User talk:Rossrs/archive10

Madonna wikiproject

I invite you to join the Madonna Wikiproject.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hint 2

₯. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Want to see more interesting?

Check this out. It comes from Reese Witherspoon, a featured article.

[1]

A new section magically appears on the lead

[2]

Note who was involved in the editing of the article in question.

wp:Wikihounding much? Ya' think?

--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I made the change just to cut off the debate, but this is what we have all had to deal with for weeks now. Hopefully, that means an end to the discussion.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The great Cate

Why would you doubt that she could play that role??!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Didja notice...

...the case was closed? Thanks so much for your support. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy

Would you mind looking at what this editor has added to the article? I was certain we had all agreed that such tables outlining only one award was undue weight and took emphasis off of other awards. I reverted something else he'd done to the article yesterday (added back succession boxes) and I would imagine if I addressed the addition of tables that everyone else who was nominated and winners the same year for the Academy Award that Tracy won or was nominated, he'd think I was picking on him. He's added nothing that can't simply be discovered by clicking through to the specific award page. If we need to open another discussion, I'm happy to chime in that this isn't standard or accepted fare for these articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If anything else is said, I'll leave my own comments. I did think there was a discussion at some point about such tables, but I couldn't find it. Thanks for the 4th wishes. It's rained all day here, but the temperature is just where I like it. 70s. Ah well. I'm not battling something (well, not battling) on Greta Garbo by someone who thinks sexual experimentation between women during the 20s and 30s was a given and somehow vogue and has no meaning. Argh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That Bop Girl

It would have been a bigger surprise if the video didn't have the description of "Pat Wilsons 80's video , that features an appearance by a young Nicole Kidman." But gods... that PERM!! It was before she learned about the fine art of professional hair care. She still is aging quite well, though, isn't she? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, Dead Calm was the same year and it is when I first noticed her. Her perm had relaxed a bit by then, apparently, but it was still quite quite, although her hair was longer. She was still a knockout. I'm going to wince as I say this, but, except for Tom Cruise's atrocious accent and equally wooden acting, I actually didn't dislike Far and Away. Without him, I think it could have been a big hit, but then, you know by now I'm not too fond of him. He was the weakest part of Interview with the Vampire as far as I'm concerned. Ah well, end of my occasional "Bash Tom Cruise" post. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

...and That Harvey Girl

Did you happen to note that someone went right ahead and changed the lead picture at Judy Garland to the one you uploaded, but there had been no discussion or consensus for what to use? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That was fortunate, wasn't it? ฿฿ Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought they were beautiful too, but I was trying to be nice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That Deanna Durbin. That girl sure could sing. :) I'm off for a nap. Have a good time. BBL. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Peri Gilpin

I agree. I don't know where Oldham came from since her stepfather was apparently surnamed Gilpin. As her birth father's surname was O'Brien and her parents were presumably married (no indication otherwise), this is almost certainly what appeared on her birth certificate. Re Periwinkle, I read somewhere that Peri was short for that. Yours,[email protected] (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did some checking on Gilpin. According to this minibio " [Peri's] parents thought she would be a boy and hadn't thought of any girl's names - only 'Peter' ... [s]o they adapted that into Peri". (Thus "Peri" isn't short for "Periwinkle".)

Also, according to Wikipedia's article on her father, Jim O'Brien was the stage name of James Oldham, so I guess I figured out where Oldham came from. I'll update the article accordingly. I guess sometimes the majority is right, assuming the above is accurate. Yours, [email protected] (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to add thanks for pushing me, kindly and politely, in the right direction. Periwinkle O'Brien, indeed! Yours, [email protected] (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh

Oy! Was I wrong? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Whew. That would be indicative of why Jane is such a controversial topic here. Some people really believe she betrayed US servicemen and should have been prosecuted for treason. I'm really fairly surprised her article doesn't get targeted more than it does. And mind you, what I removed and was returned (but revised) to the talk page was mild. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There are indeed some hot topics. Vietnam will remain one here to a lot of people as long as there are people alive who were there or were involved. Many people believed devotedly in their opposition to it and what was being done regarding it and it was, as I'm sure you know, one of the most significant sources of division in this country in the 20th century. But it isn't like she never addressed the controversy. See Jane Fonda#Fonda's regrets, she didn't throw herself on the mercy of the world, but she did say in retrospect that there were things she did that she regreted. I mean, come on. They even forgave William Calley after a while. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Heston birthplace

Since Heston was born in a place that had its own name and that name wasn't Evanston, Illinois at the time of his birth, I'm wondering if your recent edit to the infobox doesn't lessen the precision of the birthplace listing therein. The birthplace matter is well explained in the text, I think, in concert with the precision Heston gives it in his cited autobiography, but the infobox now seems (to me) to conform less to the precision and accuracy of the text. If it were anyone else than you, I'd probably just have undone that part of the edit with an explanation. But I know you give due diligence to your edits before making them, so I thought I'd ask what your process was in making that part of your edit here. Thanks. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere in there I feel a bit envious. He is very fastidious and thinks things through, doesn't he? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Heston situation is a little more specific than his merely being folksy. His autobiographies are very clear that the area was actually known as "No Man's Land," an unincorporated but quite distinct (and distinctly named) area between Chicago and Evanston. I'm the original WP source for both the Heston information and the references to this area in the No Man's Land and Evanston articles. There are quite a number of additional sources beyond Heston for the specificity of the name. One of them ( http://www.chicagopremierproperties.com/neighborhood_details.php?nID=9 ) both clarifies and confuses the issue, since it makes a good case for Heston's birthplace being in what is now actually nearby Wilmette rather than Evanston. Here's the quote: In 1942, Wilmette's boundaries were further expanded when No Man's Land, the triangle of land near the lake and bordering Kenilworth, was annexed after years of legal and legislative battles. Zoning changes in No Man's Land would allow for the construction of highrise condominium apartment buildings.... The changes in No Man's Land altered the character of the lakefront and brought in new retail and multi-family housing to Wilmette. Other sources for the specific area being specifically defined and named No Man's Land are found at http://www.believermag.com/issues/200802/?read=article_biss , at http://www.movie-theatre.org/usa/il/chicago/evanston.pdf . http://ageless-northshore.com/plaza-de-lago-art-fair/ is another. No Man's Land is described and defined in the WPA Illinois Guide by the Federal Writers Project. Newspaper articles, such as this one in the local Chicago Daily Herald of January 10, 1936 ("Wooden Structure Burns Quickly at No Man's Land"), referred to it by this name and as a separate entity. The fact that Heston's birthplace was neither in Evanston nor in Wilmette (nor Chicago nor Kenilworth, for that matter) at the time it occurred, and the fact that Heston is pointed in his references as to the separate identity (I've read all the pertinent matter in his autobiographies, which expands on what is available at Google books), suggests that WP in the interests of accuracy make note of this locale and its one-time actual name. To clarify things a little, I'm going to create an article on No Man's Land, Illinois, which will describe the history of the area and note its subsequent annexation, and also provide a specific link instead of the one to the generic no man's land article, which really needs to be separated, familiar as it is as a warfare term. I'll post this to wildhartlivie's page, too. Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Geezzzzzz, oh, all right. I won't take you to arbcom. Actually, that editor was really replying to my thanks for his comments on the RfCU on the user who accused me of socking. Scarlett's photo looks great, Redford's is a great improvement (he didn't hold his looks as well as he did his hair, did he?), Duvall is cute old man and ... Johnny. Why are all the images besides the newest one on the page so lousy? He doesn't take that many lousy pictures. But, you DID leave a view of the exact place on his neck where I...erm... perhaps the size just needs to be adjusted. See what you think at 175px since I adjusted it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:David Shankbone does take some great photos, doesn't he? As for Robert Redford's hair, the thought has occurred to me that it's a great toupee. And for something completely different. I watch a Public Broadcasting channel called Create TV, which has a lot of great cooking shows. I just saw this man make a dessert on the outdoor grill called "Baked Hawaii", which was yummy looking and very very easy. He cut a fresh pineapple in half length-wise, stem included, scooped the center out, diced the pineapple fruit into chunks, mixed it with softened ice cream, put it into the scooped out pineapple husk, and put that back in the freezer to firm up. Then he made a simple meringue which he piped over the entire top of the pineapple, put it into the grill with indirect heat and wood chip smoke and baked it on the grill for about 5 minutes. It was the most luscious thing I think I've ever seen. Baked Alaska, Hawaii-style. Argh!! Now I'm hungry! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:1114_f.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:1114_f.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Eric Stoltz's re-emerging shoulder

Very nice!!!!! I'm so glad he's whole again. I bet he is too! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:GloriaStuartTitanic.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GloriaStuartTitanic.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just some stuff

My sentiments exactly. See the infobox. And I've finally made up a working model for combined filmographies into one table using the wikitable formatting. Hopefully that will calm down the complainers about the old table style we were using. I don't think there's much of an appreciable difference in these vs. the ones we were using. Take a look User:Wildhartlivie/Projects Filmography#Filmography 2. So that's there if you need them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I do like that Hottie McHotstuff. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On a completely different note, would you please take a look at Kevin Costner#Controversy and give me your candid thoughts. Please do look at the actual references being given and what they actually say first. I'm about to place a neutrality tag on it and I'm formulating my (slightly outraged) comments about it on the talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's essentially my own read on it and part of what I said at Talk:Kevin Costner. I'm toying with deciding between just removing it again and reporting it to WP:BLPN. I have huge issues with how it is presented and what it implies. What say you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Redford's sordid demise

The defining word in question here would be vandalism. It does take a certain mentality. On the other hand, perhaps "falatio" has a meaning of which I'm unaware. Perhaps it means "feigning fellatio" - the oral sex equivalent of faking an orgasm... Oh gods, did I just say that!?! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ack. Oh well, it's not as bad - or as funny - as what I read on the Redford page. I'm shocked and surprised to discover you've changed the background to your userpage. It looks interestingly familiar. I took the liberty of making some minor table adjustments for size considerations. See what you think and if you don't like, forget I meddled. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL!! That is funny. Some things just don't change. People don't take pride in their work, no different in the 70s than in now. Although I must say I've seen some impressively creative and well-executed graffiti, and if there were ever a standard for vandalism, well-executed graffiti would raise vandalism to an art form. Personally, my graffiti was never quite that skillful, although I recall a time back in the early 80s... A friend worked in a shop where they had a nice little view out the back window of the shop. At some point, the property owners put up a plain wooden stockade fence that blocked the view and just left the fence unadorned and unpainted. We plotted and schemed about it for several weeks, and after I had practiced to a suitable level on abandoned country roads and the like, we executed a nearly perfect imitation of the famous "Surrender Dorothy" sky writing from The Wizard of Oz. The owners actually left it for a little while before finally surrendering and painting the fence. Some great vandalism takes thought and planning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually succeed in getting furry out of the house or did he leave on his own? That's sort of funny, that he is so disdainful of you - considering you brought in professional anti-furry people to rid your house of him. I'm glad he's faring well. I just moved him up to balance out the last line of the table, I thought you could probably find a suitable quote to fill it out. To change the color in the background, just change the "background-color:" parameter at the very top of <div style="border: 2px solid black; background: purple; background-color:lavender; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 100%">. That should work. When you do, be sure and change the background color in the wikitable for the Wikipedia section too. You can find all sorts of colors through pages at List of colors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the Surrender Dorothy quote. I have used many quotes from The Wizard of Oz often in my life. There's a story about going Halloween costume shopping with the same friend from the fence and re-enacting the entire "I'm melting" scene in the middle of WalMart after I'd found a great witch's hat and cape. Go for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad furry is happy. Every self-respecting opossum should have some dignity, even if it is only dissing the guy who evicted him. Thanks for the Kevin Costner thing. I'm glad someone with more clout than I have removed that crap and did it the way he did. I've had too much controversy on here lately to be that bold. I just read this on Twitter from Rob Thomas: "DEAR GOP: how is a public healthcare option too expensive, but a trillion dollars on a war built on a lie is perfectly acceptable?" I marked it as a favorite. In other interesting Twitter news, the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics at the University of Manchester England announced that you can listen to 'live' (40-year delay) audio of the Apollo 11 launch and flight at http://wechoosethemoon.org/. Believe it or not, I think Twitter can be fascinating, if you choose the right people to follow. I like your user page, but you've removed furry... :( Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to say...

...I really don't like the way Heidi Klum says "Auf Wiedersehen". Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm so proud

I told you it was a phenomenal performance. He's 92, I really hope he wins one. He's a sharp old guy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What? You don't need help with flour? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask Julia Child were she still alive. It's an intriguing thought, though, Johnny Depp popping up in the baking aisle at the local market, asking if I need help with my flour. I'd ask for a baking lesson. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As they say in England, ta very much! Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Brenda Joyce

Hello. Your edit on the Brenda Joyce page has been reverted a former version by myself. There was a source for Brenda Joyce's death on the "Recent deaths" page and it isn't exactly hard to find the obituary article by HollywoodReporter via search engines on the net. Please first of all look for sources on the net before scrubbing information off of the site in a lazy manner. This should help you to become an even better contributor to Wikipedia in the future. Cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the helpful hint. You know if you'd added a source in the first place, like you're supposed to, this would not have happened. If the source was so easy to find, is there a particular reason that you didn't include it? Doing these simple things will make you a better editor too. I find it incredible that you would leave a message on my talk page telling me to look for sources - when you didn't bother including them yourself, and telling me that failing to do so is lazy? Look at yourself first, before you decide you are going to comment about me. That would be appreciated. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You really must try not to sound so aggressive in your post. You're full of anger. I admit that I forgot to add a source to the page and that was a mistake on my behalf but I don't go around scrubbing off peoples' work before first looking for sources. It's OK though. Apology accepted. Cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC) :D :D :D

Apology accepted?? I think you're mistaking rudeness for aggression. You were rude, and I was rude back. Aggression is an entirely different thing. Perhaps you should be more careful about the tone of the messages you leave. You could even assume good faith, fix what needs to be fixed, and not bother commenting. But here's something for you to consider - if you absolutely had to comment about this, you could have said the same thing politely, and I would have responded politely, because I am full of politeness, and that would have been better, wouldn't it? Please do not use words such as "lazy" or presume to tell me how to "become an even better contributor". You can't honestly expect anyone to read something like that and feel warm and fuzzy towards you. You've fixed the article, and that's good. Rossrs (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actually, Rossrs, you are absolutely correct to have removed this, as I note others had attempted to before. It is totally and completely unacceptable, per WP:BLP, to add that someone has died without concurrently adding a reliable source to support that assertion. There's no policy that supersedes WP:BLP in treatment of biography articles. Also, for the record, Jkaharper, the statesman.com reference put in for her birthdate is a mirror site of the article on Wikipedia and we cannot use a mirror of the article to cite the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Passing on the sunshine

I had left a note for David Shankbone and thought I should show you that I'd passed on your compliment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hoped it would make your day that you made someone else's day. Spread the cheer. Currently, I'm scheming about how I can manage the trip to see the King Tut exhibit at the Indianapolis Children's Museum sometime during the next three months. My goddaughter has a family pass, but it's become apparent that there is a fee for the exhibit aside from the regular family pass entry. Group rates are $15 for adults and not quite so much for children. There would be at least 3 adults and 3 children, or perhaps more. Hmmm. I really, really want to see this exhibit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Silly laugh

I'm watching something called New Scandanavian Cooking on Create TV. The show is always filmed outside in some natural setting while this Scandanavian man cooks and talks about what he's doing. Today he's making flavored alcoholic beverages. He's talking about making a mock aquavit and adds some vodka to an old wine bottle, adds various spices, tops the bottle with more vodka and stoppers it. He then shakes it and says to leave it in the window for a couple days and it will "taste nice". Or leave it in the window for a couple months and it will "taste even nicer", then grins this huge cheesy silly grin. I absolutely laughed until my sides hurt. He's moving on to making a wormwood infused absinthe, although wormwood "is a poison and could really hurt you". He's insane. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I mostly watch Scandanavian Cooking for its stilted entertainment value, I've not been much enticed to cook, or even try, most of what he does. He speaks from a script, and unfortunately is a bit stiff sometimes, which heightens the entertainment Q for me. The "taste even nicer" obviously had a "smile" scripted after it, and he added the cheesy grin as if he'd already had several nice tastes. We have Iron Chef competition shows for professionals here that I have watched sometimes, and then there is Top Chef, which I don't get to watch since I don't have cable anymore. That's high on my priority list when I have money again. Cable, not Top Chef, it got very cheesy.

Someone recently told me in an email that our little discussions back and forth are entertaining. I was happy to oblige. Someone won't enjoy this notice I posted earlier. I looked at the contributions and I'm fairly positive. The last post the person made was 2 minutes after I posted that and *poof*. We'll see, but the more I looked, the more I was convinced. She got bolder tonight and it seemed a lock.

I am fascinated by the ancient civilizations. I've managed to see Roman and Greek artifacts, but the Tut stuff is something I've wanted to see for 20 years and this is my big chance. I'll quit something to get to go. I don't know what yet, I haven't figured that out. Of course, my birthday is next month, so maybe that might be a swing factor to get someone to be sure and agree to go. High hopes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, our Iron Chef is probably the same, painfully bizarre English overdubs and I know what you mean about the grandmother's shoe lady. I suspect it's the same painfully bizarre English overdubs - by someone with an Asian accent. I've not experienced the pleasure of Eurotrash, but I used to watch a number of HBO and Showtime specials in late night that sound similar.

I envy you the travel you've been able to do. Make your bucket list, if you haven't yet, and put anywhere else you want to go and do it. My biggest hope at this point is actually leaving the U.S. for anywhere besides Canada or Mexico. Of course, not being able to fly certainly stymies greater ambitions, unless I do the ocean cruise thing (ugh). A cruise to the Galapagos would be cool, but one still usually must fly to get close enough. As you know, I've recently been spending a lot of time watching PBS and see a lot of documentaries. I usually don't miss the ones about ancient civilizations. Just the other night, I watched one on the restoration of the Parthenon. "Oh cool", you say, "they're restoring it?" That's what I thought, then I discovered it's been under restoration since the early part of the 20th century and they've had to do some major reworking of what was done a century ago. Apparently each and every one of the individual pieces of the structure had one place to go, and only one place. They didn't actually discover this until they began to document, measure and catalog what was lying in ruin. Earlier efforts to reconstruct it didn't know that, so a lot of that work had to be disassembled and re-researched. That amounted to thousands of individual pieces of worked marble, including broken and crumbled ones. They dug and examined earlier temple ruins in neighboring areas and think that some of those were earlier models of the larger Parthenon and were built on the same dimensions. The documentary talked about the amazing insight into visual perception and optical illusions that were created to make the building appear perfectly symmetrical and straight, which can't really be done on such a large scale without specialized instruments that weren't in existence then. In fact, they even had to devise a standard of measurement to ensure consistency. At one of the other ruins, they discovered the actual measurement standard carved into an inner stone. They consisted of a specific foot imprint carving that measured some (I don't recall what) current measurement standard used today, and an armspan carving that corresponds with another. It didn't matter if that standard was carried from construction to construction so long as it was extant throughout one individual structure. Fascinating stuff. Then they showed the process for repairing broken pieces, including constructing patch pieces like the one shown here. Those are massive pieces and the sculpting has to be exact to fit precisely. It's a painstaking process. They started the current project over 30 years ago. How-to to the extreme! It was completely riveting and enlightening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Walter Brennan

Not only are you correct in reverting the edits about Brennan's racism for lack of sourcing, they're also edits by our old banned friend HarveyCarter, up to his old racist/communist/homophobic/smoking fixations again. FYI. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love that HarveyCarter. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

I am well aware of your fondness for the robust Ms. Johansson and thought perhaps you'd overlooked a note in one of my emails about her article currently undergoing a good article reassessment. I've addressed some of the issues posted on the talk page that were raised, but there are others and I was hoping that you might be persuaded to help me address the others so that she may remain good, so to speak. I believe the reviewer gave a week to address concerns. I surely hope you'll help. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue for FAR

I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would love to comment. Let me go through the article once more. There are quite a few issues with WP:NFCC in the article. I'll point out in the FAR. Cheers! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Blondie (band)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Blondie (band)/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Jaynemansfield.jpg

If you are so sincere about comments made at wrong places, why don't you also check out for comments made at right places which were removed without any rhyme or reason - here and then here by the user you seem to be defending - User:Wbrz. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd probably also like to believe that we just can't go ahead treat every page as a discussion page, image description pages included. If you want to keep his inappropriate delete verdict (inappropriate as it's so out of process that it's not even funny), you can move it to the talk page or something. That would be a much more proper action. Right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I guess, I really don't know how to get a point through to you. You see, there are pages dedicated to making comments, like talk pages. And, then there are pages where you are not supposed to make comments. Those pages are used for other reasons. It is alright to make comments. But, it is not alright to make comments on pages that are not meant for comments. I really hope you understand now. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And, I forgot to ask - what was wrong with the suggestion that the comment made on an "image description page" could be moved to the "talk page"? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that whole lot of bad faith is assumed so easily. Can I at least apologize then for "badgering" you with "small points"? Believe me, I really mean to say sorry. Forgiveness is completely up to you, of course. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am really happy that you have forgiven me. I do have a conflictive tone of voice, but it always hurts when someone else is truly hurt. You just made my day. Out of this long fiasco, whatever the outcome is, I shall be able to tell that we have, at least, sown a seed of friendship. Your passion, if I can have you back some other time, will be a powerful inspiration for me to do better. Thanks for everything. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello once more. I didn't notice this this earlier. Now I know what's eating you - the edit summary. Lemme assure you that your wrath was completely misplaced. That edit summary was auto-generated by Wikipedia:Twinkle, not me. Pure misunderstanding, I guess (it was quite funny to see you going about complaining about a machine generated edit summary to tell people how bad I am. Lolz.). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. So Twinkle spontaneously made the edit without your knowledge? Rossrs (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, twinkle made the edit summary, including the word "vandalism" that you are so inflamed about. Please, don't twist around other people's comments, while making false accusations about them. Not a very happy scene that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh stop it. I'm not inflamed. YOU choose to use Twinkle, YOU are responsible for the edit summary it produces. The point is that another user is allowed to remove the message, especially if he disagrees with the content. Now, let go of this please. Rossrs (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Shades of Scarlett

I guess the sex symbol stuff is a little oddly placed, but I'm inclined to leave it where it is for now, mostly because I'm more worried about the greatly-in-need-of-expansion career section, the lead that needs to be fuller and doing these beastly alt texts. Would you look at the two I've done and see what you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think the sex symbol stuff wouldn't fit any better in a different section than it does there, so leaving it is a good idea. The alt text tags look good to me. Rossrs (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sharon and stuff

I'm glad you said that about the referencing on the article, it does need updated. As long as it's not a pressing FAR, it can wait, I think. I started to revert all the changes and then I looked at what he'd tagged and I couldn't just revert, though I think the tagging after you'd reverted is a bit pointy. I'm thinking a lot of the tags are probably fixable from the Greg King book Sharon Tate and the Manson Murders, and on one or two of the tags, I put that as the reference since the rest of the paragraphs were cited to that book. I tried to find some of the more obscure data online last night and couldn't find it. The King book isn't available for preview on Google books or elsewhere, so if necessary, I'll try to get it from the library. It's something I'll be happy to work on with you as soon as you've finished off Kylie and I've finished off Scarlett. I'm blessed with a patient GAR reviewer who said as long as he sees progress it is fine. Not sure about your FAR reviewer on Kylie, though. I commiserate with your relative abandonment on the article, that seems to be case on Scarlett - I didn't even work on the GA and all the pertinent parties were notified and have not said or done a thing on it. Ah well. I think I'll have her finished in 2-3 days!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll put in a request for the King book from the library - they bring my books to me. If they don't have it, I'm sure I can get it from interlibrary loan. The sourcing does need page numbers, so that's another good reason why I should get it, so we can work on it and bring it up to 2009 FA standards. However, he didn't remove a paragraph from the lead, he just removed the paragraph break and ran two of them together - unless I'm missing something?

In other news, a guy from the church came this morning and mowed the big back yard with a large tractor-mower. It's something I haven't been able to keep up with this summer and couldn't afford to hire someone to mow something that tall and thick. It's like a reprieve!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ℳ. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Anne, who should be lovely

The problem isn't just that it's a vanity shot, it's a hideous photo of Anne. As if she was shoved up into a fisheye lens. Horrible, disgraceful!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And in other hideous news, Stephen Spielberg has lost his mind. I propose that he be thrashed soundly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perplexed... I'm disgusted. It's time for the public to speak up when they start remaking classic standards that can't be improved upon. Nasty. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DWTAustralians?

Wow, you really were thorough. I was confused a little. I looked on the show's webpage and couldn't quite tell some of the blonde long-haired guys from the others. Thanks! Now I can re-download the clip and look at the webpage and your names and know who they are. I'm guessing the girl's name must be... Jessica??? I hope you're going to fix that? And italicize the show titles? Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I've fairly fond of Julian McMahon too. And I already knew he was an Aussie. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Madonna legacy

Can you comment here with your opinion? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You've been to Launceston

Hi, in your "places I've been" section, you have a link to Launceston - but this is a dab page, so you're unlikely to have made more than a fleeting visit. The link you're looking for is Launceston, Tasmania. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it was fairly brief... thanks, I've fixed it. Rossrs (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Scarlett, dear Scarlett

is essentially finished. Would you take a look and let me know if I've omitted or overlooked anything drastic? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gosh and thankies, I'm quite proud of it myself. I dare anyone to deny me the bragging rights for the article. When I came to the GAR review 3 weeks ago, it sat at 40,863 bytes, and when I finished, it was at 70,008 bytes. I nearly doubled it in size and it's fairly well-balanced. See the [ diff from start to finish]. This broad had better appreciate the effort!!! AND she'd better do well or I'll get annoyed. I see you plugging at Kylie, keep it up. I plan on calling in my library order this next week and I'll request the other Tate book in anticipation of our better citing it.

I knew today was the anniversary of the Tate killings and tomorrow for the LaBiancas. Kind of ironic that Squeaky Fromme is being released next Sunday, isn't it? I'm not too fussed about Charlie's article, it's indefinitely semi-protected, but the activity has been up on Atkins, Van Houten, Krenwinkel and Watson. Surprisingly, though, several anniversaries have happened lately - Charles Whitman and the Texas Tower shootings came and went with little fanfare. I think the articles are being watched fairly well right now, though.

I expect someone to revert my changes to Dawn Wells, but the truth is, I only left what was supported and I think the entire incident should be removed. Like I said, in the end, it amounts to a traffic violation and isn't notable to her career. A lot of people get traffic convictions and we don't report them (you should have seen my driving record prior to my vision stopping my pursuit of total catharsis via driving 90 miles an hour down the highway while singing Janis Joplin at top volume). There's another article that this comes up on, though I can't remember whose it is. I'm sending you an email. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's someone who has tried to add that crap to Sexy Sadie's article before, I see it was added not long before you reverted. Parts of it are covered in the main Manson article, only to the degree that it is used to source statements made by her in context of the trial. It's interesting how stories vary now since they can't collaborate on the story. I like how Bobby "Beaujolais" was implicated to keep him from narcing on Charlie for killing a drug dealer. Charlie did shoot Bernard Crowe, a black drug dealer, but he didn't kill him. He thought he did for a while, though. Totally incredible is the claim that the "Tait" murders happened because they were in fear of something happening to their children. Sadie is the only one involved who had a child, convenient story. Then suddenly, in the midst of the addition - "That the bizarre behaviour represented Murphys choice - she had chosen suicide by death penalty over risking her own young child." What, pray tell, is Murphys choice?

Actually, I knew the word "prurient". It's something I'd more liken to Russell Brand than to a morbid fascination with murder victims. Well, unless necrophilia is a factor... Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The skipper too

Thanks. I about flipped when I saw it labelled vandalism. I'm in the midst of refusing to participate in mediation with someone else who views my efforts to keep the Dillinger article within guidelines as ownership and filed a mediation cabal case after I told him to stop peppering me with invalid templates and stay off my talk page. I was prepping an WP:AN/I case when he left the cabal request note. Talk later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Lovely Leslie

Actually, I'd start out by saying there's a part of me that thinks parole should be seriously considered for both her and Krenwinkel. But we won't go there. I'm not sure where you found this quote, what am I missing? I had to laugh, though, when I saw that she'd murdered Abigail Folger. I missed that part of Helter Skelter. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I see it now. I guess people don't live to 100 anymore and once they hit 60, they're done, hmm? People, I swear. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sienna Miller

Hi there. Would you happen to know if Sienna Miller is an OBE? I have her article watchlisted and I recently discovered that she has been categorized as one for quite a bit which seems questionable IMO. There's no mention of it in her article (which means no source) and I can't find anything online about this. I've since removed the category, but now it's got me wondering. I already asked Wildhartlivie, and she thinks it's a load of crap questionable as well. Thanks! Pinkadelica^♣ 08:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See, I thought it might stand for something else... like maybe in this case OBE means Out of Body Experience. Or Oracle By Example. Or Overcome By Events. Or Our Buggery Excesses. Or Online Bidding Event. Or Odiferous Bodily Experience. Or... Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd buy Out of Body Experience over Order of the British Empire! Being Jude Law's fiancee probably was pretty cool, but I suppose that's not really an achievement is it? Now, being Balthazar Getty's side piece, that's a whole different ballgame. I suspect that stupid category was up for months before I caught it. Oh well, someone got a good laugh. Thanks for the quick answer :) Pinkadelica^♣ 09:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I bet you didn't know...

...just how great Bruce Willis actually is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Poor Ruby. I had no idea when I watched 42nd Street, with its atrocious sound on the version I watched, that it was a religious film or was about rolling sticks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez, they've been persistent about Penélope Cruz the past week. I'm betting it's true. Well, it might be a pretty baby, but good looking parents don't mean anything. Have you see the Willis girls? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:0083CimaGarahau.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:0083CimaGarahau.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dottie and Do-Do

I was completely confused when you posted the first message because I'd barely reverted the article and it popped up. It was disparagingly confusing. And then when you posted "Dottie Day" I was even more confused because I'd just watched a special on PBS about Dorothy Day, who was someone else entirely. And just to venture into mendacity, I had just finished watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof with hunka-hunka Ol' Blue Eyes and voluptuous and beautiful Ol' Violet Eyes. Gods, those two were pretty, but didn't they sanitize the script a bit? Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a fine tale of Southern gothic told in high Tennessee Williams style. I've seen it before, but it's been a VERY long time and I'd forgotten a lot of the finer points of the story. I was thinking that Brick (Paul) was trying to drink himself to death out of guilt for turning his back on his friend Skipper, not so much because he thought Maggie had an affair with him, but instead because he was repressing his own involvement with Skipper. If so, they danced around it thoroughly. Then again, I may have been influenced in my thinking by an old friend who saw such plot devices in everything Tennessee Williams-based. But I must say, Ol' Blue Eyes had a fine rack on him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the Tommy Lee/Jessica rendition, but I recall dismissing for much the same reasons you note. Judith Anderson was good, the entire cast was very good - Burl Ives can certainly play dark very well. Madeleine Sherwood was reprehensible, as befitted the part. It would be worth the rental. I had taped it years ago and is nestled amongst my gems. I'd give it 3 3/4 stars out of 5. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:KylieMinogueSlow.ogg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Judy Garland Trailers - Little Nellie Kelly

Hello - I am hopeless at uploading photographs - just an IT idiot I guess but I was wondering in your review of Trailers if you ever came across any for Judy Garland in Little Nellie Kelly? If so It would be a great addition if you could upload some screen shots from the trailer to 3 Judy related articles; Little Nellie Kelly, It's A Great Day for the Irish and the Judy Garland ancestry as they would all benefit from a photograph and Little Nellie Kelly Trailer would be the most appropriate for the 3 of them due to the Irish connection. There is a great shot in the trailer of Judy marching in the St Patrick's Day Parade with I think the the words "It's A Great Day for the Irish" running over the section of film . thanks vono Vono (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Todd nut

More than 3 reversions in 24 hours, incompetent edits, and now pretty vile personal stuff on my and other's talk pages....time for a block/ban? Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that the last couple came from IPs rather than the user name. Possible he's getting clever on us. As to blocking, I have neither knowledge nor authority to do so. Wish I did, at least in this case. Monkeyzpop (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The FOX is the finder...

I don't think the use of "FOX", etc., is really an Americanism. I think it's more like newer, inexperienced editors wanting to make one thing or another sound more polished and they saw it somewhere else. Most people don't really care what network carries a show. Meanwhile, keep an eye on the sheer shite going on with Jesse James. It will make your head spin. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm almost to the end of The Deer Hunter. Will this put me over the edge? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexy is in the eye of the...

₩ Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Griffiths

Good edits! (Except I think en dashes start with a & rather than a @, but you can use a single character if you wish—unlike the em dash, though, it looks likea hyphen in hypertext). Tony (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I know. It was a typo and I fixed it. Personally I prefer using the coding rather than the symbol. When I'm in edit mode it's easier to see if it's coded. That's the only reason I prefer it. Rossrs (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Masiela Lusha

Would you please take a look at the links I moved from my talk page to Talk:Masiela Lusha and render an opinion on the acceptability of them? You might want to look here for what was added and removed, and also here for my opinion on the sources. I am not too keen to do much on that article. I found it interesting that this all came about today just a few hours after her agent tried to expand the article here. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

About Mel

You're so nice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy filmography

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Spencer Tracy#Filmography regarding the removal of the filmography from the main article and discussion regarding no need for spinning the filmography into a separate article. Please comment there. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here. I felt like there would be consensus to keep the article intact. As I mentioned, this issue of spinning off filmographies is something I think the WP:ACTOR project should address. Maybe develop a size guideline? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Madonna for FA

Hey Rossrs how have you been? The Kylie Minogue FAR is coming along wonderful and I'm so impressed to see the wonderful work you did to improve the article. However, if you could, do you think that after a little pruning of the influence and legacy, Madonna can be nominated for FAC? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Rossrs. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Um...

Brrrrrrringgggggg.

• Tinny, canned machine voice: "I'm sorry, we're unavailable to take your call. Please leave a message after the beep." Beeeeeeppppp.

• Me: "You there?? If you're there, pick up. Hmm. No answer. Well, okay. Um... where ya been? You okay?? Haven't heard from you, that's kind of odd, isn't it??? Hmmm. No answer. I'll try calling back later. Oh, hey. I didn't want anything special, just thought I'd check in. Get back with me whenever it's convenient. Okay. Um... bye."

Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Brrrrrrringgggggg.

"Oh bugger. Sorry I'm not available. I'm off to an extended family barbeque. Will call you back when I get home. If you're a burglar, I don't have anything to steal. If you're the other family, talk to you tomorrow. If it's an emergency... um... well, hope it's not. Rest, relax, eat vegemite." Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost regularly...

...such as when Jake Gyllenhaal isn't around, I'm guessing. How funny. If you're around at all, keep an eye on Marlene Dietrich and Jean Harlow. I've had an issue with a guy who simply must put in their articles content about them having abortions, yet doesn't seem to feel there is a need for citations to support that. "Edit summaries are enough". I'm not going to put in that content and hunt down his sources, figure out if they are believable and put it in for them. I'm not convinced that possible abortions anyone had is encyclopedic content, but without citations, it's defamatory gossip. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The sad thing about it is that I actually like Harlow enough to expand her article, but you know how I hate to take on such monumental tasks, I still haven't recovered from the lovely Scarlett Johannsen. I probably even have the resources here on my bookshelf, I've a couple books on the earthy yet ethereal Jean (that's sort of a contradiction, but then so was she). Maybe this winter I'll take her on. I had a "Mama Jean" signed photo of Harlow that I sold last winter for $400. Wish I still had it. If I can find a scan, I'll send it to you. Be back in a bit, got to go next door and borrow eggs. Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!

I hereby present a delicious pint to you in honor of:

• "Out of nowhere" surprises
• Your delightful presence in this crazy place
• Guinness' 250th birthday

--momoricks 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

momoricks has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!

• jumping on ya and hugging ya* Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!! You got mail, you know. Please deal with the Kate Bush guy, I don't know much about the article and all I did was revert a change that called her egotistical and now this guy is wanting to argue with me. How are yaaa??? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing like a Dame

I KNNNOooowww!!! I was very careful not to hateful, though everything in me wanted to be because the person had been on Wikipedia for a while. I tried to discuss something civilly earlier today about the Atkins article with someone who was more like the point-scorer from last night so I was very careful. I think I was leaning toward snarky overdrive today. Unsourced and POV lead indeed. For the sake of argument, I don't see that the person does a lot of biography writing, though after almost a year, basics should be known. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

All new and improved

No, I was actually looking for the page that the other guy linked for me. I'd commented that it would be so nice to have a way to find all the times that Twitter is given as a source or linked in an article and out of the blue, he gave me that link. I use checklinks every once in a while for clean up. So how's you this fine morning? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for it being in the midst of a cold streak, I'm surprisingly good. Have a phone interview on my SSD app that I'll write you about later. Late days work out for you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll write after DWTS. Drive carefully! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember

the old days when vandalism used to annoy us too? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"...and gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Thos were the days!!!!!!" I'm off to the dollar store to buy cat litter and some other sundry things. Be back later! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear occupant, Archive!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban XII's intent to edit war material in over BLP policy and dispute

I noticed Urban's direct statement of intent to edit war right away, and considered (for a brief moment) taking it to AN/I with due haste, but opted to wait and see if he would really follow through with it. Unfortunately, the fully protected article preserves his favored version, giving him no reason to persist at this time, so he will no doubt get a free pass this time, as his 3RR clock will happily reset itself while page protection runs its course. We have endured the likes of Urban and IP 99... many times before, and the legions of such POV pushers yet to come will surely take us to task, but at least we have done our part to advocate on behalf of the rape victim and in defense of WMF against potential litigation for libel and/or invasion of privacy. My intent is simply to stick steadfastly to BLP policy, come what may, and trust that adherence to policy will prevail. When it comes to participating in edit wars, I will leave it to admins to take the necessary actions to see that edit warriors do not prevail in spite of policy. If admins fail in this, at least I have done my part. I just thought I would drop you a line to let you know that you are not alone in the woods. Have a blessed weekend. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Rossrs, had to look at your page. Like coming in from the cold. Frightful over at Polanski. Loved your amusements page, I needed a laugh. Each time I type, I shiver, wondering if I am going to totally botch a sentence and end up quoted on a page like that. Oh, yeah, and the statement above was intriguing, so of course I had to head over there. Do we have a witch hunt flag? Oberonfitch (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Guy Sebastian (Winner Australian Idol 2003)

Hi Rossrs

How are you?

In trying to keep the main Guy Sebastian article at a reasonable length - editors have had to rewrite and reduce down the content. Some of the content to go was the detailed list of Guy Sebastian's performances while he was competing in the first Idol Competition.

I have had a crack at creating my first article Guy Sebastian (Winner Australian Idol 2003) but due to inexperience I think I used the incorrect info box template and not sure about table of contents ??

When you get a spare moment Rossrs, could you please have a look at the article to tweak it or let me know what you suggest I do to improve it.

Enjoying my Saturday morning here on Wikipedia with the weather here on the Sunshine Coast not being that sunny today!

Thanks you for all your help with stuff!

Cheers --Diane (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rossrs for your comments - which I will read again tomorrow to absorb the options you have given me - again I really appreciate your input with my first article.

Best wishes --Diane (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rossrs,

I have now had a chance to get my head around this and I think renaming to "List of Guy Sebastian's Australian Idol performances" is an excellent option and I could also list his post-idol performances where he was asked back to perform on shows during the years as well as grandfinals - there was even a stint as a guest judge.

Thank you for your offer with making a redirect page for it and thereby setting it up under a new name, and also linking it from his article. All this is over my head so I appreciate it heaps!

--Diane (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG

Could you believe that?!?! Anyway, I have nominated the article List of overweight actors in United States cinema for deletion. You might have an opinion, the listing is here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think about the posting on his talk page. I decided not to go to WP:AN/I yet but wait and see if there is a response to my warning. I was ticked when I saw it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There was another I had to undo here, for which I gave this rationale. I read the petition, they aren't defending him against the charges, they are protesting the manner in which he was arrested and where it happened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

People tend to get that way here, the US is a lot more puritanical than I like to admit. Kennetha commented that right or wrong, there was a different moral climate here when that happened. It has swung to the right. Meanwhile, I'm watching a documentary on the killing of albinos in Tanzania. I did not know this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh duh

Did I feel silly. I didn't realize that this isn't Gilda Radner. It's Jami Gertz when she played Gilda. I'm glad a passing IP noticed that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Sharon Tate, we should start considering when we should work on updating the article so it can be reassessed for FA. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at your amusements page since you added the snappy little asides. It is quite funny! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I used to watch the E! things when I had cable. *sigh* I miss cable. That was the #1 most tragically sad Hollywood death for me. I shall overcome - and I wish it would be by the time the Olympics come back in 2010. I'm guessing E! didn't think Patrick Swayze was sad either, but I shed a few tears over that one. Bet it was produced last year. No Rebecca Schaeffer? I haven't saved a lot lately, but I'll keep an eye out. Did you ever notice how postively chameleon-like Cate Blanchett is when she takes on a role? Did you know about the strange death of Macauley Culkin or Mark Wahlberg's bid to take over the world?? These are the best recently. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I may have pointed this out to you already, but just in case - I bet you didn't know... just how great Bruce Willis actually is, or how terrible Ruby Keller actually was. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a keeper, but it made me laugh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rassa Frassa new-fangled doohickey

I giggled when I realised that, in order to thank you for filling in the headline on the Polanski page, I would have to create a new section and be sure not to forget the headline here. Thanks for that WookMuff (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the reply. Had a look at pics. I spent time in ACT and NT when a teen. Miss it terribly. Who doesn't love a pelican? Oberonfitch (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Read your latest comments today in Polanski. I would have been hard pressed to say it better. Thank you so much for such a clear, concise interpretation of what I, along with others, have been trying to convey re: balance. Kindest regards. OF 14:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Do you mind if I borrow one of your movie quotes for my page?

Do you mind if I borrow one of your movie quotes for my page? It's Sharon Tate's quote from Valley of the Dolls (1967). I think that is one of the most unintentionally funny movies I have ever seen.

I am an avid film buff, and it looks like you are, too.

Thanks. JGKlein (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

LOVE it!

Awwwwwwesome! How did I miss this? Pinkadelica^♣ 02:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

In the lead there are six long sentences regarding the sexual assault, and one short one about Tate. Twelve sentences about Tate in the body (not exclusively re: the murder). Sixty-nine in the body re: sexual assault, for a ratio of 13 to 75. It wouldn't even have to be 50/50. I would concede to 30% Tate murder to 70% sexual assault. Or in the greater scheme, 50% career and childhood, 15% Tate Murder, 35% sexual assault and related material (Kinski if that is in, for example). Oberon Fitch 01:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberonfitch (talk • contribs)

Can you read that objectively and conclude that the editor's intent is to add more and more information until it reaches those percentages? WookMuff (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel the need to defend myself, so I am copying the post I placed on Wookmuff's page here, and please, Rossrs, delete as you see fit (I figure there is probably wikiquette on this, or some such, but I don't even know how to get there. argh. Neither do I know how to do that "you have a message on..." thing; still pretty unfamiliar with how things link together:

Saw your comment on Rossrs regarding very old post from me. If you look at my editing history, nothing I have done to the article has changed percentages at all. The only changes have been to clean up junior high level grammar. Most of my contribution has been in talk, because I realize that I am a new editor, and that this is a consensus building process. So regardless of what I may have said, I did feel that the sex assault belonged (because it was so big and overwhelmed the page) in another article. And there it is. Happily. Please don't guess at what my motives are, Wook, you don't know me. If you want to know what motivates me, ask. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Winger

Hi Ross - Thanks as always for stepping in there - they're always so quick to yell CENSORSHIP. Sheesh. Interested in your opinion about the Hand In hand stuff, and whether we should be seeking out more material on her work on causes. I agree with you that the article is very weak, by the way, and would like to see it substantially improved. She's an interesting person and there should be a much more developed piece. Tvoz/talk 01:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - Spectacular new user pages here! Very nifty! Especially the pelican!!!

Tvoz/talk 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Travolta and the bull

Had you heard about this!!! Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I KNOW!!! Do you think it might have been the mystical pull of Scientol... oops. Don't want to jinx myself! They showed the South Park tonight where Kyle joins the Church of Scientology and is believed to be the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard. Then Tom Cruise comes to see him, Kyle tells him he likes Leonardo DiCaprio better, and Tom Cruise hides... in the closet. They call Nicole Kidman over and she tries to get him out of the closet, saying she won't think any less of him and neither will Katie. No good. They call John Travolta over, and he ends up in the closet with Tom Cruise. Then R. Kelly shows up, keeps singing to them, and ends up in the closet with them. It's one of the funniest episodes I've seen. You okay? Hope so. I put up a proposal on the WT:ACTOR page that could use some more responses (formally saying we don't support the use of filmography templates for actors). Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw crap

I hadn't seen that particular post, but for what it's worth, he's seemed to settle down and accepted that people will not support his knee-jerk commentary like that. I think I'd leave it as you revised it and see if it is changed. I'm thinking probably not. Meanwhile, as for crap, did you see my old friend K. is still arguing the template point at WT:ACTOR? This guy is something else. I added a note "for transparency" that I have been involved with a dispute with him elsewhere and didn't realize until I'd already nominated it that the Jim Carrey template had been made by him. I still think the trend is going to support a guideline against using the filmography template, but this guy sure is a pot-stirrer, isn't he? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think noting the dispute was the right thing to do, considering that I really don't think he'd have become so irate over the TfD if it hadn't been me nominating it? Besides, I think that pointing that out also makes others see what's possibly going on. I suspect he will end up taking it to deletion review, and I suspect it will be upheld. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm hoping that everyone who usually responds knows me well enough to know I'm fairly level-headed and logical, and they will take the candidness of noting the dispute, coupled with the sheer lack of logic, poor rationale and language skills, compare the two and see that um, he's totally off track there and not retracted their opinions. It's a well established precedent anyway. Oh, I believe that "opera" is "Oprah". After all, Tom Cruise jumped on her couch just before he went into the closet on South Park. I'm off to bed. TTYL. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Twitter stuff

I just saw this post from John Mayer: "That cat from the "hang in there" poster just died. Makes a man just wanna give up." I find his posts sort of witty. Here's my favorites list of tweets. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Heath Ledger

Hi. I've decided to start working on this article to brush it up and have it considered for either GA or FA. My efforts right now are to clean up the over-citing of some facts and finding better cites for others. I need to find a citation for this statement: "Heath's and Kate's other siblings include two half-sisters, Ashleigh Bell (b. 1989), his mother's daughter with her second husband and his stepfather Roger Bell, and Olivia Ledger (b. 1997), his father's daughter with second wife and his stepmother Emma Brown." It is currently cited to here, but I'm not very secure in the reliability of the source. I wondered if you might be aware of sources in Australia that I don't know that might confirm this? Thanks. Oh, and if you want to jump in on any of it, too, I wouldn't kick you out. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why, ta. Ta very much. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you go right ahead. I've put in my Ledger time for tonight. In case you hadn't noticed, I've reduced the article size by almost 8000kb just by eliminating or consolidating excessive multiple cites. It just would never meet GA/FA criteria at 113000Kb, so reducing size from cites first was my approach. I'm going to bed soon, after I answer my newest non-fan. I'm sorry, but everything I've ever read about Julia Roberts says she is of Irish, English and Scottish descent, and then someone comes in tonight and adds that her father was Scottish, and when challenged, gives a source I couldn't verify. So now I'm a bad guy and he's going to start removing everything everywhere that isn't cited. Sheesh. People, I swear. If I didn't have to deal with them here, I'd love this place!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How interesting. Now the person has said he gave the wrong source information and said never mind. You know, I tend to think that when something like that happens, it was never real in the first place. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

..and thanks...

[3] People seem to have the most fascinating compulsions about Alyssa. Like they all know her personally. Maybe it's because she's a prolific blogger and Tweeter. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's no rant and even if it was, I'm quite happy to read your rants. I only follow the persons I think are interesting on Twitter. It depends on the reason - most of them are just witty, or insightful, or, in the case of John Larroquette, for example, simply profound. But I don't feel like I know them. However, I did respond to a tweet by William Beckett, who is in a band called The Academy Is..., the other night. He wrote a brief review of Where the Wild Things Are wherein he said it isn't a film for young children (under 10, I think he said). That was mostly because it has incredibly sad parts and it may be too deep. Also a little boy in the theatre with him was quite upset by it and shouted out once that the film "lied!" I have never really paid attention to the books, but they are read by a lot of parents to children, etc. I think Beckett's point was it was simply too dark. Sort of like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory wasn't really for little children either. I called my goddaughter's aunt, who planned to take her two little grandsons to the film this evening and told her, just in case. But you know, I still don't think I know Beckett. Well, not like I know Johnny Depp. Hah! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ack! I'm not sure I would want to see Wolf Creek! It's too much like all the myraid slasher movies that I stopped watching a long time ago. I suppose to a point, such things desensitize children from the grossness of the films, but I'm not completely convinced it doesn't also desensitize them from the horror. I was never scared by The Wizard of Oz, but my goddaughter was. Her boys, on the other hand, are fairly well balanced. We didn't let them watch Dark Knight or Sweeney Todd, but I actually think that was because I was the one saying "Umm... maybe not". I remember Robert Bardo - I watched that trial faithfully back when Court TV showed actual court cases. He was truly insane, I believe, by the definition of the law. I also watched the case against Dahmer and Betty Broderick. It was "must see" TV for a short period of time, and Bardo was the first real publicized case of celebrity obsession. However, I think even that case was an exception to the rule. How many others have been stalked in the last few years? Letterman, Hilary Swank, Sandra Bullock (though hers was really more about her husband). I know there are several high profile cases where the celebrity has had to go to court. Then again, there is the extreme case of the routine Hollywood producer who stalks private citizens for fun. We know about that, don't we? Geez. What a world. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

By the by, Anne Hathaway (actress) is up on GAR review. Apparently the issues aren't that pressing and I've addressed a few of them. It won't take a huge effort like dear Scarlett did, so if you pass by and want to do anything, apparently, once again, no one else seems to want to step up and doing anything to it. Heath is an ongoing project I'm taking up besides. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll put Jindabyne on my "to watch" list, it does sound like something I'd like. The plot summary here reminds me slightly of a Liam Neeson film I saw once, in a "dealing with the consequences and fallout" kind of way. It was called Before and After, with Meryl Streep and Edward Furlong. It wasn't a big hit, but it was interesting. I suppose I burned out on slasher films a long time ago, but I did find Scream funny. It changed the way I viewed slasher films - violating the rules sort of silliness, and the actual predictability point was too true.

On an entirely different note, I got an email from my sister (!) to let me know that the county is applying for some of Obama's federal money to effect home repairs and it sounds like I qualify for it. That's fairly exciting to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

Hi Rossrs, thanks for your comments on the talkpage there. There are a lot of strong standpoints there, anyway..ta. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, put this on the wrong talk page. My mistake. Oberonfitch (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I keep screwing up your talk page. Sorry. Inept. Anyway, did you follow any of the LaBianca stuff, when daughter petitioned court to release "Tex"? There is footage on You Tube with Tate's mom confronting her. Can't wrap the mind around that, somehow. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison

Poor Alison. Not only are they not improved, they are pointless. I have a couple photos like that of Tina Turner from the late 80s. Kind of pathetic, eh? Had a headache the last couple of days, though, I think it's gone... We'll see. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Didja know

that Tom Hanks had extensive plastic surgery? I didn't either! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

HAH!! She had her nose fixed!! I didn't think she would ever do that!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I laughed SO much at the SJP picture last night that I decided I was exhausted. So I looked at it again a little while ago and still laughed so hard. It's a nice nose job though. They must have reduced by at least 50%. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Waxing nostalgic and melancholy

The US Dancing with the Stars did a Michael Jackson tribute special dance with all 16 professional dancers participating. It concluded with "Thriller" and that segment in particular was quite wonderful. Made me a little wistful. My goddaughter wants us to go see Michael Jackson's This Is It when it opens and I think I'll go. How odd I feel that way. Then I just finished reading this article about Yoko Ono and I think perhaps for the first time, I didn't mind her so much, especially if she really does try to preserve the Beatles legacy. I didn't realize she'd survived the firebombings in Tokyo during WWII. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Oberonfitch

Hello, this is a test message. See how easy it is?  :-) Rossrs (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh Oberonfitch (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And so I meandered over to the template talkback page, and found this:

This template employs intricate features of template syntax. You are encouraged to familiarise yourself with its setup and parser functions before editing the template. If your edit causes unexpected problems, please undo it quickly, as this template may appear on a large number of pages.

Of course, I can play with it in my sandbox. Which, for safety's sake, should probably be the cat's litter box.Oberonfitch (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, actually see now how it works. Thanks for the help. (And I get to stay out of the sandbox!) Oberonfitch (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

I completely wonder what 76 users would find so compelling about my talk and user pages? Yours has a quietly respectable 37. I wish there was a way to discover who is watching my talk page!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OOoo-eee-ooo. That is a bit bizarre. But then, I notice this isn't the first Wikipedia eerie coincidence you've come across [4]. I'll tell you something even more bizarre. I was looking for the distance from Brisbane to Indiana and typed that into Google Earth. It directed me to drive a circuitous route to Darwin. The next direction said "Kayak across the Pacific Ocean Entering Japan (go 5404 km)." In a kayak. From Fukue-jima through the Japanese islands via ferry rides and toll roads to slightly north and east of Tokyo, whereupon we once again "Kayak across the Pacific Ocean Entering United States (Hawaii) (go 6343 km)." In a kayak. We disembark near the large crater south of Honolulu, travel north across Oahu, until we are a few miles west of Kawela Bay, whereupon we, once again "Kayak across the Pacific Ocean and enter Washington (STATE) (4436 km)", at the US/Canada border, through the Puget Sound region. In a kayak. We finally get back on land around Renton, Washington (where we would be close enough to slip down and visit the Forks, Washington area and see where Twilight takes place, and then immediately begin to travel, meandering east, across Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota and Illinois, travelling around the southwest curve of Lake Michigan, through Chicago, then southeast to Indianapolis and due east until you get to my town. Total estimated distance: 24733 km; travel time 55 days, 16 hours. And I didn't even ask for the scenic route. This fascinated me. How Google Earth could get it so wrong. In any case, all I wanted to say was what an odd coincidence that we both thought of the same obscure quote, at somewhere around the same time, at a distance of 9,035 miles (14,540 km). You know, as the crow flies. Heh. Sorry this took so long, I got lost crossing from Darwin to Tokyo. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was Alice who said it.

“ "Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English); "now I'm opening out like the largest telescope that ever was! Good-bye, feet!" (for when she looked down at her feet, they seemed to be almost out of sight, they were getting so far off). ”

I'm absolutely thrilled you took time to look at the recommended route on Google Earth. Heheee. I wonder what they would show if one could ask for the scenic route? A side trip to Cambodia? Swing up to see the sites in China? I'm glad it was you that tried the kayaking, I'm a wuss when it comes to 24000km trips that involve well over half of it across the Pacific Ocean. It was rather inconvenient of them to neglect to mention the need for the kayak. I was fascinated by it all. You'll have mail shortly, I think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Rain, snow, sleet or hail...

...nothing stops the U.S. mail." Well, unless it is electronic mail. This is why I use hotmail. Everything is also stored online in the hotmail servers. And I can change internet providers whenever I want. I'm sorry. I sent you a response, so if you don't have it when you once again get access, let me know and I'll resend it. After I went to look at the Port Arthur page, I ended up reading about the massacre there. Sheesh. What a royal **ck-up that was! Very sad. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I was never fond of yahoo mail, it seemed too iffy when I tried it. I've spent literally two hours looking at the massacre information on various webpages - newspapers and such, and then quite a bizarre 10 minutes or so at a conspiracy theory website that claims it was literally impossible for someone with an IQ of 66 who never learned to shoot to have accomplished all the terror that occurred. I have to say, in a completely silly way, "He doesn't look like a mass murderer." He was more successful in his goals than the Columbine guys and they were highly intelligent. It's just bizarre and I can see why there are people who have a hard time accepting the story. The spookiest place I've ever been was an abandoned state hospital for tuberculosis patients from the early part of the 20th century. Especially after the experiment stories that were told. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I read about that woman. What really sent off looking at webpages was trying to find a memorial page that might include pictures of the victims (not dead ones) and still haven't found one, except for pictures of the original couple. I just find the whole thing shocking - so many people. And the shooter just didn't a) look mentally delayed or b) dangerous. I am old enough and experienced enough to know this means nothing, but still. I got interested in that old state hospital after they did a Ghosthunters episode there. The place where I worked was once called the Epileptic Village. It opened around 1915 and some of the buildings were that old. They were all connected by a maze of underground tunnels that were used both for service access and as a means of transportation between buildings during inclement weather. By the time I worked there, the old buildings were used for a variety of things - offices, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, medical records and such - and the actual housing buildings were more modern. I used to work quite late and really hated being in those old buildings at night. They were old enough to creak and groan. I would never allow myself to be alone at night in the medical records building. It was once the infirmary and the morgue and all the old equipment was still there. Just too too. So are you on vacation this week now, or after the first of November? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jude Law

If you have a minute, would you please look at Jude Law, what's been going on with it, and Talk:Jude Law. This has been a problem before, but recently, it's getting ridiculous. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, and while you're in the neighborhood, would you look at Talk:Jenna Elfman and the RfC Pinkadelica and I have there. Thanks. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian Slater's family tree

Regarding edits to the article on Christian Slater, Oct 28 and 29 of 2009, I reversed your edit because:

The edit by 166.216.128.16 added mention of "English and Irish descent", but also truncated the long standing paragraph on the fact that Helen Slater is no blood relation to him. As you observed, the paragraph made no sense after that hack job.

In my opinion, the original paragraph touched on a point of interest, one that people might consult an encyclopedia to confirm or deny, and offered verifiable facts that attest to the extistence of a point of confusion (i.e. co-starring in "The Legend of Billie Jean", and misinformation published on a DVD of "Supergirl").

Now you have reversed my reversal. I suspect you've done this in reaction to the mutilated version left by 166.216.128.16. If you review the edit history between say Oct 26 and 29, and appreciate the original (and long standing) version of the paragraph, I leave it to you to bring the article back to that state again, as I'm loathe to reverse the reversal of my reversal.

Thanks for considering this.

Willondon (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Censored Comments on Scorcese

I would appreciate it if you didn't delete my comments on talk pages for personal reasons. No editors were attacked and WP:BLP is for ARTICLES, NOT talk pages. Faethon Ghost (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement "there is a contingent of editors that feel the need to hide the fact that there are actually famous people in Hollywood that support child rape" is most certainly an attack upon a "contingent of editors" which include the ones who have acted against your campaign to accuse multiple persons of supporting child rape, all the while ignoring the comments regarding reading the actual petition and trying to understand the actual difference between supporting Polanski's actions and protesting the manner in which he was arrested. And for the record, WP:BLP most certainly covers talk pages. See WP:BLP#Non-article space, which says "Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic". Both your claim about editors' motivation and your statements against Scorcese are attacks. Please try to contain your bad faith. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys are delusional. I'm sorry that your celebrity hero worship blinds you to the fact that Roman Polanski raped a child and that is not okay. Maybe you should stop watching so many movies and go outside and watch the sun shine. It's not even worth it anymore. Have fun guarding your precious Hollywood articles from anyone that you slightly disagree with. Faethon Ghost (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, delusional is thinking that because someone disputes the manner in which you present your viewpoint, it equates to being in favour of raping children, and that's not the first time you've made that type of comment. That's delusional. My disagreement with you is more than "slight". If I notice you make any comments that go against WP:BLP or that attack editors, I will revert them, but that is the only interraction I ever want to have with you. Please do not leave any further messages on my talk page, and as long as you don't make any further inflammatory comments, I'll have no reason to bother you. Rossrs (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway (actress)

What is going on with the Anne Hathaway (actress) GAR. It is very close to passing, but no one has come by to finish it up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Ha.

[5] Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I bet you didn't know...

...that I had someone file both a mediation request about me, AND an ArbCom case request filed on the same day, for the same thing, by the same person. Hrrmmm, I got her website put on the spambot black list. Same old stuff from last year. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah geez, why is the no drink from November to March comment going right over my head? It is a long time. In other news, the US House of Representatives passed the health care package and an Army officer went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood Thursday. Eventful week! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I get it. And it's not like the person was going without a drink. She was drinking anonymously. *nudge nudge* Get it? :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Um...

Did I say welcome home, I missed ya and it's good to have you back? Well, I mean it, I did and it is good. I had found an even nastier vandalism to give you yesterday when my browser froze and I had to restart it. Now I can't find it. It was awful. And funny. I'll keep looking, I know I'll find it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

EUREKA!! I found it. So...

This gives an entirely new meaning to the title Live Free or Die Hard. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL. My first thought was "ewww" too. Then the second was from looking at the picture and reading the caption: Bruce Willis at a Live Free or Die Hard premiere, June 2007. Then I cracked up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Coming to ...

America... Ack! but I hate Razzies. No, one does not win a Razzie, one gets the Razzie after the website owner manipulates the "votes" to give the "Award" to the nominee he hates the most. How clear is that?

Neil Diamond was praised and panned, nominated for both the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor and a Razzie Award for Worst Actor for his role, of which he won the latter.

I wouldn't characterize it that way. I argued elsewhere that winning an award does not definitively equal praise, and getting a Razzie doesn't definitively mean a performance was panned. Personally, I think that wording should only be used in conjunction with critical reviews. What about:

Diamond earned a nomination for a Golden Globe Award although he was given the Razzie Award for the performance.

...and leave the praise and pans to something better supporting it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup

Oh yes I did. I like the use of that word there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Accidentally mixed fruit doesn't come around too often. I need to get back to work on that article so I can get it to GA. Any suggestions? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

...Even though I'm afraid that was the ultimate acclaimed performance. I was really hoping high for the last one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have some ideas, which include combining sleep difficulties with death and pharmacological testing - I think one led to the next and that is fairly clear in the article. The federal investigation should be there, but again, minimized. I also think trimming the will controversies section down to a sentence or two is all right - that turned out to really not be a controversy beyond the fact he hadn't updated his will but the family nevertheless included Matilda. I'd keep most of the memorial tributes but lessen the elaboration and end with the posthumous section. What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the time seems to be long past for people jumping up and down about changes to the article. I seem to be the only person who has spoken up about the article not being at GA or FA standard when people have come by and nominated it, being those that jump on what looks to be such standard articles so they can add the star or whatever to their userpages. I'm not so sure there would be much flap. We'll see. I moved a copy to my userspace so I can work on it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone wants a piece of "the moment". Fame is fleeting. If it's not "now", it doesn't count. Enough crap platitudes? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

§ Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A template you frequently use, Template:City-state, is up for deletion here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski NPOV: The Sharon Tate murder section now gone

FYI: (Buried in Personal life and no link to main coverage now). See: this new talk topic. (Please excuse if you're not interested in that, but remembered you caring about the article.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A note of appreciation for the beautifully balanced reason you bring to bear.

I have literally lost 10 lbs countering (in not perfect ways) the current-events flood of "no excuses!" all-negative editing. I even argued a talk-page-worth to keep in that he went to film school under communism. lol I was even accused of a "holy war" against the Soviet Union. :) You get the picture ... It lifts my spirits to see your beautifully balanced strokes appear on the canvas. Bless you. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Quick note before I sleep ... just saw what you've done. Excellent. Just excellent. Must sleep now, but will ponder well tomorrow. Thank you. Really. Proofreader77 (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

re your new analysis (note re my limited responses)

FYI Due to the long contention on Roman Polanski, I was placed on editing restrictions of 10 messages of no more than 100 words per day per talk page. So, if it seems I'm not responding to all your issues fully, remember I am counting words, and must respond selectively.

But again, my most sincere appreciation for the careful attention you have brought to bear. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse typo in edit summary

Please excuse putting apostrophe in wrong place in edit summary mentioning your name. Correctly spelled on page. (I think, although I always get confused about apostrophe s with words ending in "s" :) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Kylie

Dropped some sources on record sales on the talk page. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Not to be proud of"? Your quote, Polanski

The most understated sentence in Polanski talk for a long time. Well, thanks for the early morning (here) laugh. It will probably carry me through the day.Oberonfitch (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Polanski post yesterday; I do not want it misconstrued that I do not agree with keeping the sex assault in the lead, but that "Polanski, writer, director and convicted child molester," is not appropriate. Perhaps I wasn't clear? So hard to know. Oberonfitch (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hair saloons

I thought this was just a new way to combine complete entertainment with personal grooming ventures. Heh. While I'm thinking about it, could you stop over at Talk:Ian McKellen and weigh in on the Bible issue I posted? Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure ...

Perhaps it is your choice to have all messages on your talk require long side-scroll to read (and find edit link), but if that is not what you wish (or you don't understand what a mean), let me know. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Have fixed side-scroll. But if you want a fixed width to talk area, that can be put back (without "nowrap") Proofreader77 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Undetected edit conflict?

FYI: Wikiwatcher1‎'s added comment ... simultaneously undid your comment *and* my NOINDEX flag change. They say they didn't get an edit conflict warning, but sometimes glitches happen. Suspect that's what happened here. (No reply necessary) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting ...

Note that I will be waiting two hours to let my posts of last night age past 24 hours, so can count to 9 (following recent 1st today). This restraint on me has to do with the way I was attempting to balance the negative bias in the wake of current events. (Suggest looking at my edits to Roman Polanski to get a feel for my actions). You might compare mine with this first edit by a new user (who has started the topic for the move notwithstanding his edit-warring Early life down.) Ponder why they want it moved up now. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note ...

FYI: My broadband went out around noon today. I'm stuck with dail-up while trying to locate earlier revision links.

While I work within my constraints, I'm going to ask you (rhetorically) to find me one film director who was convicted of a crime ... which three decades later hangs over them ... and even now is a prime determinant of their end-of-career and life story. Clearly there is not one. There is no precedent for this situation. I regret having to disagree with you strongly on Roman Polanski talk, but you are demanding that. I wish you would not ... rush. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

BLPN

Take a look at the topic started by Wikiwatcher1 on BLPN ... and note that he designates two groups by intention. That's a delicate path to walk (defining what different people are doing) ... See my first response comment there. The "answer" to the/your question re rationale for not moving Early life up ... derives form such a "delicate" analysis. Again, given the players, why would a negative-amper decide they want Early life moved up? (While someone attempting to balance negative-amping decide Early life should stay down with the other Personal life?)Proofreader77 (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Broadband outage

FYI ... network problems (not usual) are still knocking out my broadband. My back-up dial-up plan is just for 10 hours ... so I'll soon be paying by the hour for this horrible service. NOTE: I have been finding the revisions where the structure was changed. Rather than paying for slow dial up, I hope you'll excuse a delay this weekend. My broadband has been stable for a year before this... never out. This is the second time recently (some kind of cable expansion I suspect). Proofreader77 (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Broadband is back (hurray) ... and I have answered Proofreader77 (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• FYI - I will not responding further until after 15:45, 24 November 2009 -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope you'll excuse ...

... the complications of conversation on Roman Polanski. Complex dynamic /... including new participant with strong opinion on BLP.

If I seem to be terse or non-responsive, remember my constraints (and note that my 9-part x 100 words response was deemed against the rules and so I was banished from the page for 48 hours). I am working out how to respond appropriately to rather longer messages than mine. :) While I figure that out ... Happy Thanksgiving. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

P77-D

Note phrases related to "Vanity Fair" case: "won libel suit in British court regarding account of behavior just prior to wife's funeral with aspersions related to sex case a fugitive from ... with tele-video appearance so as not to be arrested as fugitive ... and case causing unsealing of sealed grand jury testimony from sex case ... and therefore amplification of societal ado)"?

We are at odds over complex things, but I believe your position on "Vanity Fair" (that it is somehow a trivial aside) is most likely due to lack of familiarity of the connections. Any questions on Vanity Fair? -- Proofreader77 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While we debate ...

• Remember the culture/social furor about all this - see comments at New York Times ...
• which is manifest at Wikipedia by often undocumented edits like this (denaturing positives) for example, but also amping negative phrasing, and e.g., reducing size/impact of the Tate murder and otherwise attempting to make sure "No excuses!" POV is embodied in Wikipedia.

What I've been doing for two months ... is counterbalancing that. My labors have been misperceived (for the moment, ultimately to be remedied). I'm taking many things into consideration that you've not been bearing the weight of. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

I had to revert this post to your page for being a few bytes too long. (no comment). The point of bringing this up ... is that one naturally enjoys agreement, but the concept of "tactical agreement" should be kept in mind. I.e., I did not (help) fill 7 archives of talk because it was pleasant. I did it to "counterbalance" a surprisingly heavy WP:SPA weight(ing). Not to mention dynamic ip (which had to be blocked twice). And failing to keep even the word "communism" in the article. ("irrelevant") Proofreader77 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember these 3 reverts

• Proofreader77 reverts "creepy old man" quote addition (99.x.x.x)
• 2nd revert by Proofreader77 of COM quote
• Rossrs handles 3rd revert

Now, what's wrong with this quote? Undue on one negative quote, but what's really wrong is the missing context: When was Geimer asked this? The context is interviewer is talking with her about Polanski's Vanity Fair case. And Geimer (like many) thought it was outrageous that Polanski would have the nerve to file a libel suit about such a thing. *That* is an example of why his fighting and *winning* it, is so important. Proofreader77 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair case unseals 1977 grand jury testimony

July2005 SmokingGun When Polanski sued Vanity Fair, their lawyers got Geimer's grand jury testimony unsealed (and then was leaked) to thesmokinggun. Outraged public anger (and so worth Los Angeles District Attorney's grandstanding now) comes from people reading grand jury testimony ... released as consequence of Polanski's suit. This is so significant, I'd split sex case into two parts, with latter being after VF case section: - 2.6 A documentary, appeal, and arrest (2008+). [More to say, but 100words]. VF case is pivotal occurrence - and, as aforementioned, vitally connected to other PL items. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hah!

You will never guess what I repaired with my own two little hands and a Phillips screwdriver. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, not that extravagant. I have a small 14" television that I sometimes move from the bedroom to the sitting room and one night last week, I dropped it. At first, it seemed fine, but then the color started cutting out. Last night, I couldn't get the color back on, so I got brave, took the television apart and fixed it. I think it had knocked one of the circuit boards slightly loose and when I put everything back into their proper slots, the color started working again. I was impressed.

It's not so cold here yet, mid to high 50s in the day time and above freezing at night. The oven, a small space heater and the heated mattress pad fight off the chills. We're looking for a new propane wall mounted heater to take the place of the old furnace. It isn't just the boiler that needs replaced. The radiant heater system is a series of radiators and some of them are so old they have rusted in certain places and leak all over the place. It would take replacing the entire system and that just isn't going to happen. It cost a fortune when it didn't leak and now that it does, it caused the boiler to run all the time and the water was constantly having to be pumped back into the system. Not worth the cost of replacement. The new wall mounted propane systems are very efficient and put out as much heat as that clunky antiquated system. I'm good with that. I have SS physical and mental exam in the next two weeks. I quite excited about that! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I impressed myself. I've taken lesser things apart before and so far, have been successful in not only getting them put back together, but made them work. Do I remember before color TV? I should say so. After my mom died and my uncle was square in charge of the household, he flatly refused to buy a color TV. The first color TV I ever had was when my ex and I bought one for our first Christmas. Cable was quickly installed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sincere request

I hope to have the Kate Winslet article ready to nominate for good article by the end of the week. What is mostly left to do is check the images, write alt text for it, and finish sourcing the personal life and awards and nominations section. Could you possibly look at it and let me know what you think it needs or maybe make any changes you think would help? It's been on the verge of GA for a long time and I decided to finish that up before I do any more work on Heath Ledger. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. I think the problem with the alt text in the infobox was just a difference in the title of the line. It's just alt= for the actor infobox. WHen I went to look at a FA in actors, I realized several of those need alt text. Angelina and Reese (who reportedly broke up with Jake this weekend). Thanks for doing the alt text, I hate to do that. I think one of those images could be removed, they are all too much alike.

I've worked a lot on the Winslet article in the past - last year, really. I had thought to nominated but put it off after the big 2008 awards season. She won too many and I thought it should quiet down. It's little changed since then, and I admit it's because I've watched it like a hawk. Joan Crawford wouldn't pass now. I'll work on the early work section when I get back up later. I noticed the "Winslet's first effort in 2000" as well, but didn't get back to it. I'll note that for work. I also agree about the music section. It can be worked into the rest of the article since it is so minimal.

Thanks for looking. I was feeling exhausted by looking. I think 3-4 days should get it there, considering the speed at which I work.

P.S. We're going to get quite cold later this week with some snow. Argh. It will pass. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wild Horses

I am very surprised to hear that. I bet that Mick is riding high on the royalties from that though. I'll have to spend some time getting that downloaded so I can hear it. (The first few seconds sound pretty good.) It is one of my favorite Stones songs. Regarding alt text, I would imagine "woman" would have some sort of meaning, but "blonde" is another story. Coincidentally, I watch At First Sight last night. It's a sad sort of film, but I like Val Kilmer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Restoring Tate murder on Polanski (to pre-arrest significance)

Just a statistical note amidst your good work on Roman Polanski ... The Tate murder section is now back up to the size it was before the September 27 arrest (when negative flows came in ... e.g., "whittling down" tragedy.) Word count is surely not a measure of quality, but it does convey significance. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we that would should always aim for making any relevant topic or subtopic complete and comprehensive without being exhaustive. The word count will be whatever it needs to be in order to adequately address the topic. If the same approach is taken to all areas, the relative ratio and weighting falls into place. It's a little step, but it's a step. My personal view, which is based on some of the vitriolic comments made on the talk page (and elsewhere) shortly after Polanski's arrest, was that anything that personalised or humanised him was diminished in favour of language that squarely portrayed him as a monster - hence the "whittling down". That does not seem to be the prevailing attitude any longer. I've also commented about the edit regarding Swiss residence. I think it's a valid point, but the way it was written, without a reliable external source, could be interpreted in a number of ways, one of which is that it could be contstrued as editorial commentary. Not intentional of course, and if it was rewritten to make it clearer, plus sourced, I'd have no objections to it. I don't know the reason it was removed. Lack of edit summaries do nothing but test my psychic abilities, which are virtually non-existant. Rossrs (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re "the reason" - This gets into why I wrote so many words so often. I think the general idea is not to characterize what people are doing. (It takes a lot of words not to state the semi-obvious.) But consider for example this edit (and edit summary). Consider that edit in the context of the whittling down in other recent edit to just "award." (I know the "balance" scorecard pretty well.) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor Tegan

Maybe we can get Sarah MacLachlan to do one of those really heartrending dog ads like she does for the ASPCA in the US. That actually is quite funny. Thanks. Did you see my flowers above your post on my talk page. I decided to stop biting the newcomer and got that for the effort. My knee really hurts. I fell off my front step (it's only one step) while I was putting up plastic on the windows in anticipation of the deep freeze coming toward the end of the week. Damn, but that hurt! And now I'm dog tired, if you'll excuse the bad pun. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I will think of that and tell the cats the story before we go to sleep. Hey, are you on late shift today? Isn't it like ... almost noon?? Thanks for the wishes - I'm a half-blind klutz. I must be turning into Bella Swan. Maybe I can find an unattached vampire. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw geez, I'm sorry. But not only are you better off than Tegan, you're better off than Barrowman. He doesn't have a dog to comfort him. My goddaughter has a new puppy/dog (she's about half grown). They had a beagle that they got between the time the 8 year old and the 9 year old was born, named Fiona. Unfortunately, Fiona was hit by a car a week ago last night. She got the new dog, which is mostly golden retriever, but much smaller, from her grandmother. She brought her over for me to meet yesterday when she brought the leftover turkey so I could make turkey salad. Sheesh, I made turkey salad, cleaned the litter box, washed the dishes and put up plastic the last two days. One would think some of my depression was lifting. Then again, there is an ad on television for for a new medication for depression. It shows people in various situations - sitting on the couch, waiting at a movie theater, sitting on the bus, and they are all slight colored by whatever is in the background. The couch is patterned with a diamond shaped background and so is the woman. The ad says "Do you feel like you're fading into the background?" I noticed I was slightly autumn leaf colored with my shoes and my legs turned slightly the color of dead leaves. I'm guessing one can function somewhat and still fade into the background, hmm? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Then again, I could have Eddie Murphy's luck. At least I've never won a WORST ACTOR award. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I should probably not say some of the things I do on here, but what the hell? I've been thinking about what I should tell the PhD who will assess me psychologically and it occurred to me that the ad is a great way to explain how I feel these days. I am SO thankful for my cats. I wish I could afford and accomodate a dog here, but I need a fence for a dog and they are frightfully more expensive than the cats are right now. Besides, they take care of their own toileting needs without my going with them to ensure they come in. And they never want to do anything besides what I do. I walked in the bedroom earlier, where the TV was running and Kasha was sitting there looking at it. How odd. Ralph actually does watch it but I'd never seen her do it before. She's a good girl - probably not smart enough not to be. You're right, mediocrity is ... mediocre. And besides, in some sports, a score of 200 is actually desirable. You just need to discover what that sport might be. In Indiana right now, the Indianapolis Colts football team, currently undefeated, is hoping for a streak of high scores. They will likely win their division and with any luck, perhaps a Super Bowl bid is in the future. I don't actually like football, but it's hard to ignore when it is decidedly the home team. As for Eddie Murphy, well, he's rich enough to take it. I sort of feel sorry for John Travolta though. I think a hit film right now would be a nice thing, but Old Dogs just ain't it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And if you need cheering up, you are amongst the top 150 Wikipedians by number of featured article nominations and if I counted correctly, which isn't particularly always the case, you are 135 on the list, which is at WP:WBFAN. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, indeed. I would probably have suggested Happy Feet. It is cheery, it has lots of movement and it's a feel good movie. You and Sami would both have felt - well - happy. I'm not mostly into many team sports either, but I support the Colts, mostly for the hometown-ness of it. I prefer a nice game of tennis on tv, or yes, the Olympics. The U.S. men's snowboard team will have a cute lil feller named Louie Vito this winter. He danced with the stars for a while this past season. He didn't have the best dance moves, but he could do double back flips from a handspring and had some bodacious shoulders for a lil guy. What would really be *keen* would be if I get the SSD started before the Olympics so I can buy whatever viewing package the cable company will offer, when I get the cable back. Sort of excited about that, I am. Did you hear about the gate crashers at the first Obama formal state dinner last week? It's our first big White House scandal! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kate Winslet

Do not you think we should change the picture, I thought that is long in the infobox. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Long in the infobox is even more reason to keep it there. I think the other image is of significantly lesser quality and usefulness. It's very poorly composed and there is more black background than anything else. Rossrs (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Really understand, but it is better to keep the image in the infobox more time would be well placed winslet image in the 2009 Academy Award. Saluds. Saod053 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Really apparently not. I asked you to please let this alone as the article had been nominated just last night for good article status. Going around to talk pages of other editors trying to muster support to use an image of significantly poorer quality is hardly meeting that. Besides which, I have no idea what you mean by "better to keep the image in the infobox more time would be well placed winslet image in the 2009 Academy Award". It is by far the best image we have of Winslet and a picture of someone talking does not serve the Academy Award article, especially when it wasn't AT the Academy Awards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Denzel doesn't blow things up for the sheer enjoyment of it, he simply moves on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh. She seems to be shooting death rays from her eyes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Susan

Thanks for speaking up. While it was occurring, one of the editors who posted on that talk page left a template warning on my talk page warning me not to use the minor edit checkbox except for a template listed reason. The problem is, I don't use the minor edit checkbox. The rollback feature uses the minor checkbox automatically, I never do. This would be the same editor who will remove my posting to his talk page about it, where I told him not to leave messages on my talk page, especially templated ones, by calling it either a rant or something similar. He did this before. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm

I heard about her. Alex P. Keaton's mother! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you have the Polanski biography

You'll know that Polanski said that Gerald Azaria had urged him to do the layout, but then refused to take the call about it from Polanski after the crap hit the fan. There is a big difference between denying and refusing to confirm being involved in this mess. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There is a huge difference. The New York Post has taken the lazy way by trying to condense it into one sentence, and they've changed the meaning considerably. User:Tombaker321 has rightly quoted the text from their article, so his edit is 100% correct based on what he has to work with. The final quote from Polanski, attributed to Robert Caille is "We said we knew nothing about it." That's a denial. Azaria's comments are hedging and refusing to confirm, and saying that Polanski was not officially contracted. Someone should have asked "how about unofficially?", but I guess they didn't. I agree with you. Let's leave it for a while. If it needs to be reworded, I suggest that Tombaker321 finish his work, and then ask his opinion. It may just need to be tweaked to a small degree. Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• And, good grief, I wonder who just changed the Quaalude entry. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, based on the edit summary. I've done a quick search and the FDA supposedly says that it has both sedative and hypnotic properties. I say "supposedly" because I can't find anything official to confirm it. Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• See this description of the Azaria matter in this Polish description (in Google translation) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is simply casting an aspersion that Polanski made up the photo layout assignment. Polanski had made Kinsky famous with a photo layout. Polanski was arrested, and his photography equipment taken into evidence. Did Polanski believe he had an assignment, or just making it all up as an excuse to fuck young girls? Using his autobiography to imply he made it up is absurd. Do you really want to phrase Polanski's own words to imply he might be lying? How many sources say Polanski had an assignment? Seriously, What a waste of the holiday season. Cheers. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• But there is one cool data point from this excursion: Vogue Homme and Vanity Fair are both subsidiaries of Conde Nast. Conde Nast caused Polanski grief twice. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're jumping to a conclusion. I'm not trying to use his autobiography to say he was lying, and the phrasing I'm suggesting does not do that. Is it OK to say the magazine's editors were dishonest? That they left Polanski to be devoured by the wolves? Because that's suggested by the alternative wording. Why is ok to suggest one thing but not another? It's not ok to "suggest" anything. Polanski made comments in his biography - that's a fact. Personally, I think he had a verbal contract with them, same as he had with other publications before that, and they left him out to dry because he embarassed them. I view his biography as presenting his viewpoint, and I'm sceptical about anything I read and try not to take things at face value, but his comment on this specific point has a ring of truth to it. I tend to believe him on this point, and tend not to believe him on others. Neither of us knows, so please stop assuming what my motivations are. That's grossly unfair. To refer to his comments is not dishonest and you are seeing an inference that maybe only you see. I don't see it. Considering how many comments I've made about fairness in relation to this article, you ask if I'm making an attempt to portray Polanski as a liar? I'm more than taken aback. I see the need to ensure that the text and the source material match each other. None of the recent edits achieve this. Yes, it's a waste of the holiday season. Interesting about Conde Nast, but the press in general have caused him grief for a long time, going right back to August 1969. Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What is going on now is what has been going on for two months. The situation can be made harder or easier to counterbalance. I understand the perspectives of all participants (including the ones who have resigned from the field, for the moment, and the drive-bys who have left their mark, like 209.x.x.x, not to mention dynamic shifting twice-blocked 99, and good old Wookmuff who joined with Russian nationalists to keep mention of "communism" out). I understand your current choices and their rationale. We calculate the summation of actions differently, it seems. More than I thought. Proofreader77 (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we do, but I was only commenting on what seems to be your summation of my actions. The article has been a battleground for a couple of months, and some of the contributors had little interest in the article but wanted to grandstand their viewpoints, and stir up trouble. It's more stable than it's been for a while. Maybe our main difference is that you look back over edits and see trends in certain editors presenting certain views, and remembering the various steps the article has progressed along, if I correctly interpret what you mean by "summation of action". I'd find it too frustrating to go back over numerous diffs, because there are too many unproductive edits, and I don't see it as a good use of my time, so I probably don't calculate the summation of actions much at all. I'm thinking more of what the article is now, and what the article could be. The unpleasantness of the last couple of months is something I've tried to put to bed, as it's a distraction. Rossrs (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

From summation to nittygritty ... WP:SYN by someone who's sure of their 'judicial' powers. E.G., Vogue Homme denied agreement when confronted by Interpol, so "at best" Polanski "presumed" an agreement.

That is B.S., of course. We cannot presume that Polanski (and all the other sources) are presuming/lying/wrong about the agreement/commission. We just know that Vogue Homme (chose to) deny it.

Note/Sanford: Sentence before Interpol says Polanski's home insurance had just been canceled. A litany of people turning on Polanski because of sex case. Vogue Homme just one more. SYN (+UNDUE + summary cramming) Proofreader77 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, and the best solution may be to simply remove the whole lot, something I've also said on Polanski's talk page. I was reading one of the external links and it was (in my opinion) a very thoughtful summary of Polanski's life, and it suggested that a lot of people turned on Polanski before the sex case. The article suggested that he committed the cardinal sin of failing to make a spectacle of himself after Sharon Tate's death, and he unforgivably appeared to get on with his life. Not all people are demonstrative of their emotions, and perhaps he's one such person. The same article suggested that a lot of Americans would also be condemning him for not offering a public apology in regards to the young girl, and noted that Hugh Grant's public apology/humiliation helped win back some public support after being caught with a prostitute. Different situation of course, but it could be that people turned on Polanski, because for one reason or another, they just didn't like him. Plus the sex case, of course ;-) Rossrs (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Way past bedtime/brain=mush) Yes, Roman was a guy more likely to say "Fuck young girls" three times than publicly apologize. But when I say that I (perhaps for first time) paused to imagine what his childhood was like. Well, try to. I can't. But I also realize that in that stretch we think of as "no mother and no father" ... he had force of will to (somehow!) end up in film school. Be a director. That's a pure force of will thing. And often "don't give a fuck" about obstacles (other people). Did I say brain=mush? Sleep. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Way past here too. I can't imagine what his childhood must have been like, but he must have needed to internalise his feelings in order to survive. He was lucky in being adopted by a particularly caring and guiding family, and from his biography I don't see anything to suggest any self-esteem issues, or any lack of ambition. That makes me think that whatever internalising he needed to do to survive, probably remains with him and in some regards, may even be his strength. After Sharon Tate's murder, there's no way of knowing what was going on inside him, but it's not out-of-character, or even difficult to understand, that he may have appeared outwardly to be relatively composed, given his background. Effectively, two of his families have been murdered, first his blood family, and then Tate, his unborn child, and not forgetting Frykowski, Folger and Sebring who were close friends of both Polanski and Tate. Almost family. So whatever got him through the first murders, also got him through the second. The running and hiding "fugitive" isn't exactly foreign to him either, given that his earliest memories must be of existing as a fugitive, waiting to be captured. Perhaps to flee is a reflex. Surviving the Holocaust must have a profound effect. It's all just conjecture isn't it, but people don't exist in a vacuum, and there are some aspects of his character and behaviour that must be a result of all he's been subjected to. It's therefore odd that even before the sex case, he didn't inspire empathy or compassion, and maybe that's because he just is not a likeable personality because he doesn't behave the way people expect he should behave. I can only think how boringly satisfactory my life is, compared to his. Rossrs (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My first thought ... is that I have never had this kind of exchange on Wikipedia. Clearly not on article talk. (lol I can see the collapsing and WP:FORURM/CHAT etc)

Of course, that's true, but not talking about subjects this way on Wikipedia means we only see each other through very narrow lenses. Anyway ... :-)

To bring your insights to bear on the article, my editing is based on seeing "the whole," but understanding a large number of people wear blinders restricting vision to "rapist." (I can only write 100 words, so I'll stop there for now.) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Quick note re Sanford bio of Polanski: Page 231 -

  "On 15 April, Polanski appeared for a preliminary hearing at the Superior Court of Santa Monica. This was the first encounter with the judge in charge of the case. ... Amidst the commotion an enterprising young man stationed himself at the front door, selling T-shirts inscribed with the slogans 'FREE POLANSKI' and 'JAIL POLANSKI.'"

  lol Exactly. Perhaps for the Polanski article the participants should customize their sigs accordingly. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

POV of narrative

When contentious Benjiboi/Banjeboi "restructure" (to narrative order, as you wish), all the personal life topic headers were removed (including Tate's murder) EXCEPT for "Sexual assault case." Since the case spans 3 decades, putting time-spanning "lump" in the middle of article is not good narrative flow ... AND it also means those looking only for that do not see "Early life" and "Tate's murder" and yes libel suit.

I.E., Yes some will agree with you on narrative structure, but not because it's better— because it buries personal context. Just "Sexual assault" in the middle many will skip to. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I live in hope that there will be people who agree with me for the right reasons, and not the wrong. Rossrs (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality control

That is the issue made manifest now. For or against? (serious smile) Of course if the sentence flow gets too bad, we could just turn that section into a bullet list of bullshit. (lol I like the sound of that, as much as Polanski liked F.Y.G. which fell so trippingly off the tongue he just had to keep saying it.) Let's see:

Bullet list of bullshit ... bullet list of bullshit .. bullet list of bullshit.

Yeah, sounds just right. Where's that t-shirt seller? :-) Of course the t-shirt I'd really like reads: "FA". Proofreader77 (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a lonnnnnnng way from WP:FA, but keep dreaming. It doesn't read very smoothly, (but the same is true of the entire article) and I'd like to try tidying up the prose, but I'm too tired to think clearly tonight. I find it often happens that when editors are freed from the structure of the article talk pages, and can talk on user pages, there is a better understanding. I agree with your view that the Polanski article should represent the "whole", and you know, we'll have to disagree on some other points. I don't think there is anyone who has contributed to the article over the last few months, that I agree 100% with, but that would be an unreasonable expectation. But, yes, any biographical article should look at the "whole" person, or least as much as is relevant. Polanski has to be defined by more than the one event that some editors want to focus entirely upon - he had a life before then and he still has a life after it. Some of the recent news reports comment that after Tate's death, Polanski changed and became more self destructive, and hedonistic and began on the path that led to his problems. Everything connects, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in more dramatic ways, but to look at someone and focus on just one element, fails to do justice. I think there were a lot of people who just wanted to remove everything but the rape comments, and amplify them so that nothing of Polanski was revealed but that. It's settled down for the time being, and the current disagreements are mild when compared to the state of play a couple of months ago. Rossrs (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry to be so slow ... finally back at 4 AM) lol and I'm going to erase everything I've just written (1) it's 24 words too long, and (2) you can guess what I said anyway. lol Off to sleep... Proofreader77 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"The whole picture" (of a sliver)

• Since there is continual twiddling/cramming ... I created a "counterbalanced" version (of top part) of the Sexual assault case to illustrate what the "the whole picture" might look like if summary cramming was allowed.

  Note the diff edit summary reads:

  "20:09, 11 December 2009 Proofreader77 (talk | contribs) (70,458 bytes) (→Sexual assault case: Due to cultural contentions of article (Jail Polanski! vs Free Polanski!)& efforts to cram more "Jail Polanski!' facts into short summary (w false allegations of whitewash), I will illustrate "counterbalancing" the cram) (undo)
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-ups

Yes, I've seen The Middle, and what I like about it is that it has the janitor from Scrubs. You know, though, we're not quite that backwards here. My SSD appointment was interesting and a disappointment. The docotor who did it was from India, didn't touch me, nor do a good examination. She said "my numbers" speak for themselves. "My numbers" were off the grid and out of any realm of good readings - 285/155, which isn't right. The BP cuff was all wrong, it was done on my forearm and really, really hurt. Ah well. As long as "my numbers" speak. The numbers for The Middle and that Kelsey Grammer thing speak as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we Hoosiers aren't pedestrian - we have the interwebs, Twitter and cell phones. It's a cute show, though. My numbers ... are scary. They will stay where they are until they either pop through or drop, I suppose. They aren't Monk, though I do have a bit of that OCD thing going for me. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Russell Crowe

If I could tear you away from other more important topics *coughRomancoughPolanskicough*, could you please take a look at Russell Crowe#Firepower Fiasco and render your opinion? I cleaned it up and tagged it, but I think it is actually someone's attempt to make Crowe more culpable than he is in this. I tagged it as "undue weight" given to the topic. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If you would, could you possibly add at to the talk page? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Barbara Pepper.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barbara Pepper.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. You may also want to provide a source for File:Belinda Lee.jpg and File:Beryl Wallace.jpg as they have the same problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So I'll send them to WP:FFD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lucille Ricksen.jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton

You are probably aware of this, but just to be sure -- I've opened a thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard about the situation with User:Jojhutton. Omnedon (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jenny from the Fleck

Hi. If you have time, could you possibly weigh in at Talk:Jennifer Garner#Fashion/Style Section on an RfC? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year!

Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering

if you'd seen this pile of rubbish? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KylieMinogueKids.ogg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon

to you. How insane has that whole thing become?? Sheesh. Thanks for your observations. I would suggest you not post to that page in case someone would say you are me! That's me all over the place. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) or as Rossrs would say MisterBeyondMyWildBettySoupLoganhartlivie (I'm feeling a little schizo today!)

Hey

I could use your help at Talk:Nicole Kidman regarding her place of birth and citizenship in the lead. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you know...

that Russell Crowe thinks music is like tea? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)