User talk:Tchockythegreat

Anne Hathaway (again)

I reverted your revert to the edit I made. There were several reasons for this. You moved the Lancôme endorsement out of chronological order, moving the January 2008 announcement to the after September 2008 content. You changed wording to state that Valentine's Day was released AFTER Alice in Wonderland. Valentine's Day was released in February and Alice was in March. You sourced content to a website called daemonsmovies, which is not a reliable source. We do not stick IMDb in as a source for future films as there is no vetting of the content regarding future films. You added content about future films unsourced to the filmography list, we don't list future films unless it is accompanied by reliable sources in the main body of the article and never IMDb. YOu added unsourced content to the section about Phantom of the Opera, and it is rather repetitive to add co-stars or directors to each and every film mentioned. And regardless of whether a film has been delayed, it is still scheduled and sourced, so The Fiance should not be removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And with all due respect to you, whose entire Wikipedia life seems to consist of editing articles about or related to Anne Hathaway, it's not just a little bit ironic that you would thrown around words like "Save your hammer-dropping for actual vandalism and let people who are actually trying to make the article read better make the article read better. It's not your private internet fiefdom." Actually, it really is bullcrap. I went out of my way to come here and explain to you the rationale for reverting your pointy, unacceptable edits, which by the way, any administrator I contact to involve in this would support. The edits by a single purpose accounts, such as yours, should be scrutinized very critically. You don't seem to have a clue what is involved in working an article up to a solid B class, Good or Featured articles. And you don't seem to have a clue about guidelines for adding and sourcing films in the filmography. So let's go over it one more time.

Lesson one: As long as there is a reliable source attached to any film, regardless of your apparent personal point of view and unsupported contentions, it is acceptable to include the film in the article AND in the filmography and only with a reliable source, not sources that aren't acceptable. If no reliable sources are attached, nothing in future films should be added to the table. We only have your "word" about the date for The Fiancee and not daemonsmovies.com, which is a self-published site that doesn't meet the standards for reliable sources. The film has been sourced, which, by the way, your rationale has not been, either about production hell or about your assessment of
Lesson two: The sections cover what professional work she did, the Lancôme endorsement is work, it is sourced and is in its proper place at the start of her 2008 work. Bogus rationale for moving it to the last part of that year and away from where it fell.
Lesson three: don't clutter up the article by name-dropping. You have a nasty habit of doing that. There was no reason why you couldn't just change Hudson to "Kate Hudson" in the next sentence instead of rambling on about co-stars and ineffectively adding "Blah Blah-directed" wherever you turn.
Lesson four: Never go on rambling about there being no valid support for someone reverting you when you can't even be bothered to get film releases in the right order. I notice you ranted and raved, but failed to comment on your screwing up the chronology of the 2010 films regarding Valentine's Day and Alice in Wonderland. And correcting blatant errors in citing "most recently appeared in" is hardly trivial. Nor did you mention that you stuck films in the filmography that are only supported by IMDb and by a non-reliable source, sources which are not acceptable.
Lesson five: When a sentence subject has been removed via inappropriate editing, it's far better to add the sentence subject rather than add drivel that doesn't add anything to the article, like the Gerard Butler/Andrew Lloyd Webber drivel.

So let me give you a

Cluestick

to help you along. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tchockythegreat! I am Arbiteroftruth and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hathaway

I just wanted to leave a couple notes on your edits to the article. Article subheading titles are never completely capitalized per guidelines, unless it is an already existing title. As an example, the proper format would be "Early life and career" rather than "Early Life and Career". The other point is please don't move around references. If a sentence has facts or quotes that are sources separately, please leave the relatively reference with its sourced fact. It leaves no doubt as to which reference is for what fact/quote. Also, please note that because this article is designated a good article major rewrites and rearrangements of sections should really be broached on the talk page with suggestions to allow input from concerned editors. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that you were vandalizing the page, nor was I discounting your contributions. I just wanted to point out some stylistic issues that seem to be incongruent with your university practices. Those of us who watch certain articles often find ourselves walking an odd line between reverting vandalism, trying to keep certain issues within guideline criteria and incorporating new content. That some of the rewording was an improvement was what kept me from simply reverting everything. I hope you didn't think I was calling you a vandal. I was one who removed some of the lesbianism and anal sex additions to the article! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hathaway (actress) GAR notice

Anne Hathaway (actress) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]