User talk:Pinkadelica

This is Pinkadelica's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Pinkadelica

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Archives

Little Richard

heya ... i'm only a "distant admirer" of Little Richard - don't own any books about him or anything; i tried to smooth out his article more for editorial reasons than for "aficionado" reasons, if you see what i mean. i agree that that long list of famous names in the lead-in seems excessive, and sure hope no one would take it as a "putdown" if it were removed as unsourced (and probably unsourceable, unless someone felt like digging up references for every name, which would be unwieldy at best). as for the other unreferenced statements, i'd suggest doing just a few at first to see if they arouse any active ire - some of the statements no doubt *are* sourceable, if people they're important to would just make the effort. as for his sexuality: those discussions on the talk page made me smile really ... in short: sure, since you have a source you can cite on it, i'd go ahead and work it into the article somewhere. as you say it's not something that needs to be a big deal but i can't think of any reason to treat it as an "unmentionable". meanwhile, thanks a lot for the improvements you're making. Sssoul (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Keller

Hey, I saw that you cleaned up the Melissa Keller article, especially with regard to the links. I want to say first that I agree with your edits in theory. However, a while back (months, years, I don't remember) a couple of editors lost their minds editing that article. One of the editors was a friend of Keller's, and she tried to rewrite the article several times, resulting in more sources being needed to keep the revisionist history out. Then another editor came along and decided that the best way to solve the problem was to cite a source for every single word in the article. I think the article looks better the way you've edited it, but I thought you might want to know why it looked so awkward previously. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our man Bob

Yeah, it can be pitched and then see what the fall out will be. Hey, btw, I've been so involved in working on the Serial killer and Criminal biography lists that were chosen for Version 0.7 release that I haven't had an opportunity to get to the actors and filmmakers list yet. If you have time, could you take a look at some of the articles listed here, especially in the first section, which are articles with issues tags? I'd really appreciate it. I will get to the whole list, and run the checklink tool on them by the end of the week. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've started the checklink thing on the first article. If an article is essentially crap, let me know and I'll just take it off the release list. I've a couple criminal articles I'm taking off, and I will be turning over Cyndi Lauper to copyeditors. It's a mess. I made a note at the top of the page to briefly note what's been done to an article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've been doing a couple of things routinely as I've gone through the articles. I delink the deprecated date links, check for use of last name instead of first only, and clean up references and grammar, if it is too bad. Don't go for major rewrites or anything, just clean up well enough to pass a brief once over. If it needs major work, that's the kind we'll dump from the list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]