Jump to content

User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Re: Derex

Thanks for the reply at incidents. I've responded to you there. I'll try to dig up the since-Derex-deleted quote I mentioned in my response.--Jayzel 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for taking care of the fake suckpuppetry against Alonso/Dúnadan and me. BTW, "complete exoneration" in Spanish is "exoneración completa". Cheers. --Diegou 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That was this one, I believe. De nada - vaya con dios. :-). -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adminship?

AnonEMouse, I'm honored that you would think of it, but right now I have to decline--too much going on in RL to devote the time/energy to an RfA. Honestly, I'm not sure I would pass right now--I'd like to have more substantial mainspace edits, for one thing. Also, if you go back a little farther in my edit history, I've been involved in some contentious situations, and while I don't think my behavior has been awful, I haven't been as level-headed as I should have been. (I'm thinking particularly of stuff in the September and October 2006 archives of Talk:Alexander the Great, if you're curious about the gory details.) Probably best to let some time pass. At some point I probably will pursue an RfA, though--if nothing else, I'd like to be able to help out more effectively at WP:SSP. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's redundant to say so, but thanks for the thanks on WP:AN. I see that your message there enlisted some additional help at SSP, which is great. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet

Several issues:

  • I did not create User:YouNeedASmackBot. This user came into a discussion in December and attacked several other editors at the same time as VacuousPoet. I'm not sure why you thought I created him.
  • I am vehemently opposed to your allowing VP back into the good graces of Wikipedia. He was permanently banned, and, frankly, there are so many more polite editors who may not agree with me, why is it necessary to bring this person back. And as the editor who filed the original Sockpuppet charge, and had to deal with the revenge charges against me, why do I not have an opinion in this matter? The various Evolution and Creation articles have less intrusive editing and discussion ever since he and a couple of other users were permanently banned.
  • Finally, why have a permanent ban, if you don't really mean it. I don't get it.
  • Orangemarlin 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote, when I tried to block him, the system told me there was no such user - only admins can click here, but they can feel free to try it: Special:Blockip/YouNeedASmackBot: "There is no user by the name "YouNeedASmackBot". Check your spelling.". Even non admins can see account has no contributions - see Special:Contributions/YouNeedASmackBot. If he really came into a discussion, please provide a link. As to why I thought you "created" him, well: [1]
Please see Talk:Evolution/Archive 27#Distinctions between theory and fact. This is where "YouNeedASmackBot" showed up. Apparently, it wasn't an official name, but I didn't know it at the time. Orangemarlin 18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The edits signed as "YouNeedASmackBot" are by User:199.62.0.252. See [2], for example. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
And that would be another VacuousPoet sockpuppet. There is no way this guy should be allowed back into the community. Orangemarlin 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


VP was blocked for being a sock puppet of User:Kdbuffalo, which I am not convinced he is. They seem to have a different style, edit from different networks, and from the contributions I read, VP does seem to make arguments rather than vandalize. That implies strongly that there may be a constructive user there if we can be civil to him rather than continue to block him on reflexive and questionable grounds. Also, you may notice that the current strategy, of blocking IP addresses as they are used, isn't tremendously effective. VP seems to have no difficulty picking another IP address as the previous ones are blocked. You write "The various Evolution and Creation articles have less intrusive editing and discussion ever since he and a couple of other users were permanently banned." but that's clearly not true, as you can see Special:Contributions/199.62.0.252 edited Talk:Evolution just today. I'll carry on with the futile strategy if there is no other choice, but I really hope there is a better one. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Special:Contributions/199.62.0.252 hasn't edited anything in over a month. Orangemarlin 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You are right, I misread the month, Jan 5, rather than Feb 5. Still after the blocks, but not today. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like one of those legal arguments where some technical point is the reason to find the accused innocent. I have no clue if he is a Sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo or not, because that never was my accusation. I would assume you could check IP addresses, but I'm wondering if that assumption is incorrect. He was blocked for deleting talk pages en masse. He got around that block, blatantly and without remorse, by creating what I called Sockpuppets. He didn't even bother to pretend. I believe that is the reason he deserves a permanent block--he willfully violated Wikipedia rules in fact and in law. You're right, there will continue to be editors who use the Evolution article as a soapbox to push a Christian agenda on the rest of us. However, let's not add an editor who has show that's what he will do. I cannot, under any circumstance, agree to your compromise. I may not have any rights here, but I will file this amicus curiae commentary with you. Orangemarlin 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Special:Log/block?page=User:VacuousPoet, which you should be able to read, he was blocked by User:Pschemp with the comment (sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo, single purpose account, here only to disrupt evolution relateated articles.). Nothing there or in his Special:Contributions/VacuousPoet about deleting talk pages en masse - his contributions are merely reasoned argument, fervent, but not really more so than those he is arguing against. ("You should thank your mythical god", for example?) I, and most admins, can not check IP addresses, that is limited to a small group of accounts with m:CheckUser policy rights. However, the Kdbuffalo account was accused of editing from the SUNY Buffalo campus network, while the VacuousPoet IPs use FrontierNet and NJ networks. Not out of the question, of course, but not contributive evidence. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It was his sockpuppet, User:170.215.45.95. The DNS entry points to Frontier Communications, Rochester, NY, same as all other VP Sockpuppets. The User signs his posts "VacuousPoet", so it's not like he's really hiding things. The Sockpuppets are what were problematic and caused me to file the charge against him. As for my comments...yeah, I was appropriately reprimanded, and I've changed my demeanor. This sockpuppet would be irritating under any condition. Although I am not even going down the path of equating VP with kdbuffalo, but you do realize Rochester and Buffalo are closer than say Los Angeles, CA and Buffalo? Say about 2000 miles closer. Nevetheless, the problem with VacuousPoet was not the main account, it was the 10-20 sockpuppets of his that did everything from avoiding the ban to filing false charges of sockpuppetry against me and N6. I still don't get why you think this guy has been honorable in any way???? Orangemarlin 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "honorable", I don't think I wrote that. I do believe he wasn't a blatant vandal, and did make some effort to be constructive. I looked through Special:Contributions/170.215.45.95, and the talk page removals I could find were (Attempting to remove flames against religions and posters) - a fairly accurate description; and [3], and [4] - which are clearly not nice, worth warning or even blocking, but hardly an indefinite block. He did avoid the block, but it was indefinite, he could hardly have waited it out, and I believe the block reason to have been incorrect. Yes, he did make a false accusation of sock puppetry, but he was not disrupting the encyclopedia for fun. Yes, I know Buffalo and Rochester are in the same state, and New Jersey is a neighboring state; but that merely means they're part of the same several million people, we can't automatically assume all New York State creationists are User:Kdbuffalo. Special:Contributions/Kdbuffalo seem far more wide-ranging than those of the admitted IPs of VacuousPoet. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you used the word "honorable", I used it to mean that he can be trusted. Whether the deletions were warranted (and I'd dispute that), he had no right to delete them. But we really digress. He tried to evade and, in fact, did evade bans. Not once, but several times. And he kind of laughed about it. Why should a permanent ban be turned into a short-term ban based on his total disregard of Wikipedia culture? Orangemarlin 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My experiences with Vacuous Poet were overwhelmingly negative. He seemed to view WP as an arena to engage in baiting and fights. If he is allowed back in, it would have to be with the strictest understanding that any return to his previous disruptive behaviors would have serious negative consequences. I think that even if banned users can find new IPs to come in on, we inconvenience them by making them use different IPs. And they are less active and eventually give up.--Filll 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely with the strictest understanding, yes. From reading the talk page of Evolution it seems that both sides have been diverted into arguing about the truth or falsehood of the theory than about the state of the article. But let's see if he even asks. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to say "I told you so," but you should read the following. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) Orangemarlin 18:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Work at WP:SSP

I'm going to start working to help clear the backlog here, but I'm pretty new to it. Figuring that you're much more familiar with it, if you happen to see that I've some something really stupid, please let me know! Thanks for all your work there, too. -- Natalya 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Take a look a bit higher on this talk page for when FT2 asked for advice, most of what I wrote there should still be good. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at your recent work, and it seems fine. Thank you again! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That's really comprehensive advice, thank you! It reaffirmed things I had learned, and you also had some good tricks in there (especially looking at the contributions of the accuser; hadn't thought of that before, but it's a good idea!). Glad to hear that what I've done looks okay; thanks for taking a look at it. Once I got into it, it seemed natural what to explore and dig into - kind of fun! Also, nice work combing through and closing Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01 - wow! Thanks again, -- Natalya 16:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my RfA and for the advice after it was over. I've been keeping busy (hence this late reply) but I think I'm doing okay so far. Wikipedia is certainly very different for me now than it was 2 days ago. Kafziel Talk 17:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jenna's a FAC!

Saw you put it up for feature article... it's way early, but the feedback so far is promising. Meanwhile, I picked up Ron Jeremy's autobio over the weekend and have already read through it already - I'm a fast reader, it's well-illustrated and about half the size of Jenna's, that's why. I'll be adding some elements from the book to Ron's article later tonite - among them: life growing up, his arrests and charges and the exact story behind his Hedgehog nickname. I'll also be adding some bits to the article on pornographic actors - specifically his comments about penis size. Tabercil 16:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember, I remember. I will help, even more when when the Jenna FAC is over. I'm just slow - I'm not exaggerating that the Jenna Jameson work took me 6 months. But I will help. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! I expected that to be a lot more painful for a longer time than it was, given some of the commentary. That's excellent! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations as well. Only five days—that was quick, I expected it to take much longer. Over here, it would have taken 20 days (standard time for FAC). --Rosenzweig 19:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin abuse, ANI, and Giano

OK, I give up. What are the connections you see between any of the themes 1) admin abuse, 2) discussions on ANI, and 3) RFAR/Giano? Bishonen | talk 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Putting the project online

Hi, AnonEMouse. Good luck on the Featured Article! I just wanted to let you know I've just put that long-in-progress project online in an altered version as Chronology of adult videos in Japan. I know you're busy, but take a look and let me know what you think, and offer any advice whenever you get the chance. (I'm especially not sure I've given it the best title...) Regards. Dekkappai 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a stunning piece of work. Very well done. Some nitpicks:
  • As long as you have the decades as one section and the years as another, make the years subsections of the decades (more ='s signs!).
  • In line citation style - Wikipedia:Footnotes: the <ref> should be directly after a punctuation mark, without a space, and not have a period following the </ref>.
  • Ref [20] is in parentheses for some reason.
  • Per WP:DATE, wiki-link the citation dates so user preferences can work. If you plan to make this a Wikipedia:Good article (not unlikely), add Retrieved-dates to citations. You may want to use the {{cite web}} {{cite book}} or {{cite news}} templates as appropriate, at least to see what fields are recommended.
  • I'd link the first mention of an actress's name in the paragraph, not wait for the list. In fact, I wouldn't even provide a separate list except for "other actresses" that aren't mentioned in the paragraph, and/or didn't have their own article. The repetition is redundant, and it's a long article already.
  • Leave out the empty debut lists and sections until they have something to put in them.
  • What was "weekly show Tokyo Rock TV"? A TV show on a public network? On what subject? A talk show, a news magazine?
  • "was an innovative" - innovator?
  • Several sentences need rewriting to be more text like, and less listy. "Kuroki Kaori (Debut: 1986) followed him" -> "Kuroki Kaori, who debuted in 1986, followed him..". Others include "1988 debut, Murakami Keiko would star in the Apartment Wife film," the next one after that, there are probably more.
  • Some sections seem to allow for expansion, for example 2001 and 2002 seem to have lots of actresses but relatively little text, 1998 has no text.
  • "Principal sources", not principle

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking time out to look at this, AnonEMouse, and thanks for the compliment. You've given me lots of good suggestions to work on, some of which will take a little while to put in place. Some I might quibble with-- As you know, the article started as a list, and I do see that some listy aspects remain. I'll work on taking them out of the text. Still, I do like the yearly debut lists after the yearly summaries, since it highlights the name outside of a paragraph of text. But if others raise objections, those can go. The textless years, naturally, are the ones I haven't been able to find text on yet. This will eventually be remedied. Anyway, thanks for the support! Dekkappai 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues?

Hi. Which admins are currently doing a lot of work on WP:BLP issues? In your experience, is the noticeboard effective, or is there a better way of involving other people? Jkelly 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not me that much - unless it involves a porn star, then I'll take it. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard seems to be hit or miss, but you should certainly start there. If it's urgent, or getting into a firefight, you want to post on WP:AN/I, that tends to get fairly fast responses. If you want specific admins, I've noticed User:SlimVirgin quite interested in BLP issues; she tends to be on the side of concealing embarassing information where possible, and she's very experienced. I met User:Bastique in BLP circumstances a while ago, he's not as experienced as SV (few are), but seems to be active in answering foundation mail and similar issues. AnnH (User:Musical Linguist) showed up on T:BLP recently. That should be several. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stub

Completed the stub, Battle of Clitheroe, per your request. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - but don't forget WP:DATE the deathdate in the opening, and the various kings and Kings... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"and it had nothing to do with how mice feel about cats."

Hehe... that was a funny adendum. That for adding some humor to the otherwise not-quite-as-humerous WP:SSP! -- Natalya 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use on image

Can you take a look at the fair use argument on a picture? I'm trying to keep a headshot of some of the dead Playmates around, and they're being challenged. The key one right now would be Image:June Cochran.jpg. While there are others, if I can keep the June Cochran one around, then I should be able to use the same argument to keep the others (Image:196504 Sue Williams 00.jpg‎, Image:Elisa Bridges.jpg‎, Image:Carol Willis.jpg, Image:Dorothy Stratten.jpg and Image:ClaudiaJennings.JPG‎). Tabercil 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. In a way, you've got an easier task with June Cochran since that image clearly shows her resemblance to Little Annie Fanny, so irreplaceably illustrates an important part of her article. That makes the image itself "critical commentary" per WP:FAIR#Images. In fact, I would add a picture of Little Annie Fanny for comparison. :-) But you probably want to cite the statement that she was the model. Similarly if you can cite someone saying that was Sue Williams' most famous pose, and say as much in the article, that should be fair use.
For the others, it might be tougher. WP:FAIR#Counterexamples says "# An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that magazine issue itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then fair use may apply." I would think that means that Playboy covers featuring them would be fair use with a bit of discussion. It doesn't take a lot of discussion, most Wikipedia:Featured articles about actors have a 3-sentence paragraph about a movie accopmanying a still or poster from that movie. Similarly, if you can be sure an image is from the Playmate photo session, that would probably be fair use, given as that is what the person is mainly famous for.
Want me to copy this somewhere? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you would please. Tabercil 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wallenberg

Can you take a peek at the article now and make new suggestions. The Holocaust text has grown by about 50%. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a new peek. Now lower in fat and more meat.

Re : Wikipedia:Adminship survey

Oh, my apologies for the choice of naming. :P When the poll was written up it was expected to become very large (in particular we are seeking discussion/explanations) with high possibility of edit conflicts, Radiant! and I agreed that it was a good idea to subpage each of them. Anyway, thanks for your interest in the survey! :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

David FAC

I've significantly reduced the size of the article, esp. the Davidian Revolution section, as well as the opening section. Your feedback would be appreciated. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fairy tale FAC

Could you kindly stick to the issue at hand in the FAC? Which is to discuss the article, not me? Goldfritha 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Heavens, I didn't think you would object to being called a good editor! But OK, will strike. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification AN/I Discussion

Thank you for participating in this discussion. I feel that this discussion has helped me clarify and improve my practice in providing these notices. I have summarized these improvements on my talk page. Please feel free to comment. Thanks again. Edivorce 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Edivorce 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies (Jenna Jameson)

Just wanted to apologize for not having gotten around to going back to take a second look at Jenna Jameson. I was just about to do so and then saw that it had already been promoted... I'm glad at least that my lateness didn't torpedo its chances. Congrats on the FA; I know just how hard it is, and how fulfilling it is when you finally succeed. MLilburne 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I respect your opinion, if you can point to any awkward bits that might be improved, I will try to do so. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If you could make changes responsive to the comments I made just before the FAC was closed (at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jenna_Jameson), I'd appreciate it. I'm not saying make it less comprehensive, but I think there are plenty of unnecessary details that could be cut. IMO WT's complaint that It is very poorly written, presenting quotes as if they are fact rather than summarising in the voice of the encyclopaedia. Her words express her own point of view, of course, and the author of this article adopts that point of view without question. refers to the nearly exclusive use of interviews and her autobiography as sources rather than actual secondary sources. What the article basically says is "Jenna Jameson has said ...". She's had a lot to say in lots of interviews, reported in lots of places, so it looks like numerous sources, but they all basically amount to her words. If someone else had written a biography about her or even a book about porn stars that could be referenced, this would be an actual secondary source (not "her words"). I hope you don't take this as overly critical. I'm concerned about WT's state of mind. I'm concerned about yours as well (all editors are important to me). It's been long enough now that it's pretty clear Raul654 is not going to change his mind and "defeature" it pending further improvements. I'm fine with this (really), but I do hope you make an effort to respond to my suggestions. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, Wt's complaint is basically wrong. I could only find one example of a quote that could be read as if it were presented as fact; I changed it, and asked him for others - he never provided any, and it has been a week. (Feel free to find some yourself, by the way.) If you read my opening to the FAC, you will notice that most of the article was written from articles, not using her autobiography at all, specifically to forestall such an objection. (See Talk:Jenna_Jameson/Archive_2#Jenna.27s_autobiography for the long discussion where I was finally convinced to use it in a few places.) Just from a sheer count of citations from the references, you will see the main sources are the New York Times article, the Forbes article, and the E! biography, which are all as much secondary sources as any biography. Read them, they're not interviews, they don't state "Jenna Jameson has said ..." or I would have written that. They have satisfied themselves that the things they write are facts to their standards, which are pretty high; they would stand up to those of a hardcover biography any day. Did they use her words? Probably. Did they rely on her words? Don't know. We'd face the same problem with a book length biography - except that Kitty Kelley doesn't have the cachet of Forbes or the Times. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As for your more specific objections:
  • Lead paragraph, second sentence - has been changed (though not by me), see if it's better.
  • "Parentheticals are nearly always just sloppy prose." This seems a general observation, rather than a specific criticism. If you have a specific suggestion, I'd be glad to hear it.
    The specific suggestion is to look at every use of a parenthetical phrase and to try to rewrite it without using parentheticals. Using parentheticals amounts to using a footnote - it interrupts the flow of text and distracts the reader from topic at hand. If the point is not important enough to include inline in the text, consider deleting it. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    I did look at them, but will again.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Early life - unnecessary details include where her mother danced, how much time her father spent working." I'm afraid I disagree. She first tried to follow in her mother's footsteps, and the distance from her father while growing up had a major impact on her life.
  • "Is the beating and rape a documented fact?" To the satisfaction of the cited sources, and no objections have been raised from anyone else. Also be aware of what you are asking documentation for - a victim's testimony is all that most rapes have. "both could be condensed" - again, they had a very strong impact on her life. Even if we believe her quote that it didn't shape her psychology (I can't say I do), it seems hard to believe she could have been an underage stripper if she was still living with her policeman father.
    The cited reference seems to be a PR blurb related to the release of her book. I know this is a delicate issue and I'm not claiming I think it didn't happen. On the other hand, stating this as fact in an encyclopedia article fundamentally based on one autobiographical reference strikes me as inappropriate. I'd be happier if we directly cite the autobiography, and have text like "she says in her autobiography, ...". -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    Not a PR blurb, but an article published in two reputable newspapers, a fine secondary source. Will look at rephrasing anyway.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Even though it has two references, I'd cut the first sentence completely (the references are no doubt two different interviews)" - Disagree strongly, the motivation for someone entering their primary career is quite important. See Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, which mention those stars' motivations similarly based on their own words.
    Again, this is a case of elevating what she's said to fact. The wording in the Forbes reference is ... at 19 she quit stripping to act in adult films--mainly to retaliate against her beau, who had been cheating on her, as she tells it. We've dropped the as she tells it, and now present this as a pure fact. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "lubricated with plenty of saliva" - bizarre perhaps, but that is what makes it the signature. Bette Davis's eyes, Vivien Leigh's lightning changes of moods are all over the place in their articles.
    The askmen.com reference is an interview, and she volunteers oral as her signature move. The Salon article is also an interview and the interviewer calls this her signature move. I'd imagine "signature" move would have tons of more authoritative sources (for example, a quote from a wll known reviewer). These two strike me as PR attempts to establish this as a signature. This is another case where an actual secondary source would be helpful. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    Just curious, whom would you consider "a wll known reviewer" of pornography? Ted Sturgeon hasn't been reviewing porn for decades. Salon and AskMen are better known than any modern reviewers I've heard of. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "butter and focaccia bread" - has been removed
  • "there isn't a count of how many movies she made between 1995 and 2001." There's an estimate and reference for total films, and the fully detailed filmography has been broken out to be a separate article in progress. Why is the span of those years particularly important?
    You mean the estimate in the infobox? The point is that this is a fact that I'd expect to find in this section. I don't really care about the specific years, but this appears to be the period in which she was most active. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "She was the first entertainer to have won" -> "to win" - done.
  • Early Career "condensing to paragraph", Relationships, Business "cut by half" - sorry, I disagree with Wt's contention that the article needs to be radically shortened because the subject matter doesn't meet his standards.
    I believe you're misinterpreting the point, which IMO is that much of the content is in the realm of unnecessary detail. Comprehensive is not the same as exhaustive. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "famous boyfriends" - maybe if someone else agrees, but they are referred to prominently in quite a few articles on her.
  • "scion of a wealthy cattle-ranching family" - disagree, Margaret Thatcher's article describes Denis.
  • Roman Catholic-style ceremony - strongly disagree, that she is trying to be religious and a porn star is important
    Important to whom? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    To her, and to the article. It's a serious effort to try to join those two rather contradicting modes; that she tries to do so is worth a few words. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ring finger tattoo - has been removed
  • where they lived - disagree, that's encyclopedic; also note she became (in)famous where she chose to live, with the Babes Cabaret stuff
  • how much their house cost - maybe, but goes to what she did with her wealth
  • gossip column level details about her current relationship - partly agree, and have been trimming the gossip stuff, but two items are notable - first, how she began ending a long term marriage with someone who is also a very important business partner, and that her current one is actually losing work due to associating with her. Note how much space Vivien Leigh gives to Jack Merivale for much the same reasons.
So in short, I did some, disagreed with others, especially the "cut by half" parts, and there are a couple of bits I could agree to remove if I could be convinced they were motivated more by the effort to genuinely improve the article rather than just shorten it for Wt's less than satisfactory reasons. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

Good evening (GMT time); I've not met you around yet, so hey! Your contributions look great - we do need more editors like you!

Nice name, by the way, and I love the block template :) don't hesitate to drop by my talk page any time!

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 20:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Wallenberg

Can you take a new peek at Raoul Wallenberg. Someone has been helping rewrite for clarity.

Better and better. I've withdrawn the objection, still needs more to get my support. I've written a long list at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raoul Wallenberg, but basically keep adding interesting information from the many available sources. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson

Congrats on the Featured Article status! Dismas|(talk) 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, I'm still walking on air! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cannibal Holocaust

Thanks for the featured status update. Do the admins automatically add the templates and such (like the star in the corner of the article)? Helltopay27 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm not sure. I know Raul modifies the WP:FA page personally, believe a bot closes the actual FAC page a few hours later, and am not sure about the star. A similar, but not exactly the same, question came up during the FAC I was most interested in, and I copied that discussion to the end of that talk page, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson. I guess you should waid for the bot to close the FAC, and suspect you can add the star yourself if you like, and refer to Raul's edit as a reference. If someone really complains, you can blame me for bad advice. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak)

copy the thread above to talk:Jennna

Do you care if I copy our dialog above to the article's talk page? Seems more appropriate there than here (more eyes). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Great minds think alike - I was just thinking I should do that. :-). BTW, most of the "done" bits were made by Addhoc after the FAC closed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your peer review on Komodo dragon

I have addressed most of the issues in the peer review. Just one thing: the belief that Komodos were deaf was in the citation at the end of the paragraph. bibliomaniac15 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Response on peer review

Peter Jennings

  • Thanks for your comments to the FAC; I didn't see them until recently, as the FAC was closed soon after you posted. Responding to your points:
    • "a half-hour, Saturday morning CBC Radio show" - needs either more, or fewer, commas.
      • Comma inserted after morning.
    • "That summer, Jennings married for the second time to Annoushka Malouf" needs a comma after "time", otherwise it's implying they had been married to each other before.
      • Good catch; comma inserted.
    • "His first wife had been childhood sweetheart Valerie Godsoe." Surely a marriage deserves more than an off-the-cuff mention. Dates, did she die, did they divorce, why, what was her profession...?
      • I tried to find out more information, but unfortunately, none seems to exist on her. Most of the research I did on Jennings didn't even mention her at all.
    • "Jennings also found renewed success in his personal life. In 1979, he married for the third time to fellow ABC correspondent Kati Marton. That same year, he became a father after Marton gave birth to their daughter, Elizabeth." - Aiee! So much to write here about three sentences. Multiple marriages are considered success? Especially considering how the marriage to Marton went? If that is success, I'd hate to hear what you consider failure! How and when did the second marriage end? He became a father "after" Marton gave birth - in other words, he wasn't the father of Marton's child, but of some other child, later? Maybe "when"?
      • I meant "renewed success" in that he remarried. Unfortunately, barely any information is out there on his second marriage either; seems like the press didn't care about his personal life until he became anchor. After changed to when; good catch.
    • "As part of ABC's troika," surely you don't mean he was part of a three horse drawn sled.
      • I meant it in the sense of "triumvirate"; changed to that instead.
    • "his former girlfriend, Hanan Ashrawi" - whoah! His girlfriend was a prominent and controversial Palestinian politician? You need to describe that more, when, in what context, etc.
      • It actually is described earlier in the first graf of "Foreign correspondent".
    • Walt Disney Company - specify its relationship to Jennings/ABC
      •  Done
    • "Growing Up in the Age of AIDS, a frank, 90-minute-long discussion on AIDS in February 1992[33] and Prejudice: Answering Children's Questions" - needs a comma after 1992 for sentence legibility, whatever you think of the serial comma otherwise
      • I'm actually religious about the serial comma; not sure why I missed it there. Thanks.
  • Thanks for your insightful comments! Gzkn 01:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I missed the line about Ashrawi above. It is a shame that you can't find more about his marriages, but if you can't, you can't, and given that, one sentence about Ashrawi will have to do, since we could hardly give more to that than a marriage. It is a fine article, good work. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose proposal at People

Hi. I am assuming that your opposition is conditional on being able to address your specific objections. Can we make this work for you? --Kevin Murray 21:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-English sources

Many thanks for pointing me in the right direction. These guidelines keep changing so often it's difficult to keep track of them all. Dahliarose 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Videos in a table format?

Hi again, AnonEMouse. I should probably be asking this at a project page, but you always seem willing to give feedback (for which I thank you again). I am thinking about putting the video/film lists at these Japanese actress articles I edit in a table-like format. I'm experimenting with the idea at: User:Dekkappai/Work space. Do you think this is a sensible idea? And should I notify/question other editors before making a format change like this? Dekkappai 19:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to ask other active article editors for advice and consultation, yes. Presumably you know which ones have other active editors. But note that this is a wiki, so one of the ways to do that is to actually make the change, then, on the talk page say: "I'm trying this out for this reason, if you disagree, feel free to revert and we'll talk." That's called Wikipedia: Bold, revert, discuss, including a link there on the talk page also helps. Naturally for it to work you have to be willing to accept being reverted in good humor!
For this specific question, I went to see how Wikipedia:Featured articles do it. I found Eric_Bana#Filmography and Henry Fonda filmography (not a FA itself, but clearly a sub-article of Henry Fonda, which is) which both use tables somewhat like yours. So you're at least on reasonably safe grounds, and at least have a model to follow. I would recommend removing the yellow color (especially when talking about Japanese actresses!); otherwise you have a few more columns, but I doubt that will be a major problem. Different titles in Japanese and English are probably important. You lack "role", but given the genre, I doubt that's important. Company, Director seems OK. If all the entries are going to be about 70-90 minutes in length, that column can probably go - it could be important if some are 30 and some are 120. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking the time to offer more excellent advice. I think you're right about the bright yellow heading at top being overly distracting-- I copied it off the Japanese Academy Awards article. I like the Eric Bana & Henry Fonda ones better. Wondering if it might wind up just being a lot of busy-work when I should be doing real work on the articles though... Anyway, I'll tinker around with the idea. Dekkappai 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnonEMouse/Archive_8&oldid=1190103207"