Just FYI, the TCM database bio fo Lupino seems to have some good stuff pertinent to what we talked about adding to the article, so I will be getting to that sooner rather than later. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)21:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it sounds quite good, though I'm sure some Monroe groupies will feel let down by the loss of peacockery. There was a source (unacceptable, I think) about her suicide in the old lead, and as I looked, I don't think there is one at all in the rest of the article. I might have overlooked it, but in case I didn't, do you have an alternate source for the cause of death? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you would mind putting this article on your watchlist? It passed featured article in March, which in all honestly probably shouldn't have happened, as the article doesn't appear to have been very stable at the time. A new editor had begun making contributions to it, which were contended by the editor who had been working on it. Since that time, the new editor has continued to make massive additions, most of which, while okay, aren't really clean yet. Also, I thought that one of the criteria for a featured article is using {{cite web}}/{{cite book}}, etc. formatting. I have had some brief run-ins with this editor along the way, mostly for relying on one source, bizarre use of combined ref names, and other things that aren't, in my view, contentious, but to him it was. In any case, when I realized the article was featured, I asked this guy to hold off on making any more edits until the references were cleaned up and I could look over the rest. He may not comply, but I hope he does. I was only hoping you'd keep an eye on it, and if any issues arise, I could contact you for opinions. Thanks much!! (Hope your winter isn't too bad!) Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from what I can see, the history of Warner Bros. has been added to this article as well as all the Warner brothers' articles. It would seem to be better to cut that down substantially and put a "Main article: Warner Bros." at the beginning of the career section. That would bring this back down to between 50 and 60kb, instead of the current 92. It was passed at around 52kb. I'm very concerned about how this is going to occur and the level of issue it will raise. But there is no real reason for the history of the studio to be repeated in 5 or 6 articles, either. *sigh* I'm starting by cleaning up the references and language style problems if I find them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Twelsht has worked wonders in a short time on this. I will be keeping an eye on it and plan to defend it from changes back fiercely. Hopefully we can all work together to keep this article as it now is. Don't fret, I was hesitant to tackle it myself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You completely unreasonably deleted a positive contribution which I made to an article. You did not even give any justification as to why it was deleted. Why is it necessary for so many people to abuse wikipedia? The thing that annoyed me was that I was making the contribution in an attempt to assist others who were looking for the information. I did not do it for fun or personal gain, yet you thought it would be funny to delete it, did you? Wikipedia is a great initiative, but it will only work if we all use it properly, and not as a place to get a cheap laugh. You may be interested to know, there is a website named Uncyclopedia. The address is http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. It is content-free, and anyone may edit it. The information may be as amusing an irrelevant as you want. I suggest you put your jokes on this page, rather than depriving those who are trying to use wikipedia properly from accessing information. It may give you a bit of a laugh, and increase your popularity, but please think of the people who try to use wikipedia properly. Thanks very much. (UTC)
and if you'd mentioned which article I deleted information from, I'd have a clue what you're talking about. Looking through your edit history, I haven't edited any of the articles you've edited, so maybe you're trying to educate the wrong editor. Rossrs (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's nice that you came back to fix your spelling, but you still haven't told me which article or which edit you're upset by, and looking through your edit history I haven't edited any of the articles you've edited. So it remains a mystery, and one that I won't concern myself with further, but if you'd been polite, I would have been happy to discuss it. Unless you have anything useful to add, I'd be pleased if you stayed away from my talk page. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That reply was quite unreasonable, almost as unreasonable as the deletion, but I won't go that far. I do not see any reason for you to write a reply such as that, all you needed to do was take a look over your edits and amend the incorrect one. Why is it your decision that what I wrote is not "useful to add"? I think that it is "useful to add" important information to wikipedia articles, particularly when it is not deleted. For your information, I came back to fix my spelling to make the information more clear, not to be pedantic or flippant. I am not sure why you took it that way, but that was not my intention. I simply looked at the article, and it had not been reverted, although I admit that if I had read your reply more carefully, I would have realised this, so yes, it was partly my fault. I think you have misinterpreted my intention. I do have a sense of humour, and possibly suprisingly to you, I can take the deletion of my information in a humourous manner; however, it is also important to realise that my edit was part of a formal article, meant to inform. This means that readers are now deprived of information, that may be of use to them. As I previously suggested, Uncyclopedia is a more appropriate website for such practical jokes. As you seem to think I am a frustrating person, with no sense of humour, and nothing "useful to add", you may be interested to know that I have often used Uncyclopedia, and even laughed at what is on it. I would not comment on any such joke on that website, because it is within its context. My only objection to your practical joke is that it can possibly affect the learning of others, looking for information on the topic. I hope that from my justification, you understand the reason for my objection to your comedic deletion, and will now revert the article to its prior state. May I please request that you compare my edit history to yours, find the information that you deleted when it was unwarranted, and revert it to its original state. I feel that I have been quite reasonable, and explained well the nature of my concern, and I hope you can be equally reasonable, and undo the changes. Thank you for your time. Tkma (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked you three times - twice here and once on your talk page - which edit you are referring to, but you still have not told me. I was willing to discuss it, but if you can't answer a simple question, I'm wasting no more time on this. The discussion ends here. Rossrs (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well now who is being "obtuse"? You were extremely ambiguous in your requirement of me to provide which article. Just because you ask three times does not mean that it is any clearer. Quality over quantity, as they say. I am perfectly happy to specify the article. It was "Cameron Diaz". I do not see why you felt the need to mock me on the talk page of your colleague, instead of discussing the issue with me. Now that I have specified that article, despite the fact that you did not clearly request this of me, perhaps now you can explain to me the reason for the deletion. As it was 1:30 am when we were last discussing this, it seems fair to expect that I may have missed a minor detail, which was your request for me to provide the name of the article. Hardly grounds for you to mock me on your colleague's talk page. You may be interested to know, when you claim to your colleague that I am a "monkey", by using language not accepted since before humans evolved from apes, there is more evidence to suggest that your duo is, than to suggest that I am. Can you please justify your deletion now?
By the way, I quite enjoyed your article on the Beaumont case, I can remember following this case closely as a child when it was documented on television. What sparked your interest in the subject? The article was comprehensive and well-written.Tkma (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was never ambiguous. I directly asked you to identify the article, and eventually you've done so. Cameron Diaz. OK I found the edit. [1] I removed a paragraph in December 2007, you challenged me on it in July 2008 without identifying the subject and you expected me to know what you're talking about. That's a fair summary of the situation, I think. My edit summary was not a joke. I said I was removing uncited, original research and I said it blandly and without a trace of humor. Read WP:V and WP:OR for an explanation. These are policies that I believe in, and I will remove information that does not comply with these policies. If you think the article is stronger with the inclusion of a paragraph that explains how Cameron Diaz shakes her butt at any opportunity, go right ahead and add it back. It's been 10 months since I removed it, and in those 10 months anyone including you could have added it back if it is so important, but as this has not happened, perhaps you are the only one who holds this view. If you think it's relevant, add it back. I'll stand back and watch and I won't participate, but I will be interested to see how long it takes for another editor to remove it for the same reason I removed it. As for my mocking attitude, if you come onto my talk page uninvited, and tell me that my editing and my attitude are inappropriate without extending me the courtesy of explaining what you are referring to, you will have to cope with whatever I choose to say in reply. It's also considered impolite to restore information to a user talk page after a user has removed it. It's very different to article pages or talk pages. Simply - I choose what stays here and what is removed, not you. Thank you for your comments regarding the story of the Beaumont children. My interest? The story has a particular resonance with me, and let's leave it at that. I hope I have answered all your questions, and that we can now move forward. Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested to look at this website: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/archive/peoplearchive.php/Cameron_Diaz/biog
It is a notably credible website, the purpose of which is to provide information about actors and actresses. I originally got the information from this site, and added it to wikipedia, as I believed it would enhance the article. It is very unjustified for you to say "a paragraph that explains how Cameron Diaz shakes her butt at any opportunity", as the information is simply documenting scenes from her movies, not as you described it there. It was not original research, as I viewed it from this site. Also, I believe the language used is quite formal, you have acted as though it were written jokingly, and sexually explicit. It is most certainly not, it is detailing the content of Diaz's movies. There are certain contexts in which it may be necessary to document material that some may not approve of, in order to inform. For example, one could argue that you are condoning kidnapping, from creating a page about the Beaumont children. I am certainly not suggesting this, but it is no different from you claiming that the paragraph "explains how Cameron Diaz shaker her butt at any opportunity". It is narrative, and simply describes the contents of her videos truthfully. Just because the contents may not seem to be detailing a professional way of acting, it does not mean that it is untrue, rather it is necessary. Another example would be detailing the controversies in a notable person's life. For example, if a Shane Warne page detailed his affairs while married, should that be deleted? I would be interested to know how you think this situation is any different.
Also, I would be interested to know how both you and your colleague came to the conclusion that my history contained nothing you had edited. Perhaps you both did not check it at all. This leads me back to the thought that you deleted the paragraph to gain a laugh. Also, when you claimed that your deletion contained "no trace of humour", that is just a plain untruth, it is not something that can even be argued. If you look at the edit summary, you will certainly see what I mean, and if you don't, then you are wrong. Additionally, when you claim that it is impolite to control what is on your talk page, I completely agree, so why delete my content? One should perhaps practice what they preach. After my justification, do you know see why your deletion was unreasonable? Lastly, may I please request that you do not delete this discussion, because I envisage that there will be much future debate as whether the paragraph stays or goes if I delete it, and it would be helpful to me if I could direct people to this discussion for reference and explanation. Since your duo is so certain that everything indicates that I am completely wrong, I am sure that you will have no objection to this. Thank you very much, and I hope that you can answer my questions. Tkma (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wildhartlivie is 100% correct. The information can not simply be copied. I thought it looked like original research by the way it was written. The fact of the matter is that I'm not particularly interested in the Cameron Diaz article. I removed the information in good faith because I thought it was inappropriate and I gave my reasons. That's my right as an editor. It turns out that removing the material was the correct action, although it never occurred to me that it was not your own work. Copying information verbatim from a copyrighted site is against Wikipedia's policy of copyright. Please read through WP:COPYVIO. I think we are never going to see eye to eye, and I'm not interested in discussing this any further as I've answered your questions. I accept that we see things differently and I suggest you do the same. Rossrs (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wildhartlivie is not "100% correct". How do you know that I did not receive permission? I in fact did receive permission, further adding strength my my theory that you and Wildhartlivie are in this together to provide comedy. That is just an unproven claim, you had no way of knowing that I did not have permission. Also, how can he be "100% correct"? That's just a ludicrous statement from all possible viewpoints, it is an opinion. It's like saying, "I am 100% certain that the best singer in the world is Rossrs". Does saying that make it true? Perhaps you should write a play about wikipedia, where you can construct the world how you want. I still am frustrated that you claimed I did not receive permission, when in fact I did. But I probably should have realised that if "Wildhartlive is 100% correct", then I am probably wrong. Ridiculous.Tkma (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkma (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not permit the use of copyrighted material. Did you read WP:COPYVIO? Obviously not. You can't "get permission" you idiot. Now stop leaving messages on my talk page. I'm not continuing this. I've humored you enough. Rossrs (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are just trying to be annoying, aren't you? I don't think you even know what the word "copyright" is, and I don't think you realised how stupid your reply made you look. If you get permission, it is not "copyrighted". What an absolutely ridiculous and stupid thing to say, maybe you should stop using your thesaurus to find eloquent words to use, and use a dictionary instead, so that you know the meaning of the words you use. If this doesn't make sense, you are also wrong for another reason, because wikipedia's policy that you linked to clearly states that if you gain permission, you may reproduce it. You should also watch your quoting, because "get permission" is not a quotation of mine. My post did not contain those words, and that is called libel. I am not going to be as petty as you and used words such as "idiot", but if someone were more picky, you could be indicted for that, so you should be careful about what you claim. I actually laughed when I read your reply, claiming that something with permission to reproduce is "copyrighted": a complete and utter contradiction. It is basically like saying "The baby is born and unborn". That wouldn't make much sense, would it? It also doesn't make much sense to say that something with permission to reproduce is copyrighted. All I am trying to do is use wikipedia properly, so why do you keep haranguing me with false accusations? I am trying to positively contribute to wikipedia. I do not need to be threatened by you and your crony, that my edit should be "reported", as your chum says. If you are going to threaten that you will report me, I will do the same. If this bullying does not stop, I will basically have no choice other than reporting you and your crony to wikipedia, and it is a fair assumption that wikipedia will know what the word "copyright" means, unlike your duo, and will see that you are simply trying to annoy me by deleting my content, without any reasonable justification. I am sorry that I have been forced to give an ultimatum, but I have realised that this is bullying by your duo, and it is unacceptable. I have just as much of a right to contribute to wikipedia as you do. How would you like it if someone deleted your Beaumont children article without justification? Your behaviour is absolutely not on, and I sincerely hope that you make the right choice, and let my content remain on the article. Thank you.Tkma (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, that's dedication! I hope the semi-true part was related to the number of broken bones and that you didn't end up in traction!! You all better now? :-) Rossrs (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Rossrs (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. "Ace" and I really did attend the GLAAD Media Awards in April and saw Janet receive the Vanguard Award, but I didn't really leap off the balcony... though all my friends thought I would. Though, I did startle the people around me when I screamed "JANET!"
How easily the nation forgot how effectively Janet told our nations young women to demand respect from their boyfriends and how she encouraged an entire generation to erase the color line. How many artists take the risk of preaching during a song nowadays? It saddens me how every conservative in America wanted to blame her for the entire downfall of American modern society. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)12:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I really disgusts me how modern society dictates "I can only feel good about myself if someone else is miserable". Ever since Michael's 1993 scandal, it seems Americans actually prefer to see entertainers go down in flames, over seeing them achieve any kind of success. The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)02:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rossrs! Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. I have just been looking at the article Jean Lee (reporter) which you created on 11 July 2007 as part of the Wikification wikiproject. However, I also noticed that the article contains no inline citations or proper references. Please remember that as it is a Biography of a Living Person
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately...
As the article is not exactly unsourced, but the (one) source there is is poorly formatted and located, I am leaving it for the present, but can I suggest that it is extremely urgent that the one source is appropriately formatted and further references are added. If this is not done I will have little choice but to flag it at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Please note, this is not a personal issue; more so than with most articles, Biographies of living people must be factually accurate and verifiable. Please continue contributing! --Peeky44 (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a former Acquaintance of Sarah Hudson (singer) and I absolutely love her new band Ultra Violet Sound. Listen to Brainwashed...its one of the greatest songs ever!
“
I wanna be a celebrity so YOU will be obsessed with me! You'll sweat my style- want my man- take my picture whenever you can. I'm gonna get me a famous face, and I'm gonna do whatever it takes! Botox! Collagen! Plastic Surgery! Loose more weight then everyone will love me! B-B-B-BRAINWASHED
Just posted a comment on my talk page, but I thought it highly probable that you weren't watching it any more, so I'm repeating here. It was to say that I thought your rewrite on the Claudette Colbert lede was good as well.
Let me also explain that my revert of the IP editor's deletion of "Academy-award winning" in the Colbert article wasn't a statement about a preference for having that specific statement in the article, I was just cleaning up the edits of that user who was deleting a lot of perfectly appropriate material under the pretext that it was "POV". The editor is currently blocked, so I don't need to follow him/her around for the time being -- but, in any case, I did not intend my reversion to be any kind of slap in the face to you considering our previous discussion, and I'm perfectly happy with the way you've reworked Gene Kelly and Claudette Colbert, which I intend to use as a model for other film bio articles when I get involved in revamping them.
I think I may have had an encounter with the Claudette Colbert fan you mentioned, on Imitation of Life (1934 film). This person kept reverting the poster I had on the article, and rejected the replacement I found as well, until I finally put one up that showcased Colbert more strongly than the others, and that settled things. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind taking a look at the changes that were made on the article tonight and my comments to the editor involved? Am I missing something here? The data on IMDB seems ambiguous and, to my mind, a bit out of left field with no pitcher observable (forgive poor baseball analogy)? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand. I think sometimes the use of the undo button implies dismissiveness, but I don't know that it is intentional. In any case, looking just at the edit - I agree that the data is ambiguous, and I'm suspicious of IMDb as a source (TCM is another) because we don't know exactly where the information comes from or how much fact checking takes place and much of it is user-contributed. That's particularly a problem with the biographical and "trivia" info, but it may be less so with the statistical data - but I remain to be convinced. On the other hand, the reference is being used to support a fairly innocuous piece of text that basically conveys no more than "the movie was successful" and statements like this are often accepted without supporting evidence. A source is required for pieces of information that could be possibly disputed, but is this information something that is likely to attract disagreement? In the same article several films are vaguely referred to as being successful or not, without a source. Rossrs (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I usually check that category once a month or so to make sure no one is lopped in there where they shouldn't be. The only way to fix this is to have separate entries for music vs. film. I constantly have to re-separate film from music on Eminem (like he's ever going to be a top priority actor), and I notice that Michael Jackson has popped up on it too. As if. :) I'm not sure where we are going from here on the lead project. Pinkadelica said she would pitch in on the work if we have a good rule of thumb to use. Have you sorted out what needs what, or are there things I could be doing as well? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I'm afraid I've been distracted by the Olympics. Maybe Madge really is spending time bolstering her film career, she may be having a lot more free time on her hands soon, and really, how much longer can a 50 year old rock (Aerosmith and the Rolling Stones just aren't the same)? Eminem, who knows? He's been quiet lately.
I've looked at your page and I trust your critical eye regarding the current status of the article leads. Pinkadelica will follow our lead on what we're going to do. So let us choose one of the best leads to use as the ideal and we will work out a standard format based on that with suggestions for each point and a guideline of actor leads. I suppose many fall into that hollowness because they can tend toward fancruft. I've always been a little wishy-washy about the awards mentions, and I suppose that's because so often, I hear an actor introduced as "Academy Award-winning". It doesn't sound as bad as it actually is, though, and your quite eloquent description of enriching the profession does put it into perspective. How does this sound? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect my interest in the Olympics may fall off following the last of the gymnastics and the conclusion of Michael Phelps' participation. What a guy, huh? I'm trying to follow tennis, though they aren't carrying enough here to satisfy me, and I didn't plan on subscribing to the complete tennis coverage at a cost of $30 extra for what amounts to one week's worth of coverage. I'm a bit of a Nadal fan. He's good, plus he's not unpleasant to the eye. :)
I was just blown away last night (Saturday morning). I even scared my cats when I was screaming "Go Michael!! Go Michael!! Go Michael!! YAY!!!" after the 100m butterfly. I honestly didn't think he was going to win it. They've discussed his eating habits. Sheesh. But this is what you get when you're burning 10,000 calories a day and don't have an ounce of fat. It was fascinating to listen to the conversation between him and Mark Spitz last night. Ah well. After tonight, he'll be done, and someone like him comes along so rarely.
I also started a list (User:Rossrs/Sandbox3). I copied all the names from List of male movie actors and then started going through. Some I removed from the list as I went. I should have done the same with the females, as I was all over the place with that. Going through some of the males, I was struck by the sheer awfulness of some of the infobox images, so I started a new section. I suppose the infobox is part of the lead? I didn't take any notice when I was going through the female list. Maybe there was nothing as glaringly bad as Danny Aiello or F. Murray Abraham or Jason Alexander.
I would have liked to have seen the Phelps/Spitz conversation. Much of the Australian coverage is Australo-centric (as I'm sure most countries are), so all we got was a pool-side chat between Phelps and former Australian swimmer Daniel Kowalski who has the interviewing skills of a stick of broccoli. Unless there was something better and I just missed it. One thing that fascinated me was the story of a Japanese equestrian entrant, Hiroshi Hoketsu, who was making his first OIympic appearance since 1964 !! His horse was spooked by a plane flying over and I think he was marked down because of it. He is 67 years old and had a 44 year gap between Olympics. I love stories like that. Underdogs like Hiroshi Hoketsu and superdogs like Michael Phelps. Hope the fair was fairly fun. Rossrs (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I missed your response! Yes, Michael made it 8 and once again, I scared my cats by screaming "Go!! GO!!!!" at the television. They commented that he now has more Olympic gold medals than some countries in their entire history. I was so happy for him, and them. I'm like you, the Olympics times are unique for bringing us those heartstring tugs, and it gives me something besides the Maxwell House coffee commercials to cry about. We were all buzzing about Dara Torres as well. 41 years old and won 3 silver medals in swimming!! I got home in time to see the swimming and then my attention has been stuck with watching the Ryan White article, which I was fairly active one, since it is today's featured article. God knows, the FA on a young person who died of AIDS is getting a lot of activity.
I had started my listing of actors, but I was a bit befuddled by how to classify them, so I will wait to see what you do. I am going to take a nap and try to catch a bit of Rafael Nadal's Gold game (go, go, good looking Spaniard!!). I'll check back a bit later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll talk to you later then. In the meantime I'm reporting you for cruelty to cats. Dara Torres is another one that interests me - swimmers are usually considered on their way out when they reach their late 20's so she's proving them wrong. I'll go through a few more of the male actors. Interesting little comment made at Talk:Shirley Temple correctly stating that her lead, and specifically the "Academy Award-winning" description represents "common usage". I wonder how much opposition there will be to a concerted effort at improvement. I'm hoping that when people start to see work happening on the articles, they may join the fun. Ryan White on the main page is bound to attract a buzz, and the occasional outburst of stupidity. I kept an eye on Anne Frank when the article was on the main page - some articles attract some extreme viewpoints, don't they? Rossrs (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts - somewhat detailed as a starting point. Hopefully the result will be a simple checklist. When each box is ticked the lead is satisfactory. Sounds easy ;-) (I think when we get to the point of putting this out, examples would be helpful. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) gives examples, and I think it's so much easier to say "this is what we think is needed, but go here and see it in practice". )
Opening/first sentence:
1. Full given name, clarification given for professional name if different. (Examples Emma Watson, full name given, for someone who uses their given name professionally, Reese Witherspoon, for using part of given name, Bette Davis, for a minor variation of given name, Eric Bana for a major variation of given name and James Stewart for someone known widely by a name other than their given or professional names.)
2. Date of birth/death in compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)
3. Place of birth and death not given within the first sentence, and should be removed.
4. First sentence should continue, providing basic information that identifies the notability of the person and states the fields/professions of notabilty. Additional, non-notable professions should not be given at this point. Nationality is considered as acceptable to precede the occupations. Ethnicity, religion, sexuality etc usually are not, however if they are relevant they could be included as part of the summary that follows.
5. Additional sentence/s may continue to expand upon the person's notability or achievements to create an opening paragraph, if expansion upon their basic identification or notability is required.
Subsequent paragraphs:
6. Summary of article in chronological order. NPOV to be maintained, and accolades provided within context. Notable roles could be mentioned, and if appropriate, the reason for their notability briefly given. More detailed explanation should be given in article. Writing should be focussed on the main points of the article, and should be relevant to the person's notability. It should not be necessary to include citations as the assumption should be that the information is cited within the article.
7. Notable activities outside the acting career should follow. This could include other professions if they were secondary to acting, or such things as political activism, or humanitarian work for example. It shouldn't include hobbies or interests that do not form part of the person's notability.
8. Notable relationships could be mentioned, as long as the relationship is significant and the other person is notable. This could be a working relationship such as Myrna Loy and William Powell, or Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald, couples/marriages such as Clark Gable and Carole Lombard, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, siblings such as Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine or Jake Gyllenhaal and Maggie Gyllenhaal, parents/children such as Goldie Hawn and Kate Hudson or Robert Alda and Alan Alda, or acting families such as the Fondas, Redgraves, Arquettes, Barrymores or Baldwins. It should not discuss people who are not notable in their own right regardless of their relationship to the subject. It should not include quotes from work associates about the quality or impact of the person's work, nor should it include people who influenced the subject, or who the subject influenced, unless these associations are discussed in the article with such depth as to necessitate inclusion in a summary, or are essential to a basic understanding of the subject. It should not name co-stars for a particular piece of work if the identity of the co-star is incidental.
Conclusion:
9. For a person with a substantial career history, or a person who is deceased, comments about their overall impact, acclaim, career analysis, awards (particularly lifetime awards) may be mentioned here as an overall summary. If appropriate, points 7 and/or 8 could be included here as an alternative. If the person is deceased and the circumstances of their death is notable it could be included, wherever it best fits within the lead section.
Infobox:
10. Each article should contain an infobox, which should contain either a free image, a request for a free image, or an unfree image that complies with Wikipedia's image use policies. Unfree images that do not comply with image use policies should be challenged and/or removed. Infobox should otherwise be laid out as per Template:Infobox actor
This sounds great. It's to the point and should be really helpful in writing a decent lead. Should #8 under conclusions be #9? I'll leave Pinkadelica a note to look this over as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back over the female list and added all the names from the film actress list. Going through the males I realized there were people with reasonably complete articles, that I had not particularly heard of, so I realized that my female list showed my own bias. I'll go through and start removing the ones that are already in the list. I'd don't mind going over it again, as I'd like to get it right. Rossrs (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're wondering where I am, since I've not helped on the assessments the last couple of days. I have had an incident with a persistent sock puppet that has been blocked with several names and IPs. She apparently spent some time reading through everything I've done and managed to come up with personal information about me and posted my name on an obscure article talk page (knowing I monitor it). I've been tied up with oversighting to get that removed from everywhere it came up, and am now in the process of compiling as much IP and editing information as I can to forward to oversight. I was simply appalled and dismayed to be stalked this way!! In any event, I'll get back to it as soon as I'm finished with this. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's so nice of you to say. I've wondered a couple times if I asked for this, but I'm certain I didn't. Some of the editing background is related to JFK assassination conspiracy theories, if that gives you an idea of how this is going. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you'd noted this image needed cleaning up, so I took a stab at it. I think it looks fairly good. Take a look and let me know what you think. I'm going to remove that name from the infobox clean up list. (I hope you remember what it looked like before!) Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it looks okay. I've only dabbled a small bit with images, and used to have Photoshop on an old computer but it wasn't quite kosher (the actual software belonged to a friend of my ex) and I lost it in one of many computer meltdowns in the past. I haven't done a lot with other software and all I really did was blow it up hugely on MSPaint and filled in pixels. I'm sure with more practice, I'd get better. She did look like she was in a bar fight - or at least the photo was in someone's breast pocket during a bar fight. She has a funny mouth, I suspect she was buck-toothed, her mouth is odd. Let me know if there are any others that way and I'll work on them. I'm not having a lot of luck with cropping. There must be something one needs to do to a cropped image to keep it from looking distorted but I don't know what it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you don't mind the comments I left about some of the actresses. I couldn't resist. I'm going to watch the last five minutes of Field of Dreams, have my cry, and get some sleep!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if we built it and they came, but I'm afraid another Field of Dreams quote is more apropos: "I have just created something totally illogical." But really, the other point is, it doesn't much matter what people think about our comments while we're working on a project on our own userspace, does it? We'll keep plugging. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed your note yesterday. It got lost in the shuffle from others. I think at one time I read that someone has Asperger syndrome from a now deleted bio page on a therapist whose only specialty was that disorder, and was identified as the person's therapist to help make life decisions (that would be the John C. Pomeroy, whose image and page are mentioned on the talk page). There's a great deal of regimentation involved here but definitely not a good grasp on ownership, licenses and copyright. I've tagged the BD images for improper licensing as well as blatant copyright infringement. I'd go with improper licensing on that one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tolerance is one thing, firmness is another. A career in that field has taught me that while repetition is inevitable, consistency is paramount, if you follow. And just to clarify things for me so I have a feel for the time/life differences, it is a bit before 6 pm Thursday here, what is it for you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11 14 (geez I'm a dope) hours ahead. (mental note) TGIF indeed. This is a holiday weekend here in the US, the last hurrah of summer, but then you're looking forward to spring. What a world!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. I hope that doesn't mean that I interfered with something you were doing earlier. However, for the moment, I'm going to grab a nice leisurely nap, so I'll probably be offline for 3-4 hours. Have fun. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give you a hint at what I've been dealing with, take a look here. This person managed to track down my real name and email address and posted it on one of the talk pages here that we've battled over, as well as on IMDB. How bizarre this has turned out to be. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than disturbing. I just happened to come across this person on IMDB when I went in to get filmography data on Karyn Kupcinet and decided to look a bit at the message board postings. It's funny how you can recognize someone and not know them at all. There was a long, rambling, tangential post, using the same syntax and sentence structure and I just knew. I looked at the message board postings, went to (what a coincidence) the Johnnie Ray board, and the second one I clicked - there was my name and email, posted in the midst of a diatribe on how big bad me would have her banned because I was bound and determined to make Ray gay, blah blah. Just continuing what had happened here. I threw a huge fit with IMDB and it was removed, but I have spent an inordinate amount of time going through the rest, just to insure I wasn't in there elsewhere. God love Pinkadelica, she had her say about it. She posted a link to a pay-website that will give you info from public government records, so I suppose she ran enough searches to find out the town, etc. and got lucky. It gives me the creeps, I must say. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:100 1721.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Anthony Callea.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Anthony Callea.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I've had a request for comment open on this article since the weekend and its not getting much feedback. I don't think one need know much about Burgess to compare the article from what it was to at least where I have it now. I'm not enthusiastic about working on it, but when I removed what I truly believe was crap, two IPs started reverting it with the rationale that I'm ignorant about Burgess and the content I removed was absolutely essential to understand him. In any case, I wondered if you would mind looking at it and weighing in if form an opinion. Much obliged! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of my persistent sock puppet person, that article has been the most aggravating one I've dealt with on Wikipedia. I just couldn't believe someone (or two someones) could be so patronizing and demeaning because I didn't see the importance of back cysts, chicken pox and flatulence. I was a bit overwhelmed by the arrogance. I'm very grateful for the back up from both you and Pinkadelica! I know the IPs won't do anything, they haven't bothered in two years. I looked at the contribution histories and calling changes to the page isn't new. Last year, someone removed a plethora of book covers (one for each Burgess book in a gallery) and that was also called vandalism. After a lot of back and forth, the editor finally convinced the IP that the use of images in that way was contrary to policy and the IP then removed them, calling their inclusion otiose. I have a college education and Master's degree, I had to look up otiose. Maybe my education is sub-standard. Ah well! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's really not an issue, and it will fall along with the overall project that's going on. this was posted a few hours ago and it's important. Some of the articles chosen have some issues, and looking at them can be combined with the lead project. I made a sub-page for it, then wondered where some key people were, like John Cusack, Renee Zellweger, etc. When I went to look, a huge number of actor articles have been erroneously assigned to the arts & entertainment work group instead of actors and filmmakers. I've started working on changing that, but it's going to take a while. I didn't realize they weren't on your lead list, but some of them are now, and others will be later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've made a list here of the articles included on their list. As I noted, there are some actor biographies that aren't on that list, which I will add in the near future. I suppose the best place to start is at the beginning, while I'm still working on compiling the other actor articles. I'm also involved on it with the Crime and Criminal Biography project, so I'm double working, though that project's involvement is much less. It will only take a few days to finish that up. I think when a name is done, we should just strikethrough it. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something else I've run across. More than one person (since I went through all the edits by one guy) has gone through the talk page templates on actor articles (and probably others) and added "politician-work-group=yes" to any WP Biography template where the subject has been a political activist of some sort. Examples: Susan Sarandon, Elizabeth Taylor, Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopie Goldberg. I removed that while I there with the edit summary "political activism doesn't imply a politician" or similar. You might keep an eye out for that, and for any film actors who are listed in the "a&e-work-group" instead of the "filmbio-work-group". If you want. Maybe. It would be nice. You don't have to. But you want to. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why Lauper's article would be a daunting first one. I scrolled down and stopped on one paragraph and rolled my eyes: On November 24, 1991 38-year-old Lauper married Thornton, only ten days her senior, at the 205-year-old Friends Meeting House at 15th St. and Rutherford Place on Stuyvesant Square in Manhattan, New York City. Rock and Roll pioneer Little Richard, who at one time gave up Rock and Roll to become a minister (and remains one) performed the ceremony. Patti LaBelle sang Procol Harum's classic "A Whiter Shade of Pale", and Lauper's grandmother served as the maid of honor. Other guests included Paul Reubens, best known for his Pee-wee Herman character, and John Turturro, star of the 1991 Coen brothers film Barton Fink. Lauper had threatened to dress like a lighted Christmas tree, but settled on a traditional white wedding dress. Oh. My. God.
I will probably cut it to Lauper married Thornton on November 24, 1991 at the Friends Meeting House in Manhattan, New York. Ordained minister Little Richard, officiated at the ceremony. Patti LaBelle sang the Procol Harum song "A Whiter Shade of Pale", and Lauper's grandmother served as the maid of honor.
I LOVE that show! We used to get it on PBS. I love Dawn French and thought Alice was an adorable village idiot. I rather liked Jim, the old guy, and the one who never bathed that proposed to the vicar one time. It was a delightful show. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rossrs, I apologise if my contributions to this page prompted you to erase this page. That was certainly not my intention. I realise that we are most likely not going to agree, so I will ask the opinions of other editors as to whether or not my contribution to the Cameron Diaz article was appropriate. If it is deemed that it is inappropriate, I will be happy to omit it. Hopefully this way, both our wishes can be accommodated. When I saw that you had deleted your talk page, I was disappointed that our dispute had had such dire consequences, and I apologise if I annoyed you to the point where you felt it was necessary to delete your talk page, I was not attempting to annoy you, rather just trying to discern why the content was deleted. I sincerely hope that after reading this, you see that my intentions were good, and that you will bring back your talk page. I again apologise if my intentions were misinterpreted, or if I annoyed you. Thanks very much.Tkma (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rossrs, your behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. I came on your page, and very politely apologised for the misunderstanding. I then came up with the very good suggestion of asking a third party. I simply explained the situation to a third party, yet you felt the need to reply, and highlight facts which were irrelevant to the issue at hand, in a bid to weaken my standpoint. That is absolutely not on. How are we supposed to resolve this dispute, if you won't even let me fairly consult another person? I was perfectly reasonable, and apologised, yet you throw it back at me by bring up a completely irrelevant mistake I had made, attempting to discredit my argument.
I would like to draw your attention to something you wrote, "Hi Wildhartlivie, yes I noticed it was copyrighted material. Well that certainly overrules any discussion about it's [sic] relevance." If it overrules any discussion about its relevance, why did you see the need to highlight the relevance, when I was simply asking another user of wikipedia whether or not it was within the copyright laws?
I admitted that I made the mistake of not realising that you wanted me to specify which article it was. Why was there a need to repeat this mistake? I had admitted that I was wrong. You seem to be against the adversary system, where the judge may not take any previous convictions into account when sentencing. Just because I made a previous mistake, does not mean that my need action was necessarily wrong. I am unsure how we are going to resolve this situation; it is becoming unmanageable. If you refuse to let a third party intervene, while only knowing the relevant evidence, and not evidence which attempts to paint a negative picture of my character, I am not sure how we can move forward. Do you have any suggestions?Tkma (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw what was added, and I first will say that it's wrong. That is not what copyright protection is about. On the off-chance that a copyright holder, and the page itself asserts copyright status, gives someone, privately, permission to use something does not void copyright, which is what I'm reading him saying. The guy may or may not have permission from the author to use it, but he can't transfer that permission to Wikipedia. Once he adds it to Wikipedia, it is no longer his content, because once its contributed, it belongs to Wikipedia. The page where we were directed is quite clear about its copyright status, which is weird to me, since they are saying they are using material licensed under GFDL obtained from Wikipedia. You can't copyright GFDL material. That is the question being posed, and this is no different than something directly copied from the New York Times or an image someone else has posted on a personal website being under a fair-use license. The answer has always been "no". It is not properly licensed for use here.
But then, here's another thought. Your run-down of the time frames looks good to me, but we can't know whether it is a mirror site or if it is copied directly from Wikipedia, somewhere else entirely that copied from Wikipedia, nor where that particular paragraph first appeared. . I don't think worrying about the chicken and the egg is particularly important. You can't use something that mirrors or is copied from Wikipedia to support material being added to Wikipedia. Since copying the paragraph from there violates copyright, a person couldn't claim to have written it for Wikipedia. It is unsourced synthesis (it is mentioned that Cameron wanted to do a musical number early in the film. This is granted, as there is a scene of her shaking her hips), with POV issues (something she obviously has a talent for). It could as easily say she has a healthy sense of humor as can be attested by her "hair gel" scene in There's Something About Mary. Finally, it's unencyclopedic and places undue weight on... her bottom. Let's see what the noticeboard response is, but basically, if someone says it's okay for some reason, I'll broach all these issues with it. I think this is a case of just not wanting to let it go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ross: I'm transferring our previous conversation about actor infobox pictures here, as a more appropriate place -- as you say, it was a little odd holding the conversation on a third party's talk page.
So, I've looked through all the images that were suggested, and I did a little tweaking of a couple of them, but the only ones of yours that I had some question about were these three: Marlene Dietrich, Jean Harlow, Joel McCrea.
On the Dietrich, I'd like to see if the face can be lightened a little to become a bit more prominent in the image, without making the name too bright at the same time. If that's not possible, I wouldn't try anything else, since cropping around the name wouldn't work.
For the Harlow image, I'd again like to get the face more prominent, but I think it might also be useful to trim a bit off the top - there seems to be a little too much space up there; also I'd bring in the sides a bit, all of which would have the effect of making the face a bit bigger. Again, if these steps didn't work, I would not consider cropping to the face.
Finally, Joel McCrea - This is one where it might be worthwhile to crop in to the face, if the resolution doesn't break down. If that's not possible, I think cropping in a bit would be helpful, and also adjusting the brghtness and contrast to bring the face out from the background.
That's it, the rest of your stuff seems fine to me. (And I thank you for the work that went into uploading all these free trailer images.) I'm not hot to trot to do this work myself, if you think my comments are valid and feel like doing the adjustments yourself, that's fine with me, or if you want me to give it a try, subject to your reverting if you don't like the results, that's fine too, just let me know what your druthers are.
Those suggestions all sound fine to me. I'm not very clever about adjusting contrast etc. I can crop and that's where my photo-manipulation-abilities end, so if there's anything you can do, that would be great. There are many other images that are candidates for being cropped, and I've already done some. The list given is just the tip of the iceberg, and while I disagreed with most of those, I might possibly have agreed with a different list. Some of the images are the best of what was available at the time, so who knows - a dedicated search to finding a better image of Marlene Dietrich, for example, may turn up something that can be used with minimal effort. I've looked through Commons, and there's a Red Dust image of Jean Harlow that may be a better infobox image. Both Harlow images would benefit from cropping. Joel McCrea is definitely worth a try. The worst that can happen is the resolution will be compromised and we'll decide not to use it, but it's worth a try. I respect your judgement on these matters, so if you think it looks better, chances are, I will too. If not, I'll let you know. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'll hold off on working on the Harlow image if you think there's a better one available - her expression seems a bit odd in the current one. Otherwise, I'll proceed with the others. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c00:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've uploaded new slightly cropped in and enhanced versions of both the Dietrich and McCrea shots, see what you think. I did try a head crop of McCrea, Attempt at a headshot but it seemed a little fuzzy to me when I previewed it on the infobox, because it ended up at 184px and I had to blow it up a bit to make it usable for the infobox.
They look fine to me. McCrea is a little fuzzy but no so fuzzy as to make the image unusable. I'll see if I can find some other images. The Harlow one isn't really typical of her. She doesn't look like Harlow particularly, and her expression is odd. I'll go through those trailers again - they were (I think) all done during the time I was trying to keep names on the image to make it crystal clear that they'd been taken from the trailer rather than the film. Perhaps any or all of the trailers in question will have something more "typical", less fuzzy etc. I've got to go out for a while, but I'll check later, to see what I can find, and will let you know. Nice work though Ed. Any attempt at improving these is appreciated, and with images it often comes down to experimentation to see if something works better than something else. Rossrs (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CWii(Talk|Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Ross: When you have a moment, could you look at the infobox image? I was fooling around with it, lightening it and doing a gentle cropin to make the face a bit more prominent (this version is saved on Commons under "Claude Rains in Mr Skeffington trailer crop"), when I realized that it probably could be cropped to the head. I did this version ("Claude Rains in Mr Skeffington trailer headcrop") but I'm not certain about it -- does his face look out of proportion because there's not enough of his upper body, the tie and so on? Does his pompador look a little big because of that?
As I'm trudging along on these actor bios, I came across Drew's, which had been really deprecated from its GA status due to additions, changes, etc. It mentioned her production company in the lead and didn't discuss it at all later. Would you just take a quick look at it now as compared to Drew Barrymore yesterday and see if it has an improved flow or if you have other suggestions? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I was wanting was just verification that what I'd changed was mostly flowing well. I couldn't believe it. After I did all that work, I asked one of the copyeditors to look also. He did and made a couple changes and posted a note about it on the talk page. Then one of the regular editors for the page took all the credit!! It rather annoyed me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background info on the user. I had no idea he/she was such a busy little bee. I was kind of aware that there was a shady user monitoring the page, but I didn't put two and two together until after they reverted my changes the first time. After that, I went to the talk page and finally saw the message IP4240207xx left about HarveyCarter and his little farm. Considering their recent comments, the removal of talk page comments, and the fact that he/she is a block evading user, I think removing any of their text, talk page or otherwise, is perfectly acceptable. PinkadelicaSay it...10:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ross: Just wanted to let you know that I tweaked your picture of Jane Powell in the trailer for Small Town Girl (1953 film) - I brought out the face from the background, and very slightly brought the sides in. As usual, if you think it's not an improvement, feel free to revert, no problem, or let me know of any changes you want. Best, Ed Fitzgeraldt / c02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good, Ed. We seem to be of a similar mind in regards to the presentation of these images. I value your judgement and appreciate that your aim is to achieve improvement wherever possible, so you'll always have my support in that. Rossrs (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor asked me to look at the article, which is being developed at the moment. He commented that he doesn't really have a lot of images available to use on the article, so I thought I'd ask you. You seem to find a lot of images - do you have any, or know where we could obtain some either fair-use or copyright-less images of Cagney, in films or not? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so so much, these can all only improve the article so much! I'm still in two minds about which grapefruit one to use, as I'd rather haave the actual shot from the film (which was virtually ad-libbed) than a posed photo, but the photo is much better quality. I also rather like as a headshot for the article, but I think it might be a bit too small. What do you think? --Ged UK (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ross: I agree with GED's comment here, and the ones made on Wilhartlivie's talk page: a great bunch of images, which are going to help the Cagney article immensely. For the infobox, I like the shots from G Men, both the headshot and the bodyshot (probably preferring the bodyshot, myself), but the Yankee Doodle one is good too, albeit a little dark and a little small, so I tweaked it a bit. The new image is sized up to 200px, which should be plenty big enough for the infobox. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c19:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
old
new
Ed, it's strange - when I look at the 2 images side by side here, the second one looks a little too pale, and yet on the article page itself, it looks very good. I also prefer it to the the G Men image for the infobox, but it depends a little on which images are used in the article. Ged was concerned that the Yankee Doodle image would be too small for the infobox, so I'm glad you were able to resize it. I like it in the infobox. Rossrs (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's very wierd. Sometimes I look at the "new" one and I think "Crap, I've overdone it, it's too processed, I can see some aliasing around the edges, I've got to do it over." Then I come back to it later and it looks perfectly fine. In fact, I was about to embark on a redo when I too a look at the infobox and it looked OK there. Go figure, as we say in my neck of the woods.
I was going to start adding some images to the Cagney article from your Commons stash, beginning with the one of Cagney and Blondell from Footlight Parade (one of my favorite films), but Wikipedia seems to be having some problems with images at the moment, maybe a server problem between WP & Commons, so I'll come back to it later.
We say "go figure" here too. I think it comes from a steady diet of American television. We formerly said "bloody hell" or worse. Commons was being contrary last night when I was uploading so maybe there is some kind of problem. Hopefully there is enough variety in the images. I think there is. No problem about the images here - they make my page look a bit more interesting. Rossrs (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(out) Ross: As you may have seen, I tweaked a number of your Cagney pics before putting them into the article. If I remember correctly, on almost all of them I was just adjusting brightness, contrast etc. -- I believe there was one I cropped in, but I re-saved it under a new name. As usual, if the changes don't meet with your approval, please revert or let me know and I'll make whatever adjustments your suggest. Many thanks for your patience with my busybodyness. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c20:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should get your user & talk pages semi-protected for a while.
I just undid another vandal attack, under a third IP address. I had the other two blocked by reporting them to WP:AIV, but obviously this person has a dynamic IP, so semi-protection is probably the way to go for now. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c01:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about that, but if some anonymous moron wants to demonstrate their bad spelling, lack of intellect, lack of originality, lack of sophistication, lack of humour and lack of maturity, who am I to remove their platform? It's just boring old crap, that I've read a thousand times, and it takes a second to remove it. If they could come up with something I haven't heard before or that was even remotely amusing, I would probably have a heart attack and die. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Rossrs (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That's quite a nice image of him anyway. He usually has such a supercilious air - he looks softer and more humane in this picture. A lot younger than he's usually depicted too. Rossrs (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably be pleased to hear that I start a new job tomorrow (I freelance), so my free time will diminish considerably, and I'll be bugging you less -- in the meantime, though...
Did you say recently that you were looking for some new pics of Harlow? if so, any luck? I've swapped the "Libeled Lady" image for the one from "Red Dust" in the infobox -- I couldn't really do much to help the former, and the latter looks pretty good, I think. (I also cropped the other image, "Platunum Blonde" I think, not one of yours.) I'm most unhappy with the "Libeled Lady" image, since I can't tweak it into goodness, and it's not a terribly good likeness - she has a kind of funny expression, especially around the mouth. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c01:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad - I don't mind you bugging me. I never know what to expect :-) .... I couldn't find anything good for Harlow, but the Red Dust image is rather nice. I found one that was from that movie that she went brunette for, and I can't remember the title. Her face looks good, and I'll dig it out and upload it, but she really needs to be blonde, at least in the infobox. She looks like a tough "dame" in the Libelled Lady pic. Rossrs (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, "that's too bad" isn't a very nice comment to make to someone starting a new job, but I'm sure you know I was only replying from a selfish Wikipedian view. I hope it all goes well for you Ed. Rossrs (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad there are freelance people out there who are getting jobs, Ed. I had an old photo that was signed and sent out by her mom back in the day, but it was a 14x11 photo and I've since sold it. It's not old enough to be fair use and it's rather yellowed, even if I did merge the two halves. Are you thinking of Red-Headed Woman, Ross? Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through Jean's filmography and Riffraff is the only title that rings a bell. I don't think it was Red-Headed Woman, but I'll find it and upload it later. Rossrs (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your good wishes. First day went well (I hate first days), so I'm feeling significantly less apprehensive than I was. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was Riffraff after all. I think it's a nice image. The black and white disguises the fact that she's not blonde but she's obviously not platinum blonde here. Rossrs (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do like that image. It should be very easy to increase the contrast and brightness and bring her face out more. At least by someone who has the proper software for it. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've dabbled with some photo retouching with MSPaint, but I'm really no good with it. I was sort of hoping you'd be the one with the proper software. I'm willing to wait. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i've tweaked both the version with her name and the cropped version. I prefer the former, so that's what I put in the infobox. To change to the cropped version, just change the "1" in the file name to "cropped". Let me know if you folks think the image looks OK, or if it needs more work. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c00:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like it !! I prefer the version with the name too, and usually that is my preference. I thought you preferred it without the name in general, so is it specifically this one that you prefer with? I think it's better balanced this way. Rossrs (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very tight crop
You're right, all things being equal, I think a head shot with no name is preferable, but the headcrop here just seemed too cramped, because (again) of where the chin gets too close to the bottom border. I tried to compensate by bringing the sides in tighter than I would normally, even clipping a bit of the "aura" of hair, but it didn't help much, the image in the frame just looks uncomfortably jammed in. (I did find that cropping in well past the border of the hair had better proportions, but without the backlit hair, the impressions of "quasi-blondeness" is lost, which is one of the points of using this image.) The other crop, with tht name, is, as you said, better balanced, and the name doesn't overwhelm the face, as sometimes happens. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that all makes sense, I see what you mean. In my opinion the infobox image looks better if it's either a square or "portrait". "Landscape" looks awkward and unbalanced itself, maybe because the overall shape of the infobox is "portrait". It's nice to have a choice though - a lot of the images are being used I guess because nothing else is readily available. With this particular image the hand looks a little "weird" (for want of a better adjective) in the cropped photo but in the uncropped it looks better because you can still see the shape of her arm behind the lettering. Rossrs (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... I think the "very tight crop" is good. I'd be happy with either, but if you are less happy with that one, it's fine with me. Rossrs (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting, because after I posted it here and had another look at it, I started to kinda like it, a lot. Let me put it in the ibox and see how it looks there. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c04:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I added a photo into Kay Johnson's Wiki from the same site, so maybe you want to check my procedure there...just keyword her name at the NYPL and you'll find her if you need the details.
Okay, who is that person? I can't accept that a new user, who first posted three weeks ago, would be so knowledgeable about so many things. Is there someone who has previously worked on this article who was banned? The person obviously has designs on the article, since the very first thing she/he did here was this and has expanded the library. It's quite curious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea the "replace this image" images were being deprecated. And that "trailer" copyright thing is pretty crazy, though it does seem a bit out-of-spirit to take advantage of someone's work, solely because of some loophole in previous copyright law. But, c'est la vie.
That said, I would encourage you in the future to put more thorough explanations in your edit summaries. In the past, I have found that they can really help avoiding edit conflicts. Keep up the good work. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as a loophole. The image is either subject to copyright or it's not, and in any case, clicking on the image description page to check its status is going to help prevent disputes, rather than assuming something is unfree and removing it without checking. I'm not sure what you mean about giving clearer edit summaries. My edit summary was "restoring free image. image is from a public domain film trailer, not the copyrighted film, and is linked from Commons". I'm not sure what else I could have said. I didn't restore it on the previous edits so maybe you're confusing me with another editor. Rossrs (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
actually some of the albums needed to be replaced, the Britney album cover youve selected is cropped and the colors are altered incorrectly. so it is misleading and inappropriate to use a false cover. i think having a higher quality image is necessary becuase it conveys a high quality article. if we use low quality pictures, it implies that those album covers are originally like that and it gives the whole article a less appealing feel. Itsandrewomg (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to balance this against Wikipedia's copyright and image use policies, which I assume you've read. In any case, you've uploaded the image again. I see less difference in the new image you've uploaded now, than in the previous image you uploaded where there was clearly a difference in quality. Rossrs (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever encountered an editor called User:Downwards? If you'll look at User talk:Downwards, it's not been a smooth editorial history. He's suddenly popped up on Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett and Liv Tyler, adding categories as expatriates in New Zealand, and for McKellen, also Australia. He's basing it on them staying in New Zealand while filming Lord of the Rings. I removed that, and he quickly reverted it. I left a note. What say you on this? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say : "Oh my god, add me to the list immediately! I'm an expatriate of New Zealand, having spent 3 weeks there in 2002. And the US, and the UK, and Denmark and Poland and Germany and Finland and Hungary ......." The logic is faulty, the "oh dear" edit summary is cringeworthy, but no I haven't noted this editor before. I would have remember edits like those! Rossrs (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would raise some questions about a night at a Civil War battlefield national park, but I won't go into it. You might watchlist those three articles in case this is another of those situations I read about for that one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was the best approach too. After looking at the talk page, the interest seems more focused on being disagreeable. I've little patience for that lately. I've been too busy watching election returns. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah geez, you guys and your Kylie. She's no Brad Pitt. (heh) From what I can tell, this person who uploaded the image claims to have the rights to the "real" subject of the grave image - Lars whatever. What I really don't understand is the need to credit the photographer on every image. I thought there was something about that on guidelines somewhere but I can't find it. I'm not sure about West and New Zealand, but part of me doubts it. I'll pull out my old books and see if there's mention of international tours or trips. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He or she went ahead and added that quote to the article. Granted, the word homophobia wasn't used, but it was presented in such a way that it didn't vary much at all from what was first presented on the talk page. I did some work on the changes, and I commented out the use of the quote on the page - I didn't remove it. I then posted on the talk page that until discussion regarding this is concluded it really wasn't appropriate to go ahead and add it. Your points were well worded, and I agree. He was pushed into a corner on the issue of homosexuality and he tried valiantly to avoid saying anything. One of my main issues with how it was added to the article was that the quote was supposedly given in response to a question about gay rights, which just isn't the case. Personally, it seems to me to be a case of pushing a perspective. Rooney may be homophobic, but he's been quite careful not to relate or confirm that. Meanwhile, you're right, he's become a cranky, maybe bitter old guy. Geez, but I've had more than my fair share of controversial discussion this week! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another point is that some of his viewpoints seem to echo ones I hear from many elderly around me. There are things they know exist, they don't want to talk about it, they don't want to hear about it. Things in our society have changed so much since they first grew up and its often alien and uncomfortable. They also echo what fundamental and evangelical churches teach; the one sourced point says that his son is an evangelical minister. It's a hard road to walk for an entertainer like Rooney who struggles to keep his fading and aging star shining. He did better on this particular issue than many have. For a 78 year old to skirt the question took more bull than I thought he still had at the time. Again, is he? Maybe, maybe not. But it's not an issue today. Should we ask Ed and Pink to render an opinion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's odd is that the person who formed the project doesn't do much of anything with it, though he does sometimes answer questions at the WP Film project. Ah well. We do okay, eh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'm usually more tactful than that. I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to contain trivia references to something that may be meaningful or relevant. I see no need in starting a section when one isn't there already. It's trivia, no matter how it is presented, and yeah, I do see it as trivializing the events in a sad attempt to cash in or look hip, and that is furthered by the zealousness of people adding inordinate lists of even the most minute mention. Good Olfactory has taken exception to my removal, so I'll respond with my view and ask for input from others to form a consensus. I hope you might weigh in. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just frigging insane. You know, this may be a sock thing. I didn't think that until it seems that the one on the West talk page, and the one on my talk page were cross-posting - making reference to disrespecting her (I assume) wishes on the captioning, which was done by him (I assume) on the article; her commenting on the "talking down" thing that was only mentioned on his talk page. It's just insane - I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone. I really don't feel like I cross any lines, although I may have skirted one with the reference to "the person to whom your opinion belongs", but it was true. *sigh* THEN the possible legal threat??? Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing... User:EmilEikS has added a large number of images to the Commons, then seems to try and control the manner and context in which they are presented (insisting on credits, sizing, etc.) He's thrown that, and his "board" up several times today (well, "he" and "she" have). If they are saying explicitly that there is a board, is that kosher? Is there a policy about editing on behalf of some foundation or whatever, and perhaps from multiple accounts? I know the control over the images is a fantasy, but I'm a bit tired of reading how the board is. Did I say thanks for your defense? No?? I'm slipping. Thank you!!!!Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know though, Haley Joel wasn't imagining dead people. They were there. He told Bruce Willis that they're everywhere, it's just that some people refuse to see them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you watch at least the Manson girls' articles, and I've dabbled a very little bit on them tonight. More so on Tex Watson, I revised some of the language as it pertains to conversion to Christianity. It seems like on criminal biographies, whenever this is mentioned, it has been worded as "claimed to be a born-again Christian", but on non-criminal articles, it isn't couched in skepticism. I considered this, and I'm thinking that the "claimed" wording adds a level of POV/judgment to the statement that wording of "reported", "wrote", "published", etc., does not. I tried to reword it to lend a more neutral tone. Does this ring true to you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably bad faith on my part, but I often wonder if the ones who use terms such as "claimed" are born-again, and a comparison of themselves to someone like Watson or Atkins is just too frightening.It's interesting that they can accept at face value an admission of guilt, but not one of remorse, sorrow or repentance. I suppose my reply would be "Well, that's not very Christian of them", but that always annoys my sister. Yeah, I'm probably too liberal. Ah well. We worked so hard on Manson's article that I just don't want to open up those books again. I'm trying to read The Red Ripper so I can clean up the Andrei Chikatilo article. It's difficult to visualize Russia, though. I was a bit burned out on the actors articles so I thought I'd work on crime for a while. There are some very interesting marginal crime articles on 19th century and earlier crimes and criminals. You should see my watchlist! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I own Citizen X! It was quite hard to find. I had taped it years ago when it first aired on HBO and when I decided to replace some of my tapes with DVDs, that was one of the first I bought. Donald Sutherland was quite good - he won an Emmy, and that is where I first learned Jeffrey DeMunn's name. I knew his face, but no clue. It was a bold role for him to take - I've heard people say, after seeing him in something - "Ew. He played Chikatilo!" I get library home delivery (how great is that??!!) because my vision won't let me drive and I now live in the country. The outreach librarian had to special request The Killer Department from about 150 miles away. I bought The Red Ripper from a book club. I'll look at the Ross article later on (tomorrow for me, tonight for you). I glanced and saw that it took 40 minutes for him to die. Sheesh. I'd actually worked a little on an article earlier about a 17 year old boy (David Owen Dodd) who was hung during the Civil War as a spy (questionable). It said he didn't die immediately and there was some talk that soldiers had pulled on his legs to hasten things. What a history man has. No wonder the alien/dad guy told Jodie Foster that Earth wasn't ready yet in Contact!! I'm off for sleep. Have a happy! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rossrs, happy New Year, and I hope I'm leaving this in the right place. Just letting you know that you were reversed on one of your edits - please check the discussion, as the person does not seem to be signed in and goes by an IP address. Thanks, Chandler75 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad you like it. It was the simplest image work I've done (I hit the grayscale button). I am utterly amazed by your ability to read tripe from a simple photo. (Does the article say that???) Dooyar wrote a lot of it (she's the sock Pinkadelica and I periodically deal with). I've added some infoboxes tonight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rossrs, I have posted an incident report regarding User:EmilEikS, which is located here. I know you have had contact with him regarding the Mae West incident and invite your comments. Best regards, motalk03:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I don't expect anyone to feel obligated to jump in on this drama. I'm trying to work up a request for comments on this, even when I wasn't dealing with him, he still made things about me, and I have to say, it's got to stop!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you would, the RFC needs a certification by someone who tried to help in the dispute(s), which you did (thank you). I think all you have to do to certify is sign in the space here. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I nuts or is this person saying that as long as it's been printed, it's fair game to use it in any context he sees fit? And is he ignoring that an RfC would determine the outcome on this? Sheesh. I wondered if you could move your comments down to the RfC section? Then I can say simply that all further discussion should take place on the RfC that will decide this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You bring points in on discussions that I fail to note. Your context argument is quite on point and I'm sheepish for not thinking of it. Perhaps I've had too much turkey. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Mamie Van Doren picture reminds me of something Christina Applegate said recently. You know that she had breast cancer and opted to have a double mastectomy because of the deaths of her mother and others and a pattern of familial breast cancer? They are doing reconstructive surgery on her and she said, in her own lighthearted way, "I'll have the perkiest breasts in the nursing home!"
Well, I didn't have a hot page on photobucket, but I thought that rather than hunt down the images from my personal, on-computer hot folder and post a bunch of links, I'd just upload them and make it a one-stop-shopping sort of thing. And no, I didn't upload Roger. Doesn't his chest look odd? It looks like he has this huge scar under his left arm. And that sucking in the gut... hmmm. No one on my hot page is sucking in their gut, I must say. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I love User:Rodhullandemu. Though I must say, my three faves are Mel Gibson's new picture, the Kiera Knightley flatness scale (have you seen the images on her page?) and for a bit of bad taste, the Asian high score comment. What could you possibly hope to accomplish in Cherworld? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to see that you had reviewed that this morning. I have a photo of her headstone that was taken on a visit to a couple large cemeteries in the LA area. Do you think an image of some of these would be useful in any articles? I have a nice image of the lavish Bette Davis tomb and some other (mostly older) ones. I could scan them and upload them to the Commons. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to work on these. Meanwhile, I noticed you had persondata template stuff at the bottom of the Sandbox 2 page. Did you know you can add this to your monobook from User:Dr pda/persondata.js? Then all you have to do is open the edit window and click the link. It's all filled in for you. And um, yeah, I forget to use it a lot of times. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started work on uploading some of these images. I didn't realize I had quite so many. My contributions on Commons are here. If you'll take a look at Elyse Knox, I did manage to upload the somewhat cleaned up image. The fold is still there, but the discoloration is gone. Do you suppose Ed Fitzgerald might be able to fix this fold? It's a little beyond my software. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some are better than others, it depends on what camera was being used. My friend who was with me used his little digital, and I used my old Nikon with the lenses and good stuff. Wait till you see the Hattie McDaniel cenotaph images I'm about to upload now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He basically added it to any articles he could find, over 25, including Barack Obama. This is the sort of shite that we are supposed to be moving past. It's embarrassing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Life and career" or in some cases, perhaps, "Life" and "Career" work just fine. By the way, no one has yet to remove the infobox from Kathryn Grayson. How 'bout that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just imagine me patting your hand in a slightly patronizing manner and saying poutily "You go right on and rant all you want to!!" She particularly looks like Cletus Spuckler in the "Child actor" section. Perhaps she had difficulty keeping her mouth closed long enough for photos? I wonder why people feel the need to include the person's name in photo captions when just one person is in it? I don't know about biting the newcomers, when they become belligerent in their edit summaries during their first 10 edits, I think all bets are off. (Maybe.) ((Probably.)) (((Definitely.))) ((((sometimes.)))) Okay, I'm ambivalent about it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. I changed the Wood infobox image back, the B&C&T&A image was crappy. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not so bad with newcomers, but as you said, there are exceptions to the rule. Our friend just pushed me too hard to AGF. Pink says he was met with the same issues on his native WP, but he didn't carry on as he did here. The one I was initially sorry for was Werndawerdna, that is until I read some of the content other editors brought up at his AN/I discussion and then I supported his ban. Too much, too. Did you know the temperature in Indiana at this moment is 15 degrees F (that's something like -9 C, I think). The normal low for December here is around the freezing point. Thank God heating fuel prices dropped with the gasoline! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The weather here has been so screwy the last few years. It got up to around 75F (about 24C) in early February - this is dead winter time - and then a couple weeks later, we had the huge ice storm and blizzard, quickly followed by record flooding in May and June. Then we get upwards to 100F (37C) in the dog days of August. I can tolerate the cold much better than the heat, one can always put on more clothing and blankets, but there is a limit to how much you can take off and still go out in to polite company. Social norms - who needs 'em!! I'm soon off for the night. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I'm glad you like it. I noticed your note about biting the newbies. When I signed up in August, I was one of those editors who just jump right in and wreak havoc (I can't believe I'm actually admitting this). Now when I encounter one of them, I'll take a look at their talk page. If there isn't a welcome template, I add {{Template:Welcomeg}}, which I find to be a bit more informative than the piddly five pillars one I received. :) momoricks(make my day)10:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a couple of rude moments before Wild took me under her wing. Well, it was more like I shoved myself under there. One editor used the term "drive-by tagging" without referring to the tagging essay, and I flipped out a tad, then was all sorts of embarrassed when I figured out what she was talking about. There are so many damn policies and guidelines on here, the learning curve is insane. Did you experience anything like this when you joined? momoricks(make my day)11:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Rossrs: I realize this is just trivia (and trivial) BUT I am in possession of Tyrone Power's passport, and his height is listed as 5'11-1/2" which makes sense considering the markings inside his costumes and clothing displayed at the Egyptian Theater in Los Angeles two weeks ago. I did add the passport information into his Wikipedia page - I didn't change his height, but I added the passport information, and it was removed. I know 5'10 is incorrect because I don't understand how an actor can have a 6' tall stand-in (who attended this event at the Egyptian) and be 5'10. Stand-ins are height, weight and coloring-matched. His statements don't count as references, but I would think the passport does. Opinion, and you know I'll take it as gospel.Chandler75 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chandler, It's been a while! The editor that removed the height info removed a lot of other things too, and didn't leave an edit summary, so I'd be only guessing as to why it was removed. I think the main issue would be that it's not sourced to a reliable, verifiable source. Emphasis on "verifiable", as his passport is not available for the general public to verify. I think the only way you could use the passport itself as a source would be if you uploaded a copy of it onto Commons and then link to it as verification. It would mean relinquishing the passport and handing it over for all and sundry to use as they may see fit, and I'd completely understand you not wanting to do that. Your reasoning in regards to the stand-in make perfect sense. Rossrs (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why I can't do that. I'm not familiar with the procedure on Wikipedia Commons, but I'll look into it over the next couple of days. Thanks for the advice. Happy holidays.Chandler75 (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've spent hours trying to upload this passport, and the Commons won't let me. It keeps saying it has to be .jpg, which it is. I tried using the simple form to upload from Flikr, but I can't do that because, after 20 attempts, I can't get TUSC verified, even though my talk page had 18 tokens listed saying I'm a proud member - I was so embarrassed I took them out, since nothing works. It keeps saying I need a url that points to the image at Flickr, a source, and a license. I run a website and upload my photos from Flickr everyday - the url is correct. I have tried every conceivable source and license info I can think of. Any thoughts. I suppose I'll go through all this, get it linked, and someone will only remove it.Chandler75 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's what I've done - I've put in a sentence about the passport and used the passport photo link as the reference which can be clicked on. Best I can do. I have also contacted IMDb.com to get them to change his height in their reference, which will unquestionably help my case. I also edited out that he was a heavy drinker - I have no idea where that comes from. There's no question that he drank socially, but where Errol Flynn was a heavy drinker who was drunk most of the time and worked drunk, that cannot be said about Tyrone Power, and I object to it strenuously. If people are going to go onto that page and start messing with it again, they can get ready for another battle royale.Chandler75 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert, but it looks fine to me. It's interesting to see his passport - how did you come to acquire it? He's got a great signature, but he doesn't look very movie-starly in the his picture does he? Rossrs (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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) 14:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're interested in participating in this non-discussion I'm having with User:Britneysaints concerning this article. I have a feeling you may not agree with me entirely, but I'll take that chance in return for a little rational conversation. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So did I. Well it's plausible but it would have been more plausible if it had been an M. Night Shyamalan cutout. On the other hand, if you look at the image in the infobox, I think the girl is checking out a photograph of the event. :-) Rossrs (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks on my crops. Fortunately those two existed in a very enlarged status so cropping it was easier. As for your link, that was frigging hilarious!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was pleased with Mahky-Mahk's outcome myself. Like I said, it's quite helpful that some of these free images are originally quite large, it makes the cropping so much easier. Polly does look a little like Bambi's mother in headlights, doesn't she? Ah well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was I who made the original edit. No "content" was deleted. A picture of a men who looks like Mark Wahlberg under the heading "Mark Wahlberg" in an article titles "Mark Wahlberg" doesn't need the word "Wahlberg" in the caption.
"Obscure"? What in tarnation do you mean? The only caption that was in the least problematic was Chase's: "Chase and his wife Jayni at the....", which could have been fixed as "with his wife Jayni at the...", but instead I altered by chaging the photo to a cropped version of Chase alone. Ed Fitzgeraldt / c07:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sesshomaru, you make a valid point, and as a matter of fact, I've discussed this recently with another editor without reaching a resolution. There is an inconsistency throughout biographical infoboxes. I mainly edit film people, but it applies to musicians such as those you've mentioned. There does not appear to be any guideline on how to do it. I feel that naming the person under their photograph in their infobox, in their article is redundant. It's stating the obvious. If that's not Mark Wahlberg in that picture, we should be removing the picture, you know? Who else could it be? How then should we do it so that all articles are handled consistently and give the infobox a "professional" appearance? I think maybe it should be taken to a wider forum and discussed there. You've named several articles where the name is used, and there are many others where the name is not. I can see your viewpoint better now that you've explained it. All I had to go on before was your edit summary "Actually, you just deleted content", which I thought was incorrect and not particularly helpful. If you were doing it as a way of achieving consistency, that's fair enough. I'm not sure what you mean by "obscure" either. I much prefer the simpler "at the Golden Globes Awards, 1992" as an example for a caption that conveys the right information without overstating it. I think it's is more elegant and precise. Maybe "cleaning up" all these pages is exactly what's needed. There can be a lot of infoboxes using a particular format and still being changed to something considered more appropriate as more editors become involved - it's happened numerous times before.
Yes, they are lovely, but they're kinda distracting in all their largeness too. Maybe I should black a few of them out.... The No Country for Old Men table looks superb and I can see by the edit history it took hours. It really looks elegant, and I think it could be updated for some of the messier individual filmographies. I had no idea it won so many nominations/awards, though I thought the film was great. So many people told me they either didn't like it or could understand it. Should I be looking for new friends? Nahh, I'll just continue disregarding their critiques. Rossrs (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little known fact about Julia Roberts' teeth and No Country for Old Men: they financed the film. I've still got as many awards to add to the table as there are already there. It was, apparently, a huge award winner. No one is advocating the separate table for all articles, but to start, the only table on the article was for Academy Awards, which is POV, and when I started to expand it, I realized it would soon overwhelm the page.
I've been working a little bit with WP:FILMS to develop an awards table to go with their articles and I think I've managed to convince them to have some consistency with our (more or less, yours, mine, Ed's and Pink's) actors and filmmakers project. I took the more complex table Pink and I use to combine film and tv roles and adapted, threw a very minor temper tantrum when it was at first dismissed, and it was accepted (at least in the whole) for use. I felt very influential and vaguely, momentarily, important, but don't worry, that will pass. It looks as if they are also going to deprecate the use of what I think are the UGLY red/green lost/won templates and instead use the sedate and non-colorized actual words: Won, Nominated. I made the point that not winning the award was not losing, since actors even make the point that being nominated is winning. In any case, being nominated is being singled for honor. I'm quite pleased with the minor victory and with any luck, you'll be seeing the table adapted for a lot of film articles. I made the Shakespeare in Love table as the prototype. This was a bit why I was alarmed when the actor filmography table was suddenly reverted back to the old style, I was using it as the example for consistency between projects. In any case, thanks!!!
Do you suppose it would be possible to take a list from creation to featured list in a couple weeks? It occurred to me as I develop it, that if it is complete enough and completely referenced, it should be relatively easy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may just do that. I've little experience with featured articles/lists, and on a very involved basis, Gene Wilder is my GA experience. I'd have finished this last night, but I kept stopping to clean up awards pages - proper bolding, stylistic things etc. Sheesh, but I can't leave a really messy page alone. I was just now putting in the David Di Donatello Awards and had to stop and fix the wikilinking and spacing. But that's what a good wikignome does, I suppose. There are still 26 different awards groups to add... gads. Most of them are one award deals, but in the interest of completeness, the OCD has compelled me to do it. I forge on! Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, yeah, it's done winning awards. It did win one last month - Casting Society of America just gave awards that covered a longer period of time, but there's not a lot more. It's already been on the AFI Top Ten for 2007 list, but I think those sorts of distinctions should/would/could probably be best covered in the introduction. Hey, this is exciting. I'm doing a featured something from scratch. Does that make me a real Wikipedian at last? Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Death sneaking up on an actor is what started my autograph collecting hobby. Bette Davis died, and although I'd intended to write her for many years, I hadn't. This is why I got my letter from Katherine Hepburn back in 1991. Put Ms. Hammett on the infobox needed list. You know I work on that as time goes by. <--(groan) Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt you had the right address, it didn't change for about 2 decades before she died, although she spent a lot of time at her farm in Connecticut. I actually got two letters from her, authentic signature. In her autobiography, she commented that she didn't know why women viewed her as a pioneer/role model for feminist women, and I told her why I thought so. She was quite kind. I saw Bette Davis in her one woman show in Indianapolis back in the mid-70s, but for some reason, we didn't wait for the meet and greet. I did write to Jimmy Stewart too, and I'm not sure which letter got to him - could have been the one I sent care of The Tonight Show, or to Campbell's Soup (he did ads for them for several years), but he sent a signed picture and a Christmas card the next year!! You should get some sleep, isn't it like ... 3 am or so there? Off work for the holidays? Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I bought an address list - way back in 1990, before you could find things on the internet - from the autograph dealer that I still trade with. It had her NYC address and after I read the book, I wrote to her. The envelope with the address is sealed up in the framing of the letter when I had it done. Like I said, I told her how her defiance of conventional, simply in wearing trousers, refusing to bend to the social mores of marriage, defying studios, and her love with Spencer Tracy gave inspiration to women who felt compelled to adhere to society. She was a trailblazer. So she wrote back. I responded and she wrote once more. The coolest part was that, although the letters were typed, she signed them herself with her full signature. If you ever go looking for autographs from Hepburn, she mostly only ever signed "K. Hepburn", so a full signature meant something. It was absolutely a wonderful thing! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I nominated it. We'll see how it goes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit excited on the list nomination, I think it will pass. It may be that your well worded protest on the format won't be needed. One of the guys who was endorsing the Carnivale format has struck out his endorsement of that and changed his vote to support. The person who really seems to be reviewing it for featured said he had no issue with the format. If they had insisted, I'd have withdrawn the nomination rather than compromise the format just to be featured. I don't know, could it be possible that I will beat the two week FL record? How cool would that be?! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Thank you so much for your Christmas wishes -- I wish you and your loved ones the best of holidays, and a happy and prosperous New Year! Ed Fitzgeraldt / c04:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:SalMineo.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
Why thanks, I was quite pleased with how I forged ahead myself. I couldn't believe I came up with a passable start on Dorothy Jordan, nor actually, how involved she was back in the old glory Hollywood. So now I'm probably off for some much earned sleep! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as a headshot for the article, but I think it might be a bit too small. What do you think? --Ged UK (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
