User talk:MonicaAng

Welcome!

Hi MonicaAng! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Name Omitted (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on?

Your entire Wikipedia career has been devoted to removing negative information about Joan Crawford. Either there's been a vast conspiracy to insert sourced, false information about her (and you also somehow have access to every book written about Joan Crawford ever), or you've been removing true information that you'd prefer not to be on Wikipedia. Can you explain yourself? Rublov (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rublov. You may discuss on the talk page what you think is wrong--in detail, with a discussion of the sources. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I have been correcting accusations which are not even properly sourced. I do have several Crawford biographies, among many Hollywood bios, and much of the information I have corrected is due to sensationalist content being contained in these articles as fact when it is not fact, and in addition, not even properly sourced with a means to validate the information in the cited source. MonicaAng (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand you think you are right, and yet your opinion by itself is not enough ground. Nor is your argument about "Gay fans" very strong: you're saying "he's no expert on the gay community", but that, and "he's no professor", are not sufficient to remove the information which of course has a relevance to the article. If you want to claim that sourced information needs to be scrapped because the source isn't strong enough, you'll have to explain why the sources aren't strong enough. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I think that's a very strong point. The comment/opinion of a person who is not a scholar, professor or an otherwise expert on the gay community has no relevance being quoted within the article as if he were. There is no data, survey or study cited by Quirk in his book that supports his own personal opinion on the topic. I originally removed the quote by Quirk because when I visited the sourced content I discovered that it was not properly referenced (Quirk's comment in his book is not what was written in the article, it was paraphrased and misworded). Regardless, I am not going to waste time attempting to argue this point, and I will not attempt to remove it from the article again. MonicaAng (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Basic fact is that the book was published by a real press, supposedly with editors and reviewers and copy editors and all that, and all that means that you will have to come with stronger arguments than that--it's the equivalent of original research. If something is misquoted, that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Key word of your statement is "supposedly." But beyond that, as mentioned above, Quirk's comment was his own, personal, opinion on the topic. He was not an expert on the gay community or Crawford's influence on the gay community. He was not a professional in sociology, and his comment on the topic is obviously irrelevant, just as much as if he gave a medical or psychological diagnose in his book without credentials in either field. But, as I said, I am not going to waste time arguing this issue because I know what the result would be, just like I am very aware why this conversation was diverted to my personal talk page, rather than on the article's talk page (where it belongs). Cheers MonicaAng (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started this thread on your talk page because it encompasses your behavior on a large number of articles, not just Joan Crawford, for example (links are diffs) What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film), The Best of Everything (film), and Berserk!, to name just a few. In each of these cases, you have removed sourced content with a misleading edit summary like Removed statements that are not properly referenced. As far as I can see, every single one of your edits has had something to do with Joan Crawford or someone closely related to her. Rublov (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Davis and the Hollywood Canteen

Please stop erasing the history of the Hollywood Canteen - including the contributions of Bette Davis. She co-founded the canteen with John Garfield, acted as its president, made critical decisions regarding its integration policy and her work eventually earned her the Distinguished Service Medal from the Pentagon in 1983. It's clear you don't like Bette Davis - but you are erasing Hollywood's involvement in World War II.

Since you are critical of sources, the information from above can be found from these legitimate, contemporary articles:

"Bette Davis Heads Canteen Again". The New York Times. April 19, 1944.

"Bette Davis Overrules Objection to Mixed Couples at Hollywood Canteen". Cleveland Call and Post. January 23, 1943.

"Pentagon: Actress Bette Davis will receive the Pentagon's Medal for Distinguished War Service" UPI Archives. United Press International. June 7, 1983.

"Medal is given to Bette Davis". The Baltimore Sun. June 13, 1983. pp. B2. Nlb2023 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MonicaAng, I agree with @Nlb2023 that your behavior here is not acceptable. All of the information that you are trying to remove is well-sourced to what appear to me to be perfectly legitimate and reliable sources (The New Yorker, The Hartford Courant, the Stern book, The Daily Boston Globe, The Pittsburg Courier, etc). Asserting that the sources are not "legitimate" or "verifiable" in edit summaries without any discussion is not acceptable, and calling other editors' work "vandalism" without evidence is a personal attack that can get you blocked from editing. At this point, if you still think you have a case to remove this information, you should open a discussion on the article talk page and explain your reasoning. Continuing to edit war as you have been doing will certainly get you a block. CodeTalker (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you removed information in Mildred Pierce (film) with an edit summary "Removed sensationalized information without any sources", and did the same in Possessed (1947 film) and Mercedes McCambridge and apparently many other articles which I am still reviewing. Anyone looking at the edit history can clearly see that in all these cases the information you removed did have a source, which you removed. This type of dishonesty is not going to go far to convince other editors of your viewpoint. (And when you make grammatical changes, please spell "grammar" correctly; that will help other editors take your changes more seriously.) CodeTalker (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors: this editor has similarly removed sourced content with an edit summary claiming that it was unsourced in The Star (1952 film), The Damned Don't Cry, Of Human Bondage (1934 film), and Johnny Guitar. CodeTalker (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Possessed (1947 film), you reverted that saying what I removed was sourced. It was not sourced, and when I researched that information before removing it, I could find no mention of that claim whatsoever. MonicaAng (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you would take the time to actually look at the "sources" NIB2023 is using. They are NOT verifiable. For instance, NIB2023 wrote on the Bette Davis page: "In 1942, Davis and John Garfield co-founded the Hollywood Canteen at 1451 Cahuenga Boulevard in Hollywood."

Not a single one of the four "sources" NIB2023 cited is verifiable. He is citing a book page without any link to verify if information to verify if it is true or not. NIB2023 also claimed "Davis dictated the racial integration policy and ruled the dance floor should not be segregated after questions were raised if white soldiers could dance with black volunteers."

Again, this information is not cited with any verifiable source. NIB2023 cites a book title for the information, but no means to verify if that information is correct. In my own research on this topic through legitimate news articles from that period, I have found that Davis did not dictate any integration policy, the canteen itself did. Therefore, NIB2023 is, in my opinion, maliciously attempting to misconstrued the facts. This is why I referred to their edits as vandalism.

If NIB2023 (who clearly only created their account a couple of weeks ago for the sole purpose of editing only the Davis article wants to add this new information to the article, they are the person who should be the going to the article's talk page to ask to have it placed on the article. I am simply removing new, and invalidated, information this new user is adding. MonicaAng (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the first of NIB202's source I looked at for the claim that Davis founded the Hollywood Canteen is Dark Victory, for which they provided a link and page numbers. Looking at that page, I see that it says about Davis, She and John Garfield began imagining the Hollywood Canteen at a table in the Warners commissary soon after the war started.... Bette later wrote "He had been thinking about the thousands of servicemen who were passing through Hollywood without seeing any movie stars. Garfield said something ought to be done about it. I agreed, and then and there the idea for the Hollywood Canteen was born." ... [T]hey took over a building at 1415 Cahuenga Boulevard and set up a large nightclub for service members. This certainly seems to verify the content.

In any case, this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Though, note when reading that source, it is Bette Davis herself claiming she founded it rather than a third party stating it. So, I would think that sourced information shouldn't be cited on the article as a fact but rather cite that Davis claimed to have co-founded it. It's just interesting that if she had, indeed, co-founded an entire organization, a third party source could easily verify that - beyond Davis herself making that bold claim to someone in a private conversation. But, yes, I agree, this should be discussed on the talk page for the article itself.

Meanwhile, in regard to the edits I made that you reverted, I would like to have that changed back, being that I did have legitimate reasons for removing that content for not being verifiable, as I demonstrated above with the Mildred Pierce article. MonicaAng (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book's author is the third-party reliable source for that information. If we were just quoting an interview with Davis, then your point would be a concern (it would be a WP:PRIMARY source. But when we use the book as a WP:SECONDARY source, we presume that the book's author verified the information which Davis asserts, and that any information he presents directly, like the last sentence of my quote, has also been verified. CodeTalker (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-review the reversions that I made yesterday, although I'm rather busy today and may not have a chance to do so for a while. I will note for now that there are a couple of easy ones that clearly should remain reverted, such as this reversion at Mercedes McCambridge, where you removed a quote that is taken directly from the source, and this at Possessed (1947 film), where Joan Crawford's desire to change the film's title is clearly verified by the first paragraph of the source.
Rather than relying on me to make the decision, if you think there are cases where I was wrong, it would again be best to open a discussion on the relevant article's talk page so that other editors can easily see the discussion and participate. This should always be your process when your edits are reverted, per WP:BRD. CodeTalker (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you actually look at the content I have removed from other article, it is NOT sourced, so your statement saying I am removing sourced information is not true. Look at the citations for that information. MonicaAng (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the unsourced information I removed from the "Mildred Pierce" page, look at that "source." It states "Ben Mankowitz, intro to the Turner Classic Movies presentation of Mildred Pierce on February 3, 2013" That is not a verifiable source. Again, anything I removed was not cited with a verifiable source, and when I attempted to verify the information, I found no source for it whatsoever. Hence why I removed it. It is not right to revert these legitimate changes without properly evaluating them. MonicaAng (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I evaluated all of the sources, although I admit after seeing you misrepresent the first three or four I didn't spend a lot of time on the rest. In the Mildred Pierce (film) article, you removed TWO sources, first, the TCM one that you mention, which is fine as a source although not ideal since it's not easy to find, but sources don't need to be easy to find. I did not evaluate that one. But second, there was this article which verifies some, although admittedly not all, of the information you removed.

More generally, if you think that a source does not verify content, you should say "source does not verify content" or something similar, not "unsourced". Unsourced means there are no sources. If you remove content which has a source and claim that it was "unsourced", other editors are immediately going to be suspicious. CodeTalker (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Then that is my mistake for improperly wording it as "unsourced" rather than to say the source does not verify the content. I will be more careful of that moving forward. But please know I am not recklessly and haphazardly removing content that has a source verifying it. That's not my goal. I am checking the alleged sources and then trying to do my own research to confirm if that is correct before removing it. There is often very bold allegations made regarding celebrities and films, and often those claims aren't true, but rather fan folklore. I am trying to weed through the facts verse the folklore created by fans. In regard to the Mildred Pierce sources, one was the (claimed) TCM info from a decade ago and the other, which you cite above, is not an article, but rather viewer reviews. Please just look at that again - you'll see what I mean. It's not a legit source. In regard to the TCM source on Mildred Pierce, the content for that source states "Even so, Curtiz and Crawford were often at odds on the set, with producer Jerry Wald acting as peacemaker." When I tried to find if this was true, I found the exact opposite, that Curtiz and Crawford got along very well on the set. This is why I removed that content for not having a verifiable source for such a bold claim.

MonicaAng (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone looking at the edit history can clearly see that in all these cases the information you removed did have a source, which you removed."

Not true. You are reverting these removals without looking at the articles or the "source." In most cases there is no source, or the source is a blog with no source for the claim. In every single instance, I have spent considerable time researching the claim at hand and could find no verifiable information to substantiate the claim, which was the reason I removed those pieces of information. I spent hours researching these removals before removing the content, and I see you have reverted it without taking the time to verify what what I did was legitimate. My goal is to not allow false information to be spread around as fact. Nothing more. MonicaAng (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MonicaAngYou keep claiming my sources are "unverifiable" - have you read them? For all the citations I provided I have provided the page numbers. You are more than welcome to buy the books. Here is Julia Stern's - published by the University of Chicago Press: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo119244095.html

You claim you use "legitimate news articles" - I have utilized articles found in the ProQuest Database from The Hollywood Reporter, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, The Baltimore Sun, etc. They are digitally archived. I have provided the URLs and page numbers.

Additionally, you've utilized "Bette & Joan: The Divine Feud"constantly - in this book, Considine discusses Garfield and Davis founding the Canteen. So if this source isn't "verifiable" - then you need to remove every single citation you've used it for. You've also utilized information from The Atlanta Journal, The Daily Times and the Stamford Advocate to discuss the death of Arthur Farnsworth. Please explain how these are more legitimate than the Newspaper articles I've provided. Nlb2023 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I saw the information removed and wanted to ensure that it was added back. I took your advice and went ahead and added to the article's talk page - so have it. The onus is on you. Let the people and Wikipedia decide. Provide your sources that prove that Bette Davis and John Garfield were NOT the founders of the Hollywood Canteen. Provide your sources that Bette Davis was NOT the president of the canteen. Provide your sources that prove Bette Davis did NOT receive the Distinguished Service Medal. Nlb2023 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not how it works. You can't add bold claims to Wikipedia and tell everyone else to prove it is wrong. You need to provide verifiable sources when you add the content. I went to the links you provided, and those linked citations did not confirm the content you added. Yes, books are sources, but not when the information cannot be verified. There are many books online, via Google Books whereby the information can be cross checked. Unfortunately, nothing you added can be checked, and I checked every single one before removing the content you added. When I did my own research to verify that Davis "co-founded" the Hollywood Canteen, I could only find that she was an appointed president of it at one time, not that she founded it. I found that the Hollywood Canteen was created by the Stage Door Canteen out of New York. Likewise, your claim that Davis was responsible for racial integration isn't true. When I researched it, I found that was the policy of the Canteen itself and that Davis had nothing to do with that. So, that is why I removed the content you added. You are making some bold claims, i.e. that Davis founded an entire organization, and I cannot find one verifiable source to support that claim, and the sources you cited do not say that. Also the fact that your username "NLB2023" stands for "Nick Loves Bette 2023" makes it seem that you have a biased narrative. Right, Mr. Hardin? MonicaAng (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comment on the talk page.

But I'll respond here too. You say you conducted your "own research" - please provide citations for this research. All you've done is delete my content claiming it "unverifiable." But you have yet to verify any of your claims.

And it is actually how Wikipedia works. There are millions of citations on millions of Wikipedia entries that cite physical books. Are they all illegitimate because you don't own the book? If you don't have a subscription to ProQuest - then you can't access the digital archives. Again, this does not deny their existence or legitimacy. Nlb2023 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I even added a citation from Shaun Considine's "Bette & Joan: The Divine Feud" - a source frequently utilized by @MonicaAng.

I don't want to be in this edit war, but I will not be accused of vandalism when presenting proven historical facts (even if MonicaAng wishes they weren't true.) Nlb2023 (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Christina Crawford into Mommie Dearest (film). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy track record of Tendentious, Disruptive Editing on Hollywood Canteen

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Hollywood Canteen. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Cinemaniac86. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Talk:Bette Davis. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Hollywood Canteen, you may be blocked from editing. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 18:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa....Cinemaniac86 - YOU are the person who is altering articles that are in active dispute in the talk pages. Not I. You are attempting to bully me on this topic, and to push your own narrative on the Hollywood Canteen topic without having any fair discussion or consensus reached beforehand. MonicaAng (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for my "record" on the Hollywood Canteen article page, I provided citations for every single edit. MonicaAng (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in which the information did not match the article's content.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 19:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up - I am still actively trying to find a resolution on this topic with you on the Hollywood Canteen talk page. As for "unsourced or "poorly sourced" material - I have always sourced my citations. As for User NLB, yes, we did also have a debate on this very topic, and as the talk page demonstrates, we talked it our and found a resolution. So, yes, read that issue and our debate, and it proves all of my good faith efforts to talk it out and resolve it. MonicaAng (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to make inappropriate or abusive edit summaries or comments, you may be blocked from editing.

Now you're actually trying to reverse accusations back against me. Which is expected, I guess. But let the evidence of your issues with NLB, and past history speak for itself.

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]