Revision as of 16:58, 3 February 2010 view sourceChowbok (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,090 edits →Canvassing: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:11, 3 February 2010 view source Wildhartlivie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,910 edits →CanvassingNext edit → | ||
Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
Getting friends of yours on here to comment on a noticeboard discussion, and notifying them with clearly non-neutral messages, are absolutely a violation of ], not that I care all that much. It says more than once that such notification should be neutrally-worded. Oh well. On the other hand, I know of no policy that states I can't look at your edits.—] ] 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | Getting friends of yours on here to comment on a noticeboard discussion, and notifying them with clearly non-neutral messages, are absolutely a violation of ], not that I care all that much. It says more than once that such notification should be neutrally-worded. Oh well. On the other hand, I know of no policy that states I can't look at your edits.—] ] 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Following me around on my edits and posting tenditious messages about it is clearly an issue, especially when you've entered yourself into dispute with that person. I did not get friends to comment on a noticeboard, I asked them to comment on the Wells talk page. And I clearly did not tell them what to say. That I was requesting a comment regarding an opinion they have expressed in the past is not a matter of trying to persuade anyone of anything. However, you were asked to stop posting on Rossrs page and now I am ''telling'' you to stop posting on my talk page. You have clearly taken an oppositional attitude with me and your actions reflect an adversarial and hostile tone which I do not welcome on this page. Let me quote for you: "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I am notifying you that your conduct towards me is disruptive to my enjoyment of editing and has become tenditiousness. Leave me alone, Chowbok, stop stalking my edits and refrain from posting on this talk page. ] (]) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:11, 3 February 2010
Welcome!Currently retired from all
WP:CRIME related articles
Template:Archive box collapsible
Referencing
{{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB.
Welcome Back!
Someone's back, I see? So much has happened since you've been gone... WB :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome back from me too. Rossrs (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, welcome back, there is a lot of work to do! I hope the time off was beneficial to your health. You need to update me later via email and let me know if you are doing better now. Again, welcome back, --CrohnieGal 12:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome back from me as well. Please expect a (somewhat tardy, for which I apologize) email from me soon. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Charles Manson revert
Thanks! Format (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
check it.Malke2010 19:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Glenda Jackson
From Glenda Jackson's lead section:
"She is the only Member of Parliament to have received an Academy Award."
Y'know, I think those other members need to try a little harder. Rossrs (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
GA reassessment of Kevin Spacey
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Kevin Spacey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't do that much for Whitaker, but I'm glad to see that it has been kept. I'm gradually working on Jackson and will hopefully get that done tomorrow. I was thinking of modifying the pop culture section, and I plan to incorporate it into the career section. It's actually good to drop it as it will cut down on the number of IPs who keep adding random things. It's quite fun to have all of these actors at GAR at once, but it's probably my fault with the bounty. Anyway, glad to see you back and appearing on my watchlist (and talk page). Don't ever leave again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that doesn't sound like too much fun. To help ensure the article is accurate, stating the actual facts and the issues with the references would be beneficial for any mediation. As long as you provide a brief statement detailing the other editor's issues, at least other third parties will be able to take a look and make the best judgment. From what you're describing to me, if you point the same issues out, it shouldn't have too many problems being resolved. These things take time, but it will be resolved. Keep at it! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Gene hackman
"we dont' list persons as "retired" in the lead section" well then explain to me why Sean Connerys[REDACTED] page list him as retired in the Main lead section, gene hackman is retired, why don't you get that into your head, I even posted a link for it! Sigge365 (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Hello, I am wondering why you reverted this edit as vandalism? The article in question mentions Marvin as a guest star of the show. Regards, Skomorokh 04:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Susan Atkins
Thanks for pointing out what the problem was with this ref. I clicked it though and got this. I don't know how to relocate a link that is no longer available, Do you? I posted this here to bring it to your specific attentions. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 11:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hello there, Do you know anything about Misplaced Pages rules on writing articles about fictional characters?Malke2010 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know about the fiction board. Thanks for the help.Malke2010 20:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A note
Good movie, eh? Pinkadelica 21:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Kate, the singing Winslet
When you put it like that... yes. Rossrs (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
check email.Malke2010 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Filmography tables
I was unaware of it. Thanks for the link. Qylecoop (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Tall
You gotta check out Aoife Mulholland who I am thinking must surely be Misplaced Pages's tallest woman. She'd be even taller if we could see her feet, but I got tired of scrolling. There's a lot to be said for sensible image cropping. Rossrs (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to. Rossrs (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for redline info
Thanks for the redline info. GoingBatty (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Gangs project
Looking.... the "Motion Picture Sound Editors" official site are asking for volunteers to go copy their programs so they can update their site. Not very helpful. Is Movie City News a WP:RS? Still looking. Rossrs (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't seen this film. I can barely tolerate Cameron Diaz, and I can't think of any other reason I may have missed it. I love Not Another Teen Movie but I have to agree that it is in fact, another teen movie. (but less lame) You were obviously quite taken with Fried Green Tomatoes... Rossrs (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I was. It just occurred to me that I liked Something About Mary and Vanilla Sky. I wonder why I don't like her? I've watched Fried Green Tomatoes several times. There's a lot in it to love. If you haven't already read it, I recommend the book. It's mostly written in narrative form, with each section dated as it jumps from past to present and back. It's also peppered with little snippets from "The Weems Weekly", the local Alabama Bulletin, (and others) referring to events that have been covered in the story, but from an outsiders misinformed view. Very clever, and charming. I found the book and the film equally moving. Rossrs (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you mentioned that about Val Kilmer before, and that is incredibly cool. What a great surprise ! Rossrs (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then I don't need to tell you how lovely the book is. You have some very interesting things on your shelves, haven't you? Rossrs (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think Stephen King would be an interesting person to talk to. I used to read all those Creepshow comics etc when I was a kid, but unfortunately it didn't inspire a flood of best sellers from me. I don't have anything authentic like that. The closest I've come is staringly longingly at a signed Carole Lombard portrait in a shop and walking away because I couldn't justify spending so much money. I had my wallet out of my pocket about 4 times before I decided. I wish I'd bought it, but oh well. The only "vintage" memorabillia that I have is a 1938 set of cigarette cards, in mint condition, which I had mounted and framed. I thought I'd see if there was something online and I found this bad, very bad, You Tube video. If you want to completely waste 2 and a half minutes of your life.... The guy is going through photographing the cards and has he moves through he says the name of about every fourth person, and I was thinking "that's right mate, you've never heard of Frances Farmer". He pauses for just a second on Olivia de Havilland and I think he's about to say her name, and then.. no... It's very eclectic what people will film and put on You Tube. Rossrs (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Grrr, I shoulda I shoulda I shoulda. The one that caught my eye was under $1000 but it was about 15 years ago. According to History for Sale a Carole Lombard will set you back between $3000 and $6000, but for under $1000 you could get a Myrna Loy or a Bette Davis. For just under $50,000 you could get a crowd scene signed by MGM's top stars c. 1927 (Greta Garbo, Norma Shearer, Dolores del Rio, Joan Crawford). I'll get 2 of those, a Carole and a couple of Myrnas. Holy Moly. Rossrs (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk: Anthony Burgess - POV-check
POV-check There has been a great deal of pop-world plagiarism from Burgess. Some examples: Plagiarism? Sounds POV to me. Can this be rewritten to sound more objective? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- When I deleted all this as "trash", Wildhartlivie disagreed: "even if you don't agree or don't like a comment, pls don't delete talk page posts from other editors."
- It's not about what I disagree with or dislike but that the entries in question are TRASH, aren't they? The first one is anonymous and also crippled because someone has already removed the examples. And both make no sense anyway because no one knows what they refer to.
- Are we supposed to delete TRASH in the articles only? But in talk to preserve it for future generations like it was from the bible/quran hereby making it more and more impossible to find RELEVANT discussion? I certainly do not think so.
--Vsop.de (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't much matter whether you consider someone's comments trash or not, WP:TALK is clear about deleting, changing or removing someone else's comments. In fact, no one removed examples, if you'd bothered to look through the posting history, you'd see that the poster was referring to an existent statement in the article at the time that said "There has been a great deal of pop-world plagiarism from Burgess. Some examples:" He was stating that the sentence reflected POV. It is not a trash statement. It's clear you had no idea what was originally posted so it's more than a little off-base to delete the post as "trash". I'm not even sure you know what you are calling "trash". The quote the poster put up to discuss? The response he made to the quote? Are you referring to the article quote stating that pop-culture stole from Burgess or the poster's assertion that the quote itself was a POV statement? As it is, behavioral guidelines say not to refactor, delete or change someone else's post. So, no, we do not just delete comments. And yes, they are preserved in an archive. Take a little time to learn the rules before you act. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- What I meant by “trash” is quite obvious: something to be removed because it is obsolete, no longer of any value. I did not imply that the entry in question never had any. Although it could have made clearer that the first line is a quote from the article. But what about my caveat that preserving all and any in the talk page will make finding the relevant issues more and more difficult?
--Vsop.de (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Talk page "clutter" isn't considered a problem on Misplaced Pages. There are no "stupid questions". It's easy enough to search talk archives to find what anyone might be looking for. The policy is that only blatantly irrelevant comments are removed. If an editor made a good-faith comment that relates to an article, it stays. That's it. If you want to argue this policy, I suggest doing so at WT:TALK. Equazcion 13:32, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Sharon Tate
Good morning. Very interesting question posed at Talk:Sharon Tate#The quote from Joan Didion and I would love to know what you think. Rossrs (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I found the question interesting, and your comments likewise. I linked to them from the Tate talk page. I'd like to get a hold of Dideon's The White Album and read the entire piece for my edification. I really like the way Bartteks is approaching the Sharon Tate article, questioning it in a very intelligent way, but not criticising it, which is what a lot of editors seem to do when something is not clear to them. The article is currently being translated into Polish, and Bartteks has found a few inconsistencies that can now be fixed. Rossrs (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Cate Blachett
- Why the change?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SombaGoldenG96 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. Thank You. SombaGoldenG96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC).
Kate Wislet
I'm so glad it passed! Congratulations! I helped a little and I'm happy to have been able to do that, but it's your work and your nomination and you deserve the credit. For some reason... it must be the "helped a little" that triggered this.... I can hear Prissy from Gone with the Wind, after Melanie's baby was delivered, saying "Well Cap'n Butler, Miss Scarlett, she helped a little but it was mostly me." I think it would be fun if I did a Prissy. "Well, Miss Wildhartlivie, she helped a little but it was mostly me." So now you've got from one of the shortest nominations to one of the longest, but worth it in the end. I hope the next post to your page is about Kate Hudso. You'd have some kind of weird trifecta. Rossrs (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- EEEK. Don't slap me! A Prissy slap is way worse than a Gilligan slap. I will do it. Then I'll continue to tote the weary load. I'm sending Tony a tiger. Have you seen his user page? He collects tigers. I love it. Rossrs (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Kate Hudso
Kate Hudson? No, not Kate Hudson. Kate Hudso. Oh well, you got 2 Kates in a row and Blanchett is missing an "n". It's OK, I'm the only one amused. I'll consider myself Gilligan-slapped and if someone other than me posts a Kate Hepbur post, well, I'll be gobsmacked. Rossrs (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Look out there could be some crazy edits tonight! You may be a little distracted. Rossrs (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Deletion and later rewriting my invitation
Just thought you may want to know, an alternate account deleted my poorly worded invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions. and also went to ANI about it.
I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. The template was inviting you here: here. Ikip 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Corrected Charlize Theron
Thank you for the succinct manner in which you edited my contribution to Charlize Theron's split up. I always enjoy learning from seasoned editors like yourself. I also had a look at your resume and it is pretty impressive, to say the least. Incidently, you share my fascination with crime and serial killers. Maybe that is why I am in law enforcement myself. Good luck with your health issues! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozinsky (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter
The January 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
James Stacy
Your actions from two (yes, two) years ago are being called into question here in case you're interested in explaining your damn self. I've already left two somewhat curt messages but I suspect this will be brought up again in two years time because, you know, explaining your actions at the time wasn't quite good enough. This article is quickly becoming a big pain in my ass. Every time it pops up on my watchlist, I just know there's going to be some kind of jackassery to deal with. Pinkadelica 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I take it you no longer need my comment at Dawn Welles? Pinkadelica 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do believe your theory about attraction was spot on. Pinkadelica 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:Flag icons
I just want to make the articles become more beautiful like the stars. I thought the articles are prettier than before.
Relly Komaruzaman Talk 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the information about it, but I really understand that the ladies are much more younger than Bruce Willis. The ladies' nationallity are absolutely American, Hungary, France or Czechoslovakia.
- Okay, Mrs. American Lady. I've stopped the actions.
- Relly Komaruzaman Talk 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Canvassing
Getting friends of yours on here to comment on a noticeboard discussion, and notifying them with clearly non-neutral messages, are absolutely a violation of WP:Canvassing, not that I care all that much. It says more than once that such notification should be neutrally-worded. Oh well. On the other hand, I know of no policy that states I can't look at your edits.—Chowbok ☠ 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Following me around on my edits and posting tenditious messages about it is clearly an issue, especially when you've entered yourself into dispute with that person. I did not get friends to comment on a noticeboard, I asked them to comment on the Wells talk page. And I clearly did not tell them what to say. That I was requesting a comment regarding an opinion they have expressed in the past is not a matter of trying to persuade anyone of anything. However, you were asked to stop posting on Rossrs page and now I am telling you to stop posting on my talk page. You have clearly taken an oppositional attitude with me and your actions reflect an adversarial and hostile tone which I do not welcome on this page. Let me quote for you: "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I am notifying you that your conduct towards me is disruptive to my enjoyment of editing and has become tenditiousness. Leave me alone, Chowbok, stop stalking my edits and refrain from posting on this talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)