This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wildhartlivie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hello Wildhartlivie. I just wanted to say that I really appreciated your assistance and support in my exploration through WP. BlueAzure has taken any desire and fun out of wanting to help the process, so I'm not going to continue. Thanks again, this site is lucky to have you.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Debbiesvoucher 3rd request
I note your AN/I post. 1. Admins have no more status than anyone else when it comes to handing out civility warnings. They are only really useful when civility breaks down and action, such as banning is required. 2. I've at the diffs you provided, and had a look at the history of a couple of articles over which you are involved in arguments. It looks to me like a regular pissing contest, in which you appear to be to be at least as culpable. Indeed I have real concern about your approach on Karyn Kupcinet, and in the context of your behaviour w.r.t. Debbiesvoucher, I'm not very surprised by her comment. I suggest that you might want to take some time out and consider whether it is appropriate to raise your issues at AN/I. Looking at your own conduct, this seems to be WP:POINT, non?
I think you need to do more work on building a relationship with editors on pages on which you edit, and maybe less on trying to drag admins into your disputes. --Tagishsimon(talk)09:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
WML
If the editor keeps trying to add the crap back in (with or without discussion), I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to back up my comments on the talk page. This will help form a consensus that the edits are inappropriate, and that it wouldn't be just me against them, which technically leaves me powerless to keep reverting until some consensus is reached. I'm positive a wp:third opinion would side with me on this kind of junk, but it would looked better coming without solicitation in case further resolution is required. Thanks. Let me know if I can be of any other assistance TheHYPO (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:Peg Entwistle
Hi!
Thank you for your help! I really moved that you vets of Wiki are helping me. I'm going right to work on the corrections. Please watch me when you can and let me know how I'm doing! Thanks again!Jameszerukjr (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The December 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 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Wildhartlivie! Given your contributions to the Film Wikiproject, I thought I could ask for your help and advice. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique them:
Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable sourcecitations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Comments and suggestions are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.
If you have the time, it'd be great if you could look over those two articles and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Thanks, and, again, a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jeffrey Epstein mug shot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Marta McGonagle, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marta McGonagle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Peace
I love it! Thanks so much. I'll keep the Ellroy on the shelf in case you need a reference, but I don't plan on joining the Ellroy Fan Club any time soon! SilkTork *SilkyTalk08:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
HI thanks for letting me know. Absolutely not - filmographies should certainly NOT be converted to navigation boxes. The guideline for a filmography us clear on the project page - for instance see the Preity Zinta article -we should be aiming to have a detailed table for a filmography like this as it is not only meant to list the films but provide info on the role played, awards and notes etc and in same cases co-stars and directors are cited. Any converted filmographies you see should be reverted immediately and have it explained to the creator that this is against guidelines. There are countless scruffy lists that need cleaning up but changing to a navbox is not the way to go -they dhould be converted to table format with the silver header. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦Talk?14:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. Sorry, I Sysop for another wiki and got used to not having to fill summaries. Ditto with the refs. I will attempt to do the refs in the Wikipedia way today if I have a chance (massa over shoulder). I also found myself in an 'edit war' and kept getting reverted so it was hard to keep focused.
In a related matter, I tried to add some positive stuff to balance the article -as I have in the past- in the form of his personal life (a dad/involvement with the deaf/avid golfer at tony Hamptons' club etc) and the reverter User:Brewcrewer took it out with the comment "Who cares." I've seen such 'trivial' info on other bios and could use some clarification.
Hi and thanks for your message. I don't honestly know what the answer is because I don't know that this issue has been discussed before. I'm not as active here as I once was, so I could easily have missed a discussion. I have seen a discussion that supported the viewpoint that a filmography should be complete rather than truncated because truncating leads to presentation of POV, but the actual format, I think, is something that has not been clearly defined. There seems to be several formats which are taken as being acceptable (as opposed to desirable). I think Gene Hackman's filmography is acceptable and there are numerous like it. The last column is enough to add limited information. I think that anything that requires more than a brief comment should be addressed in the article, rather than the filmography. The awards navigations boxes are another story. I think it is absolutely hideous, unstructured, seemingly random - a mess. My view is that the nav boxes serve a minimal purpose and should be restricted only to the most noteworthy topics, and in the case of awards, I think it should be kept to the most important/significant of them. This one reads like a shopping list and minor awards are treated equally with the major awards. As I said, I think it's a mess, but how to approach it, I really don't know. A lot of people feel very passionate about their "pet" thing, whether it's a nav box or infobox or whatever and changing anything effectively is very difficult. I would suggest raising in on the appropriate project pages, if you haven't already. I'm with you - it's one of the most overblown lists of navboxes I've seen, and I think it's exactly what we should not be doing. Rossrs (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
...and here's a cookie because (almost) everyone deserves a treat.
Good work in finding them. I;m sure there are others too. I remember somebody tried doing that to Pierce Brosnan and one of the things brought up at the GA nomination was that the filmography needed restoring back from a navigation box. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦Talk?13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the good wishes! If you think of anything that could be done to improve the article or notice any errors don't hesitate to fix them yourself or leave a comment at the FAC! Cheers. --JayHenry (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I might have put the italics in. Was it on Claudette Colbert? If so, yeah, that was me. Thanks for the heads up and for checking the page too. In case you're interested, I left a little note on the JR talk page. Knowing my luck, I'll probably get into trouble. That seems to be how it works. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. It was such a mess that I knew I was bound to make a few mistakes. It looked much worse before I rewrote and cleaned it up. I noticed that other person making changes. I'm wondering if it's one of the puppets. What kind of irked me is that they changed her birth place. Saint-Mandé is a suburb of Paris, which to me means Paris. A lot of sources say Paris which is why I added it. I guess it might be redundant to say it though. Sort of like New York City, Brooklyn, New York. Oh well, it's not that big of a deal. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wildhartlivie. Thank you for trying to fix the infobox problem regarding the LO awards on Alison Steadmans page. Unfortunately adding the missing "laurence" does not make the info show up but it does remove the {{{laurenceolivierawards}}} from the box. Jeanenawhitney posted this [1] on the talk page for the infobox template page to try and help solve the problem. My computer programming skills are non-existant so I am wondering if you know how to take her info and make it work. If you don't please don't worry about it as I feel sure that some other editor will be able to fix things. Thanks again for your efforts and your time. MarnetteD | Talk14:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It helps to clue me in to several things that I hadn't encountered before in my time of editing here at wikipedia and I appreciate the time you took to type it. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
That's not a problem in my book! You're the whole reason the KK article isn't copied straight from that James Ellroy book. Can you imagine the state it would've been in if you hadn't helped me out? Something tells me it would sound like one of those JFK assassination conspiracy/Loose Change pages. Anyhow, I used the last part of your version. It's a lot cleaner than the original version. As usual...thanks! Pinkadelica (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How odd. The shopping mall where his photo gallery was taken - I was in yesterday. Anyway - there are a few things I dislike about the article. The "childhood" section barely touches on his childhood, and reads like a geneology discourse, albeit one where nobody is quite sure what the truth is. It's too detailed. I question the source also. It looks like the kind of site that anyone could put up. There's nothing to suggest any credentials, research etc. I doubt it would pass WP:RS. I also dislike the trivia section - it's just inane. The photo gallery is unnecessary. Three images (including the infobox) of the same man, sitting in the same shopping mall, on the same day, wearing the same suit, and the only thing different is that he's photographed from different angles. It seems like overkill. The quotes could be moved to Wikiquote. Rossrs (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Nixzmary Brown - Your Comments and My Thoughts and Responses
Hi. I've been looking over this article and wanted to leave a few comments on it. It's got the start of a decent article. When writing about a person, you should refer to them only by the last name or the complete name, unless it is within a direct quote. I went ahead and changed that when I saw it. As far as quotes as concerned, it seems a bit quote heavy to me. Perhaps you could render the majority of them to general prose with a citation. Example:
The city's Administration for Children's Services had received two complaints about the family, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston. The first, in May, 2004, was found to be unsubstantiated. The second came just last month, on Dec. 1, when the little girl showed up at school with a black eye.
It should read more in the vein of: Two complaints had been received by the New York Administration for Children's Services. The first, in May 2004, was found to be unsubstantiated. The second came shortly before her death, on December 1, after Brown came to school with a black eye. (with citations as needed)
I was debating this issue with myself. The problem was that the name "Nixzmary" is quite prominent in the newspapers. The papers are using "Nixzmary" and not "Brown", so that was problem #1 for me.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the article being "quote-heavy" well I'll need more time to think about the page, and believe me I am. This is a pretty big murder case here in NYC right now.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved the Aftermath section, with the law details, to the end of the article and made the heading about the law. Finally, the middle section, regarding the trial, needs to be less choppy. Use a main subtitle and write about the trial in a straightforward manner. When you do include a quote, it's not necessary to also refer to the writer of the publication where it appeared, or to the article itself. In other words, it isn't necessary to say "Joe Blow wrote" or "as per the article." The citation tells the read this already.
This was another debatable point with me as, columnist Andrea Peyser is an excellent, insightful writer and in this writer's case, I thought that she should get credit.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
When you are writing about an event, you should strive to keep the tense of the article consistent and avoid language that will date the article and require updating in order. However, one of the main problems I see with it is that it is discussing details of the trial day by day as it has been occurring. You really need to strive to avoid that, as it will make the articlei overly long. Try to condense it what it being presented into two or three paragraphs, which contain details about each topic in the article, instead of presenting it in a timeline format. Hope this helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I had planned to go over the article when the trial "wrapped-up" and do this very thing. Right now, I had thought that those wanting to follow her trial via Wikipedia might better be served by this writing style. Your criticisms are good, however and I'll give them more thought.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think it looks a lot better with smaller font, so I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks ! :-) Hey, have you looked at Mary Pickford? That's gonna be some filmography. I noticed that [John Wayne]]'s filmography is broken up into about 4 pages. I would never have thought of doing that, but do you think that's a way of handling Pickford and perhaps Wallace Beery? Rossrs (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Mary Pickford is a bit scary, but perhaps won't be so bad once it's started. I notice someone's grouped the filmography so it's a matter of formatting. I don't mind doing it, just not sure when. What is your opinion about the "leading man/leading lady" field in some filmographies? I think it's a bit ineffective and it overlooks significant co-starring roles between people of the same gender, and also highly notable supporting players. It also assumes that the subject is the lead in all films (and at the beginning and end of most careers this is not the case), and it also seems to just grasp for the highest billed member of the opposite sex, not necessarily the person that they were "paired" with. I've noticed a few like this and I don't think it's the way to do it. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking today that if the filmography is in the article space that it looks cleaner and more elegant with just the four columns, but that when it's spun off into its own page those "bare essentials" kind of look "bare". I quite like the directors to be listed for the longer filmographies and also the principal cast members (as opposed to the "leading man/lady" thing) I think it's interesting to look at a career in its entirety and see how the person connected with other people. For example with Norma Shearer I was suprised to see so many films directed by about 3 directors, and the number of co-stars especially early in her career that appeared in several films with her. I suppose it could be argued that it's trivia, and perhaps it is, but I also think it gives context. With Norma again, I've only seen about 4 of her films and I can't say I'm a fan, but seeing the wider view gives me a better idea of where she fits into the scheme of things, than I had with just a list. It's a personal thing of course :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - although I wasn't involved in the layout/design of the page. I did a lot of work in fixing disambig links and creating articles for the earlier missing films. I agree, it's probably the best looking layout for a filmography page on here. Feel free to use it as a template to improve any filmography pages. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing this, I'd forgotten about it. I'm wondering if it should be nominated for deletion and see what comes of that. I still don't think that an unsuccessful candidate for Congress from one district in Colorado who has no other biography is notable. What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm dubious of his significance. A “strong” candidate isn't whalloped by a 19% margin, and Googling doesn't turn-up much beyond old expressions of pre-election hopes. Further, your tag basically put editors on-notice, yet either there's nothing to say, or no one cares to say it. Indeed, before I did a little clean-up, it was written as if by a child.
Perhaps an AfD nomination would provoke major improvement, which I think either of us would still count as a “win”. —SlamDiego←T19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to do it. I made a (successful) nomination within the last week or so, so I know the hoops through which to jump. —SlamDiego←T19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for adding/clearing up Brenda Fricker's page. It looked a little downtrodden beforehand!
—User:Adaircairell 20:11, 26 January 2008
Re:Brenda Fricker
Fantastic - Tell me, this filmography table, will you be able to input information (eg film title, character) without having to repeat the formatting for each individual item? I did it for Cate Blanchett's theatreography, for example, which took ages!
Thanks
—User:Adaircairell 14:05, 27 January 2008
Whoa...awesome job! Hopefully it will stay that way for a bit while I look for additional sources. One less bell to answer for me! Pinkadelica (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, again...sorry to bug you but disregard the paragraph below...I found the second image.
I just can't fugure out how to get it on the page.Jameszerukjr (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you, but it seems my images have been deleted...or I simply can not find them. I do remember seeing the upload in the history. Can you tell me if this os the case; that they were deleted? The second image went up today, that one should not have been deleted...especially since I made a solid argument for its fair use and included 2 copyright tags! Thank you.Jameszerukjr (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Entwistle Image
Hi, I uploaded another image. This time used 2 tags and what I think is a compelling argument for the image's use on WP. Does permission have to be granted by WP before this image is up on the page? If not, can you please tell me how I actually get it ON the page? Thank you.
Jameszerukjr (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the help. I will include the titles if there are any--sometimes it is just a news item or announcement without a headline or author...such is the case in the "Amusements" section of the NYT when general info about Broadway regarding upcoming events or openings is mentioned. I will add a page number when this is the case. It wiil take some time but I'll get it done! Also, regarding your earlier advice about including too much about others in Entwistle's page...I think you may mean the Laurette Taylor edits. I did this only to show that Alice Sit-by-the-Fire was not a flop, that it had only ended early because of Taylor's problem. I wanted to set up the back story as to exactly why Entwistle's last Broadway appearance ended abruptly. It seems to be a consensus in several books and just about every newspaper and site that Entwistle had a string of stage failures in a row (7 or 8 depending on the source). It didn't help that Harold Entwistle either was misunderstood, or simply hadn't paid close enough attention to Peg's career. But I do see your point! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameszerukjr (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have the page on my watchlist, but if more issues arise and I don't pop up, feel free to let me know. Also, if I can be of help in any other way, I'd be happy to.
Have you noticed that, in the Charles Manson article, your revised versions of the imdb links (in "Documentaries") don't display the titles as you entered them? Instead of saying "Manson" and "Charles Manson Superstar," both say, simply, "Charles Manson." If you won't mind my saying it, I'll mention that it confuses the reader. If there's no way to avoid it, you might want to put the links back in their original form.71.242.195.148 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...do you know anything about Afghanistan or Pakistan? From what I'm gathering, they're two separate countries but hey, I could be wrong. Some anon IP keeps insisting that Adnan Ghalib (Britney Spears' boyfriend du jour) was born there and changing up the source to reflect that. Here's my edit versus theirs. Something about their source rubs me the wrong way especially since it seems gossipy and it doesn't state he was born there. Just that he is of Pakistani origin. If you feel like changing it, go for it. Pinkadelica (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right, he's not notable except for dating Britney which is why it's hard to find any info on him. Bringing it up on the talk page is probably useless as it is a anonymous IP editing and they rarely get involved in discussions regarding content. I'm thinking of just leaving it since the whole article shouldn't be here to begin with IMHO, and changing it back will only ensure an edit war that I'm not interested in. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh Lord, THANK YOU! I've asked two different editors to at least weigh in and no one can be bothered. I think the guy's article should be deleted too and I even voted to have it deleted, but this person's instance on saying he was born in Pakistan with no references is annoying. Thanks again. Here's a little something for ya. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, thank you so much for your contribution. I was told it was about to be deleted so yes I was quite concerned. My aunt died on Sunday night and my life has been a blur the last couple of days. I will get to this as soon as I am able. Sorry. Again, I am so grateful for your help. It was terrific. Will do my best. If there is anything else you can do, I will be most indebted. Thank you. Thank you.
K W LaQua (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
YES, Please Help
I started looking at the article again and thought that each time I move on this it seems to be wrong so, yes, I would like your help
in re-writing this. Would you be so kind? Will find more citations but your help is humbly requested.
K W LaQua (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Broken Cookied
I went in and placed citations as recommended. After my aunt's funeral I will try to do more editing. So what you are saying in the cookie message is that it doesn't matter, you want the article deleted? I thought you wanted to help? Are Pinkadelic and Wildhartlive different people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K W LaQua (talk • contribs) 05:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it's probably from WireImages. I'm doubting the tags as well because it looks a little too professional. Aside from the dubious authorship, the original picture was fine and shouldn't have been replaced. This current one is....odd. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Eh, you're not a shrew. lol You're always very courteous even when others aren't. Speaking of others, that anonymous IP editor at the Adnan Ghablib is back. Looks like it's protection time. Sicne I've been writing this, they've already reverted my revert! I'm so tired of dealing with the whole page because it shouldn't even be here! As far as that picture on the Hayden page, I just don't think it fits in an encyclopedia. There's already one picture of her in the article and frankly, since her look hasn't changed that much from image to image, I think two photos of her is overkill. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That tag has already been there but thanks for doing that. I'd like to renominate it for deletion. Would you support that? I'm actually quite tired of these stupid battles over a man who has seemingly done nothing to include an encyclopedic entry. Do you think a speedy nom would be appropriate? Pinkadelica (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
lol @ Britney's bore. I figured speedy is the best route. Last time, a consensus couldn't be reached so why go through it again. I so don't want to deal with the headache of a content dispute over that dude anymore. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Janis Joplin
Hi:
Thanks for your messages re: my editing the Janis Joplin entry. I apologize profusely for any trouble I've caused during my constant editing and revising. I have been using the preview button, but sometimes I'll notice small errors or I'll want to expand the narrative, which obviously creates havoc.
I think it's best if I stop now, so as not to try your patience any further. It was fun and, as this was my first time editing an article in Wikipedia, I feel as though I'm really starting to get the hang of it!
The remaining places where citations are still needed I've been unable to verify using the numerous references I've been citing.
I was going to add some stuff about Joplin's relationship with Kris Kristofferson; some more about Joplin's complicated and somewhat ambivalent and contradictory relationship with Peggy Caserta; and some stuff about Joplin's alter ego, "Pearl," a persona she developed to protect the real Janis Joplin: a sensitive, vulnerable and insecure young woman. Perhaps you - or someone else - may wish to do this, as I feel I've tried your patience enough.
Please see your previous (Aug 2007) posting on my Talk Page "Variations of Spelling" and my reply. It too related to the Cary Grant article. I believe every article needs to stick to one spelling version, and have taken into account all the considerations you have brought up both in August and today. Is there something I am overlooking? --User:Brenont (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Helen Gibson
Thank you for your advice, I will rewrite the article and incorporate your points. In your opinion is the difference between a B-Class and an A-Class in this instance, due to my lack of style or the contents? This article contains about 3 years of research, if I find much more to include I will be shocked and amazed. EraserGirl (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Again I thank you for your input, I took a cursory pass at it. I will fiddle some more when I get more content to add. (and also when i get more fluent in wikistyle) My major problems with references is that there are only 2 or 3 that are original source material and I despise using derivative works as references, most especially when they have also passed along incorrect data. I was able to cross check some of the content with her personal letters in my possession. Alas no one cares but me and thee. EraserGirl (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Most of the content is unenclyopedic and seems like original research (the friend's first hand knowledge, I'm assuming) and I've found nothing on this guy that makes him notable. I checked the external links hoping to find something there and two of them (this one & this one) are expired. I'm not having any luck finding out any more info on this guy which means he probably doesn't need an article. I went ahead and tagged it for reliable references, tone & notability. I'd say give it a week (since someone seems to be adding to it on a fairly regular basis) and if it's not rewritten and resourced by then, it needs to be tagged for SD. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Same can be said for the Ricky Dominguez article (sans the interesting part!). I'd love to tag that puppy, but knowing my luck, the same person who kept putting in the Youtube link as the kid's official site will probably challenge it. Thanks for tagging it by the way, the whole thing is a waste of space. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think the copyvio aspect is too big of problem as it is rewritable should anyone care to invest the time to rewrite it. Its big problem is the lack of sourcing, the very unencyclopedic tone and - importantly - the lack of notability. Everything else is fixable, but we can't make him more notable. It seems to be all very well intentioned though. Perhaps the contributor would respond to being gently pointed towards the general guidelines for writing articles, but ultimately that would mean deleting a lot of stuff that the contributor obviously considers important, so it might be futile. I don't see a lot of potential in the article. Rossrs (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A favor..
It's that time again. Could you look at this version and then this other version and tell me if you think my description of the poster was wrong (check out the edit summary)? I'm fairly certain I see the girl holding a VHS box just like the one that was uploaded and is current featured as the "theaterical poster". I'm seeing that the current photo is actually a picture of the VHS box and the girl in the poster is holding the exact same box. Stupid squabble, I know, but those second edit summaries really grind my gears. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and weighed in over on the talk page. I believe that the editor knows that tabloids aren't reliable but just wants to include every bit of info around. I think it's common knowledge that tabloids are full of lies and the British ones are particularly vicious and false. They're notorious for that. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the article on my watchlist, but I'll put it on there. Scaling back on the tabloid fodder would be best, but her drug use and personal problems are part of her life, they should be covered. There are plenty of third party sources that aren't tabloids that can reference that. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As an outsider trying to judge British sources I have found the The Sun trashy as hell but have also found stories there consistently confirmed later on by “respectable” sources or official spokespeople. Examples include A day before Winehouse’s arrest the Sun wrote a story saying what was going to happen, The “drug video”, The “braless walk”, Lily Allen’s pregnancy and unfortunately her later miscarriage so as an editor it is not my job to judge sources on my like or dislike for them but their reliability and The Sun has passed that test in this area. I just got tired of waiting for “respectable” sources because I like them more. Of course if the same story in both The Times and The Sun I would put in The Times and I have used the Times (London,NY, and L.A.) several times.
When using these sources I take care to parse the language carefully using words such as “tabloid” “claimed” “alleged” etc.
In the specific case of the alleged Blake overdose I put it because not only the Sun but three separate sources were claiming similar things, the allegation was that the “contaminated heroin” was purchased by selling of her pictures which is about her and their marriage has had a documented effect on her career.
I and do not put in "every piece" of info nothing about the "other Blake" or her alleged moving into Kelly Osbornes place(I would never put in a celebrity's address out of concern for safety)
Those remarks were "inspired" by yours but not directed at you personally. There are many goods things about Wikipedia but this a mentality I have found quite often at Wikipedia that in my view has not been the best thing for our readers. Using an example that is right in front of the editors seemed obvious to me. I will acknowledge that using the word “mentality” can be perceived as a personal attack and your suggestion for a better choice of language would be appreciated.
I may not agree with certain ways you want to edit the article but I have never questioned that your intent and I would expect that of you. I did not find that in these remarks ”I believe that the editor knows that tabloids aren't reliable but just wants to include every bit of info around”. Speaking of Wikipedia Guidelines that is a violation of Good Faith Edkollin (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's definitely worth discussing, and I feel there are numerous disparities in the assessments. I think particular individuals need to be discussed, and perhaps we can work out who the 100 should be, and perhaps even see if 100 is a realistic number. Count me in on any discussions. I would say Bette Davis without hesitation, Vivien Leigh - her film career rests largely on two exceptional performances/roles, but whether that's enough, I don't know. But there are some names that should be so obviously on the list - I'll give it some thought. Rossrs (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. Well if you start the discussion I will definitely comment. I've had a look at the list as it stands and already disagree with a couple of names listed there, so this will be fun. :-) Rossrs (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a good starting point, but I think discussion of names to be added should be dealt with at the same time, so I would suggest starting the discussion with a statement of the overall aim, and leave it somewhat open ended. But yes, we need to try to establish the integrity of the existing list fairly quickly. Rossrs (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I know - it's so weird. I found exactly the same thing. The "listas" parameter should work as that is what it is designed for. I looked at Talk:Alfred Hitchcock simply because he was one that displayed correctly and there was a defaultsort template under the project templates, and I have no idea why it worked, but I tried it on a few (Talk:Joan Crawford and a few others) and ... voila... it worked. Don't know how, don't know why and don't know if this is going to cause another problem elsewhere, but I can't see that it's corrupted anything. Rossrs (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you know of anyone who can weigh in so we can finally have a resolution or at the very least come closer to one? I'm wondering if I should ask all those who voted "Redirect" to change their votes since that doesn't seem to be an option. Pinkadelica (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that suggestion to the whole Adnan debacle. I was thinking about doing that days ago, but everyone who has voted so far (aside from you) seems very ambivalent about the whole matter. As far as the Winehouse article...yikes. That's a whole can of worms right there. How is deleting an entire section without consulting anyone else not a violation or at the very least, inconsiderate to others who were involved in an attempt to remedy the situation? I got griped at for removing useless trivia that was sourced from IMDb, the worst source in the entire world! I'll weigh in over there in a bit, but I must say, the atmosphere isn't very friendly. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Amy Winehouse
As a regular contributor to the Amy Winehouse article, you are invited to join the editing process of the article's personal life and controversy sections, temporarily located here. For discussion on recent issues, go here. For current discussions, go here.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs14:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
... for alerting me regarding Amy Winehouse. Unfortunately I was busy, and couldn't intervene until now. But I'll take a look at what's been going on, and see what I can do. Kind regards, --Catgut (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I agree with your correcting my assessment of Reese Witherspoon. Btw, are there any specific rules for film directors, too? See my edit regarding Sergio Leone, who without doubt must be looked upon as one of the iconic European filmmakers, and whose spaghetti westerns have had a lasting impact on cinema worldwide. If there is any discussion going on dealing with the assessment of actors and directors I'd love to make my voice heard. --Catgut (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Great! You'll hear from me asap.
And, yes, I had been astonished how that, well, rather daring edit erasing the whole private life section, and later the request for full protection (of the incredible shrunk version, of course) went so smoothly. Anyway, things have obviously changed for the better! --Catgut (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I was tempted to revert for not providing sources because that's a valid reason to do so, but I just didn't feel like getting into a whole to-do about it. As long as it's been, it really hasn't been long enough and I don't think I've built my strength back up. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to take a look at your project and lend a hand if I can. I've been attempting to get around to my own list of TV stubs that need to be expanded and/or cleaned up. That's a task within itself. I've already found a few references for the Ray page so I'll throw those in. Like you, I just don't feel like dealing with drama anymore. To me, the concept isn't hard. If you add content, add a reliable reference. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I found something that contradicts the info in the Ray article regarding his alleged Native American heritage. I have no idea how valid this is as this little blurb doesn't reveal its sources. What do you think? Pinkadelica (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that little notice at the bottom which is why I didn't change the content. I think it's interesting nonetheless because I can't find any sources that state Ray was of Native American ancestry. I also found this, but again, I'm not sure if it's reliable. The whole thing just strikes me funny. If someone is such a expert and is so through with their "research", how would this mistake get in? Pinkadelica (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that for a minute! There is deep research going on there! There's no way either of us can poke holes in solid research like that. It's not like we've ever been able to before. Neither of us have ever proven that an editor completely made up stuff just to push their own agenda. We're just not that smart or savvy. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You should. Hopefully you can get your college tuition back. In the meantime, I'm going to smack my mother for teaching me basic common sense. She should have taught me how to made up my own version of reality, facts be damned. I should sue her. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
article improved
Hi, I don't understand, i've improved this article [2] with images (with OTRS permission) and other things requested, but someone (not registered) now has attached this template... --Carlons (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
article
I've asked it to you because you have let me this: I have to wonder, if you felt so strongly about this article that you lobbied for its retention, why you haven't done anything in over 3 months to expand and improve the article... etc do you not remember? ...anyway I'll try to improve it --Carlons (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I was puzzled by the removal to begin with because I was under the impression that the "allegations" were added by the person that removed it. The wording of that content was one of the issues we brought up. Either way, what you added is perfectly acceptable and SOURCED, it should stay and shouldn't be edited in my opinion. I honestly don't understand trying to hide the issue of the man's sexuality when his biography is clearly a part of the LBGT studies project. I'm already tired of dealing with it and it's barely begun. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. She's been doing that since you (rightfully) accused her of attacking you eons ago. Yet another sad ploy. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's comforting to know that the same logic is used across the board and not just in dealing with us. When something that isn't sourced is removed, it's always because the person that removed it is a). homophobic b). attempting to cover up the truth or c). too lazy to scourer microfilm. Pinkadelica (talk) 10:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion
Just wondering what you thought of the review section of this lovely article. The talk page is even more...out there. I'm assuming the "Dear Wikipedia" person is the one that added the good reviews. Don't you love how the POV is so balanced? Pinkadelica (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
visiting dead girls
I have recently finished a draft of Jay Presson Allen, and have gone back and tweaked my earlier articles: Dorothy Hale and Helen Gibson. I am also taking another pass at Anita Loos since I now have more citable material to work with. Next up will beLenore Coffee I have as yet not found anyone who will admit to working on the Screenwriters project. I guess dead girls aren't exciting enough for some people. 8) EraserGirl (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you're working away on things. It may be that not as many people are as excited about working on screenwriters because there isn't as much material so readily available for them. However, Anita Loos is one who has had bigraphies written and is a bit easier to research. Good luck. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
One would assume that but it's not as easy as you make it sound. There is really one one bio on her, and her autobiographies, but autobiographies need to be corroborated as they aren't exactly objective. It took me almost a week to write what is in the article now, but I have some more stuff to work in and expand the citations. I expect to keep massaging it for a while. True screenwriters aren't as easy as actors, because they take effort, research muscles can grow soft from lack of use. EraserGirl (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Priority assessments
Thanks for your answer. Yes, in my view the list is terribly unbalanced. Which I don't consider a big problem, as WP is of course in constant change. Nothing here is for eternity. I would have loved to enter the discussion much earlier. Unfortunately I didn't. Take a look at the current names included in the top priority class, and you'll see: That's Hollywood. With the exception of Fellini, Bergman, it only consists Hollywood actors, Hollywood directors, Hollywood producers. Nothing wrong with that, but of course this is not a proper representation of global cinema. Key filmmakers, producers, actors are not included. I am not talking about local celebrities or regional stars, but people who are respected for example in Europe, or Asia. On the other hand, I have already pointed out that the top priority has been assigned to Milton Berle, Lucille Ball, and others, whose fame is limited, both in time and space, and who for example in Europe are not notable to the common people worldwide. I know how problematic several lists of relevant actors, directors, and films can be. Problematic in the sense that they, too, focus on Hollywood and/or the English speaking world, and leave everything out that doesn't fit into this category or is simply unknown to the people compiling the names. (Btw, I'm familiar with this problem, as I know it from lists of leading restaurants... and the whole listomania itself is so typically Anglosaxon!) The AFI best actors list for example exclusively concentrates on American cinema. The question may arise, whether this bias is corrected or not by other lists who respectively concentrate on national cinemas. Another problem might be that the users predominantly represent the English speaking world, and are mostly familiar with English language cinema. This may also influence the outcome. The question is, whether the top priority category should have a global value or not. Let's take Chinese cinema, for example. Right now, there is no Chinese actor, producer or director included in the top category. Though there is a market of roughly one billion people that their films are made for. Another example is Indian cinema. Again, there is an audience of hundreds of millions of watchers worldwide. Not to mention Russian cinema. I know that someone may it find hard to accept or at least surprised that his or her favorite star shouldn't be eligible for the top category. But that's life. Either we try to achieve global validity and keep the limit of 100 names, or not. If not, then it should be pointed out that this category predominantly reflects Hollywood cinema, nothing else. Only then it would be justified to leave out the great Akira Kurosawa for example, otherwise not. Another solution could be to simply ignore the 100 names limit. Finally, as the rule states that the names included in this category ought to be extremely notable to common people, one could leave a notice on several portals, let's say of those of China, India, France, Great Britain, Russia etc., and urge them to name the most common names of filmmakers and actors. Now they may come up with names that people in the US or Australia may never have heard of, but nevertheless fulfill the requirements for this category. Basically, I hope that my intentions are well received. I don't intend insulting anyone, but right now I find it extremely hard to accept and respect a top category that includes Sid Caesar and Joseph L. Mankiewicz, while leaving out the likes of Kurosawa, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Jean-Luc Godard, Brigitte Bardot, Alain Delon, Heinz Rühmann, Toshiro Mifune, or Sharukh Khan. Anyway, let's wait what Rossrs has to say! Kind regards, --Catgut (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me add one more thing. Currently, I welcome about 80 or 90 percent of the names included. The thing is, that there is a buch of names that are missing... Maybe we'll find out that the 100 names limit is too rigid, for it finally only allows the inclusion of undoubtedly proven iconic myths that also have a worldwide appeal unbowed by the course of time, like James Dean, or Alfred Hitchcock, and nothing else. I think that this concept would radically narrow the understand of the significance of cinema, and I wouldn't favor it as artistical values would be underestimated. --Catgut (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Also posted on Catgut's page. Firstly, Catgut, I welcome your comments and hope you always feel free to offer them. I think that this list is always going to be subjective, and only open discussion is going to provide the best result. I think Wildhartlivie makes a very valid point in addressing the limitations and "key audience" of this project, which is the English speaking world. Going back to the definition/criteria for inclusion : Core topics about actors and filmmakers. "Generally, these are people who are extremely notable to the common person. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members". I think 100 is just an arbitrary number, and I think we should agree that it should be viewed as a guide rather than a rule. The most important point is "extremely notable to the common person" and in this project the "common" person is someone who predominently speaks English, and it would follow that the interests and backgrounds of the great majority of these people would be related to the culture of English-speaking countries in whatever field they happen to be looking, whether it's music, literature or cinema. I would expect that the average Chinese cinema-goer would be unfamiliar with almost every name on the current list, but if you were to go to Chinese Wikipedia you would rightly see that their articles are skewed with a Chinese perspective. I don't think that adding names that are best known within their own non-English language industries would balance this list. I think it would actually "unbalance" it by adding a number of names that are unfamiliar to the people who most often use these pages, and whose culture is supposed to be reflected in the ratings given. Someone such as Sharukh Khan, to choose one name at random, is undeniably a significant figure but from the point of view of English language Wikipedia, and the English language experience of most of its readers, would have much less relevance. I agree that this requires further discussion, and certainly individual names should be discussed, but I think to provide a completely balanced world-view would be beyond the scope of this project. I would also like to echo another of Wildhartlivie's comments : one of the main results of tagging these articles should be that they are spotlighted by the community at large, as articles that merit elevation to good or featured standard. It's saying "these articles need to be fixed first" rather than "these individuals made more startling contributions to world cinema than anyone else", although notability and influence are crucial to identifying the subjects. Rossrs (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I thank you both for your valuable comments. I sincerely hope that you don't think of me as someone simply popping up and trying to undermine your work. I share many of your thoughts, yet I think that the English Wikipedia is the global Wikipedia. I don't intend to underestimate the Chinese or German or French or whatever Wikipedia, but it can't be denied that English is the world's lingua franca, whether you're dealing with the arts or business, science or cinema. So I think it would be quite nice if the English language Wikipedia could reflect at least some of this global importance and be a litte bit more balanced. Being involved with cinema, I'd welcome the idea that important that some of the world's most influential directors, actors, or writers get the respect they deserve. It's because I was influenced by them, and I happen to know major filmmakers in the US who would second me in that thought. So how about thinking about let's say 5 names to whom the top priority status could be awarded, always bearing in mind that the respective articles are in good shape. As you may be more objective than I am, I would like you to take a look at Sergio Leone (unfortunately there is a definite lack of sources). The man himself is without doubt someone whose work has influenced modern cinema a lot. He defined a whole genre, and that's something that, like it or not, cannot be said about too many filmmakers. Clint Eastwood honored him by dedicating Unforgiven to him (and the great Don Siegel, of course), and Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill also pays homage to him. And that's why I think that, all in all, Leone deserves top priority. Quite certainly he is not a stranger to English speaking lovers of cinema. Another example would be Jean-Luc Godard. Someone who revolutionized the public's view of what cinema is or could be. Then Brigitte Bardot: She was the iconic sex symbol of the European 1960's. Ask the Britons if they know her, and you'll sure get the answer that there wasn't just Diana Dors. Finally, I really don't know the reasons why Akira Kurosawa was left out, but the article is acceptable, to say the least, and I would rank him at the same level as Federico Fellini. Kurosawa was brought to Hollywood by Martin Scorsese to do Dreams for Warner Bros.. Kurosawa also got an Oscar for Lifetime Achievement. Not bad, I'd say... Hmm, these are my suggestions for the moment, please consider them if you like. Anyway, thanks for your patience and your good work! --Catgut (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Likewise - this has been one of the most enjoyable projects I've involved myself in on Wikipedia, and I do thank you for that. It's so refreshing to be able to enchange ideas freely and with a sense of fun, without forgetting that we're actually serious about what we're doing. Thank you for updating the talk pages : timing was just really bad for me. I made a very small start, expecting to have a bit of free time, and then my real life took over. Rossrs (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Mickey
I was right in the middle of reporting him, and then he added the "living legend" thing. I thought it was so outrageously bad it was almost funny, and I may even have groaned out loud. He's exhausted my patience though. :-) Rossrs (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article where it says "Rooney will enter the Guinness Book of Records as the actor with longest career on both stage and screen", there was a ref to a web site stating this, but you removed the ref with 'cn'. What was wrong with what was there before? -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it's time this article got a SD tag? I'm not sure if it fits the criteria for a SD, but I've found nothing on the kid on Google except Youtube videos of him drunk at Denny's (no joke). He's got an official website but it seems to be geared more for getting acting jobs than anything. His credits basically speak for themselves and I just don't see notability here. Thoughts? Pinkadelica (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for re-adding the SD tag to the page. I find it quite odd that someone claims the kid is notable to begin with yet changed nothing. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Whomever reads it should get the point, but I have a feeling the whole thing will be challenged. The person who removed it has never even edited the page and has a habit of removing deletion tags. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
settled by whom? is there a section for the article on the afd page? if not the {{AfDM}} tag is inappropriate, and should be removed. --emerson723:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but keep your shirt on. I am in the process of preparing the AfD entry even as you interrupted me with your terse note. Meanwhile, I live in Indiana, USA, which at this moment has an ice storm which has caused my power to flicker twice, causing me to have to start over for the third time, and causing me, on dial-up, several disconnects.
As long as I am responding, perhaps you could explain what "notable enough" means, and from what sources you determined that. I have found nothing that independently addresses this person's notability. Everything that exists on this person is self-published, or is subject to change by the person himself, which does NOT meet notability criteria and in fact, flies in the face of guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. I outlined these concerns on the article talk page, to which which you neglected to respond. Just saying so does not mean it is notable. This has been the reason the article has been tagged twice for notability, and nominated for speedy deletion and prod. Just removing those tags does not establish the person's notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
oh jeez dude....my shit shirt is on. i it wasn't my intent be be terse....sorry it came off that way. with regard to little ricky, from what little i've discovered about the kid, i think he's done quite a bit more than most. imho, that's pretty notable. as far all self promotion rubbish...well that's easily handled. sorry for all your difficulties there ....wait a minute, did you say dial-up?! --emerson723:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Charles Manson article GA nomination
Now that things have died down since all the BS went down in November, would you consider renominating the article?
When you get a chance, could you look at Jeanne Carmen please? It's not urgent, but I think it's becoming a quote farm and way too gossipy. By the way, email comin' your way. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I knew it had something to do with that edit, but I'm not getting a connection between the user name, the admin name, the article that was deleted (?), the autobiography, and all the other ramblings. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree, it's getting way out of control. I feel like that point about Marilyn & The Kennedys being dwelled upon when, in reality, it was probably only a small portion of her life. I think the best way to deal with it is to approach the editor who is adding all the info. Ugh...thanks a bunch for the assessment though. I always like a second (or third!) opinion. Lord knows I'll probably need backup! Pinkadelica (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I tagged it as a quote farm because honestly, that's what it seems like it is. Most of the content is what such and such author stated and nothing original is blended in. I did remove the content sourced from The Globe which ought to cause some crap. Basically all that is being said could be said in a few short paragraphs. I'm afraid it's the Doodlebug syndrome - trying way too hard to prove a point that could be said quite plainly. I think it's fine for now. I'll ask Rossrs for his opinion if/when I need backup. Gotta save the big guns for the war because I have a feeling it will be a battle. Thanks for the input. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Speck
Thanks for the tips with my contribution to the article. I'm trying hard to figure this stuff out and I appreciate the help. The interview was done by me...I'm Emil Giese's son...and the info can also be verified by the Chicago Suntimes article. I rearranged some of the text that I wrote last year and added a few other names who worked on the fingerprints. I also hope I'm doing this "talk" thing right on your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtgiese (talk • contribs) 06:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Clara Beranger
Thank you for recently rating Clara Beranger as start class article. Can you please look at it again and give me some direction as to how best to improve it to a B-Class article? EraserGirl (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
First you claim that Winehouse's drug problems are unreferenced therefore unsubstantiated. Do you think I was making it up? Then you claim that there are just "person problems," even though they are the only reason why anyone over the age of 21 cares about here. That she is a singer is far outweighed by her lifestyle. Please don't start wiki disputes for no reason. This site has enough of that already. Another Four Plasmids (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Vivian Naefe
Thanks for the heads-up with the assessments, I just copy-pasted the flags from a different article and forgot to reduce the class. Next time, I will do better. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
George Burns
You are right, I was wrong, I apologize. Tag restored. "purious" is a typo, I meant "spurious", but mistakes in edit comments can't be corrected -as far as I know. --AVM (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Manson revision
Just want to bring to your attention the 08:28, 10 March 2008, revision of the Charles Manson article. I happened to see it within half an hour of its execution, and I undid it. There was no edit summary; it seems to have been brainless.71.242.155.56 (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm sure you're right that I could simply have written "rv vandalism." That was one of the strangest revisions I've seen -- but I have a feeling you've seen worse.71.242.155.56 (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Claudette Colbert
Hi, I would like to ask you a favour. Would you please have a look at Claudette Colbert when you have a few moments? There's another "new" user who has only edited this article, and each of his/her numerous edits has been the removal of some small piece of text. The overall result is a removal of a larger amount of text. I've done a blanket reversion, and I figure if they can't even use an edit summary, that's OK, considering it's a pattern of vandalism that's happened there before. I'm going to be away for about a month, so I probably should have left it alone, but impulse got the better of me. I'd be interested in your opinion - it looks like the same person to me. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed opinions without the source, and unified duplicated texts. I already explained Maria DiBattista and Jeanie Basinger in edit summary. You will be blocked if you continue adding editing without the source. -- Braghis (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If they revert again, they'll be in violation of 3RR. If and when that happens, I'll request page protection until a consensus can be reached. Changing and removing content when three different editors worked on this page just isn't kosher. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read the edits I made to [Peg Entwistle]? They were all excellent summations of tedious and overwrought text. I defy you to point out a single instance where the edit I made did not successfully summarize relevant information while omitting unnecessary claptrap. It is not vandalism in the slightest to condense an entire paragraph on her father's death (including the trivia that it occurred on Election Day and that he spent a month in a private hospital!) into a sentence which notes the date and manner of her father's death, which seems perfectly appropriate. VANDALISM? How dare you, good sir.
Peg Entwistle
Your advice is noted. I meant no malice toward the "Swansea" editor and I went to their User Talk Page to first discuss the matter, however they had not started the page. I perhaps should have used a less accusitive term other than "false." However, in my defence I would like to add that while Swansea and Port Talbot are close, they are, as I'm sure you know, in different counties and the official records list a Neath County birth. I will refrain from commentary regarding edits and editors in the future.
Also, can you tell me why it seems that my User Name of "James Zeruk Jr" seems to have been replaced with the numbers 76.79.201.218 ?
Thank you.
76.79.201.218 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thank you
Thank you Wildhartlivie and Pinkadelica so much for all the effort you've put into this article today. I'm sorry it's turned out to be such a hornet's nest, but I appreciate that you've both taken action. I am completely sure that this is the same serial-vandal that has been doing this nonsense for over a year. this edit repeats my edit summary verbatim but without context - an old trick, and several edits including this one contain the same mangled English as previous edits, plus there is a complete inability to distinguish between POV and cited opinion (also nothing new). I'm so sure it's the same editor. Thanks again. You two are the best, and I look forward to speaking to you in a few weeks. (Wildhartlivie, I can't believe he threatened to have you blocked....) Cheers Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like it was an eventful day, and I think you handled it brilliantly and with restraint. Sometimes civility is overrated, but I really don't see anything uncivil (incivil?) in any of your comments. The "new" editor is nothing new, but the first time it happened, it was just me against a gaggle of sockpuppets, so at least now there are two of you. Tag teaming is naughty. But working together for the good of the project is a very worthy thing. I've often wondered about Claudette Colbert. What is it about her that makes a new user think "hmmm I'm going to sign up with Wikipedia and the first thing I do is completely rewrite the Claudette Colbert article". The weird thing is that about 10 new users have had exactly the same idea. What are the odds? Take care, and thanks again. Rossrs (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Regards.•:*¨¨*:•. ¸¸.•´¯`•.Mark Fairfax-Harwood, Engineer Springvale Studios 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not ranting at anybody!, but being as you are one of the editors deleting my published life's existence link by link and with the embarrassment all cataloged on google for my competitors to chortle about (If I write on this page).
All it would take on your behalf, would be taking the time to read the published BIO from the artists site that the entire article is based on and verified by. Possibly seeing if there where any way of avoiding cutting the last nine years of the poor woman's history.
Also if you noticed the red ink on the article there was a link to an article about me and another link to an article about my sister both articles have been deleted by people that are as far as I can ascertain are no longer wiki editors and when you have worked as hard in a field of art as me or my sister, to have genuinely reached a position of national prominence in a particular field it is more than disappointing to see the record of your life's achievements cursorily deleted by people who are not even interested enough to even google you first or consult with others more knowledgeable on the subject.
Also I was very surprised not to find an article about Stan Shaffer having clicked on the red Link, I do intend to rectify that omission.
I wont write it myself as I am dyslectic and useless at writing and if I don't reply fully in less than eight days its because I am working hard on something that will be reported in an article in wiki but only after they have erased my credits. IE. Cradle of Filth's next album. You can watch it happen in a few months time.
I will reply by line.
"The issue around material that has been removed from Wikipedia has to do with several points. One is that material must be referenced from reliable 3rd party sources (see WP:CITE), which does not mean using a self-published source written by the subject of the article. Another is that it must be notable (see WP:Notability). Another is that it must meet specific guidelines regarding style and presentation (see WP:MoS). Another is that it must be written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) and not constitute a conflict of interest (WP:CoI). Anything that I've removed from articles to which you may or may not have contributed has been because of issues with one or more of these points. A Google search, omitting self-published materials, forums and the like yields less than 20 hits for your name. My name has more hits than that and I am certainly not notable per Wikipedia definition."
Then search Springvale Studios and MarK Harwood and if you still think you are still more notable, I will write an article about what I know of you so far!.
"Meanwhile, who IS your sister?"
My sister is Oriel Harwood
"I wasn't on Wikipedia in 2006 when your article was apparently deleted. Nothing to do with it,"
How old are you then?, It was up there then before my article was deleted as I said by people who are not any longer Wiki editors.
It was deleted and then another was put up there not by anyone I know.
And that was deleted as well by someone no longer editing Wiki.
"so please desist in blaming me for wiping out your life's work."
Ok you only deleted a relatively small part of my life's achievements then
"A person's notability does not rest on whether there is an article about him or her on Wikipedia. In fact, a person's life work determines whether there will be an article."
No you personally and other wiki editors are doing that bit!
"Establish notability independent of self-promotion that is objectively published in news or similar sources."
"If you or your sister have reached a level of national prominence, then finding objective 3rd party sources should not be difficult."
It isn't is it.
"But in order to support retention of any article, those sources must be included in the article so that they can be verified. That is, for example, why the "citation needed" tag on the Louise Robey article was placed regarding her place of residence and current career status. Verification. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)"
Doubting what a person says to this extent in my social class without having adequate evidence to the contrary is actually considered quite the rudest thing you can do and the custom of the past (had you been a man) would have been an early morning start with your seconds.
I only know of two societies where the the words "is that right" can be loosely injected into a conversation without causing absolute consternation
thats "trailer park america" Or wikipedia
You haven't said a word about why wiki would remove empirical information about record credits etc. Do you in fact agree that like Hollywood A list parties "you just want the talent, no below the line smuks".
Well my sister designed Cruella Deville, Glen Close did not.
There is more to this than meets the eye eh?.
In this industry getting your credits is vital, your customer base have very good reasons for keeping you a secret, I have been told by a management company that once credited me as "The Calophalic Alchemist" that if they credit me properly they wont find booking me to be so easy next time snerk snerk!.
Thanks for all your help Mark Lucian Fairfax-Harwood.
Blocked user
Hi. Blocked users are allowed to edit their own talk page in order to request an unblock. The blocked IP abused it and tried to revert my block by removing the notice (which of course does not work). I blocked them at 19:09 UTC on March 13 and, other than their own talk page, they did not edit again until 19:22 UTC on March 14, a mere 13 minutes after the block expired, but otherwise not editing during my block. As to why they're still allowed to edit during an active sockpuppet inquiry... I'm assuming that they accusers/admins involved are not entirely convinced enough to block the IP(s) yet, but I'm not involved with that personally. Cheers, CP02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Clara Beranger
Thanks for the assessment. I agree about Mrs. Demille being confusing, but I was trying to communicate her rise in status, I will rethink the section. The Demille's were the elite, so marrying the boss was a big deal. I still may find more material on her. I am never really am finished with anyone I work on. I'm working on Yakima Canutt right now, he's about 80% done. I will let you know. Thanks!. One of these days I am gonna figure out how to get from a B grade article to a GOOD. I seem to be racking up Bs, but then i've only been here 6 weeks. EraserGirl (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
At the end of February, you reverted this edit with the comment that the show in question wasn't a primetime network game show. However, the section states:
[WML] is the longest-running game show in the history of prime timenetworktelevision, and the sixth longest-running game show overall (behind [...the list...]
As such, none of the shows in that list should be network primetime game shows, since WML was is the longest running of those, and these are the game shows of other types that have run longer. I don't know anything about the show that was added and whether it is in fact a longer running game show, but its status as non-network primetime should not be relevant.
I just wanted to check with you on whether you misinterpreted the list, or whether there was something else to your revert... If anything, it would seem that without citation, there is no way to prove the list conclusive or complete, and perhaps it shouldn't exist at all, or at least should have a [citation needed] tag. Thanks TheHYPO (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's misleading in any way - it says that WML is the longest running prime-time network game show, and [separate from that], the sixth longest running game show overall. To me that clearly means there are five game shows that have longer runs, but none are primetime network game shows. I don't see anything misleading about it; I do, however, agree that it needs a source and there is no basis for the list (it says six, but there are currently six OTHER programs listed in that list, which would make WML at least seventh, if not eighth with the one you have reverted. I think the list is due to be removed pending a source. Thank you for clarifying. TheHYPO (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I could really expand the article, make it a GA and everything, but i'm afraid that my grammar/spelling sucks. Would you mind keeping a eye on my edits so the article doesn't look like it's been written by a Spanish monkey?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!)23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Melchior Lengyel
Dear Wildhartlivie, it is not completely clear for me how the article about Melchior Lengyel should be made perfect, your system deviates from the one I have got accustomed in the Hungarian version of Wikipedia. I would be grateful to you if you helped me in this work. May I recon on you?--Elkagye (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried to tidy up the references. Do you think that each work mentioned in the text should be listed in the references with all of their bibligographical data?--Elkagye (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Jonestown
Wildhartlivie- thank you for expressing to User:Lonewolf BC, in a fluent and civil manner, exactly what his problem is. I've had to deal with exactly that type of behaviour from that editor before, especially after he started following me around Wikipedia with his twitchy revert finger and smug demeanour. I certainly hope he'll get the message this time. --G2bambino (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I just read your comment on my recent changes (mainly to American-style punctuation w/quotes) to the Bette Davis article. I guess it was a little quixotic of me to do that - I usually do accept the punctuation I find on a page (as you'll surely conclude if you look at my pattern of editing) - but I noticed that a) the punctuation was inconsistent (OK, the preponderance of quotes *were* inside closing punctuation, but there were a handful of American-style quotes throughout) and b) the article had American-style spelling, which to me (I'm a freelance proofer of academic books) is a cue to expect American-style punctuation. Heck, it's a featured article, so that's all the more reason to have *consistent* styling, if (as you admit) it's not incorrect, wouldn't you say? And Bette Davis to me is a quintessentially American actress, so that seems another (maybe kind of subtle) argument for American style. What do you think? Thanks - Rousse (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Marion Cotillard
When you get a chance, could you look at the Marion Cotillard page, namely the awards section? I've already removed quite a bit POV, repetitive praising, and listed fansites so I'm gathering that a major Cotillard fan feels the need repeat her numerous accomplishments. Is it me or is that section repeated save the nominations? I was going to remove it but I didn't want to be too hasty. By the way, I know you were working on columnizing the Oscar winners filmographies, would you like me to do that to Cotillard's page? Pinkadelica (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I'll columnize that in the next few hours or tomorrow. Big thanks for tables, I always have a hard time finding those. I didn't email you or anything because I figured you were busy. Sorry to hear you're not feeling great, I've been sleeping wacky hours too. In my case, I think it's the weather. One day it's hot, the next it's cool and rainy. I did see the Colbert article and your edits. That's their MO if you think about it. They pop up every few weeks, wreck havoc on the article and then disappear. Very curious (and annoying) behavior. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. What's odd to me is that it seems that those that are listed under wins are already listed under the "Show" section. I don't know if that was an oversight or done intentionally. Judging from the POV and unneeded nonsense that the article did have, I think it was done on purpose. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain it was an anonymous IP address that did it. I only went through the history briefly, but I think it was an IP that did several edits in a row sticking that stuff in. Ah well..let me go clean up this mess! Pinkadelica (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Have blocked these IPs for three months as sockpuppets of WJH1992 (talk·contribs); it would have been earlier if I'd been watching the sockpuppet case, but its clear that since they have both reverted the same edit of mine they are the same editor. Thanks for reminding me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Manson - revolver
At the Manson talk page, you might want to weigh in on "Revolver," a section I've put there. I've just brought the section to the attention of BassPlyr23, too.71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been established that date formats are in the format that the articles' subject originates from. Since Charles Manson is an American, dates in his article should be in the American format. The British format doesn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.18.216 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Nancy Price
Dear Wildhartlivie - wondered if you have time to a look at the Nancy Price entry - I'd appreciate some help with taking it forward - cheers Excellentone Excellentone (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Help on Colbert
Sorry I missed your call for help, I was actually out today. I think you should bring this incident up at the Admins notice board. This person isn't attempting to work with you or anyone else and their reasonings for removing the sources are borderline offensive and nonsensical. Pinkadelica (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Members of a national legislature are always considered notable, no matter how short the article. DGG (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Angelina Jolie
When you get a chance, could you look over these additions that I quickly reverted on the Angelina Jolie page. Let me know if you think the sources are questionable too. You could also weigh in on the talk page, but it's really not that important if you do. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that trend too. As far as the adoption agency being legit, I think it was discovered that it didn't always do thing above board but Jolie's adoption was in fact legal and she didn't buy Maddox. I think that info would've been brought to light by now anyway. What bothered me about the inclusion (aside from the sources) was the fact that the references provided didn't actually say what he/she was trying to claim. I also didn't like the air of ownership in the message they left on the talk page. I left a message for them there too and I didn't mince words. Complaining about NPOV when you have an agenda seems more than hypocritical. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Valentino
Thanks for the concern. Im not trying to war with him; but I dont want it left on that version either. If its my version then (per se if his sources were right) one could be upset about was the lack of talkies and the theif thing. Im pretty sure both will be out of the final article. I guess I'll just ignore him on the Valentino talk page; I've done my best to try and keep everything to one header even cleaning it up; I could do that again if needed.--Thegingerone (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern too. Actually, I am not trying to war with anybody. Thegingerone has made bias, POV-related accusations about me and my content, and I will not tolerate them. Noel Botham's book Valentino:The First Superstar is reliable, and its bibliography mentions very reliable sources that include Natacha Rambova's own autobiography and other reliable books too. It is only this users opinion that the book is unreliable, and I really do not tolerate POV vandalism. To answer your question, I have written my sentences as titled sections, because I think this way people will read my content quicker if I do so. I will, however, try to follow your advice. Thank you.Kevin j (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It just annoys me greatly to see it left on the version 'just because'. I have already contributed to the sandbox version; I really have nothing more that I can do. I hope Pinkdelica can get her version up soon. May I request a favor? Kevin J has followed me to the Pollyanna page where he is starting an edit war over one little sentence I added. I dont want this to carry over again; I dont want to be petty. Please help. Thanks.--Thegingerone (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a source. I just find it annoying that hes trying to carry the edit war beyond Valentino. Maybe we have the same tastes but Ive never run into him (or trouble with someone like this; minus one other stalker type) before. It needs to end as I find it tiring and obnoxious.--Thegingerone (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar
I've been running into you or your work a lot lately, and I always see you doing great work. Just wanted to let you know.Esprit15d • talk • contribs12:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
RE: Question
Do you have much experience in developing sock puppet cases or advice on doing so? The time has come to do something about a situation, which may well be a difficult one to prove. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 11:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Not directly. I have provided comments and evidence in cases others have started, but I've never started a case myself. I assume you begin at WP:SSP. Which editor(s) and pages are you concerned about? I'll try to watch. Ward3001 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I already have Joplin on my watchlist, and I added the talk pages for those suspected socks. If anything big comes up, message me. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Inyo investigation
At the Manson talk page, I've just offered Inyo-investigation rewording inspired by your recommendation. It follows much verbiage (i.e., mine).71.242.159.196 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I'm actually not done with the article; I'm trying to add critical analysis of the film, but some studies are incredibly academic. You can see what little progress I've made here -- not sure if it will be part of the article or a sub-article. Depends on how much content surfaces. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to contact you privately (probably tomorrow), but on-wiki, may I at least ask whether this pertains to the elections or the position itself? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Response to your Manson comment
I know what you mean about the complexity of the Hinman-motive paragraph. I've been looking at it myself. — As you've undoubtedly noticed, I've been reworking the article's parenthetical passages, to integrate them. This has involved moving them, rewording them, etc. In the cases of one or two — including the Hinman one, which is bothering you — I haven't yet been quite satisfied with the outcome; I've hoped to return to the effort.
Oddly, I was just about to go to my talk page and delete my message to the effect that I would no longer be using the page; that's when I saw I'd received a message, from you.
Anyway — I have only one parenthetical passage yet to deal with. Before I get to it, I'll read your suggested revision of the Hinman-motive passage. I'll be back to you in a few minutes.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've read your revision, which is certainly the easier read you were aiming for. How about the following (which, as I'll explain, reinstates a few elements of my version):
In magazine interviews of 1981 and 1998-99, Beausoleil would state he went to Hinman’s to recover money paid to Hinman for drugs that were supposedly bad; he added that Brunner and Atkins, unaware of his intent, went along idly, merely to visit Hinman. On the other hand, Atkins, in her 1977 autobiography, wrote that Manson directly told Beausoleil, Brunner, and her to go to Hinman’s and get the supposed inheritance — $21,000. She said Manson had told her privately, two days earlier, that, if she wanted to "do something important," she could kill Hinman and get his money.
My major adjustment, as you see, is the change of the initial verb: Beausoleil "would state." I prefer that because I think it preserves the flow: "The threesome went to get the inheritance; later, there were different statements about this."
As you will have figured, on the basis of these changes I've been making, disruption of the flow has been my concern re the parenthetical passages. Heretofore, I've ignored it, because, before the establishment of semi-protection, the article was being regularly vandalized anyway.
As you see, I've also specified the interview dates; more importantly, I've changed "a" supposed inheritance back to "the" supposed inheritance. This is important, I think, because the inheritance has already been mentioned. The "$21,000" is simply an additional detail, which fleshes out Atkins's account.
As I say — let me know what you think. Your indication that the drugs had "supposedly" been bad strikes me as critical, by the way. I was very pleased to see that.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you chose to use my talk page, even while it said, "Won't be back." — As you've probably seen, I've made the change. I took the liberty of making two small modifications, which seemed right as I was typing them: (1) Beausoleil "would say," instead of "would state"; seems more relaxed. (2) Drugs that supposedly "had been" bad, instead of "were" bad; seems easier on the reader.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It’s very thoughtful of you to consider that the semi-protection of the Manson page inconveniences me. Please don’t worry about it: I am very happy about the protection. In fact, on the talk page of the editor who established it, I posted a message in which I said I hoped the protection would last beyond its projected April 7 end-date. He or she said he or she was watching the article and would reestablish the protection if vandals were to return upon its termination. I was wondering how the protection arose; I’m glad you requested it.
Re your other note:
I think you're right that there might have been some actual drug trading, exploited narratively by Beausoleil. Wikipedia's Beausoleil article indicates that, at Beausoleil’s trial, "the defense" said nothing about a drug transaction. Actually, I wouldn’t expect the defense to say much about any such thing ("Yes, I killed him — but not for the reason you think I did"); but maybe the article means to say that the prosecution witnesses — who might have included Brunner, not sure — didn’t say anything about it. More important, I think, is this, from the 1981 Beausoleil interview:
In neither of your two trials, nor in Ed Sanders’ [sic] or Bugliosi’s books, is there any mention of the Hinman murder stemming from a drug burn.
I’m pretty sure that’s not quite true. Somewhere in Helter Skelter, I think, there’s a mention that Manson remarked to a law officer that Hinman had been "dealing bad drugs" — something like that. Can’t find it right now; but I think Manson made the remark during a recess of a trial — maybe his own Hinman trial. Accordingly, I’ve wondered whether Beausoleil’s drug story is a belated echo of something Manson floated early on, to undermine the Helter Skelter scenario (of which the Hinman killing was a part — via, most obviously, the writing of "Political piggy" — and that, of course, was a main thing tying him, Manson, to all of the murders). Beausoleil’s subsequent use of it serves, mirror-like, to distance him from the Manson horror, by, again, breaking up Helter Skelter. I recently read a parole-hearing transcript in which the representative from the L.A. DA’s office observed that Beausoleil’s strategy at his parole hearings is to separate himself from the Manson phenomenon — to make himself seem more of a run-of-the-mill murderer, as it were.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
