User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 1

Back to Userpage

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

---

Hi I'm new and not too sure how to use this, but I was just wondering if it was y

ou who keeps undoing my addition on the Jonathan Rhys Meyers page and why

Dear Wildhartlivie/Archive 1,

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Unfortunately, using your e-mail address as your username is not a good idea. Wikipedia content is extensively copied and the site itself is one of the most visited sites in the world. Any edit you make on Wikipedia will have your username attached to it, and using your email address will make you a tempting target for spammers. We recommend that you change your username at Wikipedia:Changing username in order to prevent abuse.

If you need any help, simply contact me on my talk page, or go to Wikipedia:Help desk. Another option is to place {{helpme}} on your own talk page, and someone will come shortly to help. Remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Again, welcome!

 (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I received your message about usernames/email addresses. This isn't my primary email address, it's one created specifically for use on message boards, user sites, etc. Unless it's a rule that it can't be used, I do prefer to keep it this way. I've been using the internet for over 10 years and I don't have a spam problem since I've begun using this format. Thanks.

You can keep this username by all means. It's good that you are aware of spam problems - you should be able to keep on top of any that come from a Wikipedia-sourced database. Happy editing!  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signing Comments

Please note that you do not need to sign your comments thus - ~~~~ - on article pages such as Steve Irwin, this is only for talk pages such as Talk:Steve Irwin]. Cheers and happy editing! Jpe|ob 06:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

FWFR

Too bad you didn't like my tone, but I sure as hell didn't like buddy's (for example, using someone's full name when demanding an explanation of something you can't be bothered to specify is usually considered condescending, especially when you misspell the name). If you're snotty to me, I'm snotty back. Speaking of which, just what are these things I'm supposed not to understand? If you want more information about why I took certain things out, tell me what the certain things are. John FitzGerald 13:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And:

• the questions were not straightforward, since they failed to specify just what information was in question
• if you or Koli doesn't like what I took out, put it back in instead of making vague and unsubstantiated accusations of stupidity and ignorance against me. John FitzGerald 14:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And incidentally, I didn't say there was no need for explanations. I said there was no need to wonder about my motivation. John FitzGerald 14:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I will simply refer any interested readers to John FitzGerald's talk page for my response to this. I'm not keen on having to paste responses across 3 or 4 talk pages. Wildhartlivie 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want an "opportunity to discuss something," how about giving me something to discuss? What specific changes do you want to know the reason for? Your statement about not being a member of FWFR implying ignorance is clearly illogical. I am, though, a member of Wikipedia and I understand what constitutes a good article, and unless you can spare the time to tell me exactly what mistakes I made I'm going to believe that you are just harassing me for some obscure purpose of your own. I deny having said there is no reason for explanations for the simple fact I didn't say it. Apparently you're unable to quote my supposed assertion. Finally, I addressed no one as buddy; apparently it's now a crime to speak Canadian English (in the Toronto version of which buddy = he; in fact, it's polite form used to avoid calling someone he)). Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion, ask me about specific changes I made (I think you may have been trying to do that, but your description of the change was vague – okay, it was non-existent; you seemed to be asserting that something is true that I took out, but I may have taken it out for some other reason). If you want to go on just telling me what a piece of crap I am, I suggest we file a request for mediation, informal discussion manifestly having failed. if you don't like that suggestion, I'll file one myself, since if you are unwilling to discuss specifics there is no point continuing our discussion. John FitzGerald 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, could you tell me the date of the edit in which I removed something about the site owner's discretion, and why you think the information should remain in? Thanks. I will then endeavour to respond. Incidentally, the article does require sources, and if some aren't forthcoming soon the article should be tagged. John FitzGerald 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm such a good guy, I went and reviewed all my edits, and guess what? I didn't remove the reference to the site owner's discretion. I just tightened up the writing. My review suggests you guys should be thanking me instead of harassing me for things I didn't do – that was one flabbily written article before I worked on it. If you have any other changes to discuss, I'll gladly look into them. John FitzGerald 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made a final comment on my talk page. I will be reviewing the edits of the article. Why you couldn't just have informed me you were restoring some of the material so that i could express any objections to the restoration is beyond me. John FitzGerald 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed your recent edits – they're really good. The article has been significantly improved by them, and they are a significant improvement over the text I took out. I'm glad we finally seem to be on the same page. John FitzGerald 13:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Salopian has pointed out, with his/her inimitable charm, that I had leapt to the conclusion you were a man. Actually I had you confused with another user, a fellow who is also from Indiana, but nevertheless it's my fault and I apologize for the error. I am now leaving the FWFR page in your capable hands. Besides sources, my concerns have been with the inclusion of promotional and unencyclopedic material, and the over-writing. For example, I cut much of the text about Benj Clews' prerogatives for the same reason I would cut "I like to pay with pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters, dollars, two-dollar coins, $5 bills, $10 bills, $20 bills, $50 bills and $100 bills" and replace it with "I like to pay cash." I hope that's helpful. John FitzGerald 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You...

... for the warm welcome. The Chocolate Lady 12:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

I am the one who added the picture of Seung- hui Cho to the article on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. I just wanted to ask if you would be able to get pictures of the two sawed off shotguns, each of them used, onto wikipedia, so as to put in their article page. It would also be nice if you could get pictures of their knifes, pipebombs, and propane tanks. If you can get these pictures, could you please post them on my user talk page. Thank you. -User:71.191.112.253

Welcome to the Ward Churchill pages.

In general I tend to agree with Lulu and some of the other more level headed editors of those pages. I usually pipe in when I think there is an issue that requires consensus. Anyway hello and welcome to the milieu....Albion moonlight 07:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Preston

I am very pleased to see that you are standing up to Preston. I wrote this and placed it on the Ward Churchill talk page it was intended for him and the other agenda driven editors .

Eichmann is dead. Wiki's policy on BLP frowns on attacks upon living persons. Factual accuracy is (more often than not) in the eye of the beholder. I have mentioned this to Preston mcconkie before but here are 2 back to back quotes from wiki' policy on biographies of living persons,

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options." Cover the event, not the person. ::: Albion moonlight 13:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Check this out

Check out my sig! --AR Argon 07:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to bump into you

Wildhart, it was good to go into the history of the Jake Gyllenhaal page and see we were both busily editing at the same time. I apologize for accidentally undoing one of your changes when I was trying to undo some accidental damage I'd done. By reviewing the history section, though, I was able to undo the undo. Preston McConkie 12:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You said, "and boy, do I hate those "blah blah, and then blah, and then blah"s that keep popping up in articles!!" I can't agree more. I was just tweaking it too, and ahead of you I had already removed a number of those "additionally"-style transitions. My pet peeves are the overuse of "however" and other stylized transitions that are utterly unnecessary; really, any superfluous word, phrase or even syllable. I also deleted a rambling, wordy quote in praise of Gyllenhaal that seemed to have just been plopped in for no good reason. I'm glad to see there's someone else out there who simply likes smoothness and simplicity. Preston McConkie 12:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

I don't know if this was you, but the article RMS Titanic disapeared. You last made a revision I undid. Now if it was'nt you Im teribbly sorry for any offense, but if it was you then take this as a warning. Thank you.Philippe Auguste 05:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My clarification of this:

OK RMS Titanic got COMPLETLY deleted. Now its my one of favorite articles and I think the who did it was User:Wildhartlivie. Please check RMS Titanic's history to make sure I did the right thing. Don't worry I was careful with my words that I wrote there. Thanks.Philippe Auguste 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not me who blanked the Titanic article. If you will go back through the history, you will see that at the revision at 20:47 on 30 August 2007, another editor kept trying to blank out the internal message about vandalism, and both times he did so, it blanked the entire article. I tried to reverted what he had done, and as I see, several others have been trying to fix what was done. You weren't all that careful with the words you wrote anywhere. Since I see you're a newbie, let me ask you to be sure you know who did what before you scatter about accusations. And if you'll look at my contributions history, you'll also see that blanking a page is not something I do. But gee, thanks for the warning. Wildhartlivie 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am SO SORRY. =( I couldn't tell who it was or even what cause titanic's disapearance. Please do forgive me. I am very sorry. I'll retract all statements regarding you. See I couldn't figure out the article history page(its complicated for me). Once again, Iam really and truly sorry.=(Philippe Auguste 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Wildhartlivie 02:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Gay cowboy.

Hang on, you point me to a link which specifically says "The media keep tagging it as the gay cowboy movie", but then claim that the media don't refer to it as the gay cowboy movie? Don't be silly. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But you're totally missing the point. Whether the word gay was in use in the 60s, or whether Jack was a bisexual shepard is not relevant to the fact that "gay cowboy" the term that the media used. It was ubiquitous, it was mentioned in virtually every review and interview I read and watched at that time. That's why I put the term in quotes, to recognise the fact that we as an encyclopedia do not claim he is a gay cowboy, but rather that is what Jake's role was characterised as. Whether Brokeback Mountain was about gay cowboys or the romantic relationship between two men who couldn't express themselves freely about how they actually felt towards one another due to the opporessive era they lived in is neither here nor there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Watch just slightly longer

I've reported Dev920's 3RR violation on this. Usually admins respond fairly quickly, but if I could ask you to keep an eye for any further violation, that would be great. I can't fix it again without 3RR'ing myself. What's most annoying is that Dev920's most recent edit had an edit comment indicating it was a deliberate slap in the face after I added a more nuanced mention of the phrase in the article body (complete with proper citation). I have no idea[*] what her/his crusade for the cute-but-inaccurate phrase is, but it's certainly single-minded in relation to this article.LotLE×talk

[*] Actually, I have some idea. I suspect Dev920 has the same misguided perception that MeltyGirl has, that somehow crude and inaccurate language that uses the word "gay" must automatically advance gay rights (as witnessed by all of MeltyGirl's irrelevant edit comments about a gay cowboy being "a good thing to be". FWIW, the word 'gay' actually was around in the 1960s, it just didn't enter it's widespread and default use until the late 1970s. The subculture use of the word dates from the 1900's or 1910s; I don't actually care whether the lead describes the main relationship as "gay" or "homosexual" as long as it mentions (as the current version does) the more complex psychological issues in the characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What up wit' Downey

To answer your question, I reverted it with some other edits, and I think I saw the bit you added on, and totally missed that you were adding on to a reference. I will replace it immediately. Please accept my apologies. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem and again, sorry for the mistake. Cheers! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Madonna

I'm curious as to why you reverted the edits contributed by Bookkeeperoftheoccult this morning. This editor added references and expanded the lead in a fairly minor way, which was supported by both the references that were added as well as the reference that already existed in the paragraph. I'm asking because you didn't add a reason for the reversion and only said in the following edit that you "fixed lead." I was under the impression we should always include an edit summary, and especially when it involves reversion of material supported by a citation. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your assumption about edit summaries is correct, but people make mistakes when they are in haste. Sorry for that.

Anyways, some time ago, it had been agreed upon on the talk page that empty, meaningless media-touted titles, such as "Queen of Pop," "King of Pop," etc have no place in an encyclopedia article. Having a source does not necessarily means that it should go into the article. There are POV issues to worry about, which have been the main downfall of the article. The intro of that article seems to list everything that is great about Madonna. We don't necessarily need one more point of how great she is. I'm sure they get the picture. Thanks. Orane (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: John Wayne

Hello, noticed that you worked on John Wayne.

This line makes her sound like a nun:

'"Mother Mary Alberta Brown was of Irish descent."'

This one makes my eyes roll!

"A surprising percentage of the cast and crew of the film The Conqueror developed cancer. The film was shot in Utah, where the U.S. government had tested nuclear weapons."

• 1) The testing was done in Nevada.
• 2) Please see my addition to Talk:The_Conqueror#Cause_of_Death_1.29_Smoking_or_2.29_The_Conqueror

I know you didn't put in the Utah thing, but, the word surprising you put in, and this is not true.

Carry on....WikiDon 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I am still not happy with it. WikiDon

Talk:Physician

I'm having a little trouble pointing out on this page that physicians are the most likely profession to be a serial killer (5 sources cited in favour of this point, including the British Medical Journal) - the medics there don't want to accept this bit of info. Could you take a look and comment if you feel so inclined? Thanks:) Malick78 08:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Carter puppet

HaroldFranklin

I didn't block User:HaroldFranklin, I am not an admin, I can't block anybody. Wasn't me. WikiDon 16:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think you were confused, I just added the sock puppet tag, someone else blocked: User:HarveyCarter.

Please see: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:HarveyCarter

Please leave input there. Thanks, IP4240207xx 20:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exhibit - SEE: User:HarveyCarter - the "Edits by User and Date" section

IP4240207xx 22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

SueBrewer

I'd be happy to help, but I need to know the username. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for watching out for this user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you see what User:Shalom did?

"All accounts listed above are blocked indefinitely, except for SueBrewer, who is blocked for one month. One month seems long enough to me. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)"

Apparently he doesn't understand. IP4240207xx 21:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DaveyJohnson

He's back....IP4240207xx 20:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

SarahLover

Hola, don't fact tag any HC-SP contributions, just REMOVE w/extreme prejudice. Remember, he is just here to stir the poop and cause controversy.

Unfortunately, because of the way this editor contributes they have exhausted all "Good Faith." So, even if they have valuable contributions to make, they pushed their abuse to the point that it doesn't matter any more and is rendered irrelevant. This is a sad state. This is sad because of they way that they contribute, and have choose to conduct themselves and ignore the basic Wikipedia rules, MOS, and proper procedures. In addition, it is a sad state because it takes away valuable time of editors that want to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. So, not only are they doing something negative, they are causing others to do something negative. The amount of time that good faith editors spend on vandalism and reversing negative edits is tremendous. This becomes a productivity factor. Users like HarveyCarter make Wikipedia an unproductive place. In addition they give Wikipedia a bad name in the general media. The time I have spent removing previous sockpuppets, and now working on this, the HC, case, I could have been creating new articles and/or cleaning up existing ones. But letting users like HC stick around only cracks the foundation of Wikipedia. If you have read the press that Wikipedia has received this year, it has not been very good. Most of that press is from Conflict of Interest edits, edits from uneducated and uninformed editors, and users like HC who just want to screw with people and cause editors that want to make positive contributions to waste their time following their tracks. I suspect that HC has another legitimate handle on here, and makes edits in good faith, and I will now conduct a search of the IP addresses to root out who the real HC is. HC is priority one with me right now, it will be my main activity until the man behind the curtain is exposed and expelled from Wikipedia. I will abandon making any other contributions to Wikipedia until this is accomplished. I may make a few edits here and there while I am waiting on HC, but they will only be distractions of time. Thank you very much for you help and time. IP4240207xx 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: JJuliech: Well, I want to stay on him. It is still my number goal. I would like to find out who the Oz is behind the curtain. I am convienced that they wouldn't keep coming back unless they were already here editing nicely in other articles. They keep doing it because they enjoy doing it, if I could find out who they really are, and start hitting them on the edits that they really care about, well that is when it will go to a head. But, until we find the real person, they will just keep making new accounts when they are here and bored.

Gregory Peck and the Armenian edits: that person is either being like HC and is just messing with you, or was naive and thought they could change the talk page to skew their POV. Either way, don't let it get to you, just revert and move on. Thanks, and carry on. ! IP4240207xx 02:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I dare say it? Do I? And, why did it take 28 accounts to get around to blocking his email address?

CU

Post a report on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser‎, but, unless you can so evidence from both accounts, you might get shot down. You might also ask an admin that can do it (who likes you) to do it, but that is tough also. Compare the accounts edits and look for any similarities. You can also try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. If they do it, they can do it easy and fast. Good luck.

RE: Carlos and Gloria

Thanks for pitching in on the Gloria articles. Carlos has a hard time with English. I get the feeling he might be very young. Thanks again, feel free to keep working on them. Check his user contributions to see where he has been. There are a few of them, but they are pretty small articles. Thanks! IP4240207xx 06:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this diff

[1] Who says? Has anybody published their onw interpretation of what the journals say? As it's worded now, it looks like WE did the research and came up with that original conclusion. hbdragon88 03:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Childish Tantrum

I've never had a problem with edits in the past, but your edits were particularly galling. Almost as soon as I was adding the links you were deleting them. You weren't interested in discussing anything - you just wanted to impose your will. Also, I reserve the right to delete anything I have added, but apparently I am not allowed to even do that when dealing with you. My contributions to wikipedia are at an end. I am requesting my id be deactivated so if you want to respond please feel free to do so, but I won't be reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noviracer (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That User

Hi. It's good to know I'm not the only one having issues with this person. I've read your version of the Joplin page and to be honest, I don't know much about the woman but I prefer your version. I loathe articles worded in a sloppy manner and that's exactly what is going on in the Joplin and Kupcinet articles. The issue with this person isn't really content, it's the way they word things and their inability to reason. They've also taken to personally attacking me and calling me a vandal for not agreeing with them. What exactly did you do to report them? So far, all I've asked for is editor assistance because I'm not really sure what steps to take to deal with them. Let me know what I can do to help with the Joplin article (regarding keeping your version) and I'll take the right steps. I'm hesitant to leave a comment as I'm already involved in another issue with them, but I completely agree with the way you originally wrote the article section. Pinkadelica 04:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll throw my two cents in at the Joplin page if it'll help, no problem. In my situation, I'm not sure if it's a three revert violation or what, I should go back and look at the history of the page and I'm thinking if I edit the page again and he/she reverts it, then it will be a violation. Right now, I'm a little too irritated to go through their mumbo jumbo and sort out the mess. All I know is that if he/she puts something in, they think it is suppose to stay and no one has a right to edit at all. I'm waiting on another editor to advise me what to do. I don't want to escalate the situation but it looks as if that's what they want. All I have is one word...insanity! Thanks for the tips too, I have a feeling I'll need them in the future. Pinkadelica 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow...thank you! I thought about doing some editing on that tonight but I'd rather wait, take a step back and cool down. The changes you made have already made it much, much better! I can't stand citations that are formatted incorrectly either. I'm basically learning as I go, but I know when things look unprofessional and messy and I just don't understand why some people feel their opinion should outweigh policy and rules. Again, thank you. If those edits are reverted (I'm sure they will be), we'll see what happens. Pinkadelica 05:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Joplin/Kupcinet

Hello – thanks for the message. You are doing the right thing with this editor – you've opened an RFC, and that's exactly what you need to do at this point. Let the RFC run a week or so to get more opinion, then adjust the article according to the consensus view, be that yours or his or someone else's.

I don't think I have to tell you to not get into an edit war with him – as a reminder, tattoo the 3RR on your forehead (or your 4-year-old's forehead - kids need to learn to read anyway). Remember, the consensus will prevail in the end, but sometimes you have to go through processes such as these to get that consensus to show up. If it upsets you, walk away from the computer for a while or work on something else, like the maintenance tasks.

The next step is to open an request for comment/user conduct. You _could_ do that now, but I would wait until the Joplin RFC has run its course. I've seen editors go through an article RFC and completely turn around, and they start working well with others. Hopefully that will happen here. I've seen other editors who see an RFC as some kind of attack. Those are the ones who get mad at everybody who can't/won't see their own "correct" point-of-view and decide the cabal is out to get them. They get the bold part of WP:BRD down, but revert and discuss don't seem to make it off the page and into reality for them.

Again, you're on the right track. If he violates 3RR again, report it to WP:AN3 and you can leave a message on my talk page too. (Report it to AN3 first.) Let me know if you need more help or have questions, and keep me posted on the progress. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 07:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi I'm new and not too sure how to use this, but I was just wondering if it was you who keeps undoing my addition on the Jonathan Rhys Meyers page and why User talk:Salixhexe Response on usertalk page: Hi. First, when you pose a question or make a comment on a talk page, you should do that at the bottom of the page and add a proper title by prefacing it with == ==. I had a hard time finding what you'd asked. Also, when you leave a note on a user talk page, be sure to sign your addition by typing 4 tildes (~~~~).

I don't know whose addition it was that I removed from the JRM page or which one you're talking about. I am guessing you are referring to the Glenda Gilson. I removed it twice. Both times I did so, it was based on policy listed in WP:BLO which is very clear-cut regarding biographies of living persons. Some of the issues in that policy concern printing gossip and innuendo that has no substantiation, which can open up Wikipedia to liable charges.

The first time I removed it, it was worded to say that it was rumored he had a fling. The second time it said he had a fling. The problem with adding that was that there was no reference given to support the statement. When it was added the third time, there was a reference given for it. Then I only reworded it and moved her name further up in the sentence so that the reference for it didn't appear to be supporting everyone named in the sentence. You might want to check out WP:BLP for tips on what can and can't be added to biographies of living persons and how to format things. Hope this answers your question. Wildhartlivie 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi and thanks for the welcome. :) I was just looking through some pages and I wanted to tell you that I think you are handling the problem about copyrights very maturely and patiently. I'm not sure I could be so even in response to how hateful things were getting on the Dan Antinioli page. It made me mad and I wasn't even in the middle of it. I did put in my two cents worth. Thanks again for the welcome. AndToToToo 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dan Antonioli

Hello again – I've replied on the article's talk page, but to sum up:

• It is a copyright infringement, and the article is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12 because no non-infringing version of the article exists.

• I outlined a few reasons why claiming "fair use" of the text isn't allowed.

• Since you asked me to look, I don't think it's appropriate for me to do the deletion or to change the tags.

If there are other articles like this one, they need to be tagged appropriately. Use the speedy template if there is no free version to which to revert and if there's no assertion of permission to use the content – not fair use, but permission to republish. If there is an assertion of permission, use {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP. Let me know if you have more questions or need help. You're on the right path, grasshopper, but don't get so wound up about it (or anything at this wacky place) that you beat your monitor into submission. ;-) - KrakatoaKatie 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reverting_vandalism

Hey! I replied to your question on Wikipedia help desk. I hope it helped. Ilyushka88 12:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Antonioli

Hello again – I still think it's a copyright infringement, but the cites have been cut down from a full paragraph to one or two sentences, so it's a partial victory. There's consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Quotes in references against the practice of using so much text from a source, but this particular article may not be the best place to fight the fight. Put a link on the Antonioli talk page to the section where consensus was reached, so future editors will know it's been discussed at other places. Trust me – if those site owners find their text here and don't like it, OTRS will hear from them. Loudly.

I'm not familiar with either of those editors other than their usernames, their edit histories (Richard Norton's contributions and Alansohn's contributions) and what they say on their user pages, which indicate both of them are prolific contributors, they are from New Jersey, they mostly edit articles about New Jersey, and they are inclusionists. Inclusionism is fine, as is New Jersey, but inclusionists generally don't pick and choose their battles – they fight _all_ of them. I couldn't be an inclusionist because it's too exhausting, but there are merits to their position like there are merits to all Wiki-philosophies.

Listen – not everything comes out the way it should the first time around, but consensus will win out in the end. The key is patience, to not get personally invested in any article or policy. On occasion it takes a bit of work, at least for me, because it's easy to go with my first instincts and be hurt by comments made about me, or my position on a discussion, or my admin logs. There are people who not only feel entitled to abuse other editors, they save their nastiest stuff to throw at admins. (I don't know why – I couldn't do that if my life depended on it.) As I say on my user page, though, I choose how to respond to them, and I choose not to be upset by people who don't know me. This is a big place, and there's room for everyone. I'll work over here, and they can work over there. Karma will take care of the rest. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 10:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

People to Watch

Keep your eye on this one: Smythloan (talk · contribs) -+~ IP4240207xx 23:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And so it continues...

Hi. I see you've taken to editing the Karyn Kupcinet page. :) I refuse to deal with you know who so I've taken a bit of a breather from it all. I recently peeked at the article and I see that most of your edits are pretty much gone now and it's full of rambling stuff yet again. The intro paragraph alone is terribly long and sounds a bit POV to me. Let me know if you think it's time to get a third party involved. Even though I haven't been editing that article lately, I think it's high time someone put an end to the whole battle and all those needless changes. Pinkadelica 08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! I just read all the stuff they wrote about you and that entire battle. You're a lot more patient than I am! I weighed in on the talk page over at the KK page. It's probably too little too late, but there's no need for you to be attacked for making legit edits. Been there, done that. If you need any help with the page, let me know. Same goes for anything else that pops up with you know who. I can't believe this is still going on! Pinkadelica 05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly do all I can to back you. Not a problem. :) Just let me know when you start a comment about it. Something tells me it will probably end up going that far. Pinkadelica 07:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh...

Well, I just requested the page be semi protected for one month. At least that will stop you know who from editing anonymously if the protection is granted. I also noted that they attempted to delete the archived talk pages. Hopefully that will show that in the past, we have attempted to compromise with them and they just refuse. Other than that, I guess we'll just have to keep any reverting edits they revert and report, report, report. Thanks for the heads up and for reverting the page back. This war is getting very, very old. Pinkadelica 00:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The protection request was denied. Not enough disruptive action evidently. If he does it again through the anon IP, report them and that IP will be blocked. Oh well. Pinkadelica 01:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Yeah, I think it's safe to say it's them. It's way too coincidental that they're editing the Dorothy Kilgallen page which is what the other alter ego used to edit too. Plus, there are those rambling edit summaries which is a dead giveaway. He/she is actually using two because there's that anonymous IP they used to undo all the edits you & I did on the Karyn Kupcinet page. I just attempted to report them but the process seems a bit complicated and confusing. I'll try to figure out how to do it and report them or you can go ahead and do it. I thought it was awfully strange that they went MIA. Pinkadelica 09:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it took me a while to figure out the whole reporting thing, but I finally added the report to the page. The funny thing is, I had to notify them that I was reporting them for being a sockpuppeteer. That ought to go down well! The report itself is here if you want to take a look. I tried to be as through as possible but all those different articles & IP address were getting confusing. I'm sure it will be challenged and all that good stuff and I'll be called some choice names in the process. If you find anymore suspicious stuff, let me know. I had a feeling that a peaceful end was too good to be true. Pinkadelica 11:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :). Yeah, their edits are just crap (sorry, couldn't think of a more intelligent word at 5am). Everything is written in such a tabloid-esque style. It's very obvious that it's the same person that has some sort of agenda. NPOV doesn't even exist in their lexicon. You'd think they'd change their MO up a bit. Ah well, hopefully the account(s) will be dealt with.Pinkadelica 11:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(lol @ Dragnet music) Yeah, they know that you know. That "answer" on the talk page was rude but not outright rude so I guess they're changing their behavior just a tad. I'm fairly certain they know they've been reported as being a sockpuppet unless they don't log into that main account anymore. That's entirely possible I suppose. What I don't get is why they're leaving the infamous Karyn Kupcinet page alone. I swear, this is the longest it has gone unedited in months. I'll bet money that they allude to you harassing them if you keep reverting their edits. Remember, all our edits are vandalism because we're vandals and we don't go to public libraries to look at microfilm. This whole debacle is getting pretty funny. Pinkadelica 06:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to add again but, I just noticed that I had to inform the sockpuppeteer and the alleged sockpuppets of being reported so I had to visit their talk page and leave a little telegram. Let the fireworks begin! Pinkadelica 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow

That talk page made my head hurt. What exactly is going on and what is being argued? I'm lost because I don't see any changes that were made to the article. I find it quite interesting that they're back with their main account after being reported. Hmmm....they left quite a little remark on their own talk page under the sockpuppet notice basically telling me I was going to banned for 24 hours for accusing them of sockpuppetery because they accused you of that very same thing and got banned. I guess the fact that they were calling everyone names and talking smack escaped them. I think their 'tude on the Karyn talk page is enough for you to report them yet again. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your goddaughter. That's awful. That is exactly why people shouldn't say remarks to others about certain things, you never know what a person has gone through and more times than not, the person spouting bull resorts to that because they have nothing relevant to say. Sadly, I don't think this nutter cares about anything but their own agenda. Manners & human decency went out the window ages ago.

Wow...I just read the talk page and...wow. That's a whole lot of words that say nothing at all. Why are they talking about jet planes and interstate highways? As far as the Irv Kupcinet debate goes, naturally (and much to the chagrin of you know who), I have to side with you. To say he was unknown outside of anywhere is pure speculation. There is no way to know what every person outside of Chicago knew about. Kudos to you for still not losing your cool. I lost mine eons ago when dealing with this person. I think that's what they want though. I personally think they're trying to bait you into losing your cool so they can finally get the article the way they want it to be. I think them erasing talk pages and any evidence that they are rude and completely out of line shows that they're attempting to erase any signs of violating rules (as if!) and to show that no one except them knows anything about the subject. The funny thing is, neither you nor I have said the worst things to them. A few other people have chimed in saying they should banned for six months or that they're nuts and to leave the article alone.

I too wondered why they kept throwing in things like "acclaimed" and "respected" when referring to Ellroy. I just figured they were a superfan of his, but now that you mention it, 90% of the article is based on that one book and it seems like anything anyone says that goes against that one book throws them into a tizzy. I'd like to think an author has better things to do than troll Wikipedia and get into needless debates, but you could be right. I sure hope it's not Ellroy. If so, Ellroy's editor does quite a bit of work cleaning up his rambling manuscripts before they go to press!

This has gone beyond passion and has crossed into a whole other territory of weirdness. Perhaps it is time to get a third party involved. We've already done the consensus thing and they seem to want to ignore that. I'm not sure what other step to take. Any ideas? Pinkadelica (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get people who have an agenda on here. There are plenty of topics that I know I shouldn't write about because there would be a conflict of interest. I choose to stay away from those things because I think it's more harmful to "inform" someone of my own point of view without representing the facts. I can't help but think that the people that do that are really attempting to serve their own ego. I guess there are only a few of us have that sort of mentality that our opinions aren't gospel truth. Anyway, I went ahead and reported our little friend to an admin. The admin is an abuse volunteer but he can also block people which I thought might come in handy. The sockpuppet report can take weeks to be addressed and the rate this bozo is going, they'll have half of Wikipedia full of nonsense before anyone figures out they're all the same person. I also decided I'm going to start leaving vandalism warnings on the anon IP's talk pages when they revert edits or remove tags. That is considered vandalism (removing tags without addressing the issue) so, hopefully that will annoy them into stopping for a bit. I think they're trying to create the illusion that they're all different people, hence the edits within minutes of each other. That's my guess anyway. It's surely not impossible to log in and out or go to a web page that filters your true IP. There's so many programs out there that can hide your IP too. I really don't think that's what they're doing though. I think they're signing out or reconnecting to their ISP to get a new IP. Who knows? Either way, I hope something comes from this abuse report. Someone needs to look into this stuff. I don't think both of us are crazy and making wild accusations when it comes to this person. It's evident to me anyway. Oh, and thanks for adding to that sockpuppet report. I honestly hope they will take care of that soon. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jason Mewes

I'm sorry, my mistake. thinkpad (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The End of the War

Hi! Just thought I'd tell you that I think the war with you know is over. It's been days since they've edited anything on here and, not surprisingly, someone else had to tell them to stop adding unverified/original research to articles the last time they edited on the Seymour Hersh page. The sockpuppet case still hasn't been investigated but I think just reporting it did the trick. I have a feeling it may have irritated them enough to stop, plus we're not the only editors they seem to have a problem with so obviously, it's not just us ganging up on them. Also, the Karyn Kupcinet page hasn't been touched in ages! I keep waiting for something to pop up but so far it's been nice & quiet! I hope I'm not counting my chickens before they've hatched, but I think they've gone bye-bye. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally forgot about Thanksgiving! That's a real possibility I never considered. I don't know, I think the report is pretty damning and most of their additions to pages are being challenged or removed by other editors. That has got to be irritating to them since they think they're right and the rest of us are just wrong. I find it interesting that they didn't debate the sockpuppet case. Most people who are accused of it do defend themselves to some extent. By the way, I recently edited the Irv Kupcinet page. I remember they told you that they know a considerable amount about him because they wrote that article. Needless to say, the only "person" that added anything to it was the anon IP that they're associated with. The article was pretty short when I edited it, nothing about Kupcinet's childhood or anything about how his column was in over 100 newspapers throughout the world and that his tv show was syndicated in something like 70 cities at one point. Yeah, that's really "relatively unknown outside Chicago". Oh, and naturally, nothing was citied. Anyway, hopefully it's not just a turkey break they're on and they've given up the fight. Have a great Thanksgiving. :) Pinkadelica (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment about the Irv page. I really didn't know much about him, but there were some great articles online about his life so it wasn't hard to source anything, but I still really don't know much about him and I think the article reflects that. If there's anything you'd like to add, please do so because it seems like you have some great info about him. His show was canceled in '86 and that was way before we had cable, but if it was on WGN, I'm sure I would've watched it. I'm a sucker for those old-Hollywood guys and he seemed like one of them. He also did some correspondent work for the Oscars so again, I highly doubt he was little known. I did see our little friend's borderline threat on their talk page regarding the sockpuppet accusations. I had to laugh and I wanted to answer but, of course, I have to remain dignified. Since we're not dealing with our little friend, I've been attempting to clean up some pages on here as well. Good luck with the Charles Manson page. That is one fascinating case with so much information. One of my earliest efforts was the Leno & Rosemary LaBianca page. I haven't read it in a while, but I'm sure it could use a good editing. I went a bit overboard when I first started here and gave way too much information at times. Well, I'm off to edit Gene Tierney...she's a mess! Take care. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Manson page

Got your note on my talk page. Re the two citations I added to Charles Manson: You're welcome. The alert you'd left about them on the Manson talk page was very clear.

Thanks for checking whether I think the article should be supplied with anything significant before you nominate it for GA. I don't think so. As you know, I've gone through it and done some copy editing. About the only sentence you and I seem to have gone back and forth on is the one about Manson and Watson's first hearing of the White Album. I've now reworded that to eliminate reference to the confusion over the exact date. Considering how difficult it is to state that correctly, I think the article's better off without it. (I'm pretty sure the conflicting information in Tex Watson's autobiography and interview -- both at his website -- doesn't even eliminate late November -- although the interview expressly gives December 1. In the autobiography of Paul Watkins, the event is clearly after mid-December; but Watkins says nothing about Watson's being with Manson.)

In the form in which I've left it, the sentence begins "While back at Spahn, no later than December." I've also adjusted the sentence's latter part, yet again. See what you think.71.242.203.167 (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. One other "back and forth." I like the way you reworked the paragraph about the Crowe shooting -- but I've reinserted "tasked" in the sentence about Watson's defrauding Crowe. Watson's autobiographical account doesn't quite indicate Manson "sent" Watson.71.242.203.167 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Because you are planning to nominate the article for GA, I've added a brief paragraph about the Family's behavior during the trial. It's in "Conviction and sentencing." That's the story's one major element that the article hadn't addressed.71.242.203.167 (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It’s odd you brought up the Nixon-headline episode; I thought about that, a few hours ago. I’ve inserted a sentence about it. Yes – vandalism of the article is a problem, about which I’ve expressed myself in “Grand pronouncement on vandalism,” at the article's talk page. "Inane additions,” too, as you term them, are a problem; but if you don't mind, I'll mention that I'm of two minds on one of their subcategories: pop-culture references. (On this subject, the article's talk page also contains my view, in "Return of the pop-culture references.”) Though such information doesn’t belong in the Manson article itself, I can see why persons who have it – on Manson or any other topic – want to post it in Wikipedia. I can believe, too, that many readers would find an accumulation of such information interesting; and moreover, I can believe that a scholar or other writer who might be preparing a book or article on, in this case, Manson in pop culture, would find such an accumulation a starting point of research, even should many of the individual pieces of information be undocumented. In short, I can’t help thinking Wikimedia could use a new section — say, Wikitrivia — with pages for lists of such information. (Actually, the need for a depository for information of this type is one that Wikimedia is uniquely-positioned to meet.) In the absence of a section like that, there’s no outlet for the pressure to post the material; consequently, there are constant struggles between those who do post it and those who delete it -- and who occasionally post a notice that Wikipedia frowns on trivia.71.242.203.167 (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I have no clear thought about it, you’re probably right to suggest I was confusing categories when I used “pop-culture references” and “trivia” as synonyms — or near-synonyms. As you suggest, Manson’s pop-culture status is a distinct subject; it could be a Wikipedia article in itself. Presently, the most I personally could contribute to such an article would be a statement like “It was the early ‘90s, I think, when I began to see a lot of Manson t-shirts in store windows”; but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone were to produce a book on the subject. I do understand when you say, as I think you’re saying, that the article won’t qualify as GA or FA with unsourced miscellany; that’s why I acknowledged that such material doesn’t belong in it. I can believe you've been hard put to preserve trivia in a form that’s acceptable in articles; I wouldn’t go near the task myself. (In fact, only because you revised the article for the GA nomination did I presume to delete a trivia reference yesterday. Before that, I’d kept my hands off such material — had neither deleted nor revised it.) You needn’t have thanked me for my cooperation; we’ve ended up cooperating with each other — as far as I can tell. I’m familiar with few Wikipedia guidelines, but it seems to me you’ve done quite a job of getting the piece into wiki-shape. I see another editor has tidied up the section at the head of the article’s talk page; he or she has set up a nice article-history box. It’s getting there.71.242.203.167 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you've rearranged the page. I've just made a few additional changes -- mostly to section names. My only major change is a moving of "Parole hearings" to "Aftermath." When "Parole hearings" was at the end of "Justice system," it seemed to me to interrupt the flow of the account; it lay between the end of Manson's Tate-LaBianca trial and the trials that quickly followed it (Watson's trial, the trials of Manson and others for Hinman-Shea). It also came before much other material that, because it ("Parole hearings") is basically an update -- i.e. a note re Manson's present condition -- it seemed it should follow. I'm speaking of the '70s, '80s, '90s etc. material (the Ford assassination attempt, Good's conviction, Fromme's escape, and so on). See what you think.71.242.203.167 (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Last evening (Friday), I was surprised by a minor personal obligation, just as I was focusing on the article's "Recordings" section — the last section that seemed to me to need work. I hope the delay didn't leave you confused whether I wanted to make any other revisions in advance of the GA nomination. About an hour ago, I completed the changes to "Recordings" and went to the article's talk page, where I saw you'd carried out the nomination. At the same moment, I saw an editor's note that the article required an expanded lead. I immediately retrieved an old lead, one I had inserted months ago and had eventually deleted. (I'd deleted it simply for the sake of the article's overall length.) I happened to know it had been copied in one or two places on the internet, so I just Googled it. I typed it in quickly; I hope I didn't get it in there too late to save the article. I really don't know how the GA process works. I don't know how to locate the votes. That's all for now.71.242.203.167 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean about the GA nomination's having drawn editors to the article. I'll ask you please to keep an eye on "My edits from today...," a section on the Manson talk page. There, I've already posted a comment; I'll be posting more.71.242.203.167 (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just give me a few minutes to compose a complete message that will make clear why I have no reason to assume good faith on the part of BassPlyr23.71.242.203.167 (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(The following is being composed hastily, so I can get back to the article. Consequently, it jumps around a bit.)

Sorry for the delay. I had to go back through the article’s history to identify times and dates of various revisions.

Let me mention first that I am, in fact, registered at Wikipedia, as editor JohnBonaccorsi. If you would like to see what the Manson page was like before I began revamping it, go to 17:49 16 April 2007. Examine the vast editing I undertook over quite a period of time after that. You will discover – and I am not exaggerating – that virtually the entirety of the article’s present version – including very-nearly every one of the two hundred or so footnotes you recently condensed – is my work.

Before you are tempted to say it: I don’t think I "own" the page – and I have never conducted myself as if I own the page. If you will go back and examine the revision history, as I have just recommended, you will discover, I think, that the article, as it stood before I began changing it, was not one you would have been tempted to nominate for GA. In fact, if you will go back a few months farther, to examine my first few partial revisions, you will find, if I recall, that not very long ago, the page didn’t even include the words “Helter Skelter.” (If it did, nothing of the subject was made clear. In a section headed "Possible Motives," there was some sort of hodgepodge about the Beatles. One of the first things I did was enter a synopsis of the Helter Skelter scenario. I’m not sure exactly when I did that; and if you don’t mind, I won’t take time right now to check the article’s revision history any farther, to determine that.)

(You might want to examine also, by the way, the Wikipedia articles Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) and Paul Watkins (Manson Family), which I created and which are virtually entirely my work.)

Now — oddly enough, just about the time I concluded my revamping of Charles Manson, an editor named FoolsRushIn reverted the page entirely – i.e., undid virtually everything I’d contributed. (Incidentally – the section headed “Rise of the Family” did not exist at all before I began revamping the page. If you will check the article’s talk page, you will see an old note in which someone asks, "Why does the article jump from Manson’s childhood to the murders? It doesn’t even explain what the Manson Family was." (I’m paraphrasing.))

My reaction to the wholesale reversion was to do nothing. I simply said to myself, “Well – that’s Wikipedia.”

The said reversion by FoolsRushIn took place at 06:06 16 July 2007. The note in the edit summary reads “rv BLP And AFL CIO to last correct edit made by subject’s biological father.”

Subject’s biological father? Meaning Manson’s biological father? That would be “Colonel Scott,” wouldn’t it?

Yes, indeed – go to the Wikipedia page entitled Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColScott. You will find that the list of sockpuppets of “ColScott” includes “FoolsRushIn” and “Megaman89” (both of whom have been blocked indefinitely). I suspect it should also include “BassPlyr23.”

To be continued.71.242.203.167 (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops -- just noticed that my true revamping of the page began at 10:28 2 May 2007, not the April date in the preceding note. The revamping began with the insertion of the section that is now "Background." In fact, you will see that the note in the edit summary reads as follows: "Replaced 'Early life' with organized, footnoted 'Background.'" (The revision was executed under an IP address, not my User name.)71.242.203.167 (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Where was I?

Examine the article’s revision history from 06:06 16 July 2007 to 01:12 19 July 2007. You will see the back-and-forth that took place between FoolsRushIn and an editor named Chuck Sirloin, who undid the reversion executed by FoolsRushIn. It’s not pretty.

Sirloin’s undoing of the reversion took place at 19:31 18 July 2007. It included the following edit summary: "reverted undiscussed complete reversion of page by FoolsRushIn. Take it to talk if you want to make such a drastic change."

At 01:11 19 July 2007, FoolsRushIn backed off, with the following edit summary: "in compromise with Sirloin changes accepted with one adjustment." There had been no "compromise." That wording was simply FoolsRushIn's bizarre attempt at cordiality (rather like the attempt at cordiality BassPlyr23 has made in the note below, here on your User Talk page). FoolsRushIn had, as I say, merely backed off — though he had insisted, as you see, on "one adjustment." What was the adjustment? That the article’s text present Manson’s biological father’s name as "Col. Scott," not "Colonel Scott." He himself had substituted "Col." for "Colonel" on 03:17 17 July 2007, when his edit summary had read "made military title corrected." (I kid you not.) Consult the notes near the bottom of the Manson article’s linked Provisional Ancestry of Charles Manson to see whether he was right in insisting on that.

At 04:28 August 14 2007, FoolsRushIn returned – in his other sockpuppet identity, Megaman89. Again, he reverted the page completely; again — at 13:34 14 August 2007 — Sirloin undid his reversion. If Sirloin suspected that FoolsRushIn and Megaman89 were the same person, he did not hint as much in his edit summary: "seriously we already had this same discussion with FoolsRushIn: you are reverting sourced information with no reason."

The wholesale reversion took place again on 16:13 18 September 2007. This time it was executed by BassPlyr23. Again, I refrained from undoing the reversion; but in a note headed "Manson-page changes" (at Chuck Sirloin’s talk page, 20:55 18 September 2007), I did bring it to Sirloin's attention.

I also posted a note at BassPlyr23’s talk page. (It’s at 21:20 18 September 2007 and is headed "Responsible for that mess," a reference to language BassPlyr23 used in one of his edit summaries.)

Besides undoing the reversion, Sirloin posted "Major changes on 9/18/07," a note on the Manson talk page. You will see that BassPlyr 23 responded with tough talk, to the effect that he was going to sit down with his copy of Bugliosi and insert and footnote all the changes he thought the article required; then he went away. (The contretemps came to an end at 12:13 19 September 2007.)

Around that time, I began to decide I would no longer protect the article, either from vandalism or inanity. Lest BassPlyr23 return after I’d left, I executed a long series of edits that would prevent him from simply brushing aside a vast amount of correct information. I footnoted murder-night details that he seemed intent on revising. I don’t remember what else I did – other than take the precaution of adding “1994” to every one of the Bugliosi footnotes. (I wanted future editors to be sure which edition’s page numbers were being cited.)

That’s basically it. The rest began over the past week, when I saw you had decided to get the article into GA shape. As you know, I’ve joined in – providing information and footnotes to help you complete the article. (The goofy sections on pop culture and Manson’s music were just about the only thing I’d never touched. I decided to help you get them into shape, too.) In case you’re interested – I originally had ended "Rise of the Family" with "Encounter with Tate" and had given the murders their own section – just as you’ve arranged the page now. When someone changed it, I let it go, even though I thought it hurt the article.

(Incidentally – the article contains one non-footnoted statement I’m not sure about. It’s the statement that the defendants shouted at the judge and witnesses. In reviewing the page’s history to prepare the present note for you, I was reminded that, somewhere along the line, that fact was entered by none other than BassPlyr23. As usual, he gave no footnote. Also as usual, he stated the facts incorrectly. In writing about Manson’s lunge at the judge, he indicated Manson was responding to "a particularly-damaging piece of testimony" – something like that. (If you don’t mind, I won’t go back through the revision history to try to find it.) I quietly put the statement in its present, correct form, in which the reader learns that Manson was frustrated because the judge had refused him permission to question a witness. (Naturally, I footnoted it, too.)

I ask you to re-examine the extended, multi-part response I have been posting this morning to BassPlyr23’s note "My edits from today...," on the Manson talk page. In light of what I have now explained, you will see, I think, that I have simply gone into difficult detail there to oppose BassPlyr23’s typically-careless revisions. As usual, he is backing off quickly and, while he is doing so, trying to present himself as the very soul of reason — and politesse. You see in the note he has left below, here, on your own talk page, that he attempts to enlist you as his confederate – a fellow reasonable man. Confederate in what? Has he argued that I have been wrong about any one of his revisions? No, he hasn’t. He freely clutters the article with inaccurate, unsourced, poorly-worded, and poorly-punctuated statements, which others are left to clean up. His every comment and edit summary makes clear he fancies himself an expert on the subject of Manson — although, as I say, he backs off the moment his errors are pointed out. (You might want to examine “Manson page – my edits,” a note he posted on my talk page after the trouble between him and me broke out this morning.)

BassPlyr23 is a pernicious presence – and should be reported as a possible sockpuppet of ColScott. I won’t be bothering to report him; I wouldn’t even really know how to go about doing that. (When he showed up back in September, I asked a Wikipedia administrator about the reporting of sockpuppets – but I didn’t mention BassPlyr23’s name.)

My concern is to get the article into shape. Basically, all the sections – including the lead and the “Manson and culture” material – are in half-decent shape now. I still have some of BassPlyr23’s junk to remove.71.242.203.167 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the question you just sent me. The answer is quite simple — but give me a few minutes to compose it. I'll put it on the Manson talk page. I'll leave a note for you here, on your own talk page, when I've posted it. It's a shame the problems that arose earlier today will threaten the article's GA status, but I object to your saying that to me as if somehow everyone is at fault. I am not at fault; I have explained BassPlyr23's behavior to you quite clearly. As recently as September, as I've said, BassPlry23 attempted a complete reversion of the article; I urge you to examine what he attempted there. (Indeed, I have no reason to think he won't eventually try it again.) I urge you also to examine "Major changes on 9/18/07," on the Manson talk page. BassPlyr23's prompt response to your request, earlier today, for a footnote for the Grogan parole is, as far as I know, his first ordinary response to a challenge; it is a result of his having been barked at back in September. If you will look at the revisions he executed after I barked at him this morning, you will see, too, that they reflect a prompt change in his tone and in the nature of his revisions. I have helped you at every step of the way as you have exerted yourself to get the article into GA shape; moreover, as I have already said, the article you have exerted yourself to get into that shape would not even exist if I hadn't painstakingly assembled it footnoted-sentence by footnoted-sentence. I have enjoyed collaborating with you over the past week — but I will not permit my complaints about the conduct of BassPlyr23 to be ignored or misunderstood.71.242.203.167 (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you’re not a dope – but gee, thanks for saying so. The problem, really, is that communication at Wikipedia is so uncertain. I understand exactly what you would have been thinking before you read my explanation of the goings-on. There’s a blog that’s called the Official Tate-LaBiance Murders Blog. It’s moderator goes by the name “ColScott.” I think he recently had some kind of falling out with a yahoo blog called Charles Manson and Family. I’ll guess that that’s the “ColScott” you mentioned. I’ve wondered whether he’s the same ColScott who’s been sockpuppeting his way through Wikipedia; I personally find it hard to tell. The one thing I really don’t doubt at all is that BassPlyr23 is another sockpuppet of Wikipedia’s ColScott. Yes – if you really don’t mind, I would appreciate your running a sockpuppet check on him. In maybe another hour or so, I’ll post my response to your question about the Frykowski wound tally. It’s written up – but I have to run out briefly.71.242.203.167 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into a detailed answer on the Manson talk page. The Frykowski wound-tally sentence had two problems. At the article's talk page, I've already detailed one: the uncertainy of the tally of the head wounds. The other problem was position. Examine the revision that was executed at 22:28 24 November 2007. The sentence about Frykowski's struggle across the lawn was eliminated. At the same time, Frykowski's wound tally was moved to the preceding paragraph — by which I mean the one about Watson and Frykowski's struggle out through the door. The result of those combined changes was to leave the impression that the wound tally represented Frykowski's condition at the end of the doorway struggle — i.e, that he suffered no attack after that. Frykowski's struggle across the lawn is one of the most-compelling elements of the Tate murders — and with that one revision, it disappeared. I was simply trying to reinsert it — i.e, to restore it to the lawn paragraph. The tally's only element that had to be mentioned there was the fifty-one stab wounds. There was no need to cover the two gunshots; they'd been mentioned in the doorway scene. It was better not to mention the number of head wounds; that number, to say it again, really is difficult to determine. The article needs to include at least something of Frykowski's final struggle, on the lawn. In her grand-jury testimony, Atkins said only that Watson kicked Frykowski there; but Watson's autobiography leaves little doubt that he stabbed Frykowski brutally on the lawn. Atkins's not having mentioned it is not really important. In the first place, she might simply not have seen it. (I'm pretty sure — to mention something in comparison — that Bugliosi makes the point that neither Atkins nor Kasabian recalled Watson's using a knife on Steve Parent; yet Parent had a defensive slash wound. In his Chapter 14, Watson himself does mention his slashing Parent.) Also, I vaguely recall that Bugliosi demonstrated that Atkins was not entirely forthcoming in her grand-jury testimony. (If you don't mind, I'm not going to try to track that down right now.) Lastly, it just makes too much sense. It's difficult to believe all fifty-one of Frykowski's stab wounds were inflicted in the doorway; and as I've already suggested, Watson's account of the stabbing on the lawn is terribly vivid. At any rate — as I've already said — something, at least, happened between Frykowski and Watson on the lawn; and no final tally of Frykowski's wounds should be presented before that is indicated. If you think the present note should be moved to the article's talk page, please just move it. If you need to communicate with me, kindly use my e-mail address.71.242.203.167 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet

Ugh...I guess it was too much to ask that the article be left alone for at least the rest of 2007. I weighed in over at the the talk page. I honestly don't see the point in arguing over such a minor sentence that doesn't belong in the article to begin with. His popularity is irrelevant and I don't see the point in referring to it. I was reading the talk page at the New Beverly Theater (where they're also involved in a dispute for adding info about Kupcinet for no reason) and someone basically said the Karyn article bordered on conspiracy theory nuttery. I thought the same thing when I first read the article and that's not a good thing. I think we both did a bang up job cleaning up that mess and at least bringing it up to somewhat acceptable standards only to have more speculation and POV statements added. That article is literally the worst I have ever worked on and attempted to maintain. I also can't believe they said you scared away other editors. That actually made me angry and it wasn't even directed at me. When I first read the article, no one was really even maintaining it which is why it was full of unfounded claims and conspiracy theories. I don't know, I think he/she is just hell bent on adding claims that any official version of an event is untrue and there's a conspiracy behind everything. That's the vibe I get anyway. I did laugh at the warning that another admin left on their talk page. I believe they're on their way to being blocked again. They dispute every edit and ignore policies as if this site is their personal soapbox. By the way, I also find it odd that Onittles and the anon IPs haven't edited lately. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I'm not a professional in psychology but I know conspiracy theory hounds when I see them. I don't really like conspiracy theorist per say because they're forever attempting to "share" their information that is usually half baked at best and they think anyone who doesn't believe their findings are complete morons. Granted, I don't know everything about the JFK assassination but people who are marginally related to the event shouldn't be thrown into the mix. Plus, this isn't the forum to present those ideas. Webpages and blogs are free. If they have this grand theory about something, they should start their own page in my opinion. As far as the other mysterious user (Onlittles or whatever) and the anon IPs not editing, we all know why that is! I think the fact that they're MIA is proof enough that you were right all along. I would've never put it together because I don't really work on the other pages. Sorry to hear about the Manson page. He's another controversial figure that some people just want to argue about or claim is just misunderstood. The last time I read the article, it seemed ok. I haven't read it in a while so I'm sure it's changed since that time. If you need any help with anything or if you need an opinion or a comment, please let me know.

As far as our little friend, I'm sure they'll get banned before too long. Their rude attitude and overall refusal to compromise and following basic rules will see to that. The fact that he contradicts himself is (for lack of a better word) insane. I think you're right about the arguing for the sake of arguing is correct. That's exactly why I won't deal with them directly. You say one thing and they completely twist it around or ignore it altogether and go on some rant that makes no sense whatsoever. I don't get or like that type of logic so I don't deal it. If someone cannot conduct themselves as an adult, I'm not going to treat them like one. There's no way I'm going to let them screw up more articles though. I think it's sort of sad that some people are so determined to get their way, they don't care that they're misinforming people or giving them a one-sided view. I think it's people like that who have given Wikipedia the reputation of being unreliable. I think the reason they're messing with the Karyn article again is because they honestly think you're the only one battling them. That was fairly evident when they claimed you chased other editors away. I haven't made any substantial edits there because I've been doing other things but I certainly haven't forgotten about it. I think they also think that you'll give up after awhile because it is so annoying dealing with them. Some people rely on that tactic to get their way. On a side note, I think it was you that wrote something to the effect of NomeKing and/or BillyJoelFan being a sockpuppet of another user. Is that true? That's too bad because I remember NomeKing weighed in on the whole debacle and actually backed us up. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding ColScott, I know exactly who you're talking about. He has a blog entitled The Official Tate/LaBianca blog right? I've read it and it seems a bit...off. I can't really seem to grasp what his stance is on the whole case because in one post, he talks badly about the actual killers and then in the next post, he defends Manson. I suppose he's one of those people who think Manson is innocent because he didn't physically kill anyone. I was a bit obsessed with the Tate murder a few months ago and I read a bit of the blog and he mentioned being banned from Wikipedia before. Considering the amount of stuff you have to do to actually get banned, whatever he did had to have been disruptive. As far as the Karyn article and our little friend, I'm editing it right now. They've added loads of stuff after referenced statements and, as usual, added a bunch of crap that doesn't belong. I was reading it and wondering how we could've missed all that until I realized he probably only recently added it. I loathe people who try to slip in unsourced statements near a citation. Needless to say, I'm about to do some major edits so if I edit anything of yours out, please let me know and I'll add it back. I doubt I will though, I'm only removing the stuff that is rambling and unsourced. Man, I thought this article really had a chance of being left alone once and for all. *sigh* This is getting beyond annoying. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

lol I don't even watch Dancing With the Stars. I have but if I don't stop watching a show, I get sucked in and obsessive. I know that makes no sense whatsoever but in my head, it makes perfect sense. I sort of wanted Mel B to win and I pretty much knew Marie Osmond wasn't going to. From what I've seen, she didn't seem that great. Anyhow, I'm completely lost as to what is going on in the new installment with crazy pants. What is this stuff about leaving a message in the footnotes about not finding a reliable reference? Since when is that acceptable? If that's the case, I can make up anything I want, say that I totally remember reading it in a paper from some 40 odd years ago, but just couldn't find it. Geez...this guy is getting desperate. No matter, I'm still editing that article and if he reverts it, I'm getting him on 3RR. I got sidetracked working on Bakersfield, California (so many red links & misdirected links), but I'll finish my edits on Karyn soon. He's going to flip because I've decided to get rid of ALL the long winded statements and anything that is unsourced. There's been plenty of time to source the stuff that needed it. I think we've both been too compromising in an attempt to be civil. I hate to sound paranoid, but I think he sees that as a sign of weakness that one or both of us will eventually concede. We left alot of stuff in from that awful book they sourcing nearly everything from. From the sound of it, the book is full of conjectures. I'm also not liking the fact that it's basically the only source which is why the article sounds like a trashy crime novel. I just don't get this guy, but I have a feeling he's going to snap and get himself banned. You'd think he would've gotten his fill of being banned by now. It's so odd how they keep getting into conflicts with others with the original research they keep trying to add. I haven't seen many articles that they've edited where someone hasn't come along and removed their additions. It seems to me that something like that might tell them that what they're doing is wrong and it's not going to end up in the article no matter how much they try to prove that they're right. Pinkadelica (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'd actually be guilty of breaking 3RR even though you have reverted his edits three times. We've both tried to stop this guy through the official channels and so far, we've failed. I've attempted to get the page protected, you've been changing his edits and we both reported him for sockpuppetry. I believe what you're doing is basically reverting a vandal because when you get down to it, that is what he's doing. If you were to get reprimanded for reverting their edits, I'd back you up %100. Neither of us have agendas and we both agreed on the content and let's face, that consensus. We can do a formal consensus but the results will probably be the same and since there's only three of us involved, I don't see the point. It will probably come to that though. I know you put some of the "citation needed" tags up because I did too. We both did that for his benefit and if he had sourced the stuff, I would probably leave it in. I can basically justify that by saying I was cleaning up unreferenced statements because they can be removed, especially if they've been unsourced for a while. I did notice something quite ironic though, most of the edits they did were things they wrote themselves. They re-worded certain statements for some reason and actually (gasp) shortened some items. They still attempted to sneak in sentences behind sourced items in an lame attempt to get them in. Sneaky but not sneaky enough. Pinkadelica (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Kupcinet article is giving me a headache. There's so many different version with things stuck in that it's hard to catch them all. Very annoying. I think what he's doing right now is attempting to appear compromising. I think he realizes that his additions won't stay, so now he's going another route. Either way, his agenda is still the same. That is very weird about that ColScott character. He seems quite arrogant in his posts. If he is indeed a producer, he should really get off the internet and go make some movies. I've never been to any of the Manson communities. I tend to stay away from groups and forums because they're clique-y. I do believe that those Manson crime groups are full of bored housewives and people with no lives. I've had the displeasure of reading some posts on message boards that examine JFK and that whole ordeal and the things these people come up with are so left of center that it's obvious they have nothing but time on their hands. I find it weird if anyone devotes their life to a crime unless they're related to the victim, it's unsolved or justice wasn't served. I find certain murders fascinating and I think it's human nature to be curious about that side of human behavior but some people are consumed by a case that has nothing to do with them (case in point, Dooyar). I think that kind of devotion speaks volumes about a person. Anyone who champions for Manson has got a few issues anyway. Alright, well, back to Kupcinet and my impending migraine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkadelica (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet

Thanks for undoing the edits whatshisface made. I know I made some grammatical errors and such because by the time I was finishing, I was getting sleepy and when that happens, I get sloppy so, thanks for fixing those as well. As far as the whole suicide thing, yes, Ellroy did say that. I don't have a direct quote, but I found two articles that stated that he thinks she died from an overdose of pills either accidentally or intentionally (an intentional overdose would be suicide in my book so I don't feel that was just conjecture on my part). I found that here and here. I wouldn't have put the word suicide in if it weren't sourced, but the accidental death heading is probably much better. I have no idea why they feel like they know everything Ellroy has said. I'm starting to think you're right about it actually being Ellroy or at least someone closely associated with him. They keep trying to put that stupid word "acclaimed" in. What is up with that? I was a bit miffed that the part about the suicide was taken out and that they claimed in the edit summary that Ellroy never said that. He obviously did at some point because Kupcinet's niece is quoted as saying she doesn't agree with the theory, but she appreciates Ellroy keeping the case alive. It's not that big of a deal to me so, it can stay out of the article, but yes, it is sourced. The thing is, all the supposed references & citations from whatshisname are from that one damn book. That sort of bugs me. The sources I use are online and can be verified easily. Not that using a book is bad, it's just there's a few places where it seems quite a bit of info is sourced from one page (64 or 67 I believe). The print must be very tiny to fit all that info on one page. Like I said, there's a lot in that article that kind of rubs me the wrong way. I'm thinking of going to a bookstore tomorrow to look for that book to verify if the info is actually on those pages. By the way, I also realized that some of the article (before I changed it) was almost a direct copy of this website, sources and all. Even the long footnotes on one version of Karyn article was basically a direct copy from that page. I'm thinking our little friend isn't quite the detective they're trying to make themselves out to be.

By the way, I'm not sure if you'd know this, but in the article, there was a part I wrote about Kupcinet getting an abortion. I can't remember if I put illegal in front of the word or not but I don't think I did. Did you? It's not a big deal, but the source didn't say it was an illegal abortion. She got it in Mexico which is where I assume it was legal at the time. Why else would someone who basically had money go to Mexico for a medical procedure? Pinkadelica (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering putting back the suicide thing because it is sourced. I know it's going to be yet another debate even though it is sourced. To me, the sources seem reliable which is why I didn't understand why it was removed to begin with. As far as finding the book in a regular bookstore, you're probably right. I usually go to the Half-Priced bookstore for books because they're more apt to have older titles (at much lower prices too). I remember seeing the book there once, but I don't really like that kind of writing so I didn't buy it. I totally agree with you about Ellroy. I haven't seen The Black Dahlia, but the reviews were horrible and everyone I spoke to said the movie (which was based on the book) was crap. Ellroy is basically a tabloid reporter who covers old murder cases and puts his own slant on it. I believe he claimed his father or a close friend of his father's was the Black Dahlia's killer, a theory that is totally dismissed by police. He basically based that on a picture the man took that supposedly resembled Elizabeth Short's mutilated face after her murder. Personally, I didn't think the photo looked like that at all, but then again, I'm not grasping at straws and making up kooky theories to sell books. I think you're probably correct about the age of whatshisname. That's actually a bit frightening to think someone of that age is so disagreeable and seemingly full of rage towards others who don't agree with them. As far as the abortion thing, it's not that big of a deal, but I don't like to throw words in just because I assume something. Abortion probably was illegal in Mexico, but since the source doesn't state it, I didn't feel right saying it was illegal. I guess it goes without saying that it probably was though. What gets me about this person is they claim they do all this research yet there was tons of info missing from the article, info that I found quite easily on the net. No mention of the abortion or Kupcinet doing questionable things when Prine dumped her. I think those thing paint a clearer picture of who she was and what her state of mind was at that time. If they're supposedly so passionate about her, you'd think these things would be included. As far as the falling down naked while dancing theory, yeah, that's a longshot to say the least. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the only way the hyoid bone is broken is if someone is strangled. Perhaps it can be broken in fall, but if she hit her neck on the coffee table, how did she get on the couch? Eh...whatever. I'm going to put the suicide info back in and leave a little message on the talk page. I'm sure this will turn into an idiotic debacle before too long. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing the edits whatshisface made. I know I made some grammatical errors and such because by the time I was finishing, I was getting sleepy and when that happens, I get sloppy so, thanks for fixing those as well. As far as the whole suicide thing, yes, Ellroy did say that. I don't have a direct quote, but I found two articles that stated that he thinks she died from an overdose of pills either accidentally or intentionally (an intentional overdose would be suicide in my book so I don't feel that was just conjecture on my part). I found that here and here. I wouldn't have put the word suicide in if it weren't sourced, but the accidental death heading is probably much better. I have no idea why they feel like they know everything Ellroy has said. I'm starting to think you're right about it actually being Ellroy or at least someone closely associated with him. They keep trying to put that stupid word "acclaimed" in. What is up with that? I was a bit miffed that the part about the suicide was taken out and that they claimed in the edit summary that Ellroy never said that. He obviously did at some point because Kupcinet's niece is quoted as saying she doesn't agree with the theory, but she appreciates Ellroy keeping the case alive. It's not that big of a deal to me so, it can stay out of the article, but yes, it is sourced. The thing is, all the supposed references & citations from whatshisname are from that one damn book. That sort of bugs me. The sources I use are online and can be verified easily. Not that using a book is bad, it's just there's a few places where it seems quite a bit of info is sourced from one page (64 or 67 I believe). The print must be very tiny to fit all that info on one page. Like I said, there's a lot in that article that kind of rubs me the wrong way. I'm thinking of going to a bookstore tomorrow to look for that book to verify if the info is actually on those pages. By the way, I also realized that some of the article (before I changed it) was almost a direct copy of this website, sources and all. Even the long footnotes on one version of Karyn article was basically a direct copy from that page. I'm thinking our little friend isn't quite the detective they're trying to make themselves out to be.

Ok...go look at the Karyn page now. Someone else is starting crap. Methinks there's another sockpuppet. Look at their history. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They've already reverted my revert of their edit and called me an obsessed fan. Yep, that's me. I sort of think it's him because they just registered today and the other one also edited on James Belushi's page. Could be a friend of theirs. Should I revert the other revert? I'm thinking I shouldn't. This is starting to piss me off. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Manson page

Having thought more about the subject of my preceding note, I have revised the article’s sentences about the deaths of Folger and Frykowski. Because of the confusion wrought by BassPlyr23, the sentences had come to be unintelligible. They indicated Watson had terminated the lives of Folger and Frykowski, but they did not indicate how. The sentences now make clear that Watson stabbed both parties on the lawn. If you will examine the revision — which I executed at 04:53 26 November 2007 — you will see what I mean. In "My edits from today," the Manson talk page section in which I addressed my comments to BassPlyr23 yesterday, I have left a note about the revision. The note was posted at 05:10 26 November 2007. I ask you to examine it.71.242.203.167 (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Manically hadn't struck me as POV; but if you think it might draw that criticism, then maybe it should be changed. In the notes I left earlier today at the article's talk page, I cited the relevant passage from Watson (Chapter 14) — but here it is again:

Then I realized that Frykowski had somehow managed to drag himself off the porch and was struggling across the lawn. I ran back to him, and once more the mechanical knife that was my arm drove down, again and again, until my wrist disappeared in the mess.

The word that came to my mind as I read that was manically. In the same chapter, Watson indicates he took some speed before the group headed to Cielo Drive. I think he attributes the mechanical motion of his knife-wielding to that. (If you don't mind my saying it: I'm a bit worn out right now and won't be able to read the chapter to get this straight in my mind.) That's why the passage above includes the words "once more"; he's already referred to the mechanical motion.

Hmm — furiously might be a temporary fix. It doesn't seem to be quite the word, but it's not way off. Well — maybe "by his own account" isn't bad: "who, by his own account, stabbed him manically." That's really not bad — and maybe the reader would appreciate it. It dispels the vague "Says who?"

That's the best I can come up with at the moment. I'll see if anything pops into my head tomorrow; but if you're worried that it will sink the article during the GA nomination period, do what you think best. We might come up with a better solution in a day or two.71.242.203.167 (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

At 11:27, 26 November 2007, BassPlyr23 posted a comment on my User Talk page. The subjects he addressed included the use of the word "manically" in the description of Watson’s knifing of Frykowski on the lawn. In fact, he posted the comment in the section in which you and I had been discussing that subject. My reply to his comment is posted on the Manson talk page. It’s in a new section, headed "Deaths on the lawn." I’ve posted a comment on his talk page to let him know that.71.242.203.167 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Manson

I've included the reference for the Steve Grogan section that you requested. Re: the Van Houten deletion: while it's true that the statement was somewhat editorial in nature, would it not be fair to say that it's accurate?

BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm...

I thought you might find this interesting. Evidently we're the only two that see a connection. No matter, they seem to have gone MIA for now. Maybe that scared the daylights out of them, let's hope that's the case anyhow. Pinkadelica (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your response was awesome! Personally, I think the evidence is overwhelming and the examples were provided were good. I understand that blocking IP ranges is rash, but what has this person actually contributed that is worthwhile? Blocking those IPs will hardly cause a decline in anonymous editors participating because, seemingly, that person is the only one attached to those IPs. I hate to say it, but I have a feeling that since this decision was in their favor, they'll start up again. I have no idea what "evidence" we're suppose to provide since I think between the two of us, we provided way more than most people do. I was looking at other reports that were no where near as through. It's a little discouraging but I'm not surprised. I find it hard to believe that they'll just stop so once they pop up again, I'll file again. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You certainly called that one right. He (I guess it's a he, I'll go with he) popped right back up after the holiday weekend. Isn't it odd that today is the first day that a public library would be open? I'm sure that's just a coincidence. It seems another editor over at the Seymour Hersh talk page is getting an idea of what we have been dealing with so perhaps they'll be caught up in that drama for awhile. Dare I say that it looks as if the Kupcinet fight is over....for now. It seems they're out to prove someone else is a liar and they've "discovered" the truth about something else that the rest of us just aren't privy to. I must say, UCLA (or wherever they're supposedly located) must have one hell of a microfilm division! That joint has all the answers in the world! lol Pinkadelica (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for being a voice of reason in this whole Manson mess. Such a fuss we're all making over such an unworthy subject.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

And hopefully the peer review will bring some sense into the matter, and encourage a civil discussion between both previously involved and previously uninvolved editors. As for myself, I prefer at this point in time not to get too involved in editing the article itself - particularly one so large and unwieldy. But this subject matter has piqued my interest, and I may yet just create a couple articles on the same topic, that don't yet exist on the project. If you have an interest, I could keep you posted. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

• Okay, I'll keep you posted if I end up writing a new article on the subject matter or doing something else related to it. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
  • On a side note - I'm confused, do you mark all of your edits as "minor" ? Cirt (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
    • No prob. Cirt (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

Your post on my talk page

I'm sorry you feel that way, dude. I don't view myself as the saving grace of that particular article - but the other "gentleman", who sees fit to insult me and nitpick about every minor edit made to the article certainly seems to view himself as such. I've tried to bring the article up to what I consider to be encyclopedic standards - the other guy seems more interested in the article being "his". That's why I finally gave up arguing with him. I told him "fine, have the article any way you see fit - but don't be surprised when it fails the GA review for precisely the problems I've pointed out." His writing is atrocious and he doesn't seem able to accept constructive criticism. None of this matters to me in the slightest - my life will go on. His seemed to stop when I touched his precious Charles Manson article. Cool, let it be.

I never edited that article in anything but good faith. I hope at least you could see that.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Seymour Hersh (Talk) post

Thanks for weighing in with good, judicious comments. Hopefully a consensus will develop--and there will be no sockpuppets. RickDC (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Manson again

At the Manson talk page, I've just posted a comment headed "Revision of 21:56, 27 November 2007." If you think you can back me up on this, I'd appreciate it.71.242.203.167 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PS If I'm violating Wikipedia rules by inviting backup in this way, please let me know.71.242.203.167 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply and for the posting at the Manson talk page. I've just suggested a version of the sentence there, too.71.242.203.167 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just left another note at the Manson talk page. I like the last draft you posted; I say go with that.71.242.203.167 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

At 22:43, 28 November 2007, I posted a comment in “Discovery of Shea’s body,” at the Manson talk page. If you’d be comfortable weighing in on the subject, I’d appreciate your doing so.71.242.203.167 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Got your note on my talk page. As you’ll see, I’ve followed your recommendation that I provisionally relocate the Shea passage.

Thanks for the results of the checkuser request; I’d have bet on the opposite outcome, as you know. Thanks, too, for the explanation of peer review. Maybe you’ve seen the semi-automated review that’s been generated at the peer review page set up by Cirt. Naturally, there’s a warning that, being semi-automated, the review might include invalid suggestions; I see two of those. (To be specific: The javascript progam has flagged the use of "the" in the heading "The crimes," as well as the capitalization of "Family" in "Rise of the Family." Neither of those, of course, should be changed.) The review also suggests the article be redone in "summary style," i.e., with present sections summarized and spun off as articles of their own. Even without any real understanding of peer review, I anticipated something like that.

I personally am opposed to any such revision, but the decision will be made by others. What will probably happen is that, at some point, some very-helpful editor will come along and summarize various sections carelessly, rendering the information one more mass of Wiki-mush and enriching the worldwide web with yet one more unintelligible account of the Manson saga. There’s nothing I can do about that; I’ve just wanted to see a complete, lucid account in place for, at least, an instant. The article seems to me to be that now (i.e. as of 13:46, 29 November 2007, with my provisional relocation of the Shea-discovery passage).

I hope you’ll forgive the unkind tone of the remarks I’ve just made with respect to Wikipedia. Over the past few months, I’ve watched as helpful editors have contributed — footnotes? No. Clarifications? No. Then what? Oh, things like — I can’t even remember — typographical errors, factual un-corrections, etc. So much for the Wikipedia "community."

Whatever the worth of it, my own work on the article is done, I think. Your effort to ready the article for the GA nomination prompted me to resolve several lingering problems — such as the reduced lead and the inadequacy of the final section (about Manson recordings, pop-culture references, and so on). Everything's now there — for one brief, shining moment.71.242.203.167 (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Perfect example of what I’m talking about: At 22:58, 29 November 2007, an editor revised the sentences about the Hinman murder. The edit summary was "reduced complex sentences." Nothing wrong with that — but he or she falsified the account. The version that was changed had begun: "On July 27, 1969,... Gary Hinman was stabbed." In rearranging the account, the editor began it: "On July 27, 1969, [Manson sent Beausoleil, Brunner, and Atkins to Hinman’s house]." The passage makes clear that the trio had been in Hinman’s house for two days before Hinman was killed, so the editor should have known to change the date from July 27 to July 25. There were other problems. Because the editor had cut out words carelessly, i.e., without checking for consequences of the cuts, the revised opening sentence employed the phrase "Hinman’s house," even though it had not mentioned Gary Hinman. There were other problems, including a misspelling of Hinman's name. Seventy-two hours or so after it was a GA nominee, the article was on its way to being Wiki-mush. Within six months, it will be.71.242.203.167 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I’ll deal with it in two parts. First, I’ll address your comments about my comments about the faulty revision of the Hinman passage. You write:

We are supposed to assume good faith in editing, which I believe the editor was trying to do. When I compare what was changed with what was there, the editor did not falsify the account. While it wasn’t worded perfectly, I see no intent to falsify, it was more likely an omission when trying to make it a simpler read. The article has a lot of complex sentences, which can be confusing.

I assume good faith, and I haven’t suggested anyone has not acted in good faith. Good faith is not the same as carefulness. The account was certainly falsified, as I have pointed out. After it had been revised, it indicated that Beausoleil and the girls had been sent to Hinman’s house on July 27; they had been sent on July 25. You say you see no "intent to falsify." I don’t see any intent to falsify either — but I still see falsification. Yes, the article has many complex sentences; the editor was trying to make some of them simpler. Excellent — but he or she did so carelessly.

The passage the editor produced begins as follows:

On July 27, 1969, Manson sent sometime Family member Bobby Beausoleil along with Mary Brunner and Family member Susan Atkins to Hinman’s house to persuade him to turn over money Manson evidently thought Hinman had inherited. They stabbed Gary Hinman to death.

Apart from the problem of the date, there is, as I’ve said, the use of "Hinman’s" before anyone named Hinman has been mentioned. How did that arise? The editor cut out an early section in which Hinman’s name had been given, and then he or she neglected to change what had been a later "Hinman’s" to "the home of Gary Hinman."

Was the editor aware of the problem? It would seem so, for he or she felt the need to insert the name Gary Hinman in the second sentence. In other words, the editor was unwilling to think for even a few seconds, to straighten the material out. It's just cut, paste, type — there, I'm a scholar. Time to click "Save."

What right do you have to regard that with anything but scorn? Is life so long that persons are entitled to throw sloppy prose before us? Do we have nothing better to do than try to make sense of such junk?71.242.203.167 (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, I’ll start addressing your comments about my comments about the revision of the Crowe passage. You write:

There have been a couple of edits where, actually, I don’t agree with the summary you’ve left. One of those points is regarding the shooting of Crowe. It didn’t read to me as if it was saying that shooting Crowe was to start Helter Skelter. It said very plainly “to obtain money for Helter Skelter supplies” in both versions. Which, when I think about it, I have no idea what that means. What are Helter Skelter supplies? I think that’s what is confusing in those sentences.

The editor was trying to fix a nightmarish passage. As I recall, I had been staring at it and trying to figure out how to fix it at just about the same time as the other editor revised it. The passage was this:

By June, Manson was telling the Family they might have to show blacks how to start Helter Skelter. On July 1, 1969, after Tex Watson, tasked by Manson to obtain money for Helter Skelter supplies, had defrauded a black drug dealer named Bernard “Lotsapoppa” Crowe, Manson countered Crowe’s resultant threat to wipe out everyone at Spahn Ranch by shooting Crowe at his Hollywood apartment.

That second sentence needs to be changed; it is just too complicated. The other editor revised the second sentence so that the passage ended up as follows.

By June, Manson was telling the Family they might have to show blacks how to start Helter Skelter. To this end, Manson tasked Tex Watson, who then defrauded a black drug dealer named Bernard “Lotsapoppa” Crowe, to obtain money for Helter Skelter supplies.

The problem with that is the words "To this end." It suggests that the defrauding of Crowe was somehow seen by Manson as a means of showing blacks how to start Helter Skelter. I’m not sure how the editor concluded that. On the one hand, Manson was telling the Family they’d have to show blacks what to do; on the other, he was telling the Family members they needed money to prepare for Helter Skelter. The two things were happening at the same time, but they were not connected.

Part of the problem, I think, is that Manson was being unclear. Watson says something like, "The money we were stealing was supposedly for Helter Skelter." He seems to have been confused about the purpose of the money. He also says the Family was stealing dune-buggy parts. When I originally wrote "Helter Skelter supplies," I was trying to makes sense of the matter. I was thinking that Manson was suggesting the Family needed money to buy dune buggy parts etc.

Anyway — that was my problem: I could see no reason for the introduction of the phrase "To this end." After reading your comment, I've concluded that the passage was so unclear that the editor can be excused for trying anything to make sense of it.

I’ve revised the sentence about the fraud; I’ve eliminated the phrase “Helter Skelter supplies.” The two sentences now read:

By June, Manson was telling the Family they might have to show blacks how to start Helter Skelter. When Manson tasked Tex Watson to obtain money supposedly intended to help the Family prepare for the conflict, Watson defrauded a black drug dealer named Bernard “Lostapoppa” Crowe; Crowe responded with a threat to wipe out everyone at Spahn Ranch.

Is that clear?

Another message in a few minutes.71.242.203.167 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You write:

The other issue was where you noted in the summary that you "Clarified mistaken identification of Crowe as Black Panter." You’ll have to explain to me how "Although Crowe was not a member of the Black Panthers, Manson expected retaliation from the group" equates to saying Crowe was a member. It says differently specifically.

As I typed that edit summary, I had a vague feeling it might be misunderstood. It should have read "Clarified Manson’s mistaken identification of Crowe as Black Panther."

The sentence had read:

Although Crowe was not a member of the Black Panthers, Manson expected retaliation from the group.

As revised by me, it read:

Although Crowe was not a member of the Black Panthers, Manson, concluding otherwise, expected retaliation from the group.

I inserted "concluding otherwise" to make sure the reader would understand why Manson was expecting retaliation from the Black Panthers. That’s what my edit summary was intended to communicate: "I’m making it clear that Manson mistakenly identified Crowe as a Black Panther."

Are you sure Watson doesn’t indicate Manson concluded Crowe had been a Black Panther? It seems to me he does. The pertinent passage isn’t terribly clear, but I think it’s clear enough:

At the ranch [the day after Manson shot Crowe], Charlie couldn’t stop talking about how he “plugged blackie.” We all assumed Crowe had died, especially when a report came on the news that the body of a Black Panther had been dumped near U.C.L.A. the night before.

Doesn’t that seem to say they concluded that the dumped Black Panther was Crowe? The pertinent passages in Bugliosi 1994 seem to say the same. If you don’t have that book, please let me know; I’ll type the passages out. They’re the passages about the information LAPD received from two motorcyclists — Al Springer and Danny DeCarlo. Check the bottom of page 91 and the paragraphs at the bottom of 104 and the top of 105.

As for your last comment, i.e., that yours was one of the two edits I thought harmed the entire article: In my message to you, I spoke only of the Hinman edits, which weren’t yours. I’ll guess you mean that my edit summaries that addressed "To this end" suggested that I thought that was a disaster, too. Hmm — when I wrote those edit summaries, it didn’t seem to me I was thinking that way; but now that you’ve brought it up, I suppose you’re right. I'll say two things about that:

Certainly if I'd realized, as I should have, that those edit summaries indicated I was as upset about "To this end" as I was about the Hinman problems, I wouldn't have sent you the Wiki-mush note re the Hinman problems.

Your comments, as I've said, have made me realize that the Crowe passage was unclear; I can’t fault you and the other editor for trying to make sense of it. I apologize for faulting you for it.71.242.203.167 (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet

lol Yes, I'm a girl. With a name like Pinkadelica, I certainly hope I am. I went ahead and reported the new idiot. Thanks for reverting the page again. If they stupidly revert your revert, we can report 'em. PLEASE let it come to that! I have a feeling it's a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of the old nemesis. I have no idea how to do a checkuser or whois on a user page, but I'd bet my life that they're somehow connected. What are the odds that a new user is going to battle over the same thing he was trying to remove? This one just seems to have a little more courage to be an outright goon. This is getting beyond stupid. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They've both had their official last warnings. The ANI report was a bit premature. If either one of them continues, assuming that they aren't the same person anyways, they can be blocked. - Rjd0060 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The next step I would take is to wait and see if the 2 new accounts continue their disruption. If they do, they will be blocked. If another suspicious account pops up, then I'd make another sock report, including all of the ones in the last report, along with all of the new ones (whether they are blocked by then or not). If you need help with the new sock report, or anything else, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. - Rjd0060 00:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How lovely

The second one looks better. Much cleaner and easier to read. It annoys me when people don't format the text properly when they write out a title. Pinkadelica 09:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Rooney

"Hi. I have been working on tabling filmographies for the WP project and came across this article. I saw that you had added quite a bit of information that was cited. The problem I am having is that I have no idea whatsoever where this is from. Your reference says "Current Biography" but it would really need a book/article title, author, etc. If you would let me know what it is, I would be happy to update the references. Thank you. Wildhartlivie 03:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)"

Actually, it says Current Biography 1942, pp 704-06. Since you "have no idea" (your words) what Current Biography is, it wouldn't hurt for you to become acquainted with it. It's a reference service that's in most public and school libraries. It's been published by the H.W. Wilson Company (the same people who do the "Readers' Guide to Periodicals") since 1940, and at the end of each year they assemble the year's articles into a yearbook. Thus, "Current Biography 1942 Yearbook" contained the articles that were published in "Current Biography" during the year 1942. Since you hadn't heard about this particular reference book, it would be worth your while to get acquainted with it, particularly if you're wanting verification of . The bound volumes are in the reference section. The pages referenced are in an article entitled "Rooney, Mickey" As with many encyclopedia articles, the author is not listed. If you do a google book search, you'll see a "snippet" view of the article, but the hard copy isn't that hard to find, as Current Biography is a staple even in small libraries. Mandsford 18:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Two Manson items

1. I urge you to undo the revision in which you inserted "his group, the Family" in the article's lead. It is redundant, and it confuses the reader. The first sentence indicates that Manson led a group called the "Manson Family." The term is in quotation marks, to alert the reader that it's not formal. The next sentence should simply refer to "the group," as it originally did. When "the Family" shows up later in the article, the reader can tell that that term is being used as an alternate for "Manson Family." Neither term is formal. (In fact, some members of the group seem to have rejected both terms from the time the group appeared on the public stage.)

2. I urge you to remove, too, the page numbers you inserted in the footnotes to the prosecution's closing argument. Those are not formal page numbers; they are simply the page breaks at the website where the closing argument has been posted. I originally chose to use the links to those specific pages because, obviously, they contain the exact passages to which the footnotes refer. That's an advantage of a hyperlink — but it doesn't mean the reader should erroneously be given to think the page numbers represent any formal citation. (I also think the link to "Prosecution's closing argument" in the article's External Links section should be to the argument's unbroken (i.e., un-paged), scrollable version, which may be found at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonsummation.html. The links to the specific passages should be used only in the article proper, where, as I've said, they're more helpful.71.242.203.167 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: To address the concern that prompted your revision, I've just tried an opening sentence in which both "Family" and "Manson Family" are presented. See what you think.71.242.203.167 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional note. One more reason to remove the page numbers from the footnote-links to the prosecution's closing argument at 2violent.com: the page numbers of the URLs do not match the pages numbers of the transcript. Please go to the transcript's first page, at http://www.2violent.com/closing_argument.html. If you will click on, for instance, the "27" at the bottom of that page, you will see that it does not, in fact, take you to the page whose URL is 27. It takes you to a page whose URL is 25. To get to the page that the Manson footnote calls "27," one must click on the "29." As I say — the page numbers should be left out of the Manson footnotes entirely.71.242.203.167 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Shaved heads

At the Manson talk page, I've posted a note headed "Shaved heads." If you will be comfortable offering an opinion on the question it presents, please do offer one.71.242.203.167 18:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Hey, could you archive part of the Karyn talk page? I have no idea how to do it and I believe you did it before. I don't even want to chance it and mess it up. Thanks. Pinkadelica 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Linda Darnell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Linda Darnell.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

doo dah 12.64.18.158 (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks in articles

Hi. As you should know, certain redlinks contained within Wikipedia articles are permissible according to the Manual of Style article on the subject, as an invitation for editors to create articles on those linked to, if notable. There is no rationale for deleting every redlink you come across, such as those in Greyfriars Bobby: The True Story of a Dog. I have therefore restored the article to its former state. If you would like to discuss this matter, I would suggest the article talk page, in order to establish a consensus on the matter. For this reason, please do not reply to my own talk page. Please do not carry out a revert until you have made your point(s). Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to make you aware of this and my reply. Jauerback (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about Trivia Tags

Thanks for the message you left me. I should have probably read the trivia page before I started labeling pages with what I erroneously thought was trivia. I will now review the other articles that I've tagged with trivia. I'm new to this project so I will try my best not to make stupid mistakes like that again. Again, thanks. Millionsandbillions (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation clean-up

Hi Wildhartlivie, thanks for the citation clean-up at Ryan White. I do have a question: I have never seen a citation style that places news articles in both italics and quotation marks "like this". Are you sure that's a correct citation style? I think that news articles should be in quotation marks but not italics. At least, this is what I'd always learned. --JayHenry (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! That makes sense. Looks like a pretty useful tool in general! Reference clean-up can be difficult work and I'm glad good people are working on it. But, more importantly:

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For uploading Image:Ryan White.jpg! You have no idea how hard I searched for a freely available image of Ryan White when I was working on the article. Free use images from the 80s are almost impossible to find—bravo for coming through! --JayHenry (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:

I wrote that a while ago, and I haven't checked it since. It will be reverted right away since I know what an admin is. Thanks for reminding me. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the helpful advice on the Peterson article. You're right, next time I'll be sure to use that tag you gave, sorry for any inconvenience. 13 December 2007

Documentaries or not

You might want to read "Documentaries," a note I've posted on the Manson talk page.71.242.203.167 (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

At the talk page, I've posted some info in response to your response. I can execute the revision that, as you will see, I recommend; but I need to make sure, via you, that documentaries are the only films the article should list.71.242.203.167 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. At the talk page and in the article, you'll see I've acted on your recommendation.71.242.203.167 (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Linda Darnell.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Linda Darnell.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up. You know, I wouldn't have even noticed the problem with that article but for the edit summary that said something about Australians and a comment directed at "foreigners". That got me a little annoyed, but on the other hand it's kind of funny seeing someone display their ignorance by accusing someone else of being ignorant. I see the discussion has kind of died for now. I'm not exactly surprised... but we'll see. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kudos for you

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I award Wildhartlivie this Barnstar for dealing with drama in the most graceful manner even when it seems there is no end in sight. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work & fyi

I just wanted to let you know that now EdJohnson & BlueAzure are skipping boards Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/64.30.201.109 in regards to the articles you have been helping with.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

TY

WikiThanks

Thanks for the Cluestick award! Pinkadelica (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing it and sorry, i had never thought about checking for multiple usage for the ref. I'll be more carefull next time. Cheers. -Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 02:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Catya Sassoonn

Hi,

judging from this, tvguide.com seems to merely reproduce the film's marketing ballyhoo (no additional detail is given about her martial arts record), so this does not make it a very reliable source either. Moreover, the French website quoted as a reference collaborates with the Paris film museum, so I guess that does not make it such an unreliable source. ;) Best regards, Wedineinheck (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Tables

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I was trying to find a reason why and just found it. It was an error on my part and had nothing to do with any policy. It was my mistake and I could only see where I made three changes. I think that you corrected them already. --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)