User talk:Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for September has been published. October's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Helpful templates

Just cut an paste them when you need them from this page, I keep them on my user page. The dates are always formatted correctly, just remember to increment the date, as often as possible, as I sometimes forget to do.

• <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2007-10-31 |quote= |publisher= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |quote= | url= |isbn= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |publisher=[[New York Times]] |date= |accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref>

Special Award

		The Special Barnstar
		I hereby award The Special Barnstar to you for your great contributions to the first half of WikiProject Biography Spring 2008 Assessment Drive. Keep doing well in second half of it. :) Solar-Poseidon 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi - I wanted to let you know there's been a request for arbitration on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), if you're interested in making a statement. It has not been accepted, at least not yet, so you'll find it on the main ArbCom page. After I made my comment, I thought I'd leave a note here to see if you had something to say also. Hope all is well with you and that you have a nice week! :-) - KrakatoaKatie 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why were all of my naturalismo links removed from every page? I had posted relevant links to naturalismo interviews with specific artists on those artists' pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMcWilly (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I think the answer is "yes". I've blocked the account. While in theory the edits of banned users may be reverted, however much of the removed material appears to have been sourced to forums. For that reason I think we should be careful about restoring material that was deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

advice

I am trolling for advice on Dorothy Hale I am trying to get her to B status..then I can die happy. But I am just not getting reassessed. I know it will never grow beyond that as there isn't a huge amount of data on this woman. she wasn't THAT important. What happened AFTER she died eclipsed her life. I have found a few more tidbits to add to it, but I am not going to get a lot more material. Even at this point, every book I read just rehashes Clare Boothe Luce's interviews, and she almost never said the same thing twice - so her stories are less than accurate, I get the feeling she wished she never met Hale. (i'm really starting to hate Luce - she was a serious bitchy snob) any advice you can give me or tweaks you can make would be appreciated. EraserGirl (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I THINK I got all the CNs, basically I used the references I already had. The items you tagged where the ones that are uniform from source to source to source. As for the legend on the painting, it isn't exact, as the legend is in Spanish. But it's a good translation, and indeed Frida's name was missing after the 'it'. I talked to the Smithsonian today, they don't have the owner of the Noguchi/Hale sculpture listed, I am hoping it will turn up in one of the books about him I am getting. I could add lots of little asides and stuff, but they don't relate directly to her. I don't want to end up creating another Entwistle. I need to stop fiddling with this article and go back to Harrison and Kaus, they are waiting patiently. EraserGirl (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy thanks you. EraserGirl (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cover version

In the Manson article's intro, there is a statement that a number of artists have "covered" Manson's songs. It might be good to make the word "covered" a wikilink to cover version -- although I'll point out that, in giving the "cover version" article a quick read, I saw no authoritative indication that personnel of record companies or radio networks etc. actually use the terms "cover" or "cover version." A simple change of the Manson-article's verb to "recorded" might be better.

P.S. I can see you're en route to a back-and-forth with the editor who's posting that blog/forum among the article's External Links. I really don't know the pertinent Wikipedia guidelines, but my sense is that he or she is being unreasonable.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Thanks. Yes, I wrote it to provide a simple intro for new users, as referencing is essential and the existing pages something of a maze. You can post it on user or article talk pages as {{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB. You might like to watchlist the template and essay talk page to help keep an eye on it. Ty 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Manson nomination

Thanks for letting me know about the Good Article nomination. Yes, the article looks pretty stable. The semi-protection certainly has helped -- not only because it has stopped the vandalism. It's allowed editors, including you and me, to concentrate on what's important.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice anything you typed that would possibly be viewed as inflammatory - at least towards me. I find it ironic, however, that you accuse the other editor of possessiveness of the Manson article, and yet I was called a troublemaker (by you) and accused of being a sockpuppet (by him) when I made the same statement about the same guy involving the same article less than seven months ago. Vindication does feel good.

Although the above statement makes me sound bitter, I'm not. It's not worth it. I'd hope that you wouldn't let this guy get to you and continue your involvement with this article, considering that you've been a voice of reason throughout this whole imbroglio.

I've suggested to him that in order to whittle down the article, a couple of new articles could be created - possibly titled "Tate-LaBianca Murders" (to deal with the specific crimes and their aftermath) and "Manson Family" (to discuss his co-defendants and associates and their additional crimes after Manson's incarceration). Minimal re-typing would need to be done, and the effect would be to meet the guidelines you've suggested. BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Puppetry

I notice that you've tagged Don Murphy's the new user(name) "My Very Educated Mother" as a likely sock puppet. Is it allowable, under this logic, to automatically revert his this user's edits at Larry Cohen and Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit despite him someone having also edited the quote that the now-deleted information was sourced from, or does Wikipedia protocol demanding sources preclude such an action? (I suppose it is possible that the information originally posted was inaccurate, and that's why these edits occurred, but...) ntnon (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't see that there's really any other conclusion to draw, regarding who removed what, my only concern is whether to assume that there could be a valid reason (which the comments made upon removal decry, to my eyes) for it, or whether to re-source the same comment. This is an issue which is fairly crucial to the story in question (who settled and how, impacting on - at least to his mind - the moral character of Mr Moore), but not something that is easy to source, without talking to the lawyers involved! Reading the back-and-forth on the message board (which I'm not suggesting you do!) makes it clear just how much of a challenge it was to draw the comment that was ultimately made -- and has now been removed. Finding a different source seems most unlikely, hence the query. :o) ntnon (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Two a penny/far too many" - [on this incarnation]..? :o) ntnon (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this happen regularly..? I thought I'd been quite polite with him... ntnon (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mm. And I thought I'd taken pains to note that, while it didn't seem particularly helpful to remove footnotes here "because they don't exist," where the logic underpinning that claim is that they DID exist, but were subsequently deleted, it is his prerogative. I would have been more than happy to welcome his (constructive) input (hence my query on his new-new-talk-page, which I can only assume he thought sarcastic. It's obviously of considerable help generally when involved-parties can edit and revise "Real life" articles, even if some of those revisions can have the side-effect of gutting the articles. However, this is just nasty, unhelpful and troubling threatening behaviour. ntnon (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Hence my wondering just how much credence to place in his words. If it's flippancy, it's in very poor taste indeed (and seems to credit yourself and myself with malice-towards-him that is not implied or intended). If it's genuine, then... well. ntnon (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My unsolicited two cents: Talking about him is getting him off. Best thing is not respond on here in anyway. Blank his edits. Don't communicate on any pages in Wikipedia about "feelings" that you might have about him. Blank-Ignore-Move on. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink need?

In the last paragraph of the Manson subsection headed "First offenses," there's a sentence that begins, "For the federal crime of taking a stolen car across a state line." This is the article's first reference to federal crime, which comes up again. Maybe it should be wikilinked to federal crime. I'll leave that up to you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Albert DeSalvo

Thanks for the note on your objections to the Albert DeSalvo edit, but it did site the Lawrence Eagle Tribune as the source. The Eagle Tribune, The Boston Globe and The Associated Press reported the same pieces of information. If you have no objections, I will restore your edits with the principal citation. The Eagle Tribune was listed as the source in my previous edits. I am unclear why you feel that violates the principles of verifiability, especially all of the information was either discussed by the subject himself, his attorney and in a courtroom. Let me know if I am missing your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.54.66 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

DeSalvo Redux

Thanks. Your advice was very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.54.66 (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton/footnote request for arbitration is now open

This RFAr that you commented on has been accepted and is now open. If you wish you can add a statement on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Evidence page. Apparently it's valid just to copy your comment from the requests page (available here) and paste it to the Evidence page.

Thanks! RedSpruce (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

Thanks! ~ IP4240207xx (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

HC is back if you want to jump on him 92.11.220.13 (talk · contribs) IP4240207xx (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm...

I see that the fantastic article on Laurence Olivier was declared a "top priority" recently. Scrolling up I see lots of complaints that are simply no longer there. Was the article in its current form updated as part of the top priority effort? If so, kudos! Maybe someone will do that to one of my pages some day! Maury (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Howson

Thank you for your note at my talkpage; I assure you that it was an inadvertent error. Poor copying and pasting. I'll make an effort to not remove such assessments again.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pai Ping-ping

I would like to undelete this - She is a well known figure in Taiwan. (Notice the ZH link?) - She is a celebrity and actress (that should have stated the importance)

I feel the nomination for CSD and the deletion itself were done in error, so I would like to undelete this article and add press sources. About 48 hours from now if I do not receive any reply I will undelete the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hello, Wildhartlivie. I feel like we've talked before because I see you around a lot. Maybe we have talked before.

Anyway, I see that you are great at copyediting and was wondering if you would not mind copyediting the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article for me, maybe give some insight on the talk page about what you think will improve that article. I'm pretty sure it's GA (Good Article) material already, but I'm looking to nominate it for FA (Featured Article). I know that it needs more tweaks, though, before that.

Currently, I have my hands busy with many other things, on and off Wikipedia, and I listed this article with the League of Copyeditors. The league may take a long time before getting around to this article, though, like last time I listed it there. In fact, they never got around to it at all. So any help from you would be much appreciated.

I'll see you around. And thanks for your time. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind

Hey, never mind, you're probably busy with other matters as well. Don't worry about it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas Honorary Oscar Video

Greetings ...

I was curious as to why the link to the Youtube video clip of Kirk Douglas' acceptance of his Honorary Oscar was removed. The clip had been officially put on Youtube by the Academy Awards people, so I reasoned it was worthy of a mention on Kirk Douglas' Wikipedia entry.

Would a Wikipedia references link to the video - placed in the CAREER section of Douglas Wiki bio where the Honorary Oscar is mentioned - be acceptable?

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank Fgf2007 (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Depp Actors Studio tape

Hi, folks. My citation for the Johnny Depp "Inside the Actors Studio" interview was removed (back in February). I don't get why my citation of this TV program, a DVD of which is now available for sale at Amazon.com -- see http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Actors-Studio-Johnny-Depp/dp/B000N2HDJQ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1210776451&sr=8-1 -- isn't as valid as a citation of a book. I can pull ISBN numbers etc for the citation if that's what's required. (I probably haven't followed all the guidelines on this post, but I stopped editing Wikipedia pages for the most part several years ago.) Lblanchard (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Howard Johns and 200.56.x.x

Hola!

I noticed that you did this edit to Brad Dexter. I am trying to purge any edits by Howard Johns, mainly IPs 206.56.xx.xx.

The edits by 200.56.x.x are either Howard Johns himself, or his publicist. They constitute Original Research and POV. Un-Verifiable gossip and innuendo is what I see, from a guy just trying to sell books mainly about dead people. Cheap trash robbing the pockets of someone in their grave.

If you would like to help let me know. I calculate at least 146 articles. I have started, but wouldn't mind some help if you want to.

IP4240207xx (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! How about taking: 200.56.196.73 (talk · contribs), revert all contributions. IP4240207xx (talk)

PS: On my talk page is a section called Howard Johns. I am putting  Done mark in front of the one I have done. IP4240207xx (talk)

No, I guess you can leave those, although there shouldn't be many. Just take out the reference (s) (although I hate to see any references go because we are so under-refed) and any mention of Howard Johns in the article. But, you can leave minor spelling and Wikilinks stuff. Thanks. IP4240207xx (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This one: 200.56.196.73??? All the edits should look like this:

• ref>Howard Johns. Palm Springs Confidential: Playground of the Stars, Barricade Books, Fort Lee, NJ (2004). ISBN-13: 9781569802977 ISBN: 1569802971</ref>

Well, you are working on the same IP as I am, 200.56.196.53, I just wanted you to do 200.56.196.73, it is smaller. And you can just mark the IP done when you are done with the entire thing, about 30 articles.

Oh, and (this is kind of funny) if one of the ref tags has not been put in the article, the additions don't show up, but they aren't bright enough to see that and don't fix it. They just add the book and move on to the next one.

I am done with my IP, are you almost done? IP4240207xx (talk)

WOW! You caught one that I missed in Edmund Goulding....THANKS! Go for drink? IP4240207xx (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not tonight. I am burnt. Thanks again for your help. Boy, when you do this you find SO many errors in articles, and how inconsistent they are, and most of these are "Hollywood" type articles, they should have a very similar look and feel. SO much work. IP4240207xx (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I kept wanting to stop and go through entire articles, but I knew that if I did I would get side-tracked. I guess we could start again and edits these articles to a consistent feel? If you are ambitious. IP4240207xx (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Question revisited

I don't know the banned user's habits well-enough to tell. If you are sure beyond any doubt then we can block the account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse

Done. Pinkadelica 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on: User talk:Interbang

I understand and will abide by your admonition with regard to User talk:Pinkadelica. I would, though, ask you in all sincerity and earnestness if you would likewise assess the tone of the comments which that particular user directed toward me, including her initial one, to be in strict conformity with those guidelines to which you referred me.

I also wish to inquire what recourse a Wikipedia user has in those instances in which another user takes it upon him or herself to delete content or external links in the absence of understanding the background of the subject matter in question.

And finally, I would also ask this: What is Wikipedia's policy with regard to a user who deletes text or a link and then, after one or both are restored, subsequently claims to have never had any objection to the very content which that user removed in the first place? For that is exactly what occurred in the situation hereunder.

I ask the above questions with no disrespect, but with only the desire to understand Wikipedia's policies in these areas and to know how fairly and evenly those policies are applied.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Interbang (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Interbang

Conclusion

Dig turns up no bodies at Manson ranch site CNN.com, 21 May 2008. Retrieved 23 May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.134.38 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with Category and Lists

Thanks again for your help with Bonnie & Clyde - your edits were perfect and helped me better understand how to format content and limit it to the topic - Very good - Thanks
Could you please advise or direct me to some instruction on how to edit LISTS within a CATEGORY - For example, there is a category called: Category:Undertaking with a list of pages divided by alphabet about some prominent undertakers - if I wanted to add a new to this list, how do I do it?? Any help would be appreciated! --Jim Moshinskie, PhD (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Rare Earth

I do have permission from the lead band member, Gil Bridges, to change or edit information on Wikipedia per his request. If there is any supporting documentation needed please request. I have been extremely busy with him and the band as their new album just came out. Thanks for your help. 69.133.89.131 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jonestown

Is this just about the "See Also" section or about content as well? Frankly, I'm lost because I'm only seeing very minor differences between the two warring editors. Pinkadelica 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WTH? Are you even involved in this? I don't see any recent contributions from you and I don't see you even saying anything on the talk page, so I will assume that's a no. Just another odd rambling I suppose. I do agree though, something needs to be done. Pinkadelica 07:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help, let me know. Pinkadelica 08:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

POV tag for American Australian

Hi - saw you tagged the American Australian article with {{POV}} - no problems with the tag if you explain the issues on the talk page as per the tag's text see the discussion on the talk page. There is currently no discussion there and it is not clear what the problem with the article is. Thanks --Matilda ^talk 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks - sorry to be so quick in asking for the explanation --Matilda ^talk 01:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah well we are struggling with a whole range of articles with similar issues at the new project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Demographics_of_Australia - as well SatuSuro 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are referenced on discussion page for Jim Morrison

Have you read the comments about yourself, Wildhartlivie, on the Discussion page for the Jim Morrison article? There is some concern that if you get wind of it, then you will transform Morrison into a gay man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.176.245 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started both an attack and sockpuppet case. Also, looking at Nyannrunning (talk · contribs) edit summary's they look VERY familiar to me (of a banned user), but it is so late and my brain is fried that I can't remember who's they are exactly like. Maybe you can look at them and remember. IP4240207xx (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie said on someone else's talk page that my "style" is the same as the style of two other people in Los Angeles. Maybe we are the ones with fried brains and you are an editor at Style magazine who is forced to listen to Jim Morrison sing L.A. Woman too many times. Visit The Gap and you will find the memory you're looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.176.245 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does this posting remind me of that old Susan Powter commercial: Stop the insanity! 
Please be so kind as to register a username, or use your existing one, to contact me. 
I will not succumb to taunts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Awards

Although it's at MOS:FILM, the same principle applies. The first sentence should simply say who or what the subject is. How well they do it goes after. Winning awards is something people have done, but it's not what defines them. You wouldn't start with "Carmen Electra is a Razzie-winning actress" eventhough it's true (I'm sure you can see the POV in that). This issue was also disussed at WT:Neutral point of view/Archive 29#POV in first sentence?. There's nothing wrong with awards in the intro, but to introduce people that way implies bias. Spellcast (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)