User talk:Gertrude Lawrence

Natalie Wood

In regard to the return of content that was decided per consensus at the article talk page and your combative and demanding edit summary, please see the talk page discussion from a week-or-so back. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't decided per consensus. "Wikiwatcher" lied here:

The "Death" section, including the newly-added "Final Months" section (WTF?) is equivalent in size (92%) to the "Adult career" section, which covered a 20-year span, and 20 films.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: Your comment, 'please keep your hands off my "Final months."' indicates you feel some ownership of the section. No one owns sections or articles in Wikipedia - feeling one has a right to write what they will and be the only editor to an article or section defeats the purpose of the community project, which Wikipedia is. For example, take note of the caveat below the "Save page" button when you save edits you have made. It clearly states, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." As well, please read and familiarize yourself with the article entitled "Ownership of articles". Lhb1239 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I have any ownership of Natalie Wood's article. Stop lying. Wikiwatcher is lying, too. He/she said the section was almost as long as "Adult career." That's a lie. The only "consensus" about removing "Final months" was when you and Wikiwatcher both lied and nobody opposed you. Talk about this on the "Discussion page." I started a new thread for it today.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to start an edit war. Someone said in last week's Discussion thread that the excess of material in "Final months and death" made the thing much longer than her "Adult career." That's why I split "Final months" into a separate section. I said something in the new Discussion thread several minutes ago.

I think Robert Wagner's commitment to Hart to Hart is important because it explains why he had to stay in Los Angeles while Natalie filmed Brainstorm in Raleigh, North Carolina for a few weeks. He flew to Raleigh to visit her once. I find all of that relevant to whatever deterioration in their marriage that led to the fatal argument. We don't know for sure what they argued about, but we know their careers had caused their separation a short time earlier. Also, it is not our business to throw this at readers, but we are revealing that Christopher Walken was in Raleigh the entire time Natalie was. How that contributed to the fatal argument on the yacht never will be known, but it is relevant. It's a fact. Christopher and Natalie were together for a few weeks while her husband was 3,000 miles away. No cell phones or email back then.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Natalie Wood. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Gertrude Lawrence! Thank you for your contributions. I am Berean Hunter and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 11 (#2)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Natalie Wood. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stating in an edit summary and on talk pages that an editor has lied is a personal attack. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote that specifically from policy please.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." There is no evidence that anyone has "lied" about anything either in the article, on the article's talk page, or on editor talk pages. For more information about what a personal attack is, please see WP:NPA#WHATIS. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath.....

I understand that you feel cornered or perhaps outnumbered at the moment but take a deep breath for a moment. First, I'd like to point out that you are getting close to the 3RR policy which would likely lead to a block. My advice is to not revert anyone on the article but rather discuss on the talk page in a calm way. I see that you believe other editors may be lying to you but please remember that mistakes aren't lies. Wikiwatcher may be mistaken. Also a careful read of the above language states that they are saying that you seem to have ownership issues...it doesn't say that you said that you did.

I would suggest that you take the time to read this essay which I hope that you find helpful.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He already surpassed 3RR after being warned and trying to pin 3RR on me on my talk page. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll go away for a while after saying this. Weird, isn't it, that there is a consensus that the article should mention Natalie's dates with Raymond Burr and Nick Adams in the 1950s but it should leave out the time she spent with Christopher Walken in North Carolina a month before they had so much trouble on the yacht? Those decisions are weird. People are hinting that a 1950s movie studio arranged dates for closeted gay men, so what's wrong with stating a fact about a man whose closeness to Natalie at the very end of her life led to a lot of trouble?Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Because it's speculation: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, it's an encyclopedia and doesn't deal in speculation and rumor like a tabloid gossip rag would.

(2) Because Walken and Wagner are both still alive and guidelines and policy surrounding biographies of living persons apply. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything sounds like "speculation and rumor like a tabloid gossip rag would [deal in]," Natalie's date with Nick Adams does. People who've never heard of Mr. Adams won't pay attention to his name, but many of those who are familiar with him will wonder if the Natalie Wood article is hinting at something. They'll wonder if she helped a movie studio cover up his gayness, and does that make her seem submissive? Even without saying that, the article's inclusion of an outing that two people went on many years before their untimely deaths is provocative. But it doesn't matter to me anymore.

I'm satisfied with the new first paragraph in the "Death" section that is in an edit that Berean Hunter made today. It references the time Natalie spent in North Carolina with Chris Walken. I'm saying goodbye to "Final months." The new version is okay by me, and so is Natalie's memorable date with Mr. Adams. Sorry if I was abrasive.Gertrude Lawrence (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/3RR

As I stated I would do above, I have reported you for edit warring earlier today. You can view the report and/or comment by clicking this link. Lhb1239 (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was "not blocked". Gertrude there is no need to respond to that report as it is finished now. We should try to move forward by paying attention to the content of the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gertrude Lawrence for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]