User talk:Rossrs/archive9

Have a good holiday. Bring me a rock! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we there yet?? How much longer??? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

When are we going home?? I'm tiiirrrreeddd!! I miss ya!! What did you get me? Did you bring me a present?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

James Cagney GA

Hey there, just thought I'd let you know that James Cagney has been promoted to Good Article! Thanks for all your help on this article! Featured article, here we come (eventually)! --GedUK  09:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WELCOME HOME!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm SO glad you're home!! I missed ya!!! I'm glad you had a good time. How was Wales? Why was Wales? (Although I would never resist a sidetrip were I in Ireland!! Thank you SO much for the rock!

I couldn't believe it when I saw that someone had added that Sharon Tate's baby was ripped from her womb. I know that Susan Atkins said she considered cutting it out, but I also knew it didn't happen. I've seen the crime scene photos. Her stomach was stabbed but it wasn't ripped open!! I think we successfully quashed the notion that the Sharon Tate article should be split. I have no idea what prompted that but you know, the troops pulled together. There is a mindset that doesn't want a victim discussed in the same article as the murderers, but this is one of those times when it is absolutely necessary. And while I'm thinking of it, I made a proposal at WT:ACTOR to get rid of the long listings of awards in the actor infobox. These days, the awards are more than adequately covered all over the articles anyway. Personally, I wouldn't mind doing away with all of those maddening succession boxes and templates too, but that's for another day. Thanks again for the rock!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

About the photo on Sharon Tate. I knew there was a dupe of the image I put in the infobox on the page, but I mostly did that because I wanted to wait for you to get home and ask a question. I rather like this photo and wondered if it could be cropped to make it more focused on her face and used in the infobox. What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you had a good holiday, it sounds like you made the most of it. I tried to leave you little notes to know you were missed. We've had an eventful month around here. We've had POV warriors and editors who can't write a properly constructed sentence, an attempt to thrust a template into the MOSNUM guidelines with no consensus - we just got that reverted today. Sheesh, what a month!! And then poor Natasha Richardson dies and it's quite sad. Pink and I were both annoyed at the press over that. They stuck a camera in Liam Neeson's face as he left the hospital after she was taken off life support. Talk about intruding on someone's most painful moments!! Anywayssssssss... I'm glad you're back!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do know who Jade Goody was, I'd read about her not long ago, then did a little clean up on her page. They do have the vaccine now to help prevent uterine/cervical cancer, but I'm a little wary. It's sort of like when doctors prescribe testosterone injections for men to help with hormonal/erection problems and then a few years later, it seems they get treated for prostate cancer. It was an odd sort of thing she did, but I suppose her children's best interests were at heart. Yes, the press absolutely used Richardson's death to make the points about head injuries. For some reason, when I heard the first news reports about her accident, I thought it wasn't going to end well. I dragged out my copy of Nell and watched it 2-3 times and cried when she died. She was quite beautiful. Liam Neeson was quite gracious, I thought. I saw a film clip from after the wake when from a small distance, a photographer told him how sorry he was for his loss. Neeson smiled and thanked them and I thought that was quite classy. I dunno. I feel for him and their sons. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All About Eve

I read your response on the talk page for the film and agree with your conclusions as well. I guess the first issue would be whether a section for "interpretations of the film" or "critical analysis" or whatnot even belongs in the article. I'm kind of straddling the fence on that, since sometimes relatively obscure, trivial or subtle details can be really illuminating while reading an article. I noticed, as you did, that the references provided in that section don't substantiate the claims of homophobia or the role of women post-WWII, it's more like the editor who added that decided to reference a few side topics rather than the main point.

My second issue, and what really jumped out at me while reading it, was about NPOV. That section is about as NPOV as saying that "Madonna is the greatest musician that has ever exhaled into a microphone", and then supporting that by providing a link to one of her fan clubs. (I happen to agree with that assertion, but there's no way it belongs on wikipedia). Or a link to a store that sells microphones. I'm sort of running on in talking about this, but I think we see the main point of this the same way.

It looks as though someone tried to edit that down, or strike it completely, only to have it reappear along with the "you're being homophobic" accusation. Unfortunately, the presence of that section kind of ruins the integrity of the article for someone who stumbles upon it and reads the whole thing. I believe you mentioned a book in an earlier talk page entry that talks about Eve could be construed as a lesbian, and I could see including that (referenced) as part of a section about possible interpretations of the film. Sounds like an interesting book, by the way. Anyway, hope you don't mind a long-winded response to your comments on your talk page. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I've got to go do some things away from my computer now, but I just read your reply and wanted to say a few things. I agree with your comments about original research and undue weight for a particular point of view. Also, if the section has been discussed, deleted and restored with a slightly changed title, but it's essentially the same, then it probably should be deleted again. Anyone else with an opinion can weigh in on the talk page. By the way, I added a "neutrality disputed" tag to that section, so hopefully an improvement can be achieved. The book All About All About Eve sounds interesting. And finally, some of your user sub-pages were quite entertaining, particularly the one with rather amusing edits :) Zephyrnthesky (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know that I deleted the section in question from this article. I appreciate your input on the topic, especially since it looks as though you participated in a similar discussion before. Nice chatting with you. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Doris & Sandra

Ohhhhhhhh that guy just really popped my cork!! Of COURSE, Doris Day is the most popular singer in the world. Geesh. I probably wasn't the most civil to him, but I just kept thinking "could this guy be more obtuse??" I know that his descriptions made me feel as if I needed to take a hot shower, ala The Crying Game.

I'm working on depopulating the articles linked to [[Template:Find A Grave]]. I came across a guy from Find a Grave who was trying to fix link errors that show up on their server from clicking bad links. When I looked further, I realized that some time ago, there was a drive to get rid of the "Find A Grave" template and only use the "findagrave" template. The problem was, they were too different and couldn't be converted with a bot run. When I started looking, the Find A Grave was only used on about 1750 articles while the other one was on thousands. So I volunteered to let the Find A Grave guy post any corrections needed to my talk page, to avoid any suggestion of COI and decided to work on converting links at the same time. I've only got about 400 to go. If you happen across any templates that read {{Find A Grave|id=SOME NUMBER}}, just copy and paste {{findagrave| over the template up to the grave ID number. The Find A Grave template requires the "id=" and sends a fault without it. The findagrave template only requires the number and will send a fault if it has the "id=" in it. Then I'll post that they can delete the template.

By the way, I will close the poll at WT:ACTOR#Infobox actor changes proposal regarding removing the awards listings in the actor infobox. My first proposal was just to remove the Golden Raspberry Award and limit the listings to some designated ones, but everyone who responded seemed more keen on removing them completely, something with which I cannot disagree. Unless someone shows up in the next few hours with persuasive reasons why it shouldn't happen, I'll submit the request to change the template this evening. If you agree, it never hurts to have more signatures on support. If you don't, speak now!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall that Alice bought it for long... sooo. Mayhaps my angry typing doesn't read as angry as it did when I typed it. I will probably take my moist coal-black eyes to bed soon. Did you ever happen to watch Angel? The guy who played the big green demon named Lorne died this week from congestive heart failure (Andy Hallett). He was 33. Apparently he developed heart problems after a tooth infection about 3 years ago. It seems it wasn't really easy being green. He had quite a voice. Did I ever mention I loved Angel? Guilty pleasure thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

By all means, get some rest then, Angelkins. I was never a serious fan of Angel, but when I worked at night, a cable channel broadcast two shows back to back each morning just a few minutes after I'd get home. It would give me a chance to relax and then I'd go to bed. After a couple years, I'd seen all the shows at least twice. Apparently Hallett was cast almost off the street when Josh Whedon heard him sing as a young pup. I didn't know what he looked like for years. As I said, he had a terrific voice. Okay - sleep tight! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tyrone Power

Rossrs, I hope you had a good trip. Can anything be done about blocking these insults on the discussion page? That same response to my "no verification" comment was taken out once before, and now I see it was re-inserted and removed again. By the way, I'm a woman (though I gather the writer doesn't think so.)Chandler75 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - I get it. I appreciate your help as always.Chandler75 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Enamoured of Glamour

For someone who helped write the lead guidelines, am I detecting obtuseness? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Aw geez, don't beat your head!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard Speck#False reports that Speck was XYY

I've mulled this section over since it was added. At first, my concern was that it was too technical in comparison with the rest of the article, which didn't bring much change to it (only changing wording like "47,XYY karyotype" to "XYY male". It continued to bother me and finally, I've tagged it with an original research tag, because frankly, it reads like a scientific journal article or paper. I posted a note to WP:OR/N but I'd also really like your opinion on it. I think this reads basically like someone's term paper on Speck and XYY, and although it does, in places, actually refer to sources about Speck, I think it relies too much on supporting content documentation that one would add to an original research paper. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is part of what bothers me. I've already stated on the article talk page some of the same concerns you mentioned - that it goes too far afield from Richard Speck, it is too detailed, etc. The section originally said "According to one theory briefly advanced, the XYY syndrome rendered a person more likely to commit crimes, and it was suggested that Speck had the syndrome. Later it was proven that he did not. The theory that there is a relation between XYY syndrome and criminal behavior was rejected soon afterward." The term "POV warrior" popped into my mind as soon as I read this. I changed the section title to "The XYY theory" and it was immediately reverted with the comment "there was not a Speck "XYY theory" -- there were (and still are) flat-out "False reports that Speck was XYY". There is something unsettling about this to me. COI? I don't know, but it all feels wrong, the section itself and the goal. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, Batman!!!!!!!!!

I will just let the links speak for themselves. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight, [1], [User talk:ScienceApologist#RfA?], User talk:DougsTech#RfA, User talk:DougsTech#Time is of the essence... The essence of time, Talk:Tina Turner#Apology. Just wanted to keep you up to date. A potential administrator that says that featured articles are crap? This gives me cold chills. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello...

First off, let me tell you that I've been a big fan of yours and your work. Vivien Leigh, Sunset Boulevard, Sharon Tate, Bette Davis are great articles. The latter is particularly amazing and is probably the best FA about an actor. I've been reading this one over and over again.

I think the lead looked nice the way it was, and now it is also fine. But I've somehow got a little concern. I think in the case of Bette Davis, specifying only two roles of her illustrious career only because she was awarded Oscars for them, is somehow incorrect. My pervious concern was that the fact she had won Oscars was not even mentioned. I would therefore suggest to rewrite it as: "won the Academy Award for Best Actress twice" or "was the first actress to receive 10 Academy Award nominations, of which she had won twice" or something. What do you think?

As for the infobox awards section, I genuinely believe it is a good section which gives readers an opportunity to take a glance at the list of major awards (I also support the removal of Razzie Awards and "other awards") an actor has won without having to go through the entire article or rolling it to the bottom. I don't want to enforce my personal preferences, I just think it was a hasty decision which could have been taken in a far more gradual way, with more time being given and more editors participating. I think an RfC could attract a broader number of editors's views and finally clear up what the majority opinion is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the message and for clarifying your reasons. I think what you said is very relevant. It made me think a lot. There's too much weight on awards, and I personally don't think awards are the most important part of an actor's career at all. On the contrary, I think awards have nothing to do with the actors' charm, beauty, or ability. It's just a record of ephemeral jury/public taste and many talented names are too often left out. Yet, they constitute a good acknowledgemnt of someone's good work. What made me go against the decision is the way this was handled and my opinion that this particular format was very effective. I won't mind its removal if it eventually turns to be what the majority of editors support. I just need to know it is actually what they support. That is the reason I started an RfC section. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey thank you for the kind words. I think Kathy Bates is a supremely talented actor and very underrated as well. I like her dialogue delivery and her naturalness. You're right, she was very lovely in Titanic. I liked her in Misery, Fried Green Tomatoes, Dolores Claiborne, Primary Colours and many other of her lesser known films.

I think you expanded the lead of the article very well, although the article itself still needs expansion. I always considered you an exceptional writer (I told you I've been a fan for a long time :)). I remember going through Angelina Jolie's FAC, where you helped to copyedit the article. I saw your copyedits and was amazed at the way you improved it. When the Preity Zinta article had its first FAC I thought to ask you for help but if I'm not wrong you were temporarily inactive.

I think many leads are not good. The Judi Dench one is definitely one of them. Meryl Streep is another example, it's all award counts, there's nothing about her career, her body of work, what she is known for as an actor, and generally - a summary of her article. The article itself is extremely underwritten.

I mostly work on Indian film and actor articles, and as you probably know, many of them need expansion and improvement. Many articles of old actors and films don't do justice to them. Although I've expanded the leads of many of them, their career sections are way too short. And you just have to leave for a couple of days to come back and find them filled with POV and fansite material. It's much easier to work on articles of new actors. I was sad though that I wasn't present on the day Zinta's article was featured on the main page. By that time, I'd left Wikipedia for some time. But then I found something heart-warming on the internet. It's a moment... :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! You missed both Bette and Vivien? Ohhh... Maybe you can also find it on the net. I was particularly excited because of what the blogger wrote. He made such a big deal of this article being featured on Wikipedia's main page. I felt very happy that my 1,700 edits on this article alone made someone feel like this, it was like my work has been paid off.

Your expansion of the articles is great. The lead of Jessica Tandy is particularly impressive. But the best lead on Wikipedia for any actor is the one of Bette Davis. It is very difficult to write a lead, because we ourselves can submit to POV. This one is very neutral, yet makes full justice to what she was as an actor, as a person. It describes her prominence and image in a perfect and accurate way. I remember someone wrote on the FAC some of the text made him/her sad. I felt the same. This "She later described him as the 'love of my life', and said that making the film with him was 'the time in my life of my most perfect happiness'" made me feel so, among others. Maybe it's because I like her so much. Crawford and Davis (also the two Hepburn's and Bergman) are my favourite actresses of Hollywood's golden era. Generally I like the leads of FA actors, with the exception of Katie Holmes, which is unbalanced.

BTW, another article you have worked on I like is Anne Frank. I take it a bit close to heart because I'm also jewish.

I also dedicated some time to expanding the leads of several Indian actresses, including Nargis, Meena Kumari, Hema Malini, Urmila Matondkar, Manisha Koirala (I tried to address your concern on your sandbox when I saw it a couple of months ago), Raveena Tandon, Shilpa Shetty, Rani Mukerji... I guess you have not heard of any, but anyway.

Many of the leads I wrote on one foot, so they may not be perfect, but I think they're generally good. Several of them I have already expanded throughout. I'm yet to work on such articles as Shabana Azmi and Nutan, but I find it somewhat difficult.

I think your sandbox is a good idea. That's a good way to organise articles and improve their quality gradually.

Is there any particular article you're interested to expand and bring to FA? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Great choice of articles. And you're right. Don't know why, but I like the Manisha Koirala article. It's relatively short, does not have much information, contains certain POV, but I have many sources with which I could write about her image and films.

As you, on a personal level, it's been my dream to expand the Rekha article. I did what I could but there's a lot left. I mean, I can't use only net sources, I need books, so working on this article will take some time. It was exactly what I wanted with the Preity Zinta article, and though it was by no means an easy task, it was much easier to find coverage about any of her films and activities. It's all available there. Everything she does, from adapting 34 children on her 34th birthday to being nominated for the Canadian Genie Award, is covered exceptionally well.

The other articles might be Amitabh Bachchan and Shabana Azmi, but as you said about Judi Dench, I just don't know where to start from. The Shilpa Shetty article is a problem, there's too much weight on her controversies and this so called Big Brother. One insignificant incident of Richard Gere kissing her has a huge section. Her career section is hardly visible. I agree it's what brought her all the attention, but she's first of all an actor, and people tend to forget that despite the fact that she was quite lovely in several of her films.

The Rani Mukerji article could make it at least to GA status. If I work on a foreign actress article, I'll probably start with Kathy Bates or Cate Blanchett.

There's one editor who's been working on the article of Madhubala for a long time. He has several books about her, and though all of what he's written (the entire article was edited by him) is true, he did not add any inline citations. It's very upsetting because otherwise the article could have been modified and improved in minor fields, but now it's like a big piece of orginal research. I asked the user to provide inline citations, but he's temporarily disappeared. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes definitely Cate is one of the finest actors of today. I liked all her performances (well, those I've seen).

Yes both Madhubala and Meena Kumari had tragic stories. Smita Patil is another great actress who surprised the entire country with her sudden death. All were very young and talented.

Anna May Wong is a brilliant article indeed. I've already read that a long time ago. I hope it encourages editors to expand articles of lesser known artists. BTW, I caught the Hugh Grant which took me by complete surprise.

Ross, thank you for everything. I wish you all the very best, please keep up your brilliant and prolific work. It was a delightful conversation. And don't hesitate to contact me in whatever you may need in the future.

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Ray Milland

Hey, it's VERY relevant - before death, he was 6' 4"!!!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC) And is it just me, or does Alastair Sim look a lot like a very old Nicholas Cage? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Aw shucks, you guys!! A barnstar from a very busy administrator and seconded by my favorite editor!!! And it's not just the wild look with Sim and Cage - they have the same eyes!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the same wild, crazy eyes!  :-D Rossrs (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a good day, don't work too hard! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I just received your notice and to be completely honest, I'm rather new to this site. And for one thing, you make good points. I sometimes forget to use the edit summaries, but you are absolutely right about using them, because they do help. I will try my best to use them more often and I reverted your edit because you reverted mine. I did not call Gary Cooper iconic, though someone else must have wrote that. I like to capitalize the "Occupations" one holds, because it looks quite strange if its lower case (reminds me of being in first grade). Anyway, this is my view of this whole "issue". I apologize for any inconvenience. And to make this site better, I have some requests that I would like to pass on, if you don't mind. Thank you, Rossers. Justme89 (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Hi. I would recommend requesting a bot to remove all of the awards, it is an excpetional amount of work needed to remove them. Would save you time. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Limited pictures

I noticed that a lot of articles about people/actors do not have pictures and the commons page does not have some of these pictures. Do you know where else to find free images? I have a list of articles that should have pictures, or at least deserve to. For example, Miranda Cosgrove, Bob Barker, Josh Peck, etc. Justme89 (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC) -The image for Bob they say is not free, even though a picture is up. Seems like they might get rid of it. Its very hard to find free photos of celebrities.

Limited pictures

I noticed that a lot of articles about people/actors do not have pictures and the commons page does not have some of these pictures. Do you know where else to find free images? I have a list of articles that should have pictures, or at least deserve to. Justme89 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I answered your note for Wildhartlivie. Thank you for watching me, it is good to know someone is. LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Luez

Thanks. The two of them may have no more than chatted offhandedly about MM's name change at the time and the tale likely grew, Luez was in some ways a "Paris Hilton of the early 1950s", through a string of mis-tellings in gossip rags. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Any time

Good to see you too! Hope my little lecture on reverting and consensus has some effect. Not that I expect it will. Be well! Tvoz/talk 05:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way - what about this one that he also uploaded? THought you might want to add that to your listing if it's not legit. Tvoz/talk 07:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words - things were very crazy on the US political articles, to say the least, for the last couple of years - and it's really not much better now. Keeps me on my toes. As for the movie image - what you say makes sense to me. I don't really know a lot about the ins and outs of fair use, but this one didn't look kosher to me. I'll leave it in your hands - meanwhile I'm filing a 3RR report, in hopes it attracts some admin attention to this guy. Tvoz/talk 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay us!! I want to take this to GA some time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Kate

I have worked very hard to keep this article from being sullied and I'm quite pleased that it's succeeded. No one has said anything about GA on it, but there are those who come through, looking for a decent article that they then can semi-claim and try getting it to GA or FA. I didn't realize this for quite a while, but I'd wonder how some would have such an extensive list of stars and dots on their userpages. This bothers me on a couple levels. Not that anyone owns an article, but there is such a thing as giving credit where it is due, and these are the editors who don't particularly put in the hard work to get an article to a certain level, but do usurp it for a userpage credit. It annoys me. Someone came through one time and nominated Heath Ledger, despite the fact it was sometime in December and awards season was just getting into full swing. How stable would that article have been!!??

I'm glad the infobox category is helpful, I noticed the new section you'd added and thought it was important. I think Pinkadelica might work off of it because she adds a lot of infoboxes. I discovered because I do assessments and add project banners in the course of doing other things. Maybe what we need is a work list that includes checking the infobox, birth/death templates, removing awards, delinking dates (yeah, I know, but that's going to be what happens), removing the superfluous "Biography" heading, checking links and refs formats, putting in the WP:ACTOR filmography table heading, checking layout (esp. for the last part of "References", "Further reading", "External links"), removing fancruft links, checking findagrave, imdb, etc., templates and the assessment level/WP project banner on the talk page. That's fairly much what I do when I'm working on any list, at least as much as I can. To me, that is clean up.

As for sarcasm, nah, don't worry about it. That guy found the page because he had written an article about some biochemist named Robert Crane and he moved the actor Bob Crane to that stupid DJ and actor page and made the Bob Crane page a disambiguation page. Then he followed every link under "What links here" and changed the links. I made sure that was all undone, how ridiculous it was!!! I think we can be just as hateful as we want on the sandbox pages, although the more serious stuff can be said privately. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.

How's this for a sentence in a lead: "He was famous for his shaved head and dry yet still feeling delivery." Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I OFTEN forget persondata, which thankfully, you or Pink remember to add. I try to be thorough. Speaking of thoroughness, why did they cast Matt Dillon, who was born in 1964, as the love interest for Kate Hudson, born in 1979, and with Owen Wilson, born in 1968, in You, Me and Dupree, a 2006 film? Is that believable? 42 and 25? I mean, there was a huge age difference between my ex and me, but it wasn't made into a movie!! Maybe... I should write a screenplay... Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why yes. Yes, I am referring to the "Academy Award-, Golden Globe Award-, and BAFTA Award-nominated American actor"? No matter that Matt has a bit of a youthful appearance, in 1998, they expected us to accept that he was a high school teacher for Denise Richards (born 1971) and Neve Campbell (born 1973), a comtemporary of the ever-droning Theresa Russell (born 1957 and playing Denise Richards' mother) and the 6 degreed "Golden Globe-nominated" Kevin Bacon (born 1958 and appeared with full-frontal nudity) in Wild Things. Sometimes, they ask that we suspend disbelief too much, and the too old Dillon didn't fit in Dupree, although I do like him! Did I ever tell you I am 2 degrees from Kevin Bacon? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well.. *Clearing throat* one of my friends has a boyfriend who has a sister who was a very minor actress back in the day. Now she is a real estate broker in Los Angeles. The sister dates a minor actor named John Patrick McCormack. John and Mary came to visit her brother about 3 years ago and we all had a very lovely dinner on Memorial Day. John's career includes appearing in several television shows and films, frequently as a military or authority-type figure, perhaps most prominently in a few episodes of The West Wing, The District and some various Star Trek shows and a film. Some film appearances were Armageddon as a general, Catch Me If You Can as an auctioneer, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil as the ER doctor who has to examine The Lady Chablis, and the Police Commissioner in Zodiac. The important one for purposes of this was as a general in the Kevin Bacon film Hollow Man, which made him one degree from Kevin Bacon. Since I have met him, had dinner with him and he signed my DVD covers in which he appeared, that makes me 2 degrees. Follow that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think John would be thrilled that someone in Australia recognizes him. He seemed quite surprised that I wanted his autograph on my DVDs, although he did sign one "Thanks for last night", although there had been no last night. Every time I watch Midnight I laugh because the action in the scene (discovering Chablis' "candy") was so unlike him. He's quite tall, quite handsome and has a very deep voice. I believe he went into acting later in life and once owned a successful restaurant in Chicago. Most of my friends have had brief brushes with celebrity at some point. I know all about Joanna Lumley, most British men I've ever talked with cite her as a boyhood fantasy figure. She seems to stay young. We've talk about some of our brushes before, I'm still most thrilled by seeing Bette Davis in person, even though it wasn't as if we became friends :( . I'd have liked that. As a total non-sequitur, I watch Little House on the Prairie every night. I never watched it when I was young, but I sort of enjoy it now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Life has a such a strange way of bringing things back to us, doesn't it? Some are good things, some are not so much. That's partly why I like Little House, it has good, moral and almost always happy endings and sometimes, I yearn for that! I worry about my aunt, she's not bouncing back from her surgery as quickly as I'd like, I hope that changes. I'm off to bed quite soon, have a happy! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Debra Messing

Sorry I didn't get back to you, I actually got some sleep. The way you entered the awards is the same way I have done it - with the years in parentheses after. I don't see breaks in the years column, so either you fixed that or it's related to your settings. I only have two minor comments, and they aren't requisite. I use the m-dash instead of the hyphen after "Nominated" (it's on one of the menus by the edit line), and personally, I tend to use the <small></small> when there is a notation like "with Eric McCormack, Sean Hayes and Megan Mullally", but that's just me. It looks great!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it also has to do with how wide your screen settings are (600x800, etc.). In any case, it looks fine to me. Yes, the m-dash is the wider one, the thinner one is the n-dash. And I see you've fixed the table with them. By the way, Messing almost always looks wonderful, but that photo in the career section is atrocious. The dress doesn't fit well, it shows just how flat chested she is - I can't tell if it is bad darts or just nipples. Eek! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that is pretty bad. I like the one Shankbone got this past weekend at Tribeca, but I wasn't as thrilled with the one he's put up for Uma Thurman. I downloaded it, touched up the spots and dabbled with the contrast and brightness, but I'm hesitant to upload it, he doesn't always seem to take well with others touching up his photos. The photo of Meg Ryan is good enough, but she still doesn't look like the old Meg. I wonder why she had her face done? Her cheekbones are awful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the plastic surgeon thing, I tell ya!! Meg should have avoided that. Geena Davis is good, but to me, the Aiden Quinn photo has that same over-saturated coloring as Uma's. There are several in the group that look that way. The photos are good, though. There's a US term for how Uma looks that has to do with riding and not drying off afterwards. It's kind of vulgar. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Edward Asner, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Um...

What's a line breah??? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. Just to note, Excuse me is afoot. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is never unusual when afoot that one becomes atool. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Penny

I think Ed Begley, Jr. has wrapped something around her because she forgot to wear anything. That would be why he's looking away and laughing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So...

...not speaking tonight? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, occasionally, Momoricks will send me a note telling how one of my snarkier edit summaries made her laugh. Is that the case for the triple-misspell revert I did? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I was particularly fond of this summary, I hope no one took it as sarcasm!?! I can't recall having seen It's a Great Feeling, but it wouldn't suprise me at all if the tiny tiny pause was intentional. By the way, Eleanor Parker is still amongst us, in body as well as in soul, as is Patricia Neal, although by the look of the photo on Patricia's page, that could change, even though her hair color doesn't seem to do so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

All I can is say that I'm glad that William Wyler's mother isn't alive today to discover that he was French and had predatory problems... Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I must confess, I'm a little disappointed that her 27th birthday failed to chart. I'm fairly certain her 26th did. By the way, that LOINLO person has been sprinkling many irrelevant things about the old encyclopedia recently. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow, totally. All that psychotic screaming, ranting and raving and head-shaving. And then there's Brit to still deal with. I just noticed that they are remaking one of my favorite 80s guilty pleasures - Clash of the Titans. I'm not sure how it will be without Harry Hamlin, Ursula Andress and Burgess Meredith. Curious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just come across that information while I was piddling around on the Ralph Fiennes article. Usually, when I mention that film, people wrinkle up their noses about it, but I loved it too. I was really smitten with Harry Hamlin because of that film, he did look good in armor, long before Brad Pitt donned it in Troy (although a fair comparison can't be drawn because they didn't show Harry out of armor). I rather liked that owl too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As I'm about to go off for a nap, I just wanted to note that now I've found myself leaving a perfectly legitimate edit summary about Parker Stevenson's penis. [2] I believe it has to be time for a nap... Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And I don't know what it is, but there is something jiggy with your menu heading for this page... there's a very visible "font-family Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; border: 4px solid Indigo; padding: 6px; ;" that wasn't there before. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur other edits I may have been talking about?

Hi, I've responded to you on my own talk page, as it occurs to me many times someone arrives with a misunderstanding and then I explain things on their pages, but my page remains looking like I deserved and had no response to all of that. I thought I'd give you a heads-up. No hard feelings. Best, Abrazame (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

New day, new subtitle

Regarding Kirstie and Parker, I was watching the awards the night she thanked him for the "big one" and I have always thought she was referring to his member, not his skill. Never considered anything else and to my knowledge, she has never clarified to what it was she was referring. And personally, I think it should remain that way. A little ambiguity never hurt anyone.

I'm equally pleased about removing the Ryan O'Neal mugshot. It was deleted from the commons once, but whether it is or not, it is not appropriate as the main ID photo. I'm not even certain that those drug charges were prosecuted, I was under the impression they arrested both him and his and Farrah's son Redmond, that it was Redmond to whom the drugs belonged and that Ryan's arrest was more of a "everybody home, everybody arrested" thing. There has certainly never been any more publicity about Ryan, only about Redmond.

Okay, then, on to Celia. There are restrictions on the linking to pay sites and sites that require other registration, but that rarely stops us on articles that aren't likely to be up for review soon or if it from the New York Times archive. Besides, this is a book, so anything you have can certainly be cited to the book itself, can't it? I'll table the filmography on her article today. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did do it, it didn't take long. There is a dearth of comprehensive information about theatre, but it can be ferreted out. Have you looked at the IBDB? It has one listing for Celia Johnson [3], but nothing beyond the New York area. You might try here. Hopefully you can find something. I've worked my way through all the acting/directing Academy Awards regarding deprecated parameters and have started on Golden Globes. Although there is often a lot of repetition, there are others as well and I've been trying to clean up the articles a bit as I go if possible. I'm currently working on making John C. Reilly a proper filmography, he's earned it, if nothing else, for his song in Chicago. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought that there was a London based theater database, but evidently I mixed it up with the page for current London information. I was saddened to hear about the death of Dom DeLuise. He worked with inventive comic actor/writers. I'm not that fond of Will Ferrell myself, but I suspect it never hurts to work for money sometimes and I'm sure Ferrell films pay well, so I can forgive Reilly for a few crap films. He's working on something called Cirque du Freak, which appears to be a vampirish movie. That's a departure for him. There are also a couple others in the works which seem more serious. I always tend to like Reilly, some of the better moments in The Perfect Storm were because of him, although I found the overall film very claustrophobic.

I miss live theater. We always went to shows when we took our little mini-vacations to New York in the late 80s before the demise of People's Airline. One could go round trip for $69, 4 of us would rent a hotel room for around $50 a day per, and the whole thing cost around $300 each for a 3 day break. There used to be a university connected summer stock theater group that performed in a tent in our town. I was in 3 of the shows!! I was in the orchestra (read that piano, harp, drums, some strings and horns) for The Fantasticks, played the piano (the only instrument used) on-stage through the entire production of Godspell (in the round so I was never off-stage), and was in the chorus for Oklahoma! (which I hated). I preferred watching, though. Godspell was exhausting and was the last thing I did with them before I got married. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

YES!! That's exactly the scene in The Perfect Storm that I had in mind when I said that. I suspect we'd get on quite well if we weren't on opposite sides of the world. The little break in his voice, the exquisite pain - it was perfect. I rather liked John Hawkes in that as well. He was in a film called Wristcutters: A Love Story which was dark, odd and fairly good. I was much more interested in the smaller characters than either the Clooney or Wahlberg ones. I suppose it is a bit odd to describe a film that takes place on the open sea as claustrophobic, but it was, especially considering the thoughts of those guys dying locked below deck in a boat the way it was depicted. They haven't a real clue about what actually happened to those men but I thought the overall film told the story well.

I've not read The Woman in Black, though I like a good play. I'm not all that great a musical talent, I'm mostly a hack. I took piano lessons all the time I was growing up and when I decided to go to college after I'd been out of school for a few years, I started out as a piano minor. I soon realized I had a tin ear as far as being able to pass the listening portions of the music theory classes, so I dropped back to just taking lessons at that level. I was also smart enough to know I'd always be a piano player, not a pianist. In any case, they needed someone fearless enough to be on stage for the entire performance and I was there to do it. It was fun, but it's not something I'd recommend on a continuing basis. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The first time I saw, I didn't know either and I too expected a Hollywood ending. I was somewhat ... gobsmacked? ... at the end. Of course, at the end they show the memorials of those lost at sea from the Gloucester area, and we had the DVD, so I watched all the extras and then ran to the computer to read what I could. I even tracked what they thought was the general path of the boat on Google Earth and surprisingly, it wasn't all that far from where the Titanic went down. Just a note in passing: Billy Tyne looked nothing whatsoever like George Clooney. I had a similar feeling at the end of a film I rented once to watch with some friends, one of whom had just gone on Social Security Disability due to AIDS. The film was Longtime Companion and I had no idea it was about death. I believe the word gobsmacked covered that feeling as well.

I came across Wristcutters as a Netflix recommendation and got it, I was glad I did, although the WP article doesn't cover the film very well. By the way, did you notice I'd removed 10 names from the Academy Awards recipients lists at WT:ACTOR that needed filmography tables? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There are just some films that one knows, even while watching, that it is a good film, maybe a great film, but at the same time, you'll never watch it again. Longtime Companion was one, The Hours is another (although I did succumb not long ago and sobbed like a little girl afterward anyway). A River Runs Through It was another. I should take that approach with Legends of the Fall, but damn, Brad Pitt just looked tooooo good in it, so I take it out and watch every now and then. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Renée Geyer Barnstar

Thanks - much appreciated. I actually finished my major edits there about a month ago. Two recent edits updated information on her newest release.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple things

I came across Paul Hogan tonight as I was working and was a bit alarmed at the personal life section [4]. I don't know the particulars of what is going on, but what was written, based on the sources given, was a WP:BLP nightmare. I rewrote it based on the sources as I did other work. Would you stick this on your watchlist please, in case someone wants to revert it back to the point where he's already been tried and convicted before he is or might be arrested? Also, I moved your User:Rossrs/Sandbox4 to your userspace from the userspace of some non-existent user named Ross, just so you know! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The way it was presented made it sound like a national scandal and when I read the articles, I realized it written by someone with a POV stick. Yeah, they seem to be quite rich, but the way the articles read vs. what was written, it sounds as if the issue is over taxes that may or may not be owed on $300 million but the article was saying he owed $300 million on his own. It was soooo vague and I simply cringed. He's not as rich as Mel Gibson though. Gee, your family rubbed elbows with celebrities!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Flying too close to the ground

Geez, but I've done a LOT of filmography work this week. When I got to the Golden Globes awards checks, a lot of those articles were much messier than the Academy Awards. There's redundancy, but then there are a lot who got nods at the GGs because they carry two categories for each class of actor and actress. Some of them I thought were way late in having attention. It's made me go hunting through my VHS cabinet and I've watched some lesser films this week that I hadn't thought of in years - Nuts (film), The Dream Team, Wolfen - silly stuff like that. I've looked at some pages that Just for a quick "Oh my" sort of reaction, take a look at Zero Mostel. It's fundamentally an interesting article, but it's so POV and glowing. Not to mention it's essentially unreferenced. There was some contention over it last year and I tagged it for several issues, which I'm sure will stir up something. By the way, I rather like those Carl Van Vechten photos that are on some articles. They are always interesting.

Michael Caine looks good. I notice you saw the filmography table header. It's never been proposed to WP:ACTOR, but I think it's something that could be quickly and easily adapted. I've put it on a few articles and I noticed that someone else had done so on a couple filmographies for singers. The Crosby filmography is shaping up. I wonder why people spin off filmographies with no other work except to move it to a new page. While I don't dispute Crosby's needed to be at some point, the guy did it in February, tagged it, and moved on? I don't know that the short films need to be tabled, for the most part, there is little to add regarding them except for the titles and many articles don't have them tabled. As for the television appearances, I don't think every appearance on a talk show, etc., needs to be listed. For someone like Bruce Willis, who drops in on Dave Letterman every time he's in New York, it would be ridiculous. However, I do think television appearances as an actor are relevant, [5] and for Crosby, there are a few variety shows that were either his that he hosted, or included regular appearances. Yeah, it's hard to determine, and I don't care for "Selected" appearances either. I don't think there's any valid reason to include any appearances using archive footage. Does that muddy it up enough for you? By the way, I'm sure I gave you think link before, but in case I didn't, I have a page with award templates to copy and paste that is helpful for filmographies (User:Wildhartlivie/Award and nominations templates). Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Bing's shorts are probably better off where they are. I saw that you are working on Ernest Borgnine. I always liked him, he had a guest starring role on ER recently that was just top rate. It was part of the show's finale. He played a man who had been married for 60+ years to his high school sweetheart and she was dying. It occurred to me that his performance was Emmy worthy, so I'm hopeful for him. I like my awards templates too, I added a few this week that came up more frequently for some actors. It's more helpful than a vaccuum cleaner, I use them more! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Joyce Compton

You wrote: "Please be careful when using material from copyrighted websites. This edit to Joyce Compton copied verbatim the contents of this site which is subject to copyright as per the copyright notice at the bottom of the source page. I realize this took place when you were relatively new to Wikipedia and our policies regarding copyright can be confusing, but this type of edit is considered a copyright violation. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)"

I did not edit "Joyce Compton".

You need to be more careful.

Savolya (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)savolyaSavolya (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this contradicts that statement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it shows that I had the edit. I do not recall. In any case, sorry.

Savolya (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)savolyaSavolya (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

New thing I'm doing

I thought I'd take a little break today from doing infobox awards, filmographies and clean up. I've created Chlotrudis Award for Best Actor (a work in progress) and will do the other 4 categories related. I was TIRED of making tables!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when real life happens to interfere with what I'm doing on online! Be that as it may, I'm still living under that "I may disappear for a while" kind of thing so don't be surprised, and I'll still drop a note when I can if or when that happens. I haven't seen Au revoir, les enfants although it does sound good. I watched A Thousand Acres earlier today, it's a bit depressing in a Tennessee Williams kind of way.

I find it interesting that your Trichosurus vulpecula is endangered in Australia and considered a common pest in New Zealand. I suppose that happens a lot, though. In the US, wolves are considered endangered - except for in Alaska where Sarah Palin apparently enjoys in-flight wolf hunts. Gee your possums are a lot better looking than the American variety. this looks a lot better than the ones around my town. They are mostly a lot whiter, with less hair and a hairless tail. They look like huge white rats. My main problem in the house is the occasional mouse, which I've learned will look at you and scream if they are cornered and trying to get away from the cat. I'm quite glad mine are mousers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, although everything says A Thousand Acres is based on King Lear, that's as close as it gets to it. One wouldn't know that unless one read it somewhere. It's a modern setting, a modern story, complete with adultery, greed, child molestation, Alzheimer's and death. You know, really, it comes down to the fact that almost every story ever told is a rehashing of an old story, no matter how much the storyteller adapts it. It's rather like music, there are only so many permutations possible until repetition becomes inevitable. Cynical? Yeah, today maybe. I pulled an old tape of Silkwood and am watching it while I piddle about. I just noticed a very young Will Patton in a brief role - he was quite cute when he was 25 and had a full head of hair. Not that he isn't now, but geez, HOW young they all were. By the way, Granny Clampitt cooked the white, rat-tailed possums. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this return to activity mean you got rid of your little visitor? I noticed a article that cries for a good intro - Julianne Moore. She's quite a good actress and I was a little dismayed that she has a one line intro, though I'm crap at writing leads. Just a comment... Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh geez, don't you that "between 8 and noon" means maybe 5:30 or tomorrow?? What a pain, in any case. Are you still 3 + 12 hours ahead of me? Like somewhere around 3:30 pm? I try to keep that in mind. It's half past midnight here.

There are a lot of things that WP:ACTOR needs, and specific projects are one. One that I think might even more pressing might be a MOS for actors and filmmakers. It would help promote a lot more consistency. It could probably be modelled quite a bit after the one for WP:FILM. What is it? MOS:FILM? Food for thought, in any case. I can't believe I have 25 year old VHS tapes in the very back of my cabinet and they still play fairly well. I've been so bored by tv lately that I've dug the back ones out. The tape for this evening has Silkwood, Cannery Row (when Nick Nolte looked like a leading man) and Brainstorm (my little Natalie Wood thing), I had numbered the tape #4. The very first thing I ever taped was Night of the Living Dead and the second was Caveman (a nicely young Dennis Quaid was fairly shirtless through the whole thing). Have fun off and about. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) That gives me a new timeline to consider. I think WP:ACTOR needs a guideline for things that are pertinent to the project, things that go beyond MOS:BIO and WP:BLP. Perhaps a bit about layout that isn't covered in specific, use of filmographies of some type - and by extension, finally getting around to getting MOS to change its recommended filmography format from the list to the table, where to put awards, maybe address some of the other awards clutter. For instance, why do we even need succession boxes for awards when we have the ever-increasingly incessant templates for awards. It's only a fancier table. I dunno, I've given it a little thought, but not a lot in-depth.

I'm a packrat. I can't bring myself to get rid of those videotapes. Hey, I paid $25 for the very first one I ever bought!! I hope that things shape up for me so that I can become a little more technologically advanced than I am right now. I have a DVD player, don't record them, want cable modem access, want a DVR, want, want, want. Needs seem to take precedent, I don't get that. Ah well. I've got about 200 tapes with 3 films each on them, sometimes more, so it's not so easy to replace some of the stuff. I used to routinely tape whatever was showing on AMC, so I have lots of old Charlie Chaplin and Sherlock Holmes, much Kate and Bette, anything they showed from Frances Farmer, you name it. I usually had/have what I call a "sh*t" tape that I use to record my favorite shows during the evening and then watch them and record over them. Otherwise, I'd have great Monk and House collections plus all the odd shows I love. The ads on the old tapes that I do come across do tend to look as dated as the 50s ads used to look when I'd watch those shows on late night with the full ads intact. Ah well. Back to doing more Clotrudis Awards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy most of what I've got, but I have to admit I have boxes that haven't been opened in over 5 years. At some point, those need to be discarded. I've still got a box full of notebooks and folders left over from college. One never knows when one might need to some old calculus notes. I'm nearly finished with the 5 articles I wanted to get done, just doing the clean up on the last one before I save it. Although Clhotrudis has director, script, etc., too, I don't plan on doing those right now, although I will go back to them. I'm ready for lunch and a nap, even if it is too early for either. I've done too much work today! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to look at it. I have looked at that article and mostly have thought it was fairly decent, but it could easily be much longer. Don't worry about Mel, at least someone put something positive in his article for a change. I'm quite sleepy myself. Have a good night!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Julianne and the little Moores

The lead really really is an improvement. Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

how is it not free?

how is it not free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excuseme99 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Negative Wood info

1. the national enquirer info was already there. regardless of what yout think of hollywoodteens.com, the youtube link is from the official "biography" documentary which says that gregson had an affair. the other link i provided was imdb, which is reliable.

2. everything else i added is from robert wagner himself. you said not to put negative information about him, even though biographer suzanne finstad has support from over 300 of natalie's acquaintances as well as natalie's sister to write the negative things about wagner. still, it did not satisfy you. well, the souce is wagner's book. if these aren't reliable then i don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excuseme99 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Furry friends

I cannot believe you didn't use the Scarface line!!! "Say hello to my furry friend!" I do believe he is taunting you. Was this just before he put his opposable thumbs in his ears and went "nyah nyah nyah?" If it were me, I'd offer him an all expenses paid one-way trip to New Zealand. That would do it... Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. The problem is, Wile E. Coyote never caught the Road Runner and often was smashed to smithereens in trying. Besides, you don't want to eat the Road Runner, you just want him to find another road to run!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

True. It's not like the possum trap exploded in my face, and no I don't actually want eat Mr. Furry, though I'm sure he'd be yummy with potatoes and carrots. ewww! Well, gotta go. Work is calling me. I'm calling back, "no.... leave me alone....." But it's still calling. Rossrs (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sam and other things

Have a good weekend. This officially starts the period of time where I'll likely not be around too much for the next week or two at least. I remember Samantha McLeod in Snakes on a Plane. She didn't last too long after the start of the film. It is funny. I removed the deprecated awards in the list, although this might have been an ideal time for the Golden Raspberry parameter. Have fun and talk to you as soon as I can. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you had a nice weekend. It's become cold here again the last couple of days - almost freezing over tonight. I've stayed up far too long watching Chaplin. It was quite a good film and Robert Downey Jr. was exceptional in the role, it was quite easy to suspend disbelief and accept him as Chaplin. It had been years since I'd seen it and am glad I stayed up. It takes a lot to draw my attention away from the computer, it seems.

I suppose I should feel badly about ruining the John Dillinger article, but... nah, I don't. I've seen some weird things on Wikpedia this weekend, I'm glad it's over!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen Heart and Souls that I recall, but you never know what I'll pull out of my tape chest. For instance, at the end of my Chaplin tape, I had stuck on highlights from the 1994 Winter Olympics figure skating exhibition - Philippe Candeloro, , Oksana Grishuk and Evgeny Platov, Ekaterina Gordeeva and Sergei Grinkov, Elvis Stoyko, Jayne Torvill and Christopher Dean - it was a spectacular time for that sport and I was a real skating geek then. And there was a lady in it, too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Newman edits

The answer to your question is, I believe, that the guy adding unsourced items to a fully-sourced section is the HarveyCarter sockpuppet, who loves to mess with movie star articles. The IP is one of his. In that case, you can delete whatever he submits w/o comment. Monkeyzpop (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hi there! Ho there! Could you do me a favor a pop Bonnie and Clyde on your watchlist for today? This is the 75th anniversary of their killing and some vandalism/inane additions wouldn't surprise me too much. Thanks!!

I did some clean up on Farrah Fawcett tonight and tabled the filmographies and got kudos for it! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't seen any previews for Public Enemies... how odd. Every year, I have high hopes for my dear Johnny to have his best performance yet so the Oscars will finally do the right thing. I watched Benny and Joon today, that was one of the first times I recall that I thought he was fairly terrific. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to stop for a moment and think about it before I realized that Burn After Reading would be on first release there. I'm not a big Tilda Swinton fan anyway, her drummer's marching tune is a bit odd for me. They did say good things about Brad's performance in it, maybe comedy would be a good career move as he starts to inch closer to 50. And that inch is getting small all the time. The Oscars often have a long memory for a great performance. Weren't the Pirates films summer releases? He was nominated for one of those. I don't know, I just keep on hoping. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite sure Johnny will eventually have his little gold man. I believe had not Pirates been quite so financially successful, he may have had it for Jack Sparrow. He was amazing in the first film. I think Brad Pitt will have to have something quite spectacular to win, though. He was so very very good in Twelve Monkeys yet so was Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects. That film holds up so much better than Monkeys, so perhaps it was the right choice. I haven't seen Benjamin Button yet, I'll get to it this summer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think those women go over there and lobby for the Volpi Cup prize, it seems to be quite important. I wonder what it looks like, maybe there's a Cracker Jack surprise in it...? Heh. I'm mildly surprised. Bonnie and Clyde seem to have raised little note today, although I note the person who so wants to smear Halle Berry by overemphasizing her driving record was back. It's not as if the article ignores that issue, but honestly, is a separate section warranted in which the non-notable person who was hit and received a healthy settlement following a misdemeanor charge merit inclusion?? I don't think so. I don't recall non-notable anyone in other articles so I reverted it. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I must look at the main page more often, I didn't know the star-crossed lovers were on it. That's a fairly great photo of a volcano in action there, though. About Halle, she's not a felon, the charge was a minor one and only carried a misdemeanor charge with a fine and probation. I don't know how it works elsewhere, but felons here lose certain rights, such as voting, etc. and is a far greater crime. Generally, hit and run won't carry a felony charge unless there were other factors (under the influence of a substance, death, etc.). The editor here wants to make sure she looks as bad as possible, I do believe. The Dawn Wells page is interesting. I've had dealings with ProxyUser before in regard to Charles Manson and the newest photo from the prison. There were lots of efforts to pass the photo taken this winter of Charlie off as free use, when it was never released under that. For some reason, he felt the article should have the newer photo, which looks nothing like the Charlie everyone everywhere would recognize and got fairly tenditious about it. It was deleted each time he uploaded a new version, so take that as it is. In any case, it does seem like undue weight is being put on the marijuana thing. I mean really, in the scheme of things, so what? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you worded your concerns quite well (as always) and I will add my endorsement of the viewpoint. WP:HARM is something I don't think about citing often enough, and I should. I also think your moving of the meticulously cited and documented stuff about Alyssa Milano's dog was good. There's a new editor around who seems to only be concerned with making talk page edits named Johnwrd. From his posts, he seems to live in the Los Angeles area and makes comments about the stars themselves, such as on Talk:Drew Barrymore#Pets. At first, I thought the Alyssa note was from him. How many stars have pets that died? A whole lot of them. The only other one I know that is mentioned here is George Clooney's famous pet pot-bellied pig, that had a small amount of notability on his own. Odd people in the world, eh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly important note on Alyssa Milano's dead dog, may he rest in peace

Ha, I hadn't seen the end of that paragraph, only the beginning, or I would have stuck it there. Thanks. Also, "recently"--unfortunately the hopefully editorially impeccable Healthy Pet didn't see fit to give a date or so, so I fudged around a bit. Your solution is quite elegant. On behalf of all pet lovers, thanks, and also, thanks on behalf of Ms. Milano, I'm sure (I'm not quite sure I know who she is, but I'm sure she's important). Drmies (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Halle

WTF? [6] Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Juliet Mills

She has her own fan fest?? Wow. Yeah, she certainly should have a dress checker before venturing forth into the fans. Nice crop, btw. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't consider that the fan fest was put on by her, I figured adoring fans put it on for her. I didn't realize she was married to Maxwell Caulfield. She must have been smitten by his performance in Grease 2. Maybe it was that white biker's outfit. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kitty!

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

You know you want one! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexy Rexy

When you get a moment, would you mind weighing in at the Rex Harrison talk page regarding the bisexuality claim? I'd like to build a consensus regarding its inclusion once and for all. Thanks! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I have a feeling it's Harvey Carter as well which is why I wanted some kind of rough consensus before I start reporting the IP. Thanks again! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Madonna

Thanks for the note. That article should be FA, but I gave up on it, due to fanatics like the one who shall not be named. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rossrs. Couldnot wait for the cleaning up. Think we can go ahead with FA now. An article like that should deserve it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I hope the situation with that particular user will be dissolved so that the article becomes stable. I am working towards bringing it to FA along with all other Madonna related articles. But we need a huge peer review again before it is moved to FAC. I have asked Bookkkeeper and Realist2 for their comments also since both of them have promoted BLPs like Janet and Michael to FA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely I will do. PS I just looooooooooooved your user page and the sub pages. Scruptuous!! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ann B.

Wow, how hateful was that? Yeah, perhaps an RPP should be filed. I don't know if it will get protected, but it certainly should be. I did manage to get Mel Gibson semi-protected today, but I'm not so sure that they will protect Bonnie and Clyde, which I also requested. Some people have nothing constructive to do with their time, I guess. I actually don't think you fanned any Harrison flames, it was already burning. The only thing that really happened differently was a half-hearted protest that he isn't a sock, but the IP was still in the HarveyCarter range. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is simply an excellent lead section on Dame Judi, congrats. I hope no one comes along and tries to "improve it", Excuseme very much. I have noticed, and am pleased to see, that others have begun speaking up about his/her editing practices and it seems clear that either the nonsense is going to have to stop or there will no excuses for it. I hadn't realized Mel was protected for 3 months, that was an insightful choice, and it expires on my birthday! I'm not surprised that vandalism picked up on Bonnie & Clyde, but I was a little taken off-guard that it seems to be an after the fact of the anniversary spurt. I've seen the Harvey socks at work, I think he just goes to google books and runs "autobiography bisexual", that should give him scads of supposition to insert. It's funny that he never seems to bother with actors whose sexuality isn't secret. He just uses them as the targets of the affection of the closeted majority, apparently. Heh, what a concept. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think that you and I are familiar enough names that they would also note that we are both being much more assertive in our posts to and about Excuseme and take that as a indicator of a problem too. But yes, it's all a good thing. He/she has backed off considerably since the objections have multiplied beyond us. The comments about Robert Wagner and calling Madonna a sl*t didn't help much. As Cyndi Lauper sang "I see your true colors shining through..." I made three tables on Jane Alexander last night. Someone had made a filmography list that mostly consisted of plays she'd done on Broadway. That was quite odd. I think my forte is building tables. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't mind doing the tables, I usually manage to get them finished without errors and I've gotten quite adept at spotting format errors if I see that one exists on a table. I too like the formatting, however I've seen one or two opinions of them that weren't very positive. I really like that template heading, I suppose one day soon we'll have to submit it to WP:ACTOR for official approval and change the table recommendation accordingly. It does eliminate objection to using a more complicated coding and copy and paste is so fast. I have another work page at User:Wildhartlivie/Projects Filmography which has a variety of templates ready made for copy & paste to table, add links, etc. I usually keep a browser open with that page and the awards templates when I am working on WP. I am sure Ernest and Agnes are quite content to wait patiently until the time you feel like finishing their tables. They've wait this long! I'm sending you an email. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Some stuff

We've got an issue come up regarding the filmography table template. Someone made a change to it because they didn't think that vertical lines were showing up and somehow this was brought to the attention of some administrator or another and now two different adminstrators have changed the template from the style we've been using to one only using a plain wikitable format. It's rendered every table using the template to a plain table. I've been arguing trying to discuss it at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Header color in wikitables and essentially it's been a "who do you people think you are trying to use a table style that is different" sort of argument. I suggested they help us format a template that both uses wikitable, if it is so important, and allows the use of color without having to put hard code color styling in each column in each table on each article but no one has come up with a suggestion. They say that the project has no right to recommend the use of a table using a specific color, which makes no sense to me. I made the point that each project determines styling of its infobox, including the use of color, navboxes and templates use specific color, and I do not know what makes that different. Can they actually dictate the lack of styling? My comment on the template talk page was basically, then delete the table because it won't be used if it's of that plain bland style. Oh, by the way, my comment that the project endorsed it because it actually wasn't plain and bland was somewhat ridiculed, or at least I felt that it was. I won't use the template anymore if this is how it is going to be.

Also, there is an editor who has changed images in the infobox on Mae West and on Greta Garbo. He keeps trying to use a cropped version of the Mae West photo, neither of which he used was as good a quality photo as the one we had on it, and he took that great Arnold Genthe photo of Garbo out to replace it with File:Greta Garbo.jpg and then with File:Greta Garbo02.jpg. I'm annoyed because neither of those photos are as close to the prototypical view of Garbo as the one that was already there. Geezzzzzzzzz. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rossrs. You have new messages at Wildhartlivie's talk page.
Message added 18:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC) by David Levy. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Is it just me...

...or does the first sentence of this section read as funny to you? Do you suppose it was written that way intentionally?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I rarely come across things here that make me laugh out loud, but the image of Billy Bob going everywhere with a featherduster to clean off old harpsichords and running in fear from something once sat upon by Marie Antoinette just cracked me up. You're right, that was much too subtle - and much too funny - to be intentional. Billy Bob is an odd duck, although I must confess to a distaste for old silverware myself - but only if someone wants me to eat with it. Ick. The slightest tarnish just makes me nauseated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you suppose they had werewolf phobia in common?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Philia may be correct. Yes, I saw the attack and I left a formal warning that says this is the last time and the next time, it will go to WP:AN/I with a request for him/her to be blocked from editing. I think there is more than enough support out there to make that happen. I reverted the parking lot relationship, requesting sourcing. Have a nice coupla days, I'm having eye surgery tomorrow morning, so I'll likely be away myself. Happy, happy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh

Geez oh pete. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason he/she has gone back to Angelina Jolie, you should check the recent talk page posts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd think it was hubris, despite the fact I was accused of that very thing lately. The policies don't apply to her, I believe sincerely that is the problem. This person is possessed of some spooky foreknowledge and none of us lowly editors has that insight. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure I have celebrities I can't abide. Tom Cruise comes to mind, he is more than over-rated. I'm no fan of Oprah Winfrey, I think she's her own biggest fan, and I have no clue what she could ever be doing to earn $275 million. Maybe Britney Spears. Ryan Seacrest is kind of a place marker and I don't see his appeal. I suppose Beyonce's income is mostly from record sales, wouldn't you? She's got a huge fan base here for her music. I don't much care for her. Meryl isn't 54th, she's 64th. I suppose to each, his or her own. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen the Kate Moss ad, she's not all that in the US compared to others. I'm even less of a fan for Depp reasons. I'd say that was a personal low point for him. :) Maybe working on the Streep page will discourage excuses. I'll look at the Streep sites tomorrow. I need sleep!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Source material

Here's some books & chapters I found on Google books:

• Maychick, Diana (1984). Meryl Streep: The Reluctant Superstar. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312530668.
• Ebert, Roger (2006). Awake in the dark: the best of Roger Ebert : forty years of reviews, essays, and interviews. University of Chicago Press. p. 64. ISBN 0226182002. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Hollinger, Karen (2006). "Magic Meryl". The actress: Hollywood acting and the female star. CRC Press. p. 71-99. ISBN 0415977924. (This chapter seems very in-depth and has a fairly long listing of works cited with urls that would give more material.)
• Meryl Streep is Madonna and siren as The French Lieutenant's Woman. Vol. 14. New York Magazine. Sep 21, 1981. p. 26.
• Priggé, Steven (2004). Movie moguls speak: interviews with top film producers. McFarland. p. 202. ISBN 0786419296. (About Music of the Heart)
• Tichler, Rosemarie (2007). "Meryl Streep". Actors at Work. Macmillan. p. 288. ISBN 0865479550. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I'm a little confused, but if I understand it, the quote from her about Silkwood at the end of the highlighted paragraph ending with "What I finally did was look at the events in her life, and try to understand her from the inside." is from the Awake in the dark book. If so, you'd format the cite just as it is listed above:

• Ebert, Roger (2006). Awake in the dark: the best of Roger Ebert : forty years of reviews, essays, and interviews. University of Chicago Press. p. 64. ISBN 0226182002. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

It even has the right page for the last of the quote. Is that what you're asking? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hello Ross! I'd like to congratulate you for your work on the Judi Dench article (I remember you did not know where to start from). The lead looks fantastic. I wish we'd reach a similar success with the Meryl Streep article. Oh BTW I didn't really feel a touch of New Zealand in her accent. I've lived here for over three years now but still don't really differentiate. It's great that you noticed. I've learnt another thing about Streep's way of paying attention to details.

I must tell you something. I remember Tabu's performance in the American film The Namesake, where she played an Indian Bengali woman who immigrates to the US. She had to learn Bengali accent and mannerisms, which are known to be very unique. Upon the film's release, though American critics praised her for her performance, nobody spoke of her hard work mastering such accent (well that was quite obvious). I was saddened. Recently, it happened again with Zinta's new Canadian film Heaven on Earth, a Punjabi language film. People don't know, but she does not speak Punjabi at all as her native tongue is Hindi, something that was overlooked as well (though she won an award at the Chicago International Film Festival and was nominated for a Genie Award).

I hope Meryl does take it as seriously as she took Australian accent if she ever plays an Indian woman. Because many actors just make the stereotypical Indian accent. I'd cast her in the role of Indira Gandhi.;)

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tabloid?

Is the Daily Mail considered one of "those" tabloids? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversially, I'm sure, I've removed this addition to Mel Gibson, cited from this article. To me, it's essentially repeating snarky gossip, alluding to some horrible "unfaithfulness" on the part of Gibson, which fails to mention that he and his wife had been separated for somewhere around 3 years prior to her filing for divorce. Is there some reason why Gibson would be held to a higher standard of behavior than everyone else in Hollywood? I don't think the article does enough to be neutral as it is, without snarkiness like this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It all is frustrating. For a real peek at frustration, look at what I've spent the last ... 3 hours maybe? doing. For a great peek at why it was so bad, look at Judi Dench for the worst display of the offending table. This person probably means well, but geez. There is simply no place for that POV distinction or room for those tables. And that was mostly the best supporting actress tables, imagine Dame Judi with a table like that for all of her wins!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

More. I've not been brave enough to venture over to David Carradine yet. Can you imagine how crappy the Carradine family weekend has been? It's bad enough he died... but come OOOOoooonnnnnn!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure I'll hear something, or worse, come back later to find them all returned. I left a note with Garion96 to alert him. Ah well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I just looked myself and am glad to see there is no overtly glaring sensationalism attached. The actual story itself is sensational enough, and I had not heard about a photo being published until now. How horrifying. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses

I've had enough. Was that too apparent?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Cher doesn't sell singles. I fully intend to start working on the request for Excuses to be at least topic banned if not fully banned. I do believe that there is enough to make a case for banning, between the assertions that Wagner is a murderer, to homophobic statements and content, to simply being tenditious and disruptive. I'll have to look back, but there are several others who have spoken against the behavior and the editing practices, including adminstrators, and it is time to do the dirty work and make the case. Enough is enough, as you said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going off for a while to read some more Twilight. I'm a bit behind the trend recently, I'm afraid. It's not too bad for a "young adult" book. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A flash from the past

Just FYI, User:Britneysaints seems to be out and about again - see Talk:Louise Brooks and File:Canary Murder Case.jpg. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported him at 3RRN Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:James Stewart_(actor)#Survey

Hi. I asked a clarification question at this topic and would appreciate your feedback regarding the question. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer)

I wrote a new LEAD section, you may want to take a stab at improving it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I also expanded the Legacy section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the legacy isn't perfect yet. I just wanted to get some crucial information in there. It'll grow as we work on it. As far as the "primary Madonna" page, there was an extensive discussion in the archives that said Madonna (Mother of God/statue) takes precedent over the entertainer. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Louise Brooks image

Would you and WHL look at File:Louise Brooks in Europe.jpg and tell me what you think, please? I removed it from the Louise Brooks article because I didn't think it really added anything, and was hard to see even after I fiddled with it. As an orphaned fair use image it's been marked for deletion, and I wanted you to double check me on it - should it be restored to the article? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Scanners

An invitation to take a look at this and see what you think. As always, no expectations, no hard feelings. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

Hi, I watchlist this article mainly to remove unsourced content and vandalism. Would you be open to giving the article a face lift over the summer holidays? I'm not convinced that it's up to the standards of a featured article in 2009. Thanks. — R² 14:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to attack it with everything you've got, and I have no problem proving feedback if you want/need it. I'm fairly good at the FA stuff, although it's been a while. I do agree that there is a bit of recentism and the tone isn't appropriate in some places. — R² 16:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I just posted a link on the talk page about guidelines regarding genres. If there is only one person objecting to it, it may need further discussion. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Guy Sebastian Images

I was hoping to get your input into the Guy Sebastian article. I noticed that you helped with the editing of the Olivia Newton John article in regards to the inclusion of a Guy Sebastian image. I am not an experienced editor, but I am finding the inclusion of images on the Guy Sebastian article a little heavy, and I am also finding these same images appearing on articles (such as the Newton-John article) that don't seem to have a great deal to do with Guy Sebastian. I have detailed some of these concerns on the Guy Sebastian talk page. Would you please be able to take a look if you can? Thankyou Bugsyrivers (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

I thought it was OK to add pictures to other articles - I am still learning my way around here - I have noted comments about this - and I will look at the pages I have had added images to and remove them if this is what is required. I was just being enthusiastic about the whole linking thing - I guess I have a lot to learn.

Cheers, Diane

--Diane 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DianeSunshineCoast (talk • contribs)

Rossrs

Thanks for the links for signatures - I now have it working properly - I had raw signature box ticked in preferences - once I unchecked the box my signature appears correctly.

Diane (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input to the Guy Sebastian page and for your sensitivity. I can see many changes have been made and a lot of work has been done by the main editors on the page. I know this will come across as picky, but there are still many images of Guy Sebastian in other articles that I don't feel contribute to those articles. I do understand that these contributions were made with the best of intentions, and not as a promotional tactic. I can see how energetic and devoted the editors of the Guy Sebastian page, and I do not want to come across as overly critical. I am not sure where to put these concerns. I am again loathe to start editing the images out of these pages, both out of respect for the editors and my lack of knowledge about how such things should be done. Should I be starting a discussion in the talk pages of the articles in question? Here are the articles I am querying:

Gavin Sutherland [7] - the only image of the page is of Guy and Gavin. The image is not particularly strong of either of them. I'm not sure its the best image to illustrate this article, Gavin's collaboration with Sebastian seems to have been a minor one in the big picture of his career.

Indian Pacific [8] - The only picture in the body of the article is of Guy Sebastian performing in front of the train. The train is barely visible and Guy is also not prominent in the image. I am not sure it is the best image to support the article.

World Vision Australia [9] - The only picture in the article is an image of the cover of the World Vision Australia magazine showing Guy Sebastian. Of all the images of Guy Sebastian in other articles, this seems to be the most relevant to the subject of the article. I don't really have a concern about this image, do you think it is a good example of when to include an image in an article?

David Ryan Harris [10] - Guy is pictured with David in one of two images in the article. It is not a good representation of David, and Guy is in the foreground.

Ardent Studios [11] - the only image of the page is of an album cover of Guy's. One quarter of this article is about Guy Sebastian.

Donald Duck Dunn [12] - the only image in the body of the article is of Dunn in concert with Guy Sebastian and Steve Cropper. Dunn is not prominent in the picture, and I'm not sure its a good contribution to this article.

Sarah Ryan [13] - The only image in the article is of Ryan and Sebastian taken backstage at a reality TV show. I am not sure if it properly illustrates Ryan's time on the reality show, and I don't think it supports an article that is primarily focussed on her swimming career.

Are you able to offer some advice on some or all of the articles in question? And if not, what is the correct procedure?

Thank you again for your time Bugsyrivers (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bugsyrivers and Rossrs

Bugsyrivers since you joined wikipedia 4 days ago comments you made have been taken on board and huge changes have taken place on the Guy Sebastian article all in good will to fix the article in line with wikipedia guidelines and the editors who were concerned about the article. When you commented and put up links to images that were placed on articles - in a act of good will I removed them immediately and said I would be back in another session to have a look at where else I could edit.

It now seems that you have gone back through my history and gone to pages that I have edited and listed some here to 'dob' on me to an experienced editor. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun as well as contributing. I note that you joined 3-4 days ago and that you have not made any contributions here on any wikipedia articles and you have only been on the talk pages to make comments on Guy Sebastian which have been taken on board and many hours have been spent by another editor here to make the page a better article for all to read. All this has taken place within 48 hours and it just seems that you are now going out to find trouble and make mischief and only joined to wikipedia to do this.

I really enjoy being an editor here so I dont want to think that my every edit is now being watched and criticisms made which would take away from my good experience here.

Regard Diane Diane (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Diane,

I'm going to reply to you on your talk page as your comments were addressed to me and not Rossrs.

Bugsyrivers (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bugsyrivers I have now responded.

Diane (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I don't see that anybody has done anything wrong here, and Diane is right - there's no reason why this can't be fun and enjoyable. Diane said she would look at the articles and the images, so give her a chance to do that. Everything she has said and done suggests that she is trying to do the right thing. Bugsyrivers it was OK to send a message to me. If you aren't sure what to do, it's a good idea to ask someone, and I think you made it clear that you didn't want to do the wrong thing. I think you've made some good points with your comments, although I don't agree with everything you've said. I would be interested in Diane's opinion, and I think it would be useful to continue discussing these issues. I'll leave it up to both of you. I'm willing to participate if you both are, but I'll wait for you both to reply. Rossrs (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rossrs - Thanks I got your message on my talk page. When I get a spare moment, I will look at my contributions to the articles that were brought into this discussion by Bugsyrivers who I have left a message with on their talk page as well. I am away for the weekend now so you have a good one too.

Cheers Diane Diane (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rossrs, Apologies for taking so long to reply. I thought if I responded quickly I may again be accused of making mischief, being on a mission and having questionable motives! So I do hope you understand my motivations for delaying my response. I'm very thankful for your kind help and advice, it is hard starting out and wondering if you are doing the right thing. I am glad to have found some gentle and patient Wikipedia editors like yourself willing to persevere with newbies like myself. I am still interested in contributing and participating in the continuing discussion regarding the images in question. I have already made an initial offer for discussion, and I look forward to hearing your views and the views of other editors. Thanks again Bugsyrivers (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

An FYI

If you are interested or have any pertinent content to add to the case, please see this SPI. Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebels with ambiguous causes

Oh gee. Do you suppose R.J. had something to do with the wreck and the stabbing? Jazz it up with meaning and innuendo whenever you can!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hint

₯. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

In response to the seemingly knowing comment re: using images sparingly and with a purpose you made at [14], I initiated a discussion at [15], if you care to comment. Thanks. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The impressive Miranda Otto

That is funny. Who knows, maybe it was the first way? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You must be working down the...

...Best Supporting Actress winners and nominees list? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

James G. Stewart

Just wondering why you removed the hatnote from this article. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See

Talk:Samuel L. Jackson. I think this is a significant discussion in that the article is a good article, someone took it upon himself, having not edited the article before, to spin off the filmography into its own page without ever so much as a mention on the talk page first. The filmography has been completely and irrationally referenced - right down to a citation on every title, in some cases, a different one for the role name and director. It's a fairly long filmography but it takes up about 6 kb, while the article itself is only 39 kb. It has removed any possibility of checking for other film roles that weren't significant for inclusion in the article body. I have huge issues with this sort of thing being done in general, unless the filmography is so overwhelmingly huge and the article is running long. Besides myself and the editor who spun it off, the only other person who has commented on this who ever edited the article is Nehrams2020 who worked the article for GA status to start. The others have not edited the page. Perhaps you have relevant insight into this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous is as anonymous...

I saw that too. I checked the traceroute on the number because I thought it was Excuses, but the number is in Australia and Excuses, of course, is in lalaland. It's silly to stick such "milestones" to my thinking. By definition, someone will have to be either the oldest, youngest, weirdest and clueless to get something. I think I came up with the definitive James Stewart page discussion point, although it took a bit of time to assemble the numbers. Someone asked "But how dominant is James Stewart (American actor) over 25 other James Stewarts?" I gave the only answer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You find the page view statistics from the revision history page in a line called "External tools". It's at the top between the Browse history boxes and above the "Compare selected history" button. I only noticed a month or so ago, I suppose I should read the entire page when I open it. Once you open it up, you can select page views on a monthly basis. I have to admit though, when I looked at the figures on James Stewart, it was even more compelling evidence than I hoped it would be. Maybe it will put this to rest. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a handy little tool and I'm continually discovering new tools here. At some point, would take a brief look at Johnny Depp (which at least for me is never a bad thing)? An IP popped into the talk page to complain about the lead and then a relatively new editor said "Agreed" and changed it. I replied about my view of what was said and done on the talk page, and I've changed the lead back and expanded it a bit. What it was [16], what it changed to [17], how it is now [18]. Feedback would be greatly appreciated, whether it's here or on the talk page, whenever you have time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

Hi Rossrs, uh, sorry to bother you, but I was hoping if you could help me out. I was referred to you by Wildhartlivie, who told me you have "knack" for copy-editing and stuff. Which I agree, the work you did on Gwyneth Paltrow's article, the excellent job on the lead... and other articles. :) So, I was wondering if you had time to copy-edit Brad Pitt's article. I only ask this request if simply you have the time.

As you may know, it didn't pass FAC, which was a downer, but I know the article is "there" and it just need help, meaning a copy-edit in the prose. If you can do this, I would be eternally grateful to you and you have no idea. Though, I would understand if you were to say no, due to the article being long... and stuff. I would appreciate your help a lot. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When Johnny comes marching...

er, well, I always hoped he'd come marching home. I was looking at the structure and to be honest, I was thinking that the more recent personal life had previously been where we think it should be found. I'm probably too lazy to go looking for when it changed, but then, why should I? At first, the early life leads nicely up to the career, then suddenly it veers into the 90s and he's getting arrested. I'm not entirely sure, but perhaps this article would be one that was more easily structured in a chronological manner, what do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to sit on this article as much as possible to prevent it from fanboy and sensationalistic cruft. For the most part, I've been successful, but then, Public Enemies will be out soon. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That is such a cool tool to use, isn't it? I've considered trying to work the article up to GA before, but honestly, it's a huge amount of work and I'm not sure I write well enough to do that. I found the articles ranks, it was a lucky guess. Look here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Um... go look at the Depp page and say or do something before I go off completely on this guy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And so it goes...

I reported that username, but adminstrators declined to immediately block it, although to me it is referencing one of the biggest electronics stores in the US. Did you see the articles a brand new account edited besides our old friend Natasha? Hilary Swank was one. I have no doubt who this is, but since the IP was blocked, the person must be somewhere else. Meanwhile, did you see this!!!????. And how dare it happen on the day we lost Farrah!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The electronics store username has been blocked. In other news, how freaking weird is this day? My friend Roger died last year during this week, the same day as George Carlin, although we all think Roger would have had a certain modicum of appreciation for sharing the 22nd with him. Bizarre, huh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This way is so much easier! She's a persistent little bugger, isn't she? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to think that I don't cry sock so much that the townsfolk have started ignoring me... Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, but Pink says I was bitchy yesterday. Well... sort of. Meanwhile, I left quite a nasty note with the Johnny Depp guy above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your courtesy, honesty and intelligence in our dealings over the last few months. Unfortunately, I have found those attributes to be sadly lacking among many Wikipedians, but it was always a pleasure to communicate with you, even when we disagreed. Be well. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bio help request

Hi, we've corresponded a bit in the past and I hoped you would give me your advice about how to move forward on having this article deleted. I've only just noticed Redmond O'Neal and I'm way overdue for bed. (I usually am, but I'm especially bleary-eyed at the moment!) I've never nominated a page for deletion before. Does it meet the criteria for speedy deletion? I was going to put a subst:prod tag on the page, but if it qualifies for speedy deletion that would be preferable. I was also about to post this on the talk page, but will post it here instead as explanation:

Redmond O'Neal is not an actor. He gave his voice to a small character in an animated film as a child. For whatever reason, the author of this article didn't see fit to mention that one small voice role in the article, despite calling the man an actor in the lead. In fact, his birthname was incorrectly attributed by that author to be that of his half-brother, Griffin O'Neal. The inaugural source for this article is not a write-up of that role but an "Entertainment" report about his arrest. At best, this article was created because this author was unfamiliar with WP:BIO#Family. At worst, this article was created to be a WP:coatrack for tabloidesque details about his arrest. It will devolve into that regardless of the initial author's intent. I say this not to disparage Redmond O'Neal but to protect his privacy as a private citizen.

I do truly have his best interests and Fawcett's memory at heart. It seems that, by 24, the son of Fawcett and O'Neal, if he had had any desire to be an actor or celebrity up to this point, could have easily gotten a number of supporting roles on his name alone, without anyone in his family lifting a finger. In other words, it seems to be a conscious choice of his not to do so. If you think speedy deletion is warranted, and you have the time tonight or tomorrow, could you do the honors? If the subst:prod tag is the way to go, perhaps the testy language I was about to put on the talk page would be better saved for a discussion if it went to that, and not posted anywhere for the time being. I just didn't want someone saying "hey, let's all try to expand the article," when clearly the "notable" press will give a one-faceted account and this will never be the biography of a human being. On the off-chance you're in an earlier time zone and are up at the moment, I'll check back in here before I turn in. Thanks in advance for your consideration of and advice on this matter, Abrazame (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I was trying to process the vagaries of the guidelines for deletion and at that late hour, I just hit a wall. Other than that article's talk page is there someplace I should monitor to see if an objection is made and/or a discussion develops? I've seen these things begun and over with in a day or so with Barack Obama related issues and I wouldn't want to miss having the chance to weigh in if this becomes a debate. Thanks again and best wishes, Abrazame (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way, for saying what you did on my talk page. My heart breaks for both Farrah and her son. Maybe more even for her son. She's been released from the prison of her cancer and I believe can see and feel the truth about their love and yet transcend all the pain and struggle. But—although I recognize he made some horrible choices—I can't imagine how difficult it must be to go day after night after day after night in a jail during and after your mother's passing. Even once he's no longer incarcerated, it will be a challenge to free himself from his addiction and his sorrow; I do hope he finds a way to do that.

Back to the mundane, an anon just removed the tag. Can an anon just do that? What next there? Does he have to elaborate on a reason or do we have to make our case anew? Abrazame (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is an article for Griffin O'Neal. And, as with Redmond, though the article starts off calling Griffin an actor, the entirety of the article is his brushes with the law, and there is not a single mention of an acting credit. It occurred to me that something should be done about that as well, but I didn't want the argument for Redmond's privacy to be confused with the issue of weight in Griffin's article, as they are two completely different cases. My underlying point is that Redmond never chose to be an actor or a public personality (Griffin did). As you note it takes a week, I'm going to give it a day for the anon to post if he intends to before I post at the AfD page.

Incidentally, how do we go about protesting that policy? It seems you agree with me that someone should express their case for removing the delete tag if that removal is to be given credence and change the course of action. Somebody just added heritage category tags, as if this would improve the article and its chances. It seems that if an anon knows about category tags, they could be expected to click on a link in a delete tag that would create a section at a discussion forum page, and add something there. Abrazame (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rex Harrison

Hello dere. I thought you might find this interesting and enlightening. K. called and told me, she was so proud! Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)