntly opinionated about the article, the contents and the editors involved. He may profess being insulted, but geesh, you should see what he says about the whole situation. His desire to have the page deleted is quite clear. I have to think that if it was to me, how clear would it be to the other higher ups who commented there, too. He wouldn't hesitate to say to them what he said to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert article

Hi, I was absolutely surprised to see that you had reverted last. I too also reverted Chowbok under the same reasons, heck almost the same words. I just thought you get a laugh like I did! Hope you are well, see you around I'm sure, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome

It's rare for me to see you make someone be nasty. Cut that out!!! :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If and when the time comes...

Hi, if and when the time comes for you to mediate the problems that have been talked about let me know if I can help any. I would like to help out if I can. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to bow out due to this. I'm not wanted to help so please except my apologies in advance. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I responded to you at my talk page. I'm sorry to back out. I really don't want to but if you read the dif I gave you, you will see why. More on my talk page. Sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:Fences and windows

I don't really feel like re-igniting all the WHL stuff at the moment, but I did want to address one of your points. You were asking why I didn't follow up with the admin about the supposedly exculpatory evidence she submitted... I actually did ask Lar about it a couple times, but he said it was still pending. Now he says he's passed it on to another admin with CU access, but to the best of my knowledge he's not said who. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this point, or if you know through some other means who it is.—Chowbok ☠ 17:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. What point should I stop bringing up? —Chowbok ☠ 22:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar didn't accept it, though, that's my point. WHL is acting like she's been exonerated, and she hasn't. That's all. This category still exists. She's an unrepentant sock master, and I think that matters. I don't understand why I should pretend like she didn't leave homophobic comments on another editor's page, or use a sock to back her up in editing disputes.—Chowbok ☠ 06:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is while I did submit ID copies as proof of different people, I absolutely owe NO ONE response on this. It's no one's damned business but my own. It's also not anyone's business to continually follow me around and post their version of my history here for any reason. No one seems to follow a self-professed sock puppet around and do that, why should I be wikistalked about it? It's been MONTHS since that event and yet, that's all that Chowbok has to say about me. It is time for it to stop.

Oh, I have plenty more to say about you, WHL, don't worry. I've been asked to keep it to the proper channels from now on is all.—Chowbok ☠ 06:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And that would be a direct threat. And a fairly good indication that all you are about is bad faith. I do know the CU to whom it was given, in fact I emailed that person earlier today. Not that it is any of your business, Chowbok, again, none of this is any of your business and you should get over the compulsion to try and make me answer to you. Not gonna happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be WP:OUTING; Rossrs, we³ need to talk, about a lot of things. WHL, it is the community's business. Jack Merridew 10:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It would be outing. WHL you've been baited and you've taken the bait. Your last comment to Chowbok was very ill-considered and can't be defended. It's the sort of thing that you would have kicked up an unholy stink about if someone had done it to you. I'm sorry you chose my talk page to do it when I have been trying to quietly defend you. Thanks for that. A slap in the face is exactly what I needed. Chowbok, you've been inserting yourself into discussions to comment about WHL in the most negative terms at every opportunity, and you have nothing to be proud of. You surprised me by asking a civilised question which I was happy to answer, and I would be willing to continue to engage in a civil discussion with you, but this went off the rails very quickly. Somehow you interpreted my comments as telling you that you should "pretend" and spewed the type of venom that I was specifically asking you to contain. I wasn't suggesting you turn a blind eye or pretend everything's peachy. How on earth you drew that conclusion is beyond me, and so I wonder if you were trying to get a reaction from WHL. If so, well done. It worked. Jack, it may well be the community's business, although that doesn't mean individual editors have the right to keep hammering her about it, but the exact nature of the evidence submitted is not for public consumption. Whatever WHL submitted in the way of evidence, it's not her call as to the way it was handled after it was submitted. It may not have been "accepted" if we're getting into semantics, and Chowbok's probably right there. It wasn't rejected though. That issue was about socking, and the current discussions are not about socking, except that Chowbok doesn't seem willing to separate the issues. WHL answered to the community regarding socking, to the level she was asked to answer to, when she provided the evidence. The admin/s involved has/have not answered to the community in addressing the concerns that editors such as yourselves have about the way it was dealt with. Nobody keeps nagging them for an explanation though. Yes we need to talk, but I have to get up at the crack of dawn and it's past midnight where I am. So that's it from me for today. Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rossrs, I do recognize that you've been courteous and I really was trying to reply in kind. I definitely was not trying to turn our chat into an argument, and if I came across as hostile in my last comment to you, I apologize. The "pretend" comment was more general; a few people have suggested I should just drop the issue, so I was addressing that, but I understand that you weren't one of those people, and so I shouldn't have said that in a comment to you. I was a little confused about your point, and I still am, but I honestly wasn't angry or trying to turn this into a fight with you, and I'm sorry that my tone incorrectly conveyed hostility. —Chowbok ☠ 17:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I initially did revision deletion, but actually this is not outing as Chowbok gives that info in their userboxes. Fences&Windows 20:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mebbe; I'd not seen that. Above is still a huge personalization by WHL and is an inappropriate battleground approach; 'proper channels', and your advice to take it to the new RfC and central discussion, are all WP:DR and do not constitute threats and bad faith. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicts x2) WP:OUTING says Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. His name is plastered everywhere on Wikipedia, which is where I found it. See his userboxes here, especially the one that gives his full name for his Flickr account, the "My name is" userbox and the one that gives his homepage, which says "This user has a website, which can be found here" and gives, once again, his full name and other personal information. I said nothing he hasn't posted here himself.. He has also posted a boilerplate letter to solicit images from "celebrities" and is repeated here. And let's NOT overlook the plethora of images he has uploaded that state they are the personal work of Chowbok and then gives his full name and website in the description box: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] and[22]. But you know, way to go, going off halfcocked and completely uninformed on what exists there, Jack. It would seem to me that you should know of what you speak before you start throwing around unfounded accusations of outing. He did it himself, on this very website. A userbox saying "This user's name is Kim." is no different than sticking in "My name is David." There is no outing here, there is no threat with using the name he has posted everywhere, and the only bad faith that has been spread around would have been yours, David, and everything about what Chowbok does in regard to me. And thanks to the rest who automatically assumed I did a bad, bad thing. And as for bad faith and threats, wanna see the list of over 26 posts he has made to user talk pages alone that disparage and attack me, not counting yours, mine, Rossrs, Pinkadelica, Crohnie and Doc's and article talk pages. It's time for you chummy boys to stop wikistalking me, creating disruption wherever you land where I've edited (reference the whole Jack Lord debacle you've stirred up), and continuing to flog me for something I was blocked for a week for back in January. I served my block, everything else you assume you "know" is conjecture and it is far past time for both of you to put away the whips and stop flagellating me. It's an obvious ploy to destroy an editor's enjoyment of this website, which is the very definition of harassment. It is time for both of you to STOP. And you're right, Jack, I don't give a crap about your real name, I just threw it out there so you would have something to exert a power trip about. Way to go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew's mistake was understandable. Others in the thread, including myself, initially thought he was correct. Chowbok's userboxes are collapsed and I don't monitor his image uploads, and probably neither does Jack Merridew. I'm sorry that I didn't initially realise that Jack Merridew had made a mistake. This was an honest mistake on his part, and there's no harm done. Fences&Windows 21:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not refer to me by my real name. I did tell you it, and you said you don't "give a crap what [my] real name is". Got that diff handy?

I hate user boxes and Chowbok's are all collapsed, too. I never saw any of those, and I never looked at Chowbok's image uploads. User boxes are crap; Kelly had that right. They're full of gratuitous colours and bad code, too. The damn things never align because the people playing with them don't much know what they're doing with colour and code. They're a blight on the project, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) this post was made prior to this expansion of WHL's above post. so was F&W's post

My entire post was fairly complete and stuck in browser freeze-up hell since just after Chowbok's reply to Rossrs above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildhartlivie (talk • contribs) ^diff

In making the above post,^diff you copied the formatting I used for the note I appended to my previous note, including the use of class="plainlinks"; this class suppresses the external link icon, which I don't like in dialogue; your note, however, did not include an extern and the class thus has no effect. You didn't sign your post, so I added an {{unsigned}} and included the diff of your edit in a sup-element that would especially benefit from suppressing the icon as the icon does not change size along with the text in small- and sup-elements and so I moved the class to where it would then have a purpose. My point here is that you copy code without understanding what it does and without knowing if it is correct, useful, or appropriate. I breathe this stuff, so copying my code is reasonably safe as long is the target context is still appropriate. You have activity promoted the copying of tens of thousands of instance of several flavours of outright bad code that you are only able to judge by what you see rendered in your browser. This is fundamentally a wrong approach to code. Would you attempt brain surgery based on watching Scrubs? It's the same thing. Would you intervene in a real operating theater if you thought the surgeon was doing something you disagreed with based on viewings of House? Ask her to step away from the task at hand to discuss it? For four months? Same thing. What you are doing in all this is obstructing appropriate clean-up over a personal preference for a splash of colour, and a stubborn insistence for your preferred way of doing everything. You and a few friends have seized WP:ACTOR as a vehicle to assert control over a wide swath of the project and this is fundamentally against the core definition of what a WikiProject is. fyi, they're not social clubs, they're social groups; it's in the very definition of the term. They do not have any authority over articles and they are not owned by any users. You don't get this, but this is bedrock you're pounding your fists against, and the new Consensus/RfC will simply confirm this. If your core motivation was the improvement of filmographies on the project, you would be welcoming my improvements to their implementation; that you do not, leads me to the conclusion that you're intent on establishing WP:ACTOR as a suzerainty within en:wp with you able to exercise control over your articles. You are actually serving a useful role in this whole affair as the clarification of the role of WikiProjects on the project is needful, and a great many issues far afield of actor bios will benefit. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 02:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please except my apology too as I too was wrong. I'm sorry. You know Jack, you could say you are sorry too, that is if you mean it. Just a suggestion. --CrohnieGal ^Talk 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I knew ChowBok's name because I was told directly. I'd not seen it on-wiki, and I've not used it on-wiki. I was mistaken, and Chowbok seems unconcerned about it. Wildhartlive, I am sorry for this; maaf. However, all my other concerns stand. You threw my real name out as bait? Not taken. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And I actually do appreciate the apology about Chowbok. I've used it before, and he didn't complain then, either. And I don't apply the apology to any of the other issues I have with you, but regarding this, danka. And for not taking it, you did react. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, narrowly construed. I reacted appropriately to your baiting, which you've just acknowledged was your intention.

Rossrs, give it all a day or so and let me know if we're going to proceed with this mediation effort. WHL, are you more than aboard "on the surface" or should I just take it to the next step? There are a lot of eyes on this and it will sort fairly soon; somehow. Jack Merridew 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I responded privately to Rossrs about it, but I certainly am tired of you dropping insinuations that you are about to "take it to the next step." That is unnecessary and a bit of an intimidation ultimatum tactic. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)w/Rossrs. @WHL: It is not unnecessary or a tactic; it's called for by dispute resolution policy if other means do not resolve disputes. Further, I am still under an ArbCom imposed restriction that specifically requires that I follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts. These processes do, of course, apply to all editors, but I've been specifically pointed at them. You don't want to go there, do you? I'm going to give you a really honest bit of advice: you don't want me to go there. I have a history that includes a lot of dispute resolution. My disputes get resolved, and I'm the one still standing. It is in your best interest to deescalate this.

Rossrs, please email me, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

About what? I don't mind if you email me, and then I guess I'll know specifically what you want to discuss. Rossrs (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My intent is to chat about things I'll not say on-wiki and first up was to fill you in on some personal details and other stuff about me to help you understand the context of... all of it. I think you don't realize that your account is not set to allow people to email you; I get:

This user has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

So, up to you to email me or go to your prefs and enable email from other users. I've seen comments to the effect that you do chat on email with others, but expect it is only those that you've initiated dialogue with. If you initiate email, the recipient is given your email address and if they reply, you get theirs. Enabling email does not mean you have to reply to anything; you don't even have to read it. I get emails from all the major trolls; fuck them; I don't reply. I trust you and hope you'll trust me. I'm pretty open about myself on email, but am chary of too much detail appearing on wiki as there are all manner of unimpressive people here. The place is awash in trolls, socks of banned users, and all sort of people I'll not get too chummy with. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@Rossrs↓ I don't see anything negative adhering to you in this and I don't see you as an idiot. Sure we disagree on a few things; that doesn't mean I can't work with you. You've liked things I've urged you to, and there's plenty of potential for more of that. You're a reasonable person and I'm glad to have met you. fyi, I don't use and often remove {{od}} as it interrupts threads. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlive, I sincerely apologise for jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst, something I should have never done. I regret that more than I can say, and I hope you'll accept that. I am still annoyed with you. I can't think of anyone who has tried harder to defend you and to try to let other people see the good person I see, and I was in the middle of doing that in discussion with Chowbok. I can't think of a good reason to address him by his real name, privacy issues aside, except to be snarky, and that is what I objected more to than anything else. When I'm in the middle of telling people they should leave you alone and treat you fairly, you come along and start acting like the bad person that I try to tell everyone you are not. That makes me look like an idiot, something I can accomplish fairly successfully without your assistance. I geniunely hope that there has been no permanent damage as a result of my reaction. I really am very sorry, and I feel terrible for talking to you that way. Rossrs (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

she's gone. Good work Jack and Chowbok, how many others are you going to chase off the project? Right now the count I know of is two working on three. Good work, both of you. <sarcasm off> Personally I am totally disgusted right now so I'm going to stop before I say something I shouldn't. Shame on both of you though, --CrohnieGal ^Talk 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear CrohnieGal, I'm sorry that you feel that way but WHL was not chased off by anyone. She is not a victim, how could she be? She is fierce and brave and not afraid of, or intimidated by, anyone here. She is always willing to get down in the trenches with anyone who challenges the articles under her watch, whether they are a new IP or an established user. She has been willing to use any means available... from rudeness and foul language to dragging users to AN/I at the drop of a hat, threats of blocks, allegations of sockpuppetry by others, and sockpuppetry herself, and if that doesn't work - sheer manipulation of opinion and plays for sympathy - to protect her turf. Don't worry my dear, she will be back and we can count on her to return armed and loaded as usual. If she is a victim, it is of her own making. - Josette (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

All I am going to say about this is thanks for the condescending comments to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Claire Luce.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Claire Luce.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Email?

Hi, may I email you? --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response at my talk page. I'm not really interested right now is talking. I am very upset by the recent events. I'll talk soon though, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Email just sent, thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Email

I'm not seeng an email link on the sidebar. Would you drop me an email please, you can find it on my user page sidebar. Thanks, got to go now, family emergency just occurred. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

hooking you up ;)

• User talk:John Vandenberg#Arbcom ruling question

Mebbe John will sport you a beer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Rossrs, I thought you should know about a discussion going on here. Thanks, I'll be able to get an email out to you soon. I did send you a short one did you get it? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe she intended sincere dispute resolution

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wildhartlivie picked a fight, today

Sorry you're sorta involved in this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And you do? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say, "Yes, I'm sorry I'm sorta involved in this" and if you'd put a question mark at the end of your comment, I might have given that reply. Just kidding, I'm not sorry. Crohnie, both editors let it get out of hand rather than try to resolve it. Rossrs (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You are so right. But lately, there seems to be a lot more pushing going on and bad faith accusations which is wrong, like the start of this thread, anyway it's looked at. I suggest everyone just stop, and now! I'm sorry Rossrs that you are stuck in this mess and I wouldn't hold anything against you if you bowed out. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, your involvement is not helpful in this. The discussion on email supports this and you and WHL's usual supporters are going to be asked to not interfere by her (so I hear, at least); I'll be asking Chowbok to stand aside, too. The idea being that we'll attempt to sort this amongst the three of us. Jack Merridew 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Rossrs, I'll reply to your latest shortly. My 'involved' comment really was specific to the ANI thread; I mentioned you and so I notified you.

I said there that I'd ask you about the sequencing; I believe you got an agreement from WHL to participate in this mediation effort prior to her having gone and reverted me at the Jackson page. I, however, got that email from you after the revert. Is the correct? If so, I see it as entirely something she inappropriately instigated right at the start of this. WHL is right in that I reverted her in order to "protect [my] changes". I will do so in similar circumstances, too. I have a long history of defending this project from problematic users; she's merely a current one.

First ground rule here is that she's not to revert me on anything. And, no, I'm not making the reciprocal agreement. She is the one inappropriately obstructing reasonable efforts here. I will refrain, for a while, from reasonable edits she might object to. I'm willing to give this a bit more time to see if it has any chance at all of resolving this. If not, see WP:DR. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a gap of about 20 hours between me receiving an email from WHL, and me sending an email to you to say she was amenable to mediation. Looking at the time of the revert at Sam Jackson's filmography, it was made after the email to me, but before I had emailed you. Rossrs (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought; it seemed possible that the sequence had been reversed, but only if you're emailed my quite quickly after hearing from her. So, the nutshell is: she agreed to mediation and then next morning chose to pick this fight over the sorting/rowspans. Thanks, Jack Merridew 00:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, though I said this before, I will not interfere or comment at the mediation. Good luck to all of you, I hope you find common ground to work with, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I got your last email, and will reply shortly. Meanwhile she's starting another fight at Mel Gibson. I've reverted her and I see it as bad faith, disruptive and a failure to heed the considerable discussion on these points. She needs to participate in this mediation effort or deal with the alternatives. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said to Jack, his wholesale blanket reversion of my edits which served to add the filmgraphy table template and the removal of the addition of section subtitles for each table section is not me "starting another fight". In fact, I see that as an unwarranted wholesale revert that only serves to edit war in order to reinforce Jack's bad faith actions toward me. And I have responded to Rossrs more than once regarding this. The contentiousness of his actions toward me are more examples of his untenable wikistalking and reversion in order to harass me. And the entirety of the above post are continued efforts to threaten and harass me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no wholesale blanket reversion. You made several edits which were not reverted. It was one edit that was reverted. If JM says something should be changed because there's a problem with coding, I have absolutely nothing to say to contradict him, and I'm not about to start arguing about coding when I clearly do not know what I'm talking about. That's being discussed and as far as I can see comments seem to lean in favour of the viewpoint he presents, although the discussion has not concluded. I don't know why the blue colour could not have been retained bearing in mind that the discussion on that point is also ongoing. I don't think it was crucial that the edit be made today, but even so, why does it have to be taken so personally? Then, considering how many people are currently watching Mel Gibson, WHL why did you had to be the one to respond and revert? It would have been interesting if you had sat back and watched whether anyone else was bothered, or whether the other editors descended upon JM. If other editors had cried foul, you may have been somewhat vindicated, but you don't wait long enough to find out. If you feel that someone is baiting you, you have the option of not taking the bait. Jack Merridew, your edit summary about starting a fight isn't exactly going to calm the situation. If there's going to be such disputes over the presentation of information it makes it even more urgent to identify the style guidelines currently in effect, and start applying them evenly and without bias. Both of you seem to be taking the view that if the other one throws the first punch, it's fine to respond. No, it's not. This can't keep happening. I'm also concerned with this edit to Greta Garbo which doesn't exactly glow with good faith. The edit summary is deceptive in addressing only the changes to tables, but it's a massive revert of sourced information, much of it more detailed and better sourced than the material you restored. For one example, you've removed one source from a Harvard University Published book, back to "garboforever com". The baby and the bathwater have both been thrown out and you need to be more selective. Why shouldn't sources be given in tables? We insist on reliable sources as policy and it's not conditional on where the information is displayed. If an edit shows (-13,976) in bold text on my watchlist, with an edit summary that only mentions the removal of some apparently superfluous refs, I'll check it no matter who made the edit, and that was a bad edit. Rossrs (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that my take on these issues enjoys wide support. I know what I'm talking about and most people see that. The version of Gibson's page that I edited after did not even use teh blue for the column headings, it used a hard-coded alt-grey and I wikified that to use the normal grey that is inherited from class="wikitable". It did use blue on full-width cells that are plainly seeking to act as captions to the table; the proper way to put captions on tables is to use the |+ syntax; see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables)#Captions and headings, Help:Table caption. There is no consensus to use blue on filmographies as a matter of course; the RfC was quite clear on that, and using the statement that the table might 'possibly' be used as a backdoor to continue this unwarranted practice is simply not going to fly. The edit I made that did much of this used the edit summary wikify and that's what this is all about. See

• WP:Deviations

  In general, styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes.

That's it; I removed inappropriate inline styling in favour of inheriting the styling from the appropriate CSS class. WHL has to accept that these filmographies are going to be properly cleaned-up.

Thanks for saving the work of that editor on Greta Garbo; cutting 34 sources is appalling. This is major WP:BITE behaviour, as well as being disruptive. Oh, I believe I edited Mel's page the other day because it's been popping-up on my watchlist regularly; something related to him punching out a woman and saying she deserved to be raped by a pack of niggers. Nice guy ;) She's the mother of a child of his, right?

Please open some sort of mediation subpage; this needs trying, at least.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I agree that we should stop talking about this and have started a page User:Rossrs/Informal mediation/User:Jack Merridew and User:Wildhartlivie. Greta Garbo, no worries. Mel Gibson, lovely man. American? Australian? American Australian? Australian American? You can have him!  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ya, this thread is done. Na, doan wan him; lovely if you're not an American, from Oz, a woman, non-catholic, human... or a kitten... miss anything? Oh, I made an initial post. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Off to hospital

I was going to post to the mediation page tonight, but I'm off to the hospital. It seems as if my aunt (who finished raising us after my mom died) has had another "episode". She has something not working right with her lungs (following a non-malignant tumor last year that they think was formed around scar tissue from histoplasmosis) and her blood saturation levels keep dropping to a dangerous level. She awoke a bit ago and can't breathe again, so the doctor's answering service said to take her straight to admitting. I'll get back to you on the outcome and when I will post. Although I don't plan to post any notes on a talk page that is full of attacks on me as this one has become. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your aunt, and I hope everything will be ok. I archived all that other stuff. You're right - I don't blame you for not wanting to post on such a page. Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I too wish your Aunt the best. Having trouble breathing is frightening. I've sent you an email about this. Take care of yourself and best wishes, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for everything. Aunt is listed in critical condition. I came home, slept a few hours and have showered and on my way back. I hope everyone understands that this is like my mother and she is quite ill and are willing to wait until things calm down. You might pass that on to relative parties. If it isn't acceptable, I don't have a response to that sort of reaction. Outside of an estranged sister and niece, my aunt is all the family I have left. Well, outside of the extended goddaughter family thing. I changed the underlying disease mechanism, it isn't toxoplasmosis, which is commonly spread by handling and exposure to feline feces, it is histoplasmosis, which is commonly found in places where bird droppings accumulate, most specifically chicken coops. My grandparents had an active chicken coop with chickens they raised to butcher for their grocery back during the Depression, and both my aunts and my uncle were diagnosed with histo scarring. I would presume my mother would have been exposed too. If they can get my aunt to begin to absorb the oxygen correctly, things hopefully will be better. She has refused any surgical intervention, which is she also did when they found the tumor. Okay, then, thanks. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. It sounds very serious and I'll be thinking about you. At least she's in the right place to be treated, but it must be very hard watching her so ill. Of course it's the most important thing in the world and I certainly don't question your priorities when it comes to something like this. I hope that next time I hear from you, it's with good news. Rossrs (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto what Rossrs says. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? I think you would be an excellent one. I would nominate you for one if you are interested. Let me know. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but it's not something I aspire to. I appreciate the thought. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I respect your decision and understand too. I wouldn't want to be one either. It's really a thankless job way too often. I would like to have the ability at times to see things that are deleted that they can see and we can't so that discussions are easier to understand.  ;) Hope all is well. Oh and Saturday went wonderful. My gambling paid for the whole days outing. :) It was a lot of fun. I look forward to next year since we only seem to do these kind of outings once a year. :) Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I just feel you have the right to know that I've mentioned you at User:Fences and windows [23] about this rant and soapboxing. I feel you can fill in the history a lot better than I can since you know it. I hope it was ok to mention you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind that you mentioned me. User:Fences and windows makes a good point, and it's also good that it's been taken to a wider forum. All in all, quite a positive step. That anon comment was a soapboxing rant and I'm sure it pleased the audience it was aimed at. Despite it's deliberately unhelpful tone it seems to have been the catalyst for something useful, and that's quite a surprise. Rossrs (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood's Silent Closet

It's a novel. It's used in Norma Shearer, ref #22; the page is here; bot-left through top-right of the two columns. I think this is a bullshit source, although what being cited may be true. What do you think? Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When you say "bullshit source", I think you are being kind. Don't tell anyone but I happen to own two Darwin Porter books and they are trash from start to finish. They're like Hollywood Babylon on Viagra. Fun to read but I wouldn't put any faith in them. I'm not familiar with Hollywood's Silent Closet but a trashy writer doesn't suddenly produce a legitimate text book out of thin air. I'd nuke it, although I agree that the information may be true. I've read elsewhere that Shearer was a shameless strumpet, which doesn't make it true, of course. Rossrs (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nuked, and fact-tagged. Thanks, Jack Merridew 06:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

nb: It was added here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

hmmm. That surprises me. You could probably delete the bit about Bette Davis approaching her for Old Acquaintance. I've checked three Davis biographies that do not mention Shearer. One of them, Mother Goddam, by "Whitney Stine with Bette Davis" says that Hopkins was the only candidate. I won't edit it now while you're working on it, so if you don't do it, I'll zap it later. Rossrs (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would. I'm done for now, so have a go. I just bot-fixed some of the refs I've not yet looked at. I left you a reply re Dawn. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

proper referencing

You might be interested in tagging along for what I'm talking to User:MarB4 about. This is the editor working on Greta Garbo. See my last note to them and my last edit to the article. There's more in the history, and in other pages, such as Norma Shearer.

When you click one of the Harvard style refs in the refs section, it takes you to an anchor in the bibliography section. The site CSS has rules about such targets:

ol.references > li:target,
sup.reference:target,
span.citation:target
{
 background-color:#DDEEFF;
}

It's a shade of blue ;)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am interested, thanks. I'll have a look and try to get my brain around it. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

kewl beans. Here's another one to look at. This, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I bagged another, today ;)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I dropped the soap is amusing ;) Jack Merridew 07:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is amusing. It looks like the Wikipedia equivalent of a tribute band. But then again, I can see the purpose of tribute bands. ;) Rossrs (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

teh littluns and tehir games ;)

Courtesy note

I reverted an edit of yours; did moar, 2... and just got a message from you while writing this... fyi, I liked this edit summary better. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's one of mine from January 2009 and it needed reverting. There are probably more to be found and if I knew where they were I'd go fix them. I'll take this as a blanket courtesy note for any of mine you may revert, from January 2009 or any other month or year. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm good at finding old edits. It was quite amusing that such an old edit was still undoable a year and a half on. On another front, this:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThinkEnemies (moved per CU sussing out the next level)

just got really interesting. The other shoe will fall, soon. And there's the related AC case that's about to land. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

;)

Funny Amusements section!

I read the whole thing, and it really brightened my day. I can't wait to show this to everybody I know. I hope to edit Wikipedia long enough to run across gems such as these. Nice photo section too.

And thanks for your wisdom at Talk:Dawn Wells. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm pleased you enjoyed it; that has brightened my day. I always hope that someone will stumble upon it and something there will make them smile. I haven't found anything amusing lately, and I'm sure there's plenty out there waiting to be noticed. I keep meaning to upload photos but every time I find a good photo I've taken of some place or other, I check here and someone else has already contributed something equal or better. Thank you too for your comments at Talk:Dawn Wells, and you're welcome. The discussion has gone off on a few tangents, but I think it's appropriate to discuss things from various angles. It's not essential that people agree on everything, and that's an unrealistic expectation anyhow, but the discussion is quite healthy, in my opinion. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a good discussion got going there. :) Jack has put some useful links on my talk page if anyone is interested in taking a look. I don't think he put them on the talk page at Dawn Wells but I may have just missed it. I think he has an interesting angle he is thinking of though so maybe it's worth a look to see what he said. The conversations at the talk page seems to have dropped off in interest again. Maybe something is needed to pick up the interest so that something actually gets added to the article. I'm glad things got moving though. Fences and windows did get a good discussion going though didn't he? I'd just love to see something added to the article now.  :) Happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, just a quick note, I need a sanity check, email please. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Rossrs (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You helped a lot, sanity back. :) I will try to respond today but RL has me taking care of my mother today for awhile. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Brutal archive...

Hi. Your archive removed a post that I had made within the preceding 24 hours. Do you use an archiving tool that checks edit dates within the to-be-archived material?  HWV258.  20:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not, or it wouldn't have happened. Sorry about that. Have replied at your talk page, have restored your question to the talk page and have replied to it. The quick answer to your question is "go for it". Rossrs (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Adrienne Shelly

This one is in need of further work; moar eyes. Some of the refs are rotted and some just suck. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's not good. I'll have a look at it. Rossrs (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

rowspans

• User talk:Wool Mintons#Esther Williams

Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Commented, thanks. Rossrs (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• User:RexxS/Accessibility and the related discussion at:
  User talk:RexxS#rowspans

This is the killer-demo that will put a stake in the heart of poor rowspan usage. I'd like to have a talk with folks before moving to the next step, which will be some sort of pitch for a strong guideline on this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So simple, but so persuasive. I think RexxS has done a great job. I've commented. Rossrs (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hi, please check your email. It has nothing to do with the project but it is important to me. Thanks in advance and I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've sent you a reply. Rossrs (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

Hi. Care to offer a comment at:

• User talk:Shshshsh#Preity Zinta?

I cleaned-up that page and it prompted me to update:

• WP:ACTOR#Filmography tables

which is using her as an example. The blue was not in use, and I don't know when that went. Owe ya other replies, I know... Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Other replies... whenever.. it's fine. It's not a matter of owing. I've commented at Shahid's page. I strongly feel that RexxS's demonstration would be compelling to anyone who may choose to listen to it. Rossrs (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey friend!

To see one of my favourite editors on Wikipedia messaging me after over a year is so nice. Long time no see. :)) Rossrs, I will reply to your message tomorrow, and I will probably agree with your suggestion, only that now I'm a bit short in time. I'll talk to you tomorrow. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine, Shahid. I'll keep an eye on your talk page. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey again. Okay then, it sounds very rational. Would you want this option to be implemented in every BLP actor article? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've your question and my reply to your talk page. I think it would be easier to read if it's kept in one place. :-) Rossrs (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kylie LEAD

Rossrs, I was wondering about the size of the lead in the Minogue bio article. Don't you think its a bit too mcuh size wise and material wise? I would have thought that much of it could be reduced down to three paras and would appear much more crisp. If you are fine, I may create a draft for you to look on. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Legolas, yes I think it's a bit too long. I also think it goes into too much detail of her early career rather than a summary that brings it forward to the present, so it's not very well balanced. If you want to have a crack at it, I'd be interested to see what you come up with. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

teh zoo of teh moment ;)

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#The wikipeida gestapo

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting spelling variation for Wikipedia! I love Godwin's law, although it doesn't have to come at the end of a long discussion. I was accused of being a Nazi for removing a copyrighted image from Anne Frank and that was with no discussion at all. It was an attempt at irony. Rossrs (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's ranging all over; my watchlist just went 'perk' with all the notifications. I watch everything. 8,025 at the moment. My last is at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Daven200520. fyi, my place for the last five years had hundred year old carvings of swastikas in the woodwork around the front door. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Before the symbol became perverted in the eyes of Western viewers..... Although I'm aware of some of its history as a sacred symbol, and its wide use in architecture and art, I still only see one thing when I see it. Rossrs (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a cultural bias; 99% of the Balinese know nothing at all of what's foremost in your mind, and the others simply see it as not relevant to them. More lintels are carved, everyday. I once saw a group of kids, about twenty, on the football field wearing nice new t-shirts that were all the same and had been passed out by the local banjar (teh patriarchy). To the kids, who are quite poor, they were nice clean shirts that they wore with pride. The shirts were black, with a large white swastika on the chest. And it wasn't a version with little curls and ornaments about; it was a stark, rectilinear, form. They had a great day. It's also given name; I have a friend who's name is Swastika. The pronunciation is a bit different: Swas-teeka. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Bullock

Hi, since you've been working on the filmography tables I would appreciate it if you would have the time to take a look at these changes. Doesn't look right to me but I'm not that good with tables. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Crohnie. You're quite right. Colspans effect WP:Accessibility. (A neat demonstration can be found at User:RexxS/Accessibility) It also rendered the sortable table unsortable. Click on any header and the filmography all but self-destructs. Nicely caught, thanks.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you for such a quick response. I'm getting an eye exam on Monday so I'll take a look at the references you supply above when I get new glasses. Right now it's too hard to read things until I get a new upgrade. :) Thanks, see you soon I'm sure, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Halle Berry

Hi. See WP:ANI#obstruction of ref clean-up. Core issue here would seem to be an objection to any of the cite templates, with Reflinks, and list-defined refs and even finding dead links. It's from User:Gimmetoo aka USer:Gimmetrow, who I see you've had talk with on Berry's talk page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I had to read that talk page again to jog my memory, and now ... I remember. It looks like it's under control. I don't understand the notion that whoever gets to an article first determines its style forever more, or that a style gets set in concrete because it's there rather than because it's best. Nothing I could add really. Rossrs (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just curious but why wouldn't WP:Cite [24]] need to be followed which means getting a consensus for these style changes? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a guideline rather than a policy, and the point of internal consistency is made more strongly than the comment about obtaining consensus. The article was internally consistent after the change, in fact it seems to be more internally consistent than it was before the change. In addition, it seems that all efforts at improvement were discarded by reverting, rather than selecting just those edits that related to the change of citation. For example the award table format was reverted in the same edit. I think the side discussions, which admittedly came after, are in support of the change to style. That's my take on it anyhow. Rossrs (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, at times things here get just to confusing and conflicting with what is stated to do and what is done. I read it to mean that if changes like this are to be done then the polite thing at least would be go to the talk page and talk to the editors there rather than just cruising to a new article and making big changes like this without the input of the others. Neither editor took any of it to talk last I looked either which didn't help the edit warring. Oh well, I don't want anything to do with this. It's too hot to touch in my opinion for an editor like me. I'm not that good of an editor and I know it. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::Don't be so hard on yourself. Everybody learns here, you ask questions, you do good things, you move forward with interest and curiosity, and that's commendable. Not everyone can say that Crohnie, and you know that! I guess the other thing to consider is that being bold in editing is almost a cornerstone, and if something doesn't work, it gets changed back. Hanging on to something because "we've always done it this way" hinders progress and sometimes bold changes facilitate a move forward. Not always, but often. My attitude is that we should hang on to something if it works great and can't be improved right now, but if we hang onto it just because we think we can't change it, that's not going to allow the project to evolve. That's more the point I was trying to make rather. I think the edit was good and it stopped short of an edit war, without serious injury. Rossrs (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, just looking at that again, I still have a question if that's ok? The nutshell says that the guideline is done through consensus so wouldn't that mean that the guideline should be followed? If not, than why should it be there at all? What policy would I go look at to see the differences in what this guideline says and what policy is,WP:MOS? Thanks, just figure maybe I can learn something in the process here since we are discussing it. I know that there is the Rexx something accessabilty (I need to find the link again, and read it 10 days from now so I haven't read it yet though I think you or Jack gave it to me, lordy I'm a mess, sorry). But seriously I would like to at least find the policy on this and put them on my user page so that I can take a look and maybe learn somethings. Would you mind putting up some difs for me to take a look at when I'm able? So I don't look like a total idiot, I'm going to drop you an email for information to help me out (this email will only be about helping get difs together since I'm having a hard time doing it myself right now). Thanks for putting up with me, :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. The thing is it's a guideline. It's there to assist but it's not a "law". Sometimes you can make a major change to an article and nobody comments. You can make the same change to 100 articles and nobody comments. Then the same change is made to one more article and somebody's watching, and they object. Do they object because they disagree with the change or because they want to maintain a status quo within the one article they feel is under their jurisdiction? Do they then think that the article they're watching should remain untouched even though the other 100 articles have been touched, even if it means that their one article is now the odd one out? Shouldn't they object to all edits of a kind rather than give tacit support for the majority of them by not commenting, but creating a fuss over those few articles they're watching over? That's what I think happened. I'm just musing over this, because I don't have a definitive answer, but I think that if etiquette is taken to the point where everything has to be put up for discussion first, it encourages inconsistency within groups of articles and allows ownership issues to determine courses of action for individual articles rather than for the "herd". Rossrs (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's true, apparently that's what occurred when the tables were set up with the hard coding to all those article for a few years until it got brought up at WP:ACTOR this last time and still no consensus came from it. The problem is I think that there needs to be a way of notifying more editors about changes like this to prevent problems. The same kind of thing is going on about WP:Outline. Not enough people were aware of the start of this project until it started showing up on people's watchlists then all heck started and it's still continuing. The outline stuff went on for over two years too I believe before it started to get seriously noticed. There needs to be a way to get better community knowledge about these kinds of things to stop all the drama that it usually ends up starting. I have no ideas though how to do this other than a notice board notification or something similar but what board? This is a hard one to figure out I think. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The WP:ACTOR one is a good example. Aside from the lengthy talk at the project page, it's also been discussed at RfC, and I think a lot of points were resolved through those discussions. Yes, the hard coding was put in place without wide discussion, and it grew and grew because people copied and pasted it into new articles, still without discussion. The problem is that no matter where an issue is taken it will never reach the entire audience and there will always be people saying "why wasn't I consulted?" I've seen that happen before. Perhaps the person who may potentially have the best suggestion or the most persuasive argument may not even see the discussion and never be heard. The most that can be aimed for is to get discussions out into the widest or most appropriate venues and hope that people are interested enough to comment. On the other hand, I do think there's a lot to be said for "silence implies consent". Rossrs (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with what you are saying esp. the 'silence implies consent' part. But that being said, that's where things seem to get dramatic. Once an editor says something, then it's no longer in the silence implies consent category right? So where would be the best place to get a larger audience to discuss it? A RFC is ok but it still needs to be announced at places so that at least more editors are aware of it. I haven't looked recently at the RFC to be honest but my last look didn't look like there was a consensus formed about anything, did that change? Did a consensus get formed and were there more than a half a dozen editors discussing it? That's the problem I have with all of this. If a guideline isn't enough to follow through with having to gain a consensus because it's just a guideline then what good are guidelines other than to confuse people? These maybe dumb questions but I'm sure others are as confused about this as I am. I know you can only give your opinion on things like I can do but this is my concerns about everything. Thanks,

It depends if the somebody is commenting on the wider edits or on the one article. I don't think there's a perfect answer to the question of how to find the right forum. The RfC showed a trend of thought rather than a consensus. Considering it was placed in a forum that should have been seen by a large number of editors, the fact that it attracted so few participants may indicate that a good number of people didn't care enough to comment. It's reasonable to assume that many more editors saw it than commented. Perhaps their point had already been made, so they didn't want to add "me too". If a trend is noted, failure to act upon it causes the issue to stagnate. If it's acted upon without attracting disagreement on a broad level, I think it then comes under the "silence implies consent" aspect again and strengthens the perception of a trend/consensus. If it attracts disagreement this stimulates new discussion. That's happened with the Halle Berry issue. They're not dumb questions by any means. There are bit of discussion here and there that touch on the same themes, whether it's on individual user or article talk pages, ANI etc. I think the purpose of the guideline is to prevent anarchy. I see it as a loose reign rather than the tight leash of policy. Rossrs (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ps it's 2.04am where I am. I'm through for tonight. Further discussion welcome, but I won't be responding until tomorrow. Goodnight :-) Rossrs (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The ANI is still kicking, and needs input. Some of ↑that↑ would help. Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GEORGIEGIBBONS and the stuff off there on commons and 'too's talk are interesting. I'm not thinking 'too is Gibbons (the autoblock was sorta faked), but there something quite odd about it all. And WP:CITE's silly cave to the regressive is callable per WP:IAR. I improved the article ;) I thinks CITE needs to be RfC'd so we get the referencing of stuff on the right track. Just keep raising the bar. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Keep raising the bar" sums it up. WP:CITE, like some other guidelines, seems to be trying awfully hard to please everybody but it's an impediment to improvement, I reckon. Rossrs (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much a quote from a former arb ;) Better referencing is key to sorting out the wheat from the crap. Saw your comments and commented, further (bus). Too many 'compromises' end up unsatisfying to all. It's a flawed concept, really; amounts to an acceptance of mediocrity. I'm off, as I'm quite pissed; best to stick to a few talkie comments, then. Watched Billy Budd (film), tonight. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Deviations#Styles_and_markup_options

You cited WP:Deviations#Styles_and_markup_options as a justification for [25]. Could you explain what in that guideline is applicable here? The same style is used on most, if not all, featured lists of awards by individuals that identify wins and nominations. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is the sentence I was looking at. "Deviations from standard conventions are acceptable where they create a semantic distinction (for instance, the infoboxes and navigational templates relating to The Simpsons use a yellow colour-scheme instead of the customary mauve, to tie in with the dominant colour in the series) but should not be used gratuitously." There isn't any semantic purpose in the colours in the awards column and they don't add anything. The colour is being used to distinguish between two words "won" and "nominated" and the words themselves are semantically different. At a glance it's easy to see which are which. Do the colours add any additional context or meaning? I don't think they do, so I interpret that as being used "gratuitously". The cells are now devoid of colour, and yet there's nothing lost or made unclear in the information conveyed. I know the coloured cells are used in a lot of articles, including featured lists. It could be as simple as editors being unaware of the guideline and copying and duplicating the style because they think it's the right thing to do. The cell content is relevant; the background colour is not. That's basically how I see it. Rossrs (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is merely your interpretation of the guideline, and is contrary to established practice on hundreds of articles, including featured lists. Do you intend to reverse your edits? Gimmetoo (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why you've chosen to diminish my comments with "unfortunately" and "merely" without attempting to actually discuss this with me by addressing any of the points I made. I'm willing to discuss this with you, but not if your only comment is to tell me that I'm wrong. I'd rather know why I'm wrong, but if it's just a case of "other stuff exists", which is all you've said, I don't think that's ever a strong argument. It's possible that hundreds of articles, or more, are contrary to any number of guidelines. The guideline in question is written fairly clearly and without ambiguity, so I don't know how else I could interpret it. Perhaps you could comment on the content of the guideline and explain what I've misinterpreted, and how my interpretation of what is written there is not applicable. After all, I did take the time to explain my thoughts to you at your request, so it's not unreasonable that you reciprocate. Rossrs (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I'm perplexed. I said, "I know the coloured cells are used in a lot of articles, including featured lists" and you replied "is contrary to established practice on hundreds of articles, including featured lists." Aside from changing my "a lot" to "hundreds" you've just repeated my own comment back at me as if you're telling me something I don't know. I do know. I guess that's something else you could explain, because I don't understand why you would do that. Rossrs (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The section in question was added based on this, which had no significant discussion, so it's unclear what it was supposed to mean. The most straightforward meaning of the phrase to me is "don't deviate from standards without a strong reason". The standard in this case is the result templates with color. This is not a "gratuitous" use of color - the use is focused to the results column. The specific yes and no colors were even discussed with regard to accessibility. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A significant part of our disagreement seems to boil down to different definitions of key words. Reading through, I agree that it is unclear what it was supposed to mean, as you say, and the discussion was minimal. "Don't deviate from standards without a strong reason", again I agree. Where I disagree is in the definitition of standard. To me, the standard table is the completely naked, basic table with no trimmings. Anything added to it deviates from standard and multiple additions do not tranform it to "standard". I'm not even sure if it's a case of "majority" which is different. If deviations add value to the format, it's fine per the guideline, and where it doesn't, it's not. Semantically there is no difference between the coloured cells and the uncoloured cells as the semantic difference is in the words. The colour adds nothing that is not already there, and to me that equals "gratuitous". In addition to these variations, the text in the cells is centred, which is another devation. So, to my eye when you have a page with a table or group of tables, that are essentially plain in appearance, and which are left aligned, to have one column that employs the use of colour and centre alignment, we have a deviation. The guideline mentions professionalism, and I think they were looking at consistency between articles, but even within one article, the deviation within one column in a table or group of tables, creates a visual impression that is not entirely professional, in my opinion. There is even a vague aspect of undue weight being given to one column by highlighting it ahead of others. If there was a good reason to have that deviation, I'd be for it, but I can't see it. All I can see is that some editors prefer the colour, but I don't see that the colour actually serves a useful purpose. When you say "the use is focused to the results column" I don't really understand what you mean, and I'm not trying to be obstructive. I just don't see it. I know I've repeated myself a bit in this reply, but I am thinking it through and trying to see what you see, but I just don't. If you would like to take it to a wider audience to get more comments, I'd be willing to do that, or if you want to discuss it further here, I'm willing to do that too, but so far I disagree with your viewpoint. Rossrs (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the centering vs. not centering as "unprofessional". Articles like List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse look reasonably professional to me, and I would say removing the colors there would harm the readability of the page. Colors can aid in locating and interpreting tables. Think about the colors in tennis articles, for instance. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse doesn't look unprofessional, in my opinion. I think because the colour and centred cells are spread out through the article, rather than condensed in one place, it works aesthetically. The balance kind of disguises the variations, but they are variations and they're visible when you look for them, even if they don't jump off the page. On the other hand, if the colours were removed, and the alignment was consistent throughout the article, would the list still work to the same degree, or would it be more difficult to read? You think removing the colours would be detrimental and I think not, and that's our personal opinions. I think it would be roughly the same aesthetically, but that it would achieve internal consistency. I was thinking specifically about Halle Berry. It has two tables with a total of eight columns. To have one of the eight colours centre aligned and the rest left aligned, I think it does look unprofessional because it looks unbalanced and I think the same about the colour. I put on my sunglasses and looked at Roger Federer and I saw a bunch of colours without obvious semantic value, and a bunch of flags that didn't help either. Again, I wonder if the page would be substantially more difficult to interpret without the colours, and I don't think so. To me it looks busy and the colours distracting. (I'm relating that to some books I have with a lot of tennis statistical information, more complex and detailed than the Federer article, and which use black text on a white background with no colour variation, and it's easy to read). Federer article again, the player name column sorts by first name rather than surname, which suggests to me that for all the intricate use of colour, editors haven't looked too closely at what's there, even though it's a good article. Have a look at Burlesque (film)#Awards and nominations. Does that look like an editor made a rationale choice to use colour or that they just copied the concept from somewhere else? It's a piddling example of course, but it seems to me that a lot of colour is being used all over the project without any real thought process behind it. Rossrs (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If "they copied the concept from somewhere else", wouldn't that mean "they" thought it was appropriate for the article, and that, if it stayed there for a long time without objection, that others agreed or at least tolerated it? Established forms tend to represent the views of many editors, editors who many not be around to restate their views now. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be true or it may be untrue. It could also be that the editors involved didn't particularly know or care. Maybe it does represent the views of many editors, but the only editor that is specifically objecting is you. You may be right and you may be wrong in interpreting what many editors believe, but they are not here, and if they've moved on from the project and are not here to speak, they have no right to assume that their edits are sacred. I don't believe guidelines are written in stone, and if there's a good reason to deviate from them, then we should deviate. I still don't see any good reason for this. By the way, I specifically linked to Burlesque (film)#Awards and nominations. That table consists of one entry and it's clear that there was no compelling reason for adopting that format, and if that's true of that article, it's likely true of others. It's one entry - it does not need colour to make it stand out. If the table per Burlesque was copied into a million articles by a million well-intentioned editors, I would still think it wrong, and I would still believe it didn't comply without the basis theme of the guideline. Rossrs (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it that this is your way of ending the discussion. No final comment as a matter of courtesy in a discussion that you started and that I responded to fairly, and a vague, non-specific ("+ other") edit summary. Great attitude. Rossrs (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• fixed. twice. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC) And guess what happened, next? ;) Jack Merridew 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Belated reply

Dear Ross, I apologise for not having replied to your latest message. Only now did I notice that there were actually two of them. I am totally fine with the version you suggest, just forgot to revert myself. I'll do it tomorrow because there is something else I want to update there and I'd like to do it in one bit. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shahid. No problem, no apology necessary. I thought perhaps it slipped your mind. I understand how easy it is to get involved in something and lose track of time. Thanks for the message. Rossrs (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rainer videos

I believe that two of video tributes you removed for Luise Rainer are acceptable as a fair use compilation. The music was apparently performed by the person posting the tributes. And the collage-arrangement of the stills, most of which are PD anyway, would meet all Fair use requirements. My guess is that the video tributes are probably common law copyrighted by the creator in any case. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Some of the images have "Getty" plastered across them. I don't know who owns the copyright, and perhaps nobody does, but unless we want to challenge "Getty", we're better off not using them. Interesting that one of the images was "created" by me, from a public domain film trailer. There's a Carl Van Vechten too, that we know is public domain. Mostly we just don't know. It's dubious and better avoided. Rossrs (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that I generally agree with you about publicity photos being PD. This is interesting : http://www.creativeclearance.com/guidelines.html#B1. The problem is knowing what is legitimately a publicity portrait that was handed out freely, and what was not handed out so freely. The George Hurrell collection is a good example, and there are others, of course. A lot of these old photos have the "look" of publicity material, but image by image they aren't vastly different in appearance to images that are known to be under copyright. The safest ones would be those that still have the studio markings on them. There are some at Commons that have a frame around them with the name of the studio and I think we can be confident about those images. Rossrs (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's doubtful all of the photos shown are PD. I just mentioned that many of them probably were. But the main point about this kind of compilation is that PD is only a minor issue, and is essentially irrelevant to the main reason these kinds of videos are usually acceptable. I'm going by U.S. Copyright Law about "compilations" which overrides preexisting copyrights of the material used, and issues added and separate copyright protection to the creator of the compilation itself:

A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.

As for Hurrell or any notable copyright owner being involved, it makes no difference. "Fair use" and "compilations" as public rights are unconcerned with who took the photos, videos, or played the music. A good example: the U.S. Copyright Office made clear in one instance, where "representatives of the motion picture industry acknowledged that an instructor’s creation of a film clip compilation is a fair use, and that section 110(1) permits the instructor to show this compilation in the classroom."[26] A free non-profit encyclopedia, for educational purposes, is a similar situation.

An explanation of the subject related to music points out that the individual parts of the compilation, i.e. photos, have not lost any protection: "A copyrightable compilation enjoys only limited protection. The copyright only covers the "author's original contribution -- not the facts or information conveyed. One of the most important points here is one that is commonly misunderstood today: copyright [of compilations] has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material."[27]

Since we are not taking any images from the compilation and using them as stills, I see no problem with linking to a public compilation which helps illustrate the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me that a fair use case could be made, and that the rights of the copyright holder are not diminished or even necessarily compromised, but that's not the point. WP:EL does not allow for linking to external sites based only on a fair use rationale. It takes a conservative approach. Granted that much of the Rainer material is of little interest to copyright holders, but what if it was a compilation of photos or footage of a current celebrity? The fair use aspect would be no different and the rationale would like be identical, but we wouldn't pick a collage of Miley Cyrus videos and say, yep it's all fair. Considering how many files are hosted by You Tube, on every subject you or I could probably think of, we could end up with a handful of You Tube links on every article. Certainly for every actor/singer/movie/music video article. So if we say yes for Luise Rainer, we would also need to say yes for Miley Cyrus. I'm looking at this more broadly than the short edit summary I made when I removed the links, which was determined by the number of keystrokes I could fit on the line, rather than everything I was thinking. So, I agree with your points, but still don't think it justifies linking to such material. Rossrs (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Carol Lynley

Interesting! Thanks! This is the first that I've encountered a film (or a trailer in this case) that is so recent and also in the public domain. I'll remember to check closer in the future. Dismas|^(talk) 20:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Angela Pan

• User talk:Lonelydarksky#Angela Pan

We've a test case for non-western sorting. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

lulz

Lily Cole#Filmography^oldid

I've not touched it, yet. It's old-style, with font-size: 90%; up-top. And every cell starts with <big>

Now I'll look through it's history, for fun. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on Angela Pan. It's good to have a test case, and even without the sorting issue, it's only right to have English translations on en.wiki.

Lily. That's one ugly filmography! In a good article no less. I suppose it's quite helpful to know that Polly is a geek without having to sit through St. Trinians. On a tangent – I hate that model infobox and its mess of trivia. Who gives a damn what her dress size is in three different fashion markets unless her fans want to buy dresses for her? Rossrs (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I found where the BIGs were added, too. I could trout friend. There's all sort of silly stuff in infoboxes; people make-up stuff in the hope that it will just appear. I cut shoe-size from some infobox, recently. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. Unless the person is notable for having exceptionally large feet, it's not that interesting. I found where the smalls got BIG too, and that's a troutable offence. Rossrs (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to show editors how much I appreciate them, you are one of them

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I had a hard time chosing because you do so much but I decided on this one. You have a lot integrity and help so many including me. Please keep up your good work in all the things you touch. I enjoy working with you when we get the opportunty. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Crohnie. This was a lovely surprise, and I appreciate the thought. Cheers, Rossrs (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, it's long past due though. You've been very patient and helpful to me. You deserve to know that. Thank you for all your help and understanding, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Rossrs. You have new messages at SlimVirgin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks. have replied. Rossrs (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: MTM talk page. I agree. Most of these outrageous and vandalizing edits I note are "special contributions". It is way past time to require registration in order to edit. Currently an infant in diapers or an adult with an infant mind can so easily make this very special domain their own "special" place to act stupidly.1archie99 (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Important email sent

Hi, I just sent you an email that has absolutely nothing to do with this project but it's stll important to me that you read it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Crohnie. I have read it, and I will reply. Rossrs (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Could use your opinion

Hi, I could use your opinion about my actions to delete the tribute section in the Cary Grant article. Two of the images were removed when I decided to delete the section. But I sure would love to have another opinion on what I just did here. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How weird. I just commented. That's quite strange. Grant is one of many articles of old Hollywood performers I have watchlisted, and one of many I rarely edit. Rossrs (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have commented again on the talk page about removing the section but didn't think to. I just did. Thanks for your comments though, glad to know I'm clicking with someone at least. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA?

Are you interested in becoming an adminstrator, the tools does come in handy, I admired your work for years btw. Thanks Secret ^account 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I appreciate that very much, but I have no ambition to become an administrator. Rossrs (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the best qualifications for teh mop is reticence. It doesn't have to be about blocking and deleting, it's about helping with more aspects of the project. Think again, please. Jack Merridew 22:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the idea out of hand, and it's something that I have given consideration to before. I can get involved where I want to already, without being an admin, and I am pretty much free to come and go as I please. I don't want to be in the situation where I feel that I'm bogged down fulfilling a particular role and have responsibilities beyond being a reasonable editor. That probably sounds lame. I'll give it some more thought. Rossrs (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be a big deal; see? See also: Morena Baccarin and Clara Bow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Rossrs (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

and sometimes it is a big deal; WP:BN, and WT:RFA.^{for years} — Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just let me know when your ready. Thanks Secret ^account 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's say "if" I'm ready, rather than "when", but yes I will. Thank you both, for your comments. Rossrs (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for objective participation in discussion

As a trusted editor on WP, you're invited to look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cagney, Jr. and comment. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And continuing from above, it's pleasing to be called a "trusted editor". :-) Thanks, and I've commented. As clear a case for failing notability as I've ever seen, and quite an interesting discussion. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie

Hi, Wild Hart is no more? Is there no forwarding e-mail for a humble Peg Entwistle biographer such as I? Jameszerukjr (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we don't know each other but if you would like to get a hold of her leave her a message on her talk page and I'll let her know it's there. If she's interested she can make contact herself. Yes she did leave the project though. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello both of you. James, it's been a very long time. Nice to see you're still around. I remember Wildhartlivie helped you some time ago with the Peg Entwistle article. You could also try sending an email through the "email this user" link on Wildhartlivie's page. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious categories

Hello, I am not saying William Holden was a Congregationalist because I feel that he should be labeled as so. I just found his bio and trivia on a website entitled LucyWho and on his page his religion was cited as being Congregationalist. I wouldn't add a persons religion without a proper source to attest to it. Here is the link if you want to look at it youself: http://www.lucywho.com/tpx_2444/william-holden/

Hello. You're missing the point. I acknowledged that you were getting the information from somewhere. I never suggested, or even thought, that you were making it up. The problem is this - it's not in the article. Do you seriously expect everyone who reads the article should drop you a note asking where you got the information from? You should read WP:RS and you should ensure that whatever information you add is cited in the article. LucyWho fails as a reliable source. Scroll to the bottom of the page where it says "disclaimer" and you will see "LucyWho.com content is contributed and edited by our readers. You are most welcome to update, correct or add information to this page." That's not reliable. I could go on there and add that he was a Martian, if I was so inclined. Wouldn't make it true though, and it wouldn't justify anyone adding that to his article here. Anyone can add anything they want to LucyWho.com, and there's no evidence of fact checking. You should absolutely not use this as a source.

By the way, if I leave you a message, you can assume I have your page watchlisted, and if you reply on your own page, I will see it. That saves having a conversation spread between two user talk pages, where it becomes hard to follow. Also, you can sign your name at the end of your message by typing four tildes. That is, ~~~~ That also makes it easier to follow the discussion. Rossrs (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what your saying now. Sorry to have taken up so much of your time.

Lizzie Borden article

Hi, I am here to ask you to look at the article named. There is a section I question on the talk page about the section of Borden and culture. I removed the Simpsons comment from there yet again and templated what needs references. I haven't been online very much so if you have time can you follow up for me? RL has been weird still but improving somewhat. I'd appreciate your input there though. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Names in regard to celebrities

Hi,

I was looking for your thoughts regarding issues on the Duffy (Singer) Wikipedia entry. I am very confused as to why numerous other acts such as Madonna and Prince are allowed to be referenced by these names first, then their full birth names/DOB but Duffy is not? I must also point out that someone like Madonna has never legally changed her name so why is this allowed on her entry if that is the issue.

While I agree that her real name should absolutely be referenced, I cannot understand why this is allowed for one act but not another when they are identical cases. I would appreciate any insights you could offer on this.

Thank you for your time and efforts on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, sometimes other stuff exists is a reasonable argument but perhaps the "other stuff" is also wrong, or is being used for a reason that is subtly different to the article you're questioning. If you use the "other stuff exists" argument you should support that with additional information. Wikipedia is full of inconsistencies and sometimes there's a good reason, and sometimes not. Madonna does not have to legally change her name. "Madonna" is her legal, given, birth name and it's therefore not really a stage name. It's not different to Duffy who has also not made a legal change to her name. Cher, for example, did (to the best of my knowledge) legally chop her name into little pieces and kept just the first part. My interpretation of WP:MOSBIO is that the legal name "should" be used first - that's exactly what it says, but then it goes on to say that the reverse is acceptable. The guideline is allowing for either option, but is pushing the "legal name first" ahead of the alternative. When there's disagreement, the only option really is discussion to reach some kind of resolution. It's good that you are doing so. For this particular article, I disagree with you. Rossrs (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I approached one of the Admins - Rodhullandemu - to get their thoughts. You can view the conversation here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rodhullandemu#What.27s_up_with_AFC_clerk_bot.3F

Their feeling was either is acceptable, which is why Madonna has it. Again, I would put forward then that it should be applied to Duffy simply because it is part of her legal name (as is the case with Madonna) and everyone knows her as this professionally. Since you are a valued and prolific editor on the page, I'd rather work with you to achieve something that is fair (as the Admins have suggested) and that we are both comfortable with.

So what do you think given Admin's response? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic (talk • contribs) 09:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu said much the same I did - "either is acceptable". I'm supporting what I feel the guideline leans more towards, but it's not something I feel particularly strongly about. Maybe you could put something on the article talk page and see if any regular contributors have an opinion. Rossrs (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant idea, I'll propose it in the Talk Page. It would be good to hear from all the regular contributors on it (yourself included) so we can maintain a smooth page that has a nice unified mindset.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

San Gabriel Valley

Hi ya, Several years ago, you mentioned that the SGV article needed a great deal of work, including more of a racially balanced purview. I have put a tremendous amount of work in and if you are still interested. I would like assistance to get it to GA status. Any suggestions? TY. Namaste!...DocOfSoc (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Maureen O'Hara

Hello Rossrs, I read your note about the notes being too detailed, and I do see that. I'm reading the autobiography at the moment and its handy to add notes as she discusses the films as I'm reading the book. My idea is that then at the end of my reading, the notes section will be a kind of warehouse and I can distribute the info from the notes to the main article or to the film articles, leaving just a sentence of notes on each film at most, in the filmography section. If other editors don't like this then i'll stop using this way of adding the info, but I don't intend to leave the notes on each film so detailed in the end. Sayerslle (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I won't object, although it is an unconventional approach and may well attract comment. I suggest putting something at the talk page to explain and refer to that in edit summaries. Rossrs (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sortable Filmographies

Thank you! :) I was clicking the buttons trying to figure out what made the sortname and so on different from the rest, but I couldn't see a difference - maybe I need new glasses, heh.

Will do that, though. :) ♪Your Opheliac♫ 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. There are editors that can help you with anything you may be unsure about, and I'm ok with the basics. ;) User:Jack Merridew (who is currently editing infrequently) and User:RexxS are very helpful when it comes to anything out of the ordinary, and with a little discussion, out-of-the-ordinary issues can be dealt with quickly. Drop me or them a note if you find difficulties and someone will help. Rossrs (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

As a respected WP editor, you are invited to participate in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination)

James Cagney

Hey there! I'm starting an informal peer review process of James Cagney, and wondered if you'd be interested in having a look at it, as you were involved earlier in its development? Feel free to add comments to the talk page. Cheers! GedUK  14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make..

Hi, the point I was trying to make here is what Sandy Georgia is making now under the slippery slope comments, at least most of them. WHL did keep saying the same things about Jack following her to articles like Gimmetoo has said and also not following WP:CITE. Your right though, most of the problems she had was that she couldn't discuss things rationally after awhile allowing her anger to take over. Her anger was not at all helpful. That being said, Jack does impose his preferred way of doing things no matter what an editor says about it. If the editor disagrees with Jack, Jack seems to go to that editors list of articles and does the same edits to those articles that he is indispute with on others. He cannot be allowed to continue to do that because all it does is inflame the issues even more making it harder for all the editors involved to discuss that matters calmly and unemotionally. I believe that this was one of the problems you agreed with back then was Jack needed stop going on through an editors list of articles to continue his points and that he should back off and finish the discussions going on at the original locations, or am I remember incorrectly? The way he does it now causes it to cloudy the water and make it more difficult for conversations now that more editors become involved in the dispute no matter their opinion of who they should agree with or not. Basically, Jack has to stop forcing this down the throat of editors who disagree with him instead of going on to continue the same behavior throughout that editors watch list. That's the points I was trying to make with his behavior with WHL. She was and wasn't a victim because some of it was of her own makings but Jack did go to over a dozen, I believe that's right but the page is now deleted so I can't see it, articles on WHL's watch list to make the exact same edits to antaginize her. He also did say multiple times that his goal was to see her banned or chased off the project because he felt that she was a person who didn't admit she was socking and just now Lar finally put that to rest saying that WHL had a friend using her computer that she wasn't socking. Why he didn't do this long ago is totally unknown to me as it could have saved a lot of the crap going on between these two editors I think. Anyways, I wanted you to know what it was I was trying to say. I don't care how the AN/i turns out but I did want to clarify my thoughts with you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine Crohnie. I understand that's your opinion. I'm sorry if you've felt reluctant to contact me presumably because I didn't reply to this. I felt the need to reply to your statement at the ANI because I thought that that being a public forum in which I had commented, that if I left it unanswered that could be interpreted as agreeing with it. Other than that, I really do think I've said enough on the subject, and I'd like to let it rest. Rossrs (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sunset Boulevard (film)

I was about to place it on FAR, because of citations and some unsourced paragraphs, including citing books without page numbers. But you were the nominator originally so can you keep it to FA standards? Thanks Secret ^account 00:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea I won't nominate it because it was you that originally brought the article to FA standards, if I could get the book on the subject, I would help out. I'm going to check if my local libraries has it, or if not, how cheap it is on amazon. Thanks Secret ^account 02:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Bern RfC

Hi. Hope all is well. I come asking for a favor :D. If you're not busy, could you pop on over and give your opinion on the Paul Bern RfC. I'm at my wit's end and could use some additional opinions regarding the cause of death categories. If you need me to bring you up to speed, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! Pinkadelica^♣ 03:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie was nice to to pop by and comment as were a few of her talk page lurkers. Thank you taking a peek and I appreciate your input. Stay well. Pinkadelica^♣ 08:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Filmographies

Hi :) I saw something on another page and started wondering, and since you seem like the friendly sort, I thought I would ask you.

When editing filmographies, are TV series/TV films and feature films supposed to be sorted into separate sections?

Thank you!

♪Your Opheliac♫ 00:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you. I try to be the friendly sort. To answer your question, there's no rule and there's nothing to even suggest that one format is used more often than an other. There's a discussion you may be interested in reading, and commenting on which started about the use of seperate awards tables, and I put forward a suggestion for including a "medium" column in the general filmography, which could serve the purpose of presenting the credits in chronological order, but which could be made sortable and therefore allow TV or film credits to be looked at individually. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Awards and I also started a sandbox at User:Rossrs/Sandbox/filmography and awards. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Rossrs (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And you succeed! :) I didn't think there was a rule, but when I edited Summer Glau's filmography (it wasn't sortable and it looked kind of messy the way it was), another user reverted it because "TV series aren't films". I thought it was all one and the same, since they were all filmed. I didn't want to mess up hundreds more articles though, so I thought I would ask someone who seemed knowledgable. :) It made me smile to hear that my thoughts would be welcome about that, and I'll be sure to give the discussion a read through once it's not the middle of the night. :) Thank you! ♪Your Opheliac♫ 07:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youropheliac (talk • contribs)

And yet Summer Glau's body of work that includes film, TV and video games is in a section called "filmography". But they ain't all films! I preferred your edit. It looked much tidier, in my opinion. The only error was having "films" as the table header. Aside from that, I think it was fine. I think the word "filmography" is misused in numerous articles. Rossrs (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the rowspans broke the sortability. Even if the other editor doesn't personally like the tables to be merged, the removal of rowspans was an improvement in terms of WP:ACCESSIBILTY. I always link to that in edit summaries. At least it gives other editors a chance to read it, and hopefully discourage them from reverting. Rossrs (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of colour in awards tables

I have been watching some of the discussions taking place on the use of colour (the pink and green) in some of the awards tables. It looks like these discussions are getting nowhere and maybe now is the time for a RFC on the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers talk page. It seems odd to me that one person choose those particular colours quite awhile ago and forced them on the project without consensus. Or was there consensus? I realize this is not a major issue in the scheme of life but it has become more irritating lately as people have been trying to clean up and raise the standards of these articles. What do you think? - Josette (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My opinion in a nutshell is that when there is disagreement over style, we should go with the broadest community-decided style which in this case is the plain table. There's no question that it has community acceptance and consensus to support its use. I think it's fine to be bold and offer variations, and if nobody objects, there's no problem. There's too much of an attitude throughout the project that says consensus must be reached to remove something, even when that something was added without consensus. I think the colours were devised and implemented by a small number of editors - it would be wrong to attribute it to one, as the template talk page shows a handful of editors who commented. I don't recall it ever being taken to any project page to discuss. I watch WP:ACTOR. I do not watch the music projects and the coloured tables also appear in music related articles. I've removed the colour from a number of articles and I've watchlisted those articles and waited for comment. Only one editor has commented/objected and only at those articles that particular editor is concerned about. I guess I can do what I want with the rest of the articles, as long as I leave those couple alone. At least, that's how I'm interpreting it. That's an observation rather than a criticism. Most editors don't worry about changes until it happens to an article they are watching, but I have to wonder where all the other editors are. I think the issue is larger than the actor project and to focus discussion in that area would fail to include interested editors from other projects such as music, and probably a bunch of others. Should the aim be to address specifically the award/nom template or the use of colour in general? Roger Federer employs colour with more abandon than Jackson Pollock, and I'd Do Anything (BBC TV series)#Finalists also reeks of colour, and in that particular one very helpfully distinguishes between three different shades of green as worn by the participants in a TV talent series, and having recently watched said series, I can tell you the Wiki colours aren't close enough to the real colours to make them useful in any way. I guess what I'm trying to demonstrate is if a discussion focusses on one use of colour, regardless of the outcome, it leaves a whole range of situations undiscussed. The common question to ask in all situations is "does the colour add enough context to aid the reader?" If yes, leave the colour. If no, remove the colour. I've seen comments saying they are widely used, people like them, and they do no harm, from a few different people but I don't think they are good reasons for going against a guideline. I would like to participate and have commented at length, but in less than 2 weeks I will be absent for about 4 weeks, and even in that 2 weeks I'll be very busy, and for that reason only, I am very unlikely to participate. If you look at my edit history, it's dropped considerably over recent weeks. Like you said, this is not a major issue in the scheme of life, but in the scheme of Wikipedia, it is pretty important. Rossrs (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, I hope it's ok for me to add a comment about this, if not, Rossrs feel free to remove with no hard feeling on my part. I just did a search on WP:Colors & WP:Colours, it's really quite interesting too. Colors gets different responses at different locations which is something I didn't notice before when we had the RFC about it at Actor and the one at Moonriddengirl (MRG). I know the one at actor's ended with no consensus mostly due to too many different things being discussed. I'll be honest, I don't know how it ended at MRG's RFC she set up for everyone to discuss it. She was kind enough to set up the RFC after the actor one went nowhere and feelings were hurt. I didn't follow it because I was too personally involved so my thoughts were not open enough to be fair to the discussion, things have now changed for me so that I can discuss this with an open mind. My personal opinion on colors is that the color 'steel blue' should be used because it's helps people see things easier with sight problems. I can't find the dif for this sorry but it was stated and agreed to at WT:ACTOR plus as you know I was having some sight problems and it did make a difference for me. I don't understand why the Simpsons articles got a pass to use the yellow on the articles. I don't know where this got approved, just that it was repeatedly said at the different RFC's. I think maybe an RFC on this would be good at here or any of the other location in WP policies that talk about color usage. Then we can tell the different projects in a neutral message where the RFC is located along with the different editors interested in this though we have to be careful of canvassing violations. I think this way we can get more involved, hopefully, and if or when a consensus is made, the proper policies can be adjusted. Do a search of Color and Colours, it's spelt both ways to see what I am talking about. Anyways, this is what I think about things, I hope again it was ok for me to give this opinion. I have a lot of watch page lurkers so I would be willing to put a notice on my talk page too to get editors interested. Of course the notice would be written neurtrally just describing that there is an RFC about the use of colors and editors interested are welcomed to come and comment or something like this. Either of you can write it up for usage, I have no problems with that either. This can also be put on hold until you return, say like the first of the year since this is something that keeps coming up. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Crohnie. As far as I'm concerned you're welcome. Your comments are really interesting. Help:Using colours is a "how to" guide. The interesting thing is that it's not a "why to" guide. A "why to" guide, or even a "why not to" guide would be great. "How to" assumes there is a reason for adding colour, even if there isn't. The other thing that dawns on me when I look at Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates or WP:Color is that it discusses how to choose the most accessible colour and why we shouldn't edit war over this colour or that colour, but it assumes that use of colour is a given. It's not a given. It doesn't address colour vs. no colour. A lot of people have gone to great lengths to establish which is the most widely accessible colour choice, without seeming to consider "hey what about no colour at all?" My main concerns are consistency and professionalism. Consistency and professionalism should mean editors complying with whats best for the project and all professional sites, publications, encyclopedias etc are consistent. Click on a dozen random film bio articles here and you're likely to see a dozen different styles, so rather than continue along the lines of which colour is best, why not just go with black text on a white background? That's something everyone can see. Rossrs (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I don't understand why we make a special consideration for The Simpsons. It strikes me as self-indulgent, gimmicky and placing undue emphasis on one aspect of one television program. Also, there would be no problem as far as canvassing is concerned. It's necessary to notify people and a neutral message would serve the purpose. Rossrs (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The comments you make is the reason I said to search color and colour. There is a lot said about using color but I personally didn't find anything at all about not using color which actually surprised me. I understand professionalism and consistancy but some color isn't harmful for say like different project or some other good reason to use color. I'm not saying bold colors like the Simpsons yellow nor colors like purple, red and so forth. I don't like what you consider the standard color of that silver or whatever it's called. I have noticed though that filmography tables have the steel blue in it but up top in the info section there is the mustard yellow which is horrible. I think if anything, if color is used it shouldn't be bright and the same color should be used for both sections. What do you think? Also, I'll help get the word out. We can figure out here or my talk page the best neutral way of saying things and then split up where to tell it that is of course after we decide where the best place is to have the RFC to begin with. I really don't think it should be held at any of the projects though. So, with that said, what do you think? --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Since we all have issues with colour and no one seems to agree when, where or how colour should be used, maybe the best answer is to avoid colour all together - that has been my argument all along. I, too, am busy in real life and would rather wait until Rossrs has the time and will to devout to a RFC. Take care. - Josette (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. There are probably a number of editors with views on this subject, both pro and con, and I think it needs to be discussed in a wider forum. I mean, honestly, does Halle Berry represent the entire project? We can leave it for now, and look at it again later when time permits. Thanks for raising this discussion. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm busy, too, in the same vein as yourself. Most colour use here is gratuitous and unwarranted. We let anyone edit here, including the vision-impaired; i.e. it's a wiki. A wider fora than WT:ACTOR is best per WP:CONLIMITED. See: User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC#personal Opinion for DGG's take, which I support. Oh, and those 'X' are ass-backwards, ffs; 'X' indicates 'not' in most western cultures. Someone cut it. all. ;) Jack Merridew 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

whether or not we like it, Wikipedia is now a serious research tool, not merely a hobby. Amateurs have produced such tools before, but not on so wide a scale , with as many participants. The more people join--the more will need guidelines in matters of presentation and style. the key factors to consider are clarity and professional appearance, which go together. Extensive use of color is typical of underground publications, children's books, and advertisements. Restrained use is typical of material intended for practical use. sometimes color is needed for clarity, and in such cases the only consideration is soberness enough to avoid confusion and unreadability But highlighting is sometimes appropriate also, and color is the most intense form of highlight, and should be kept for when highlight is appropriate. It works better when used with restraint. Among recent examples mentioned here, [28] is right--it highlights the most important key feture in the table at the bottom. [29] is wrong--it's used for several contradictory purposes. In the finals table it impairs the basic feature--the course of successes by year, which is the default sort. The need to divide up by event is real also, and can be perfectly shown without using color by sorting by the event column. The point of using one especially garish color in the final table to highlight the Olympics seems unnecessary: the wording of the heading does all the emphasis necessary. For the single tables, the boldface W' for win does all the highlighting necessary--the color requires a preliminary step in reading--deducing what it represents.

more generallyI agree with Jack: just as roman lower case is the default for text, and italic and capitals reserved for specific cases, just as left aligned paragraphs are the standard, with indentation or centering used for special purposes, so white background is the default both in test and tables. for highlighting text, if bold and italics and indentation isn't enough, there's the use of bordera, even colored borders. For following across lines in long tables, there is a very simple convention, very light grey dotted background in alternate lines (tho I don't know how easy it is to code for sortable tables) Any use of color needs to be justified. (and, in my opinion, , the standard colors we use in table are much too garish--a Wikipedia page can look alike a child's coloring book). If there's an argument , then the answer should almost always be no color.

Though I think this should apply across Wikipedia, could someone please copy this over to the relevant subject workgroup page). If we need to propose this as a MOS change, will someone experienced there please propose it in my names and let me know. I normally do not follow that particular central location for the lamest arguments on Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on these charts please

Hi, I think this is tacky is doesn't do anything at all for the article. What do you think? It takes up a lot of space too. If it's important, which is iffy to me, then it can be put in prose but this chart is just so tacky to me. I'd appreciate your opinion because my first instinct is to delete it to be honest with you. :) I decided to also ask at the talk page here. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Tacky doesn't even begin to describe it. Rossrs (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Uploading Image to Commons

I've found a wonderful image for an article (it isn't a screenshot of a movie, TV show, or a derivative work of any kind that Commons states), and I want to upload it to Commons, but I don't know how. Every time that I try to upload it, when I fill in everything, it says that I didn't fill in the original source or the original author. Can you please help me? Dorothy Shaw98 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's happened to me too, and I don't really know why. Here is what I suggest:

1. Go to Commons and find another image that is similar to the one you want to upload, in terms of licensing.
2. Click on "edit" and copy the content
3. Go back to the upload page and click on "it is from somewhere else"
4. Paste the information into the upload window, and change all details that relate specifically to your image/source/licensing
5. Upload
6. Double check all information and if anything is incorrect or incomplete, go back into edit, and fix and save.

Hope this helps. Let me know if I can help you any further. Rossrs (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ross! I've uploaded it successfully. Thank you again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothy Shaw98 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As you participated in the ban discussion of SkagitRiverQueen, you are being notified of this Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Mae West

Hi, Ed Fitzgerald here. I'm looking for a usable (i.e. PD) full-body shot of Mae West in her prime to use in the Sexual attraction article as a contrast to Brigitte Bardot, and you were my first thought for someone who might have a lead on one. Any ideas? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone with a painting by Rubens in the meantime, but I think West might have more impact, and make the comparison explicit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. A couple of years ago, I was embroiled in discussion relating to images of West, and I tried then to find something suitable, but without success. I can't think of anywhere to look, that I haven't already looked. That said, I think the Rubens compromise is perhaps more effective anyhow. Bardot and West are vastly different but they occupy roughly the same portion of the sexual attraction timeline. The Rubens' gals broaden both the historical and cultural context, but the article only barely brushes the surface of the subject. I also question whether West's main impact was in her visual presentation, although it was a factor. I think her sexual persuasiveness lay more in her manner and her delivery. Always good to hear from you, but sorry I haven't been much help on this occasion. Rossrs (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your input is insightful and valuable, as always -- and greatly appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Annette Bening

Do you think you could write a could introduction on her page? All it says is that she "is an American actress" and that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstraw (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)