Jump to content

User:Momoricks/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2008 – December 2008

Hello, Momoricks/Archive1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! momoricks make my day 22:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Momoricks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Lenerd (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Links in russian, eh? Then use this translator. Also, please don't put it into my 'other' subpage or I won't get it. I put my messages there myself. Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

http://multiz.com/translator.php

Thank you, Andy! *momoricks* (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi — regarding your edit to Liz Parker, just wanted to let you know that the "minor" marker is intended only for changes that do not affect meaning, such as typos or spelling fixes. Looie496 (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: GOCE not listed on WikiProject Directory

Thanks for the heads up! "Articles Needing Copy Edit" was the original name of the WikiProject. I have updated that page with our current name. Cheers -Samuel Tan 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Peter Moore mugshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Peter Moore mugshot.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robert Black mugshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert Black mugshot.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Flags and dates

Hi. I noticed you have added infoboxes to some articles. Per WP:FLAGS we do not use flags to show a person's place of birth; listing it in text is enough. There is no need to link dates any more; WP:MOSDATE has changed and we don't do this any more. Best wishes and happy editing. --John (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)



Hi. I have only taken a cursory look at the selected articles for the Wikipedia 0.7 release, enough to know what is on the list. I work on the Crime project and the Actors and Filmmakers project as well, and I've been trying to get the articles rounded up on a subpage of the main talk pages. I will do that for the serial killer project as well in the next day or so. The only articles with maintenance clean up tags that need addressed are Andrei Chikatilo and Serial killer. I'd begun re-reading my book about Chikatilo even before the list was published. Articles on Albert Fish, Seung-Hui Cho, Virginia Tech massacre, Zodiac (film), and Zodiac Killer will need no work, they are all good articles or featured articles. I can also say confidently and from experience that Charles Manson, Columbine High School massacre, and Jim Jones need no work. Although they haven't been taken to good article review yet, that is for other reasons besides quality. I wouldn't touch Jack the Ripper with a ten foot pole - it has very committed editors who hash out much of what goes on with it, so I will leave a note about it on that talk page, but as far as I'm concerned, it's their baby. That leaves Aileen Wuornos, Charles Whitman, David Berkowitz, Dennis Rader, Ed Gein, Elizabeth Báthory, Gilles de Rais, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Mass murder, Peter Sutcliffe, Serial killer, Ted Bundy to be reviewed. The one that is probably most needy would be mass murder, since it is a start class article. What I've been doing is starting out with running the checklinks tool and updating the references with expired or changed links, then do general spell and grammar checks and finally proof read the article. I'd be glad to have someone to work with on these. It shouldn't take long to do. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

your comment on my talk

Hi, sorry about that (your edit reverted of Serial killer), the last edit I saw looked definitely like vandalism when you changed the name. Thanks for letting me know. As for edit summaries, unfortuately roll back features don't have any. I also want you to know that there has been a lot of vandalism to this article which is why I thought like I did and rolled you back. I am glad I was wrong though, it's looking good. If I can help please don't hesitate. Thanks again for letting me know and again sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes semi-protecting article might be a good idea. You put a lot of work into it and though I do watch it for vandals as I do others it is attacked I think a quite few times a week. It was attacked yesterday too but reverted quickly. I can't do it though as I'm not an administrator so if you want to ask someone go ahead. I'll continue to keep it on my watchlist to try to stop the vandals. If you do other articles that you are cleaning up that have vandal problems drop in and let me know and I'll put it on my list. I am just now starting to slowly start reading the serial killer different articles. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) early here and did not proof read, sorry for any errors.
Ok I request it [Here]. If there are any problems with getting the semi protection I'll let you know. I have never requested anything like this before so this is new to me. :) Have a good day! --CrohnieGalTalk 10:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I made the serial killer list page and my notes here. If you would be so kind as to make a brief note after an article's entry when you work on it, it will keep me informed of your work and vice versa. I did an extensive review of Charles Whitman tonight and I think it's good to go. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look at Wuornos and it does have a lot of issues. First, I'll just comment on my personal preferences. I have been aggressively removing statements that start out, for example, "In the book Lethal Intent, Sue Russell wrote that". Unless a book by an author is so highly touted as the definitive work on a subject, perhaps like Vincent Bugliosi and Charles Manson, the name of the author is irrelevant. That's what the citation is for. Who cares who wrote that? The other thing I'm aggressively removing is trivia in pop culture. My view is that the only things that really should be included are instances of the subject as treated in biofilms, etc. This is a murderer. It's our job to relate a story about the murderer, not to celebrate them in tv shows and songs. If you would look at Charles Manson, Lizzie Borden, Bonnie and Clyde or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, this is how we've been treating "trivia." Lists of songs that cash in on mentioning a killer's name just aren't being included and IMO, shouldn't be. For Wuornos, in the music section, I'd only leave the opera, although I'd probably also leave the Natalie Merchant stuff. Our goal is to fill in these blanks as best we can on these articles, I think.
As for the list, if I haven't added the *checklink run" to it, don't cross it off. Not that I'm trying to run anything, but let me know when you're ready to cross something off and I'll run it through a little macro I have for spacing, spelling and the like. I hope I'm not sounding too bossy? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:) Well, just remember, Daniel-San, wax on, wax off. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I responded to you on my talk page so that we aren't ping ponging back and forth. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Too lazy to look back in history

There was too edits made by different anon IP's at the Zodiac killer article Here. Did you keep or remove the Jack Tarrance material from the article? It is sourced. If memory serves me it was in the article but I wanted to run these edits by you for your opinion so I haven't done anything either way. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry!

I was all busy working away on just a section of Aileen Wuornos and didn't realize you were there also. I should have put an in-use tag on it. I added some references, fleshed out the victims part and put the portrayals part back into a main section rather than a main section for each type. I apologize for bumping heads!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My editing is going okay. I'm not keen on changing too very much of anything that has already been chosen unless it is something dire, like the Wuornos or Serial killer pages. I saw the note on the Zodiac Killer page and hope no one is making too much of a muck of it. It was a good article, and needs to at least stay that way. All I really plan on doing much else on is the Andrei Chikatilo and I've got to busy myself with finishing the book so I can. I've still got to move on to the general Crime project bios and the Actors and Filmmakers. At least there's someone else on the actors page who is working too. Cheers! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Serial killers

I don't think you'll be able to find precisely clear cut examples for the various motivations, serial killers aren't very cooperative that way. Perhaps you could look up the book (Holmes, Ronald M.; Stephen T. Holmes. Serial Murder, Second Edition. Sage, 43-44. ISBN 978-0761913672.) that the citation uses for the four motives through Google books and find what persons they were thinking of as examples? You can often find a preview edition that will let you do some look up on books. What I've been doing when I have been running the checklink tool is doing citation clean up when I do that. It isn't as pressing as getting some of the lesser articles pulled up a bit. The ones that aren't crossed off are the highest priority - Ed Gein, John Wayne Gacy and Mass murder. Also, since serial killer task force is a part of it, and no one else seems to be moving at all on it, there is a list of articles under the parent Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Wikipedia 0.7 article review that I've been working on and marked in need of reference improvement or just plain work, if you're interested. Some of those articles are high profile killers as well. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy article

Hi, you just recently tagged the article for external link clean up. I went through them all one by one and removed some which the reasoning for removing them can be seen on the edit comments. I am unsure though of whether one of them should also be deleted. I made a comment Here and would appreciate any response you might have. Have a good day, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit help needed

I am looking for help with copyediting an article that is at featured article candidates. The article is Khalid al-Mihdhar, who was one of the 9/11 hijackers. I saw your name listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, so thought perhaps you would be interested? I believe that getting an uninvolved editor to go through the article would greatly help. If you have some spare time, I would appreciate some assistance. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for going through the article. Whatever copyediting I did was not good enough for the featured article reviewers. Please let me know what else might be needed to improve the prose. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you've been busy! :)

I just wanted you to know I've been watching you today and yesterday at the artticles you are fixing up and you've been busy. Also, keep up the great work, it's looking a lot better! I;ve been busy taking pictures of medications today for the commons since there is an apparent need for some. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Need some assistance

Hello, I recently encountered a user (Pablo323) when they made what appeared to be two vandalism/unproductive edits to the Serial killer template, which I undid. Once I looked at the user's contributions, I noticed multiple questionable edits, redirects, categories, etc. I'm a fairly new Wikipedian so I'm not completely sure whether or not these are unproductive/harmful edits. Could you please look at them? Thank you for your time, --momoricks talk 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears he is adding interwiki links to the equivalent template on the Spanish Wikipedia. When added, you should see the link below the toolbox links on the left side of the page. You can see his edits over on the Spanish Wikipedia - es:Especial:Contributions/Pablo323. That said, he has been warned about incivility and other edits seem questionable, perhaps because he doesn't know English well. We can keep an eye on him, and if problems continue, I suggest reporting on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page for further admin review. --Aude (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ed Gein

Hi, if you can get a moment I sure could use your help or some ideas. On the Gein article there were a lot of citations needed so I was going to get them. Well I found [1] and low an behold a lot of the paragraphs are cut and pastes of the info there. I tried to rewrite a couple of paragraphs at the beginning to try to make it in our own words and not a copy and paste situation. If you wouldn't mind taking a peek and letting me know what you think of what I am doing I would really appreciate it. I'm hesitant about going any further than the first section that I did because of the copywrite violations and BLP violations that I already tried to tend to. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comment at User talk:Crohnie#Re: Ed Gein. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I responded to both of you at my talk page, boy I feel dumb! Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Hi - You left me a message on my talk page about minor edits. Thank you for taking the time to correct me, but I'm not quite sure I understand what I did. I don't think I know how not to mark something as a minor edit - but I do understand why, now. Could you maybe explain what I did wrong? I appreciate it! WordBounce (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, if I actually read everything you wrote the first time, I would have figured it out. Heh. Thanks again :) WordBounce (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Serial killer article

Hi, I didn't mean to be troublesome - I noticed your edit on my watchlist and so undid it, and only then noticed the tag on the article about the copyedit - after I had reverted. Regarding a better source, I think perhaps one is needed, but I also think the psychological motivation is a pretty obvious caveat to include - otherwise the criteria would cover gunslingers and mafia hitmen for example. I'll try and find something better though. Keep up the good work:) Malick78 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It's alright, all's forgiven;) Malick78 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism guidance

The serial killer article seems like one that would attract plenty of vandalism. You are more than welcome to issue warnings, and report vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If the vandalism gets too frequent, we can semi-protect the article, which disallows IP edits.

As for warnings, if it seems at all possible that they are making test edits, or it was a mistake (e.g. blanking a page), then I go easy and give a test warning. We want to assume good faith whenever possible. Oftentimes, the vandalism is blatant and clearly malicious. In those cases, I see no point in going through all the warning levels, even if they haven't done it before. The {{bv}} template is one that I like to use, as it includes a welcome note, along with making it clear we don't tolerate nonsense. I would not choose {{uw-vandalism4im}}, but there is some discretion. I looked at what these vandalism edits where and they seem juvenile, but clearly nonsense. It might be silly to tell them "thank you for testing, please use the sandbox", so I would probably use {{bv}} which allows a quick block if they keep it up. {{uw-vandalism4im}} may be a tad harsh, but think it's within discretion. --Aude (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Primary source tag

Hi, I removed the primary source tag you added to United States National Marine Sanctuary. These tags are meant to be used judiciously and with careful attention to the subject matter. While any article can benefit from a diverse selection of sources, this particular article uses sources that are applicable to the subject matter and sufficient for a stub. It would be better if you would comment on the talk page and discuss the changes you would like to see rather than engaging in drive-by tagging. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my error in placing a primary source tag on the United States National Marine Sanctuary. I read WP:PRIMARY and now understand when primary sources are and are not appropriate. With that said, your comment about "drive-by tagging" is downright rude. My approach is: if I see an article that needs help in some way, I'm going to add tags that I think will get that accomplished. I'm not going to place a suggestion on the talk page and wait around for comments. That process should be reserved for making major changes to the article. In the future, please be a bit more considerate when leaving messages on editors' talk pages. momoricks talk 08:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message. I think you are under the mistaken impression regarding the term, "drive-by tagging". I'm sorry you feel that it is rude, but that is exactly what that type of editing is called, and it is not intended to malign an editor. For more information, please consult WP:TAGGING, particularly the section "constructive tagging". You should know that the concerns in this essay have been incorporated into most tags, such as the fact and POV tag, as well as WikiProject best practices. In other words, tagging without discussion is generally not acceptable. Editors who add tags should try to address the problem on the talk page. This does not apply to suggesting major changes, but to adding tags on any article. Since you've only been here for two months, you probably weren't expected to know this right off the bat. I hope this clears up any confusion, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Happy editing! Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying the tagging procedure. I try to look up policies and procedures before moving forward with something, but often miss things. The "behind the scenes" part of Wikipedia is difficult to navigate. I'll make suggestions on article talk pages before tagging from now on. Best regards, momoricks talk 09:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's my interpretation. YMMV. As you can tell from the essay, there are different perspectives on the matter. The problem is that the entire tagging system needs to be overhauled. I'm convinced that the solution lies in standardizing the WikiProject templates, such that a flag in the template (primarysources=yes as an example) would show up on the project backend category, which would then feed into different cleanup projects. However, most cleanup projects tend to work on large batches, rather than breaking them down by topic and asking projects to help. This is a huge oversight, IMO. If you have any interest in this subject, let me know and I'll show you what I'm dealing with. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Aileen Wuornos

I saw the original edit by the IP and when I looked at it, I just winced and reverted it. In most cases, that will end it, but I'm certain the newly registered user was the IP as well. I went to Google books and read the section from the book that was used, and frankly, it seemed to me to be an apologist sort of publication, at least as far as Mallory was concerned. Certainly, the wording of the addition was an apologist view: "Mallory's conviction was for attempted rape (at age nineteen) in which he broke into a home and made sexual advances on the woman who lived there. Hardly the "violent rape" others described it as, Mallory ran off the moment she resisted." When I read the Supreme Court case about Mallory, it was a bit more serious than sexual advances and running off at the first sign of resistance. That he was put in a maximum security facility and was required to have 4 years more treatment after release tells me it was dealt with as a rape, except it wasn't completed. Did this mean Mallory deserved to be murdered? I dunno. But to me, it seems to confirm what Wuornos said about him. That fact is germane, whether or not the death was deserved. It certainly could be what pushed her over the edge. Anyway, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I slipped up on that one. I usually do look at the edit histories, but I apparently was distracted today, although I'm not entirely sure I know by what. That's what we're all here for, to get each other's backs, heh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

re:

Like I said, apologist. I don't particularly think Mallory deserved to be murdered. I believe my point was that perhaps Wuornos was telling the truth about his trying to rape her. Didn't that come across? Sheesh. You think this person was related? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you a moderator/admin?

How many citations are enough exactly? Plus, you can go the Zodiac's page and see what I quoted (I put a link to the page) Why are there so many self-elected wiki rules lawyers who enjoying enforcing every little tidbit, do you expect every sentence to have a cite after it? Are there any rules as to how many cites there have to be be a valid article or are you just enforcing your personal belief? The snare (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bundy

I didn't mean to cross paths on the article. I thought you were done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is on the Zodiac Killer page

If you read you'll see the letter he sent regarding what I told you. The snare (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Stephani

thank you, where did you move it to again? i didn't see it. i also did a web-search again and found info about him too. i must have spelled it wrong or didn't type "weepy-voiced" right. i think i was typing "weeping-voiced". that or i was spelling his name as "Stefani". at any rate, i just felt he should be added to some of the lists. i appreciate the info... Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)funwisconsinguy2007Funwisconsinguy2007 (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Side project

Hi. I came across some categories this evening that include people executed, sorted by location and other criteria. What I realized was that a lot of the people listed aren't listed as in either the Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography or Serial Killer Task Force. I was wondering if, when you're just killing a little time or have a few minutes before the end of the day, if you could help look through these categories and confirm that they have the proper project boxes on the talk pages? If they don't, then add:

  • {{WP Criminal |class= |importance= |listas= }} and/or {{serial killer |class= |importance= |listas= }}

If there are already assessments on the talk page by other projects, just used the class that they use. On the listas, use the example of listas=Bundy, Ted. If you aren't interested in this, that's okay. Good places to work from might be here, here or here. Sometimes there are other categories on the individual article pages that can lead you somewhere else. Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll take a look at the de Berk article over the weekend. It doesn't look to have been touched much in the last few months, so perhaps the real stink has blown over? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

CE request

Greetings. I am trying to find somebody for several weeks who would copy-edit the article Meshuggah. I am one step before going to WP:FAC, but I really need the prose to be checked, most especially the "musical style" section and everything below, before I nominate it. Could you, PLEASE, dot that for me? I would be very thankful! Have a nice day :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement! Deadline- well, in less than two weeks (I think 22. October or something like that) I am leaving to India for almost two weeks. To try to nominate it until I go is not a good idea, because I would leave in middle of the nomination process. So what I definitely want to do is to prepare (and copy-edit) the article until I leave.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thank you a lot! If you'll have some questions about the text, contact me! Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

de Berk and other stuff

I looked at the de Berk article and honestly, I'm not sure where to go with it. A LOT of sources I saw on it aren't in English and while Babelfish is useful to me for Spanish and French, since I have some basic skills in those languages, it is crap for Slavic and Germanic languages. I've put it on my "work on" list and will try to look deeper into sources. As an aside, don't hesitate to remove things from articles when they raise such questions. Be bold, revert, and if someone objects, discuss.

Meanwhile, you may have noticed, I've cut somewhat deeply into the trivia/pop culture lists on some of the Crime articles. Don't hesitate to do so, these articles really don't need a laundry list of times that someone has managed to work in the name of some killer. Death metal is bad about doing this and those mentions have no relevance to the actual events related to a killer. They lend a sensationalistic perspective to the article, with a minimalistic slant to the crimes the person has committed, which is something that should be avoided. And thanks for backing that up on the articles I've seen where you've removed the new additions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrationality?? On WIKIPEDIA???? Oh, say it ain't so!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

answer on de Berk

Answer to your complaints: Your four examples listed on the talk page for the Lucia case have all been documented in Ton Derksen's book on this case, and confirmed by three legal authorities: an independent official review committee of the Public Ministry, the Advocate-General of the Supreme Court who as a consequence of the report of the review committee, investigated the case again in depth, and finally the Supreme Court of the Netherlands itself, which has accepted the case of the Advocate General and concluded that the conviction cannot be upheld. The case has been referred back to a normal court which has the authority to revoke the conviction (the Supreme Court does not have this power). Lucia de Berk was released from prison more than half a year ago.

The advocate-general of the supreme court has had the medical evidence re-examined by a multidisciplinary team of top-experts who came to the conclusion that there was no proof of a murder. The two toxicologists whose evidence was initially a key part of the prosecution case have agreed with this conclusion, pointing out that they were not in possession of highly relevant medical information when they gave evidence to the court.

Your first, second and third examples are hard facts. [The second was confirmed by the supreme court some years ago who altered her sentence in order to take account of this]. Your fourth example could be thought to be a matter of opinion, but it is the opinion of the independent review board, and their opinion is well documented in their detailed report.

I agree that these facts are not supported on the wikipedia page by citations to published material. It should not be difficult to fix that.

Gill110951 (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section in question

Hi. Apparently I've rubbed someone the wrong way when I removed a newly started trivia section in this article. Or maybe it was that I was super annoyed that someone started it, and worded my hidden note too strongly. In any event, he's raised the issue on the talk page, and I've responded. Would you please look at the discussion at Talk:Susan Atkins#Pop culture reference and (hopefully) support my opinion? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucia de Berk

I looked over what is going on with this, and left some questions for the Soapie, who seems to be a prof in the Netherlands who has been greatly involved in spearheading the case to get her "un-convicted". If that is the case, then there are COI issues. I've asked for clarification of her status. Nothing I've read says her conviction was overturned or vacated, just that the case was reopened. I don't know the difference between the justice system here and there, but on the surface, it doesn't sound like she's been proven innocent, only that the case has questions. We'll see. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Amazingly I'm on wikipedia itself: Richard D. Gill (mathematician)." Um, look who created the article. Ya know, I'm not all that bright, I didn't look at his user page, I clicked on the first link in the external links section and realized it from that. He needs to declare his COI! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Who created which article? I did not create an article about myself. I helped others to start up the Lucia page which mainly consists of translation of a Dutch language page, which was mostly authored by others too. By the way, perhaps you can tell me here what is a Soapie. I am deliberately not very anonymous on wikipedia. There is no COI. If there is anyone out there who disagrees with the facts written here, they can correct them. Gill110951 (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC

Thank you for Meshuggah

Greetings Momoricks! Thank you very much for your great copy-edit! I understand that you are not comfortable to work with this kind of topic. Though, you helped me a lot, because a big part of the article is ready for a FA now. So, thank you! And thanks for your suggestions on the talkpage too (I'll try to fix them). I have 1 more question to you: I fixed the lead section as you told me. I also reworded some thing in the lead - could you, please, have a look on the lead section and check the prose of it? I also added a hidden note to the end of the lead for you. It contains a citation from a source of the last statement, which could help with rewording of the that statement. That's it. Have a nice day!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the check! I also started to use the Webcite tool. That is a great thing! I didn't know that something like that does exist! I just wanted to ask you: May I use the archived URL instead of the original; how do I use it if the orignal is later deleted? How do I cite this archive/ archive in addition to the original URL (some Template..?). And my uestion number 2: Do you know somebody (form the Guild of Copy Editors) who would be able to helm me with paraphrasing of the quotations into prose? Or- if I'd do it myself, would you help to check the prose a bit afterwards?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'll tell you later. Cheers..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Backpack Murders

I'm so sorry I didn't see your message sandwiched in between controversies from yesterday. I've replied on the talk page. Apparently, people in Sweden consider Mae West the iconic national symbol of the United States and it is at least sacrilege, and possibly illegal, to remove the flag icon from her infobox. What followed was something straight of The Twilight Zone. Hopefully, it is all done now, but somehow I suspect it will once again raise its ugly head. How stressful that was! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How about I email you my response? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism report

No problem, glad you reported it. The user has several months history of vandalism, so I felt a block was appropriate. I've got the page watchlisted to see if there's any response to the block and vandalism notices I restored. Dreadstar † 04:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I wondered if you would mind going over to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 November 16, down to the 5 images from Charles Whitman. We'd like to see the top four images remain, the Chronicle front page is a copyright issue, but the rest are basically "some guy doesn't like them" issues. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wail al-Shehri

I have been working on the Wail al-Shehri, hoping not to repeat issues that came up with the Khalid al-Mihdhar article. I'm now at a point where I need someone to look over the article and help with copyediting before sending it to WP:FAC. The article is not all that long. I would appreciate assistance with this, if you are interested, though no obligation. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

re:

Geez, I hope we haven't chased you into the shadows. Your work has really been so helpful!! Don't go away!! But if you want to work on minor things, the side project I mentioned is pretty low profile. I know the whole de Berk thing is stressful. Keep in touch!! Thanks on the Bundy comment, it really was straight from a thesis!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh (scuffing toe in dirt), I haven't had an adoption since 1985 and that didn't take. I'm honored. Hang in there, I've been around a long long time, (reference that I'm "not young, and ... he has a considerable amount of life experience (and) privilege") been around a long long time, things always get better. I promise. Keep in touch. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
As my favorite late night talk show host is fond of saying "I KNOWWW!!" (Craig Ferguson). This guy really couldn't understand how he was wrong and persisted in thinking this was about Dahmer. I mean really, Dahmer was gay, but that was never my issue. He just didn't grasp that it was a holistic problem. Sheesh. It turned out a lot different than I expected, who knew??!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Thanks for copyediting this article, and I'll see what I can do about your suggestions etc. I have removed the sentence "However in recent years" replaced it with "However, the film has also been considered a classic among critics.....". Would you say that was better? Thanks, --EclipseSSD (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed Gein

What's this? You don't like the overused and overtaxed word "also"?? One of the words I think should be stricken from the language! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching Werdna. He's gone bye-bye. It is telling that the only reason he says he won't do it again and admitted that he was wrong is to get the block lifted. I'm sure somehow, it will always be my fault. It was all about Dahmer, you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
And yet, none of it was as bad as it was on Talk:Mae West, User talk:EmilEikS, User talk:Fiandonca, Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz or Wild Side Story. Where is good faith? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Try a C class and low priority. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought about Wikiquette or AN/I but apparently I hate him already. It doesn't have to happen immediately. There's also that incipient COI that can be verified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, steaming pile of poo is one description. Another might be a seminal horror/slasher film that opened the door to a plethora of even worse slasher films. It was fairly scary, but unfortunately, deteriorated into contrived storylines in sequels. I'd liken it in impact to Psycho, Night of the Living Dead and perhaps the original Halloween. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, watch that, we Film Project members prefer longer descriptive phrases in analyzing a film's merits and weaknesses. (Hah!) I am reminded of my first (and only) viewing of TCM III. It was so horrifyingly bad that I was literally frozen and unable to move long enough to click the remote. Oh, man, it stunk!! The truth is, people either like horror/slash or they don't. It's not like discussing, say, Johnny Depp films vs. Brad Pitt films. (I like them all.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that I want to add to your stress, but I thought I'd note that the above discussion from only your talk page side was cross-posted here, here, here, and here. Note that I responded on each of the user talk pages, and removed the posting from the latter as inappropriate to an article talk page. The assessment ratings were then posted to the BLP/noticeboard. Sheesh. If you want to take it to Wikiquette or AN/I, go ahead. There is absolutely no point in all of this drama, it is stressful and it is unnecessary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've started work on my posting already. It will take me a little while - I'm a slow writer for reasons I noted to you elsewhere but I'm a-workin' on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I've left my response at AN/I :) Pinkadelica Say it... 06:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I forget anything or is it overkill? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, we'll take it to RfC (request for comments - user) so your input can translate over there. I have to read up a little bit on the procedure. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've opened a WP:RFCC on Emil at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EmilEikS. Hopefully you can endorse, suggest, complain or something on this!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I did sign it somewhere, but apparently not where I thought I did! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to read up on this, maybe one of you could answer something for me that I am not able to understand or am missing. This editor keeps saying I (we) when s/he comments, what the heck does this mean? Does this editor have a mouse in their pocket, is this a sockpuppet case, what's the story? I am having trouble reading the editors comments because I end up focusing on this. Maybe I'm asking a stupid question but this seems like socking the way it's written. Also, is this really about the deletion of a flag and downgrading the article to a 'C'? Again, I'm sorry but this all seems so silly so far with what I have read about this. Please don't think I am saying you both are silly or for that matter anyone is, just that the whole of the conversations are. I am just trying to understand and maybe my meds are getting in the way of full thought, plus I didn't sleep very well the past few nights so I am trying hard, maybe too hard to understand. If you would explain a bit here for me so that I can again look at the refs maybe I will have a better understanding. Thanks in advance and I hope I am not being a pain here, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mo, I responsed to you at the RFC. I have to reread everything to get what's going on in my head more clearly again. The editor said he had retired his account so I stopped looking at things. I noticed after your response to me that he has unretired the account again. I am really curious though if there might be other problems going on here with the comments [2] here. I looked at the photos he downloaded which is linked on the previous link I just supplied. From my limited understanding of copywrite protections what he says on his user page doesn't look right to me, hokey is the term that comes to mind. I don't know if I am reading this part correctly but here it is and maybe you can explain it to me that I am missing something. "Deputy Chairman Emil Eikner for the Board of Directors, Hallowe'en 2008." (bolding is mine). Is this supposed to be a joke or what does it mean, the movie? It just looks like problems there could be or not be copywrite problems or am I looking too hard at this?--CrohnieGalTalk 13:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Noooooo, I don't refuse to use them, and I do convert refs to them. I do a lot of checklink work, and then convert them with reflinks when I'm going through. On the Winehouse page, I just fix the ones the regular editors have slapped in there to at least conform to the format that the other ref format suggests. In that particular article, it developed with the old-style refs, and I've not attempted to change it over, and I suspect trying to do so would only prove frustrating, because the one or two editors who add to that article use their own odd style and what I usually do on the article is just battle too much POV or undue weight or irrelevant crap, for lack of a better word!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think of the Winehouse article as my cross to bear. I went there once and ended up trying to clean it up and now I just watchdog it! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, how are you, about India

You removed Surender Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher from "India" in "List of serial killers by country". Pandher was acquitted but Koli convicted. Can you add him? --201.254.94.52 (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

I really appreciate your recent help on sprucing up some of the articles I have contributed and I am sincerely sorry if you feel any of my previous messages have been tough on you. Please disregard them if you can! I have had a hard time landing on my feet all over at English Wikipedia, and I don't react very well when I feel I detect unfriendliness and/or condescension. But what I had planned to do (a few articles and a lot of images) will soon be done, and done well thanx to the help of constructive people like you and a few others. EmilEikS (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madame: Who is going to help us put a stop to the ever growing contentiousness eminating, as I see it, from User:Wildhartlivie? Will it ever stop? See new section "Just a note" from her here [3]. This goes on day after day after day and only gets worse and worse with more and more people involved. Now there is yet another editor involved in what I feel is Wikihounding initiatied and maitained by Wildhartlivie as a primary instigator. Can you help get a lasting truce set up? I am willing to do just about anything with two exceptions (1) having my talk page filled with page after page of nasty arguments and recriminations (2) participating in such arguments elsewhere. Constructive advice, please! EmilEikS (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, yes, Momo. What are we going to do about big bad me? If I clue in a new user who is having somewhat similar problems with a user, who has been confirmed as a sock puppet and only not blocked because the administrator wants to allow that user access to participate in a request for comments on a user's behavior, so that old tired ground isn't yet again tread upon, a full two weeks after having been viciously attacked by that user and his sock, am I being contentious, or am I trying to avert others from the same treatment I got for simply removing a flag icon? And if the dispute started between that user and the new person before I called it to attention, am I still at fault for the dispute the user has now? Golly, gee, I guess I am. It says so above. And what happens when the user formulates his own policies, that are counter to Wikipedia policy, only to allow him to continue as he will and then cite "his policy" as a way of backing out of discussing issues on articles? Now how productive is that? It isn't, you say? Indeed not. I'm the devil, it seems, and I must be destroyed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Serial killers

Hi, thanks for the message. I'll take another look at the article and see what I can do to it:) Malick78 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hey, thanks for the tip. I get very nervous when I redirect or rename pages so any additional help is always welcome. Pinkadelica Say it... 03:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheap Thrills

I see you keep up on WikiDrama from my talk page, so where's my "Job Well Done" on the Bathsheba Spooner page I basically worked up from nothing? Huh?!!! Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gosh and thanks for the less than cheap thrill!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Marky Mark

I've opened a request for comment on an issue about apologies at Talk:Mark Wahlberg#Request for Comment. Would you mind looking at the issue and leaving your comment? Thank you!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Greets

Hallo. I am the guy you greatly helped with Meshuggah. I am back from my 10-days journey and I am doing the last thing before FAC. You said you would help me with some copy editing/prose check. So I am asking you if you could check out first 3 paragraphs of this short section please: Meshuggah#Lyrics, songwriting and recording. Cheers--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that! The rewording is good. I removed the redundant word.
Of course you can use my userpage! Here is the main table :)
Are you finished with Meshuggah, or do you think there is something to do?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help and for asking Tanankyo. He did a great job as well! Now I finally feel it is ready for the nomination :)
To change the coulours: Choose a color from a table like for example this one. Every colour has its code and you just replace the code/colour you want. #000000 stands for black and if you want it red for instance, put #CC0000 instead of #000000.
If you want to have these tables in one main table as i do, create this page: User:Momoricks/Userpage and move those collapsible tables to that page. and then copy the following to your userpage (User:Momoricks):

{| class="navbox" style="background: #000000;font-size:100%;"
| {{User:Momoricks/Userpage}}
|}

Cheers--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I hope so as well! I appreciate your great kindness, thanks for your excellent work; and have a good luck!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Serial killers aren't just for breakfast anymore

I responded on Talk:Serial killer with my impressions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC) <--(Guess I should look at my postings before I hit submit)

No problem. Just leave your 5 cents in the jar on my desk. Actually, this is my area of expertise. I worked with MR/DD/MI people exclusively for 9 years. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a couple things wrong with it. One is that besides controversial, serial killers are f'ed up beyond normal, and the other is that it's quite easy to attribute all sorts of bad things with someone who is DD, because they, too, are different. Those two studies mentioned make the hugely gross error of trying to make straw into gold, apples into oranges, choose your analogy. DD people have enough to contend with besides being named a prime category to place budding Ted Bundys. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I know the phrase "serial killers are f'ed up beyond normal" is quite eloquent. Hehe. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wondering if you could help

Hello Momoricks. A few editors and I at the Melbourne Airport article are desperately trying to improve this article for a second FAC. In the first FAC, the article was deemed not to meet criterion 1a, the one regarding quality of prose. Many editors have run through the article, and it'd be a great help to have a fresh set of eyes copyediting the article. Any help would be appreciated. \ / (⁂) 07:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG

Please go here and shout out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I just told Pinkadelica that if I weren't so angry at it, I'd be stunned. As it is, I'm just angry that even now, we have to deal with the kind of bigotry a lot of the rest of the world has found the US to at fault with. Or whatever the proper English grammar is for that sentence. Sheesh. I've been busy staying out of the line of fire and uploading my Hollywood cemetery photos to Commons so some of them can be used in some articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Kathryn Grayson

Since I'm working down a "needs infobox" list and I've come to this name, I opened a discussion at Talk:Kathryn Grayson#Infobox, to which I'm guessing you're supportive and will say so? Heh. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agendas

This is the problem. I have no opinion on the ongoing discussion about CFS, but that would be one of those times when I don't have faith in the WP community, and what Guy is saying in his last post underlines this. It reminds me of my user page points about truth. If activists are advocating a stance that is contrary to leading authorities, and the stance is supported by enough editors to establish a consensus, does it make the content "true"? Well, probably not. Is it verifiable? That's what scares me. If you look long and hard enough, you can probably find supporting evidence that the moon is made of green cheese. However, I'm not buying anything that Guido says, simply based on the statements in his Wikipedia indictment. If this is true, his goal was never to contribute honestly, but to set up situations to test whether or not his thoughts on a subject could be accepted. That his talk page refers him to a new site called Wikisage, which he developed, supports that. By heading into the fray with preconceived thoughts on how the project works, he tainted his "research" by defining what he would find by creating situations to make that true. This is bad research. A researcher should observe, not participate in this way. My thought? He needs to go to Wikisage and not predetermine his research outcome. Bad science!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm hoping that intelligent people would see something screwy and question it fairly quickly. The moon made of green cheese reference comes to mind. Harmonious editing is a wonderful idea, although I fear people would think me a hypocrite given my recent WP history!!!! Meanwhile, there's a difference between a mob and a good cabal. :) I think that the group of users who tend to agree that I work with are a fair-minded, sensible group and if it is a cabal, then it is a good one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And if you want to get into a real can of worms, look at the discussion at Talk:Richardson family murders#Daughter's name. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Careful with those Blossom references, they'll date you! I was a lot ambivalent about the name inclusion, mostly because her name is out there, but the BLP thing is what swayed me. I mean, come on, in 5 years, she'll be free and either be dead, a junkie, or someone who makes a living speaking about the horrors of the internet and goth girls. What a mess! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


Totally looks like...

You're welcome. And no, I'd never seen that site, but I love it. Some are very clever, some are a little cruel, many are hilarious... My favourite is "Donatella Versace totally looks like Janice the Muppet". [4] And she totally does! ("Clark Kent totally looks like Superman" made me laugh too. The resemblance is unbelievable.) Thanks! Rossrs (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I used to add templates, and it's a good idea - I should start doing it again. Were you rude and obnoxious in August? I'd be surprised it that was the case. Wreaking havoc is always fine.  ;-) Rossrs (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It was kind of different when I started. This is my first edit - how's that for being bold? An entire new article. I remember being very nervous about whether I was allowed to do it or not, and it took me ages to hit the save button. I think I hit "show preview" about 400 times. The learning curve is insane, and to tell you the truth, most of the policies have been developed since I started here, but without my knowledge or input. There are so many things buried in archive pages, that I can't even begin to fathom where they are. When I started, it was fairly unstructured. After I'd been here a little while, categories were introduced, and I started adding them like a maniac and ended up with someone message me to "stop right now!!" I can't remember what I was doing but it was totally wrong and I was messing up someone else's work. Later, I nominated something for Featured Article, before I knew what I was doing. It was bad, and one reviewer said it was one of the worst articles he'd ever read and was scathing. He offered nothing helpful or constructive, so I didn't even know why it was bad. That editor had a tendency to be superior and rude, but I didn't know it then, and took it to heart. He was right about the article but completely wrong in the way he dealt with me. Rossrs (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I just want to bring this discussion at the board to your attention since you too got hit with a notice that you smartly deleted but hopefully you didn't click since this is the second discussion going on about that website. First discussion & Now. Apparently this is causing trouble all over the project. Anyways since you were one of the targets to be given the website I thought you might be interested. Have a good day, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Off with their heads

Sure. You might consider making a subpage from your userpage to keep a listing of what you think are unnotable, sort of like Rossrs has with his User:Rossrs/Sandbox2. I've done work on some of the ones you've gone through, I'm working down the list at Category:20th century executions by the United States. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

A most IP day

I saw the IP additions. They both trace to Sweden, but not the same specific provider. It could be him, it could be someone who knows him. The contentiousness is gone, however. There's no rule against editing from various IPs, per se. Hopefully, it will just ride out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am quite impressed that you've challenged the vague references!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I actually interpret it as being an attitude of "I'm smarter than you, see how I am misleading you?" If by the boldest of the bold, you mean me, I'm not so sure about that. I just told WP:Films to piss off. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Nah, it can continue. The project has a group of "coordinators", who tend to dominate the project, its style and formatting. At any point that something has been discussed on which I have an opinion that differs from the core 3 or 4 "coordinators", then my opinion gets quickly dismissed. The currect topic was awards tables for films, and I suggested a format which the "lead coordinator" dismissed with little comment. It pissed me off and I told them so. My thought is that if they are going to implement style and formatting as they wish, then they probably shouldn't open up discussion inviting other opinions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I KNOOoooowww! Did you SEE how he totally blew me off? What's up with that? They have coordinator voting every 6 months, and I guarantee that next round, Guillermo Vilas, or whatever his name is, won't get my endorsement. It's not the first time it's happened, but I guarantee you, it's the last. I'm not aggressive, but I am assertive! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

But... which caption? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, can you say "I'm promoting stuff regardless of its notability or relative degree of interest.... to anyone"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

More IP stuff: User talk:Kingturtle#Mae West Grave. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not so sure a sock case need be opened. Note [5] and the admission that the IP is the same. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem, we may have both been working on the posts at the same time. That is Emil, I have no doubt, and if it isn't, editing from the same computer, advocating the same agenda, and admitting so is meat puppetry, which is considered essentially the same as a sock puppet, when the itinerary is the same. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

IP troubles

I doubt it. Reporting the IP is the only way to go about it. If you've already reported him, I would link to the initial incidents a couple days ago so that the Admins know this is an on-going thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

They're taken care of for at least a week now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. When it isn't clear vandalism, but more of an editor that just wants something their way then don't label it as "vandalism" in the notice board (as you did), because a lot of Admins will automatically close it with no action because it wasn't true vandalism. Just word it so that it is clear that the IP has had the situation explain (make sure that they have), they refuse to acknowledge your comments (make sure they have), and they continue to revert back their changes. :D Also, if it's a content dispute (this wasn't, because he wasn't adding content, but just flooding the infobox), then Admins will close it and tell you to take it to the 3RR noticeboard. Anyway, at least we are free for a week.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Filmography

Hi. After the changes we've all been using on filmography tables for a long time, someone who has never risen to say anything about WP:ACTOR or actor articles, changed back our filmography template, saying it hadn't been discussed. I opened a discussion here, to officially get consensus. Would you? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. You all right? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Serial Killer

I'm not sure you know what you are doing -72.93.80.238 (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas

You were right, it shouldn't have been there. Regardless of whether it was accurate, it was far to much minute detail for an uncomplicated, short horror film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Look

Look what I did. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!
Wildhartlivie wishes you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Thanks for being my Wiki-buddy! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Care to take a look?

Howdy! Well, I think I've finished Old Montana Prison, and I would certainly appreciate a (mostly) unbiased glance or two. I just moved it into the greater wikipedia world, so any and all comments you have would be groovy. Thanks! tanankyo (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Momoricks/Archive1&oldid=1063722042"