User talk:Spelling Style

Date of marriage

In the section entitled "Personal life" in the article about Whitney Blake, you changed the year of the first marriage of the subject from 1944 to 1940.
Do you accept the proposition that she was then 14 years old?
Or do you question that or find it to be suspicious?
What's your source for the authority for your change?
DocRushing (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Liu

Dear Spelling Style

"You attempted to add episode listings (she appeared in) at Lucy Liu, but the edits did not show up on the current vision. I believe they have to be placed under "Notes". Spelling Style (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)"

You were a bit over-enthusiastic (the word rude crossed my mind) in removing the additions I have made. That's why the episode information disappeared. I have added it again so that it is easier to watch the right episode for people that are interested. Especially the Hercules episode is really directly in line with her later martial art appearences.

I have added most addition again, now with an 'Edit Summary'. Below I give you some extra explanation. Most information comes from three interviews (Guadrian, Standard and HungerTV) related to her exhibition in the Salon Vert last September/October that has provided useful new information. Would you be so kind to check the references (not just the ones below but of all the addition I made) before removing them again?

Comment about who she's dating: I agree with you that it is not fully proven that she's dating Noam Gottesman. On the other hand, is there proof that Ms. Liu is still dating McCormack? That are dozens of sites stating this, but I didn't come across a (recent) photograph of a remark in an interview that they are still dating. She has most probably been to Isreal, see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4035793,00.html The article in the Standard states Each one of my canvases has a secret.' They include, among her found objects twined in string and hanging from the wall, a piece of stone she brought back from a trip to Israel with Gottesman to attend his father's funeral in March 2011. 'My work can be very quietly fierce,' she sums up. (http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/lucy-lius-next-victim--the-art-world-6449031.html). Mr. Gottesman was also present in at art gallery (Salon Vert) in September 2011 when the interview was made (he is a quietly supportive presence at her exhibition launch party in London).

Another section from the article in the Standard: "In 2009 she met Noam Gottesman, the billionaire divorcé co-founder of the GLG hedge fund, based in London and New York. They were photographed together in Florence touring the Vasari Corridor, and he is a quietly supportive presence at her exhibition launch party in London. There is, after all, in her sequence of skeletons, a love story secretly hidden: one of the spines has a just-visible embroidered dove rising through it. The title? First Kiss. 'I don't know any artist whose work isn't autobiographical,' she says. 'Especially if I think of Louise Bourgeois or artists whose work I love.' She adds, 'Each one of my canvases has a secret.' They include, among her found objects twined in string and hanging from the wall, a piece of stone she brought back from a trip to Israel with Gottesman to attend his father's funeral in March 2011. 'My work can be very quietly fierce,' she sums up."

So, no proof they are dating, I agree. But they are at least well acquainted. All in all, it think it would be better to replace the word 'present' in the topic 'Partner' into a question mark. But maybe you're Will, or have some other recent proof that they are still dating.

The same article in Standard also has the following text: "Her home in New York is a studio 'with a bed in the back'. Is it pristine, like her canvases? 'No, it's a hot mess!' She used to live with her brother John and his wife, occupying a floor of their home. John, immediately recognisable as her brother because he shares Lucy's perfect facial bone structure, told me how she would often work on her art through the night, after filming: 'That's when her inspiration flows.'" In another article she mentions that she bougth this 7 years ago (2011-7 = ~2004) (I had included the reference). So, in September 2011 she was not living with her brother anymore! And probably hadn't for quite some time. This is important because people get a strange impression when somebody lives with her brother when she's 43.

The article also mentions the following: "She has had surgery on her lower back. 'I have had many injuries from different stunts over the years, and I realised how trauma that happens to our bodies stays with us, and it's emotional. You hold on to these things and grow through them. And then you go to the doctor and they say, "You've been injured ten years, but your body just worked around it." ' She is now showing me a squat, boxy, wood-textured sculpture she has cast in bronze that represents emotional damage. At least I think it does. 'This represents something that slips, something that changes, but does not disconnect.' Like a growth? 'No, not like a growth. It's about how you adjust. Maybe you've had a fall or you've had a bad break-up and you've broken your heart and it's the worst thing in the world, and then you adjust. You adjust because you have no choice.'" I haven't included this information on the Wiki page yet. But it could explain her fixation with spines. I read somewhere else that cause might have been that she had fallen of a horse and of her bicycle in the past.

It is always mentioned that her farther is a civil engineer and her mother is a biochemist. This shows that her parents are intelligent. However, it seems unlikely that they would find jobs in those fields in New York, with an education in the fifties/sixties in China or Taiwan. The article in the Dailymail states "My parents [Tom and Cecilia, who gave up careers as a civil engineer and biochemist to move to the US] were immigrants coming from China, and they spoke English haltingly". If they would have been working as engineer/biochemist, there would have been sufficient income which is in contradiction to the impression one gets from her youth (quotes like 'difficulties to make end meets'). And yes, in the article of the guardian it is mentioned that her farther has sold digital clocks. Probably not the only thing he did, but again it illustrates that things were not easy and that they were not living the American Dream.

I also added a sentence about her stage debut in New York. Imho, this is a crucial piece of information in the biografie of an actress. Esepecially when the director was an award winning Asian American.

Don't you think that there should be a separate table about her art exhibitions? It seems that it means a great deal to Ms. Liu so it would do her justice.

(what is your real name by the way?)

Jacco Huisman (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Liu 2

Thanks for your response. Of course I was just joking about you being Will McCormack. I could imagine that he would like to let the world think he is still dating Lucy.

There was one photograph of Noam Gottesman and Lucy where he appears to grasp for her hand. But I agree that it is too little to say they are dating. However, Lucy mentioned in an interview in 2011 that she had found new love 7 month earlier. And there were several sites like Forbes who mentioned that Gottesman and Lucy where dating. However, that is getting a bit too much just interpretation. So, I didn't include this anymore. But I really think the word 'present' should be replaced with a question mark. Or do you have any proof since 2005 that they are still dating. Maybe the name of McCormack should be replaced with a question mark.

I have seen other series of rather recent photographs (2011) where she is with a guy that could be Zach Helm (whom she almost married). He divorced ~2 years ago. So, maybe they are back together. Who knows?

About the length of the Wiki page: There are so many sites that show the same basic information. If Wikipedia does that too, then what's the point? It would rather see that the Wikipedia is more extensive and complete to make it different from all these other sites. There is also a nice Table of contents, so people can quickly jump to the section of their interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacco Huisman (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Talk:Marilyn Monroe does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Gyrofrog (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sophia Bush

My reversion didn't have to do with years of release (that's fine). Don't assume things -- and then revert. Wait for a reply. And be willing to learn from more experienced editors. Good day. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Lohan

I found a source that indicated it was Dina, and added it to the relevant passage. It also clarified the date of the communion party where he was involved in a fight with his brother-in-law. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that! Nightscream (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello, I'm Cresix. Your recent edit to the page Matt Damon appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Matt Damon

"That news report cited him alongside Natalie Portman, who did graduate. Both of them were listed as "Class of ___", but you were right. Later on in the paragraph, it explains that for some reason or another he did not end up graduating. See this. He was an English major. Should we include that? Spelling Style (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)"

No, because: (1) NNDB is not a reliable source; and (2) That source does not identify him as graduating either; his major is trivial. Cresix (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Minors in infoboxes

Wikipedia is not censored. Publicly available names should not be removed from infoboxes simply because they are minors. Cresix (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Really? I recall another editor said that on biographies of living people, children are generally not included UNLESS they have much media coverage, since they are under 18 and this would be considered a privacy violation. Anyway, I guess this can stay. He's been featured in an article at least four times a week, photographed, named and all. Spelling Style (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)"

Not true unless there is a policy violation, which is not the case in naming minors whose names are publicly available. There are policies against providing a person's address in an article; there is a policy against defamatory information (especially if not properly sourced, and more especially if it is a living person); and there are the standard legalrestrictions (no child porn for example). But the name of a minor child of anyone who has an article is not a policy violation. Cresix (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

RE Elizabeth II word usage

It doesn't appear that anyone has violated WP:3RR, so there's not much anyone (including an admin) would do except recommend that you raise your concerns on the article talk page. If that doesn't resolve the dispute, follow the steps at WP:DR. If an editor violates policy (especially repeated violation), bring it up at WP:ANI. If an editor violates 3RR, report it at WP:3RRN. When reporting another editor, be sure that you yourself have not violated a policy; that can WP:BOOMERANG and get you a block. Good luck. Cresix (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the phrase "four years younger", although I wouldn't have a problem listing the year of birth either. I do think indicating "only sibling" is important. If you want more opinions, there's nothing wrong with raising the issue on the article's talk page. Cresix (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Kathy Hilton

Well, if Kathy Hilton was born under the legal name Kathleen, why not include it? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Biographical articles/children's gender and name in lead

I would agree with those who reverted you. I think you're probably right that there is no policy, and if so this is a content issue that would be decided by consensus if you decided to push the issue. It is generally understood that the lead of a bio contains only the most outstanding information relevant to the person's notability. Certainly that would include brief mention of her major acting accomplishments and some awards. Husband's name is OK, I suppose, especially since he is notable in his on right. But I don't consider child's name important enough for the lead. I doubt that you'll get a lot of support, but you certainly have the right to pursue consensus on the talk page. Cresix (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, this is a content issue and open to discussion. By the way, the word "censoring" on Wikipedia does not refer to such debatable content disputes; it refers to policies against removing material that some people might consider offensive, such as socially-offensive language or nudity in images. I understand what you meant, and the only reason I mention it is because some people don't like it here when you accuse them of censorship. Cresix (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to tell you what to do because I'm not really involved in this dispute. But you might want to be careful about making changes to other bios based on discussion at the Portman talk page or how things are done in her article. A consensus from one article does not necessarily apply to other articles. And if you change many other articles, some editors (not me) might think you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Again, that's not a criticism; just friendly advice from an experienced but uninvolved editor. If you really want to change how things are done in the lead of other bio articles, it's best to either raise the issue on those talk pages, or at WT:MOSBIO. Good luck. Cresix (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to complicate this, and it may never amount to anything. I'm just trying to help you avoid future conflicts. To be specific, in this edit to Nicole Richie's article, you used the discussion at the Natalie Portman talk page as a rationale for your edit. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, and so far no one has objected to the edit. My only point is that if you make additional edits to other pages and use the discussion at Natalie Portman as your rationale, someone may object because you haven't discussed it at the other talk page (in this case, Nicole Richie's talk page). Discussions and consensus on one talk page do not necessarily apply to other talk pages. But so far there don't seem to be any objections, so as I said, I may be making much ado about nothing. Cresix (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Forum comments

All editors certainly are allowed to delete forum comments. Since your article made no reference to improving the article, and only discussed the subject itself, it had no place on the talk page of an article.—Kww(talk) 05:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I assume this comment is from you, and no, there's no policy that overrides WP:NOT. I will remove any comments you place on talk pages that discuss the topic instead of being directed at improving the article. If you persist on making such comments, blocks will quickly follow.—Kww(talk) 06:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)