You keep reverting back to the original data on Shemp's date/location of birth as well as his surname as recorded on his birth certificate. I have a copy of Shemp's original birth certificate, State of New York, #12184. Shemp was born Samuel Hurvitz on March 11, 1895 at 39 Henry Street, Manhattan, NY. He was delivered by midwife Olga Donn of 59 Rivington Street. Don't know where you get your information from or why you stubbornly refuse to allow the edit, especially when I've clearly explained it in the discussion page. Please stop undoing my edit, as it is from a primary source record. I've been in contact with the head of the Three Stooges fan club, who agrees the biographical data on the Stooges in general is well over 30 years old and is more word of mouth than by documented sources. I'm working on all the Stooges' biographical data in an attempt to set the record straight, so unless you have verifiable primary record data I would ask that you refrain from creating an edit war - especially on issues where you have no evidence. Brprivate ( talk) 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand how a verifiable copy of Shemp Howard's birth certificate is somehow an unacceptable and unpublished source of his birth statistics/information - unless it is the wrong one, which is what you are apparently accusing me of using. It is the correct certificate, obtained from the president of the Three Stooges fan club. I cited the source with its certificate number which anyone can use to look it up independently within the vital statistics system in the State of New York. You also state that "a wide variety of cited sources state that Shemp Howard was born on a different date and in Brooklyn". These "sources" do not themselves cite their source, which considering my primary record citation are clearly hearsay. Additionally, your contention there are "dozens" of other Samuel Horwitz/Hurvitz's is unsubstantiated. Finally, I have a copy of the original in hand, wherein Samuel Hurvitz was born to Jennie and Solomon Hurvitz (both of the correct age corresponding to their years of birth), both born in Russia. There is also a little hand-written note in the lower left corner that states it is Shemp's birth certificate, noting the "Hurvitz" surname and the Manhattan address. What more do you want? Brprivate ( talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In this case at least, it appears that Wikipedia supports hearsay over actual, verifiable facts - as long as a large number of sources cite the same incorrect information. Anyone wishing to correct the record with an actual verifiable source appears to be thwarted by consensus. I've seen two different dates for Shemp's birth on 10 different websites - none of which provide a source - yet when I state I have his birth certificate in hand with a slightly different date it is somehow the wrong one. Show me your birth certificate and I'll show you mine. Brprivate ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears that no matter the facts, Wikipedia appears hell-bent on enforcing a standard which stifles accuracy in favor of “evidence” based on published content, whether or not this published content has any basis in reality. I can assure you that family lore – especially that of public figures/movie stars – is highly subject to error and revision (sometimes outright fraud), generally depending on how many generations it has passed through. As such, unless someone has actually undertaken the job to check into the matter, any inaccuracies will forever linger, rendering an accurate accounting impossible if held to the standards by which Wikipedia operates. For example, after investigating my own family history and carefully documenting the results, I found a very large published history for one branch, which I was very happy to locate - until I looked into the line where our branches met. It was absolutely incorrect, which I was absolutely certain of because I had carefully documented the source records (all relatively easily obtained). I found the reason for the inaccuracy was due to a submission by a cousin who used oral tradition and memory (and probably a little guesswork) rather than publicly available primary source information. There is an old saw in genealogy circles: “Genealogy without documentation is mythology” and this certainly applied. When I called the publisher to submit my corrections, he stated that he would gladly take my submission for the record but no corrections would be made, as he did not intend to publish any more volumes (too expensive, too much work, etc.). So for the last 50 years, people have been citing a source that has the authority of being published but lacks credibility. Indeed it is positively misleading. Its publishers should be dismissed for accepting such information, as it completely compromises the integrity of the genealogy not only from that point on, but in a more general manner, for its standards cannot then be trusted. If Wikipedia’s standard is “published citation” in a “reputable resource”, then the problem becomes “what is a reputable resource”? In my case, are the books (and websites) published on the Stooges credible as regards genealogical information? Without citing primary documents, the answer is a resounding “no”, regardless of the author’s family connections, if any. As my “original research” proves, not one person who has published anything on the Stooges appears to have looked into the matter of obtaining Shemp’s birth certificate! I haven’t read Moe’s autobiography, but unless he had a photographic memory, I’m willing to bet he got many of the details wrong. The possibilities for inaccuracy are endless (parents lie to their children for many reasons…)
This whole thing started because I found a 1900 census record that has Moe’s family living in Manhattan rather than Bensonhurst as claimed in all the literature; I found this curious since it is now so easily checked. In addition, I found that Moe’s month and year of birth were different on the census than in the known record as well. While census records are notoriously inaccurate, it was accurate as to Shemp’s birth dates, leading me to believe there is an issue with Moe’s actual date of birth as well as the birth-in-Bensonhurst claim. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Moe didn’t know his correct birthday?
In the case of the Stooge websites and (some of the) published materials, it appears people repeated what they were told and then published the results, to unknown standards. Others then cite these results to bolster their own arguments, but how worthy are they to be cited? If not held to a high standard, they are essentially worthless. I’m sorry, but repeating the same falsehoods over and over doesn’t make them any truer; they are worthless as a “published citation”, the Wikipedia standard. And so Wikipedia carries on with this worthless information, which renders much of Wikipedia worthless. You state that “there is a reasonable means of getting the information you wish published on WP to be included, but you have not achieved that yet. If you do, WP editors such as myself will champion your edits”. Excuse me for being thickheaded, but I cannot see how this can be done without amending the cited, published material and/or breaking the Wikipedia edict of “no original research”. Any help in this matter would be most appreciated.
All I wanted to do was make people aware of an error in the date of birth of a beloved public figure; maybe uncover a few more inaccuracies somewhere down the line. While Wikipedia provides a wonderful way in which to look into the matter, it appears Wikipedia might work to keep the facts of the matter from ever seeing the light of day. I will defer to your edit and hope a way can be found to publish accurate information. Brprivate ( talk) 05:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
For all your good work on John Wayne especially keeping the politically slanted POV out. Thanks. -- Xiahou 05:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like one of the articles worst POV vandals has bitten off more than he should have by attacking living persons in the same way so he is indef. Blocked. Reap what you sow I guess...-- Xiahou 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Again thanks. Keep up the good work -- Xiahou 21:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Again thakns. I like the clairfy edit, looks alot better. As far as the reoccuring sockpuppet guy his latest account is on last waring for personal attacks to other users. Hopefully when the admins review the sockpuppet case they can do something more than just block the names possibly the IP if its not dynamic. Since all he seems to do is just create a new acct. And repeat the same things. Even using the exact same statments. Though that does make indentifying him as a sockpuppet rather easy. Anyway thanks. -- Xiahou 22:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed that in a lot of your edit summaries, you include the four tildes that are used to sign contributions. The tildes are normally just used on talk pages - on the edit summaries it just looks like 4 tildes, not a signature. The thought of documenting your contributions so thoroughly is a nice one, though. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Verkhovensky 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{
prod}}" template to the article
Bob Nolan (author), suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
Leuko 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You removed "Character deaths - deleting improper quotation marks". Why? The itaizing of the words shot in the back was used because a link didn't exist. The concept of shooting a person in the back is one of the most significant taboos in western lore. Considered the ultimate act of cowardice, back-shooters were despised in the west. Wayne was portaying a gunslinger who made his last stand. A man of honour. I would like to know why you consider emphasizing the fact (I call it significant) improper? -- Jason Palpatine 13:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did here:
Talk:John Wayne. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
njan 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to
Anthony Quinn included one or more links to the page
Broadway, which is a
disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can
help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to
Anthony Quinn to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and
report the error to help us improve this feature.) Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.
RussBot 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comments to my close wikipedian "Uber" about him deleting remarks made by DaveyJones. I am actually glad he has taken this action. Davey jones has called me a fagboy and generally been very insulting and homophobic. No1 has the balls to block him which is a shame. Realist2 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I just found out myself one word "over the moon" ok make that three. still about time. Bigot. Realist2 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Bad news- CheckUser results came back, and DaveyJones is using AOL, so they can't block him. Just revert, report, and ignore any vandalism/personal attacks towards you. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've filed the 4th report[ [1]] on HarveyCarter aka [ [2]] all those guys about 1/2 I turned in in the previous 3 reports plus a host of others. Looks like he is trying to go out with a bang. Thanks for keeping on top of it. At least he makes it obvious its him througout the different accounts. Well if he was smart he'd be making decent contributions though. -- Xiahou 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well its case closed on 2 more of his accounts. Hopefully quite possibly he will learn and not do this (wouldn't bet money on it). At the very least take a break from it and actually let the articles be improved rather than fight his pov vandalism. See you around wiki -- Xiahou 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is tedious. However the hope is that it is even more frustrating to the vandals. If we revert their additions and block their accounts they usually give up eventually. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification about the new accounts. Regarding archives, there's rarely a good reason to edit them, except to fix a link or change a username. Instead of continuing a thread, you can simply reference the archived discussion. Sections can be linked with the pound sign. For example, User talk:Will Beback/archive18#John Wayne sock. If that looks ugly you can use a pipe to rename the link, perhaps to say, "per our previous discussion..." Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added his filmography. There's films to be checked but I don't have more time. Rohmerin 10:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I got enough sleep last night.... WikiDon 20:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess someone will have to do some digging. Just because he was born there doesn't make it so. WikiDon 05:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the same person that changed Foraker to Pawhuska is the one that changed Cherokee to Osage. His obit says born in Foraker, I think he was born at home, on the ranch, near there. I emailed his nephew, Dale Christenson last night about the Osage/Cherokee question, but I did not ask about the birthplace. I think the obits are good unless there is something better. I don't have CENSUS account, if you do that would be super. If you want to call feel free, I don't. His niece, Ann Whitehorn, of Pawhuska manages the Gift Shop at Tallgrass Prairie Preserve.
- Coach Dale Christenson
- Pawhuska High School
- phone: 918-287-1262
- fax: 918-287-1236
- Ann Whitehorn, Gift Shop Manager
- Tallgrass Prairie Preserve
- Pawhuska, Oklahoma
- Phone 918-287-4803
WikiDon 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch on the mother's maiden name, once again, I should have been in bed two hours before then...., three? WikiDon 19:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Don,
Sorry I haven't gotten back sooner. Uncle Ben and my mother are half brother and sister. My understanding is Granddad Ben was of Irish descent and Uncle Ben's mother Ollie was Cherokee. Mom's mother died when my mom was 2 years old. She said she was told her mother was "French Indian". Not real sure what that means, but that's about all the information I have.
Dale
Dale Christenson (dchristenson@pawhuska.k12.ok.us)
- What is your problem? 1) I have references that say that he was Cherokee. 2) A documentary about his life says he was. 3) His family says that he is. Just because he born on the Osage Reservation does not make him Osage. Joan Fontaine and her sister were born in Japan, are they Japanese? You know, you are not always right. ~ WikiDon ( talk) 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't yelling. It was meant in nice rapport. It was a question (?), not a statement with ALL+CAPS, bolding, or an exclamation mark "!". 1) You got the documentary, 2) you got the Hal Erickson bio, and 3) (although OR and not to be used in the article, but just to double check which bio's are right and which bio's are wrong) you have his family-first hand testimony-Dale Christenson and Ann Whitehorn, above for confirmation. ~ WikiDon ( talk) 10:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
On Victor Mature's father nationality
Hi, Monkeyzpop, thanks you for your interest in my edition on the nationality of Victor Mature’s father. I have checked through the Wikipedia and found 6 entries for the subject. The results are as follows:
1.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (German)
(It says nothing about his ancestry)
2.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (French)
(It says nothing about his ancestry)
3.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/ (Japanese)
(Unfortunately I cannot read Japanese)
4.
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (Norwegian)
“Victor Mature ... var en italiensk-amerikansk skuespiller.”
= “Victor Mature ... was an Italian-American actor”
5.
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (Portuguese)
“Victor John Mature ... Seu pai, Marcellus Gelindo Mature(ou no italiano, Maturi), era um cuteleiro italiano que sabia falar alemão, que migrou da Itália para os Estados Unidos com sua família em 1912, para fugir da dominação Áustro-Húngara, e sua mãe, Clara Mature, era de origem suiça.”
= “Victor John Mature ... His father, Marcellus Gelindo Mature (or in Italian, Maturi), was an Italian cutler who knew German and emigrated to the USA with his family in 1912, in order to run away from the Austro-Hungarian domination, and his mother, Clara Mature, was of Swiss origen”
6.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (Swedish)
“Mature var son till en schweizisk saxslipare, som invandrat till USA.”
= “Mature was the son of a Swiss scissors-grinder who immigrated to the USA”
There seems to be such a fuzz about the nationality of Mr Mature’s father. But I am afraid your statement that he was “Tyrolean” does not fit, as “Tyrolean” is not a nationality. You are right about the current division of Tyrol, but all Tyroleans were Austrian nationals before 1918, when the region was divided between Austria and Italy. From then on, North Tyroleans went on being Austrian, but South Tyroleans became Italian citizens.
If we are to trust the Portuguese version, which is the most detailed one, Mr Mature Sr could have more probably been South Tyrolean but, as he emigrated in 1912, possessed Austrian nationality yet. Irrelevant for the case, but would you kindly note that, no matter how many times one crosses a border, comings and goings, one’s nationality remains the same?
Nevertheless, I am not at all convinced about this stuff. The lack of verifiable sources is absolute. I greatly appreciate your contribution.
Kind regards,
Zack Holly Venturi 12:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Zack, thanks for your comments. I should point out that you're on shaky ground, using other Wikipedia articles to determine the accuracy of something in a Wikipedia article. All those articles could change tomorrow and may have changed two days before you looked at them. One really needs to look outside the Wikipedia format for citations. Now, I got my initial information from Mature himself in an interview I did several years ago. But I can't use original research in Wikipedia, so I took what he told me and looked up verifiable sources, including the census records of the United States, obituary notices for Mature's father, birth notices and census records for the town and area the father lived in, and so forth. I don't have all the information easily to hand, but the area Mature's father came from was an EXTREMELY transitory area, falling back and forth into Italian and Austrian rule over the years. And while the Tyrol is not, as you say, a country, "Tyrolean" IS a legitimate way of describing someone, just as Arizonan or Latin American or Mongolian is. Given that it's the ONLY certain thing about where Mature's father was from (and Mature's father lived there long enough to be Italian and Austrian several times over), I used it as the most accurate depiction. Also, it's what Mature himself used to describe his father when I talked to him. I said, "So your father was Austrian?" and he said, "No, he was Tyrolean. I mean sometimes he was Austrian and sometimes Italian, depending on where the border was that week." By backing that up with other sources, I felt justified in stating it the way I did. All the best. Monkeyzpop 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:HarveyCarter
Please leave input there. Thanks, IP4240207xx 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you agreed to "former residents" to describe people who are dead (smile). I'm not going to edit-war over the "alleged" about Oswald, though this adjective carries a strong overtone that his guilt was questionable. Which I think is pretty silly. Of course, Oswald wasn't convicted because his own assassin got in the way. But there's never been convincing evidence exonerating him, and there have been thorough investigations establishing his guilt. Casey Abell 01:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your question. First I want to apologize because I may be telling you several things that you are already aware of, but, if your not this is based on a few things that I have been through before (just as a coincidence this last weekend was the most difficult example). First, if you look at the edits that have been added by this IP [3] it is a single purpose account as the only edits that they have added are books published by the Univ of Mississippi press. Wikipedia has several rules against this kind of self promotion, most notably here [4] and in the section just below it. Even though this specific edit was not an external link it was added so that readers would be aware of its existance. Please note (and this is highly important) that nothing from this publication was added to the article to enhance its information. This anon IP is from Mississippi (which is easily checked at the WP:AIV) making it highly likely this it is someone who is trying to get these books known to a wider audience. Again, this is one of the things that the guidelines of Wikipedia is strongly against. This is not a value judgement about the work itself but Wikipedia is not a sales platform. It would, most certainly, be wrong to ask you to trust my judgment in this situation (and I could be wrong), but, I have gone through this a few times. If you disagree then I will be happy to file reports at WP:COIN (update: which I have just done) as well as any other areas that you might wish me to and go with what other editors and admins decide. The information contained in this edit can exist at many places on the web, but as it stands now I just don't think that it is a legitimate wikipedia entry. MarnetteD | Talk 03:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your followup note. I want to apologize for the lateness of my reply and for the rudeness in my last edit summary. The last 16 hours have been stressful off-wiki. Your point about it being in the references section as opposed to an external link is well taken. I just want to let you know that I have been an admirer and a student of Kurosawa's films for a long time now and I have not heard this authors name before as someone who is an expert on him. As noted above I am leary of the source due to it being a single purpose account. This said if you want to put it back in I am not going to kick up a fuss. You may want to refer to our discussion here in your edit summary so that others do not think that this is an escalating edit war. Based on the rule that Wikipedia is not just a series of lists I just wish that either of us had a chance to read the book so that we could judge whether it had any real value as a resource about this fine (POV I know but I can't help it) filmmaker. Thank you for your time and, again, my apologies for any rudeness. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your new note. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde - to watch Kurosawa films is the beginning of a life long romance. I have 26 of AK's 30 films on tape or DVD. I'm only missing - and have never had the chance to see - The Most Beautiful, Sanshiro Sugata Part II, The Quiet Duel and The Idiot. I have also never encountered Those Who Make Tomorrow. While there are some that I see more often than others I find them all fascinating. Two or three times I have watched them in the order that they were made and I can recommend doing this - if you haven't already. I first saw the Seven Samurai on a Saturday night on PBS when I was 13 or so and even at that age I knew that I had experienced something profound. Interestingly, as I have gotten older, I now think (sometimes anyway - the debate often goes on in my head) that Ikiru may have even more to say about the human condition and I recommend it to everyone that I meet who like his films. Well, thanks for letting me share this with you. If you have the time and the inclination would you please leave a note on my talk page about your thoughts on the book that you are going to get? Oh, I almost forgot - that is a laugh out loud :-D good one about the motorcycles. MarnetteD | Talk 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia style is to include punctuation only if it's actually part of the quoted speech. See WP:PUNC for a full description. Colonies Chris 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- "come sprang" back-to-back is incorrect! Call your English professor. ~ WikiDon 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Where did you go school?
- Independent clause: "with which he was so identified"
- Independent clause: "in the decades to come"
- Independent clause: "sprang"
- ~ WikiDon 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about that, podner... "come sprang, here in Texas, them flares starts ta bloom." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Snort..~ WikiDon 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- When I said that they were independent, I didn't mean that they were finished, but could be parts of separate sentences. Can we re-write that sentence? It just seems bad to me. ~
WikiDon 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's a fine sentence, grammatically, and I personally (as the guy who wrote it) like the style and flow of it, but I've rewritten it in simpler terms. Hope you like! Monkeyzpop 01:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- When I said that they were independent, I didn't mean that they were finished, but could be parts of separate sentences. Can we re-write that sentence? It just seems bad to me. ~
WikiDon 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nag again here. "thus appears" sounds waffly and POV. ~ WikiDon 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Suggestion: What about if we let Pilar, and other third parties say if he was or was not, and to what degree, then it won't seem so POV and waffly, we will simply be stating both sides with cites and attribution???? ~ WikiDon 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
User 67.83.176.54
It has become apparent that user:67.83.176.54 is just a vandal here to stir the poop. I have expunged all traces of him in John Wayne and Talk:John Wayne. I suspect he is one of our familiar sockpuppets. IP4240207xx 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. I checked his "reference". It has nothing what-so-ever to do with Wayne's military issue. Please double check it and help me out on this guy:
- This might be our old friend Robert Seager, who has been banned. ~ WikiDon 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently the entire contribution (Wayne, though a leading tough guy on screen and qualified to perform military service during World War II, managed, with the help of his studio, to avoid the draft.") was a footnote and re-quoted from:
- Roberts, Randy, and James Stuart Olson, John Wayne: American. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. 1998. p. 581. ISBN 0803289707 (New York: Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0029238374)
- ~ WikiDon 02:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was defending you [5], and is this true [6] - Kain Nihil 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Near as I can tell, that IP address is engaged in pure trolling behavior, since he continually ignores our requests to cite things properly and to sign with 4 tildes. He's got an admin watching him now, so I recommend we not engage him directly in any further discussion, until or if he decides to do things the right way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Monkeyzpop. I noticed that you put several books in on AK's page including the one that we have discussed before. I am a little surprised at its inclusion since I received a message from someone at the Univ Of Miss press that the book hasn't even been published yet. Based on our earlier discussions I would appreciate if you would rethink its entry until you have actually seen it but I am not going to edit war over it.
Of more importance I wanted to pass along two pieces of info. I know that you may already be aware of them but, just in case, here goes. Drunken Angel is coming out on a Criterion Collection DVD the last Tuesday of this month. Then I received a newletter from them yesterday showing that next mointh they will be coming out with this boxed set [7] I found this to be very exciting news. These Eclipse series DVD's only have one drawback. They do not include the fine extras that are available on the single film release DVDs. I have found the "Akira Kurosawa: It is Wonderful to Create" series that they have included on their releases of the last three or four years to be a marvelous learning tool about this master filmmaker. I hope that you are looking forward to these releases too and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. I just want to point out that when you made this edit [8] I "assumed good faith" and trusted that you would follow through on your proposal before adding this book back to the further reading section. Since the book hasn't been published yet you can't have read it and there is no way to judge its value. Please remember that wikipedia is not just a series of lists and adding this book without being able to verify its value flies in the face of wikipolicies. I admit that this has hurt a bit but I will get over it. I wish you happy editing in the future and keep enjoying AK's films. MarnetteD | Talk 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't your fault that I have had a couple of bad experiences with assuming good faith with other editors here who abused that. The most recent one became so ugly that I have some lingering angst over it and I probably took some of this out on you so I can only offer my apologies. As to your question there is no way to know entirely. If I had known (a most unlikely situation I admit) that it hadn't been published yet I would have been inclined to take it out no matter who had put it in. But, as you so rightly point out, there are scads of bad publications in the other reading sections of many pages here at wikiP. It was me who provided the link in my above message that informed you about the new AK set that is coming out next month and it is very exciting news. For one thing it will give me my first ever opportunity to see The Idiot. I don't know if you have seen them but I have an affection for No Regrets for our Youth and One Wonderful Sunday which are two of the films that he made before hooking up with Mifune. Of course, if you have seen - or when you do see - them, you may not like them as much. I am also looking forward to the Drunken Angel release. While Kurosawa and Mifune are one of the great director/actor combinations I find myself marveling and the wide range of characters that Takashi Shimura played over the years. He often gave such an interesting contrast to Mifune's characters and I just feel that he is underated by critics and scholars, in the West at least. But that is just my feelings and I may be in the minority in this. Thanks for keeping me up to date on your research and, once again, happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Some editors at John Wayne have brought the matter to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Rms125a.40hotmail.com. It seems like a content dispiute to me. Would you give John Wayne a read through and make any needed changes. And if you can bring the John Wayne talk page under some control, that would be great, too. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/ c 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Monkeyzpop. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know about the new Criterion Collection DVD of this film that came out today. The film looks great although it may not have gotten the full restoration treatment as the are still a few scratches that appear film. The new subtitles add much to appreciating the full scope of the film. The Akira Kurosawa: It is Wonderful to Create documentary has, as always, some great interviews with those that worked on the film and some marvelous pictures of the young Mifune in the years leading up to his working with AK. There is also an interesting documentary about AK's dealings with the US censors between 1945 and 1948. Of course, if you have already puchased this DVD you may be aware of all of this.
I have one question about your last note to me. If you and your wife had had a boy, and if she had let you live after naming him Takashi, would you have bought him a Kurosawa motorbike for his 16th birthday? :-) MarnetteD | Talk 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
But let's be real for a minute.
Google searches return the following counts:
- " coming soon to a theatre" -- 37,600 hits
- " coming soon to a theater" -- 152,000 hits
- " my favorite movie theatre" -- 7,680 hits
- " my favorite movie theater" -- 18,600 hits
- " "liberty valance" theatres -theaters" -- 24,800 hits
- " "liberty valance" theaters -theatres" -- 54,500 hits
So, you're pretty much PWND. Don't revert my simple improvement to the encyclopedia, since you are very clearly outnumbered. - Vividraise ( talk) 19:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I brought it to WP:ANI. It's so clear to me that the link in that sentence should be to movie theater (a structure) and not to theatre (an arte forme), I will be interested only in seeing how you respond to "Wikipedia" seeing things my way, and not yours. -- Vividraise 03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you've commented on a couple of talk pages about an anon removing information that perhaps is personally offensive. I agree with you, although I am a bit dismayed that some articles discuss the person's sexuality in some detail, and then briefly skims through the career. I think some of the material could and should be removed just to keep the balance, but just deleting the whole section is counterproductive and suggests a bias. To answer your question, the only way I can it being prevented is to first warn the anon on their talk page. If this is ignored, a second warning, and then I would suggest listing the article/articles at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. A semi-protect would restrict editing to registered users, and as has often happened in the past, the anon gets bored and moves onto something else. Mind you, requesting semi protection doesn't guarantee it will be semi protected and you would need to demonstrate that you've been unable to stop the edit war with standard warnings. I'll keep an eye on these articles also and see if they continue to be vandalised. Hope this helps. Rossrs ( talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Report him at WP:AIAV- IP addresses can be reported there, along with usernames. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your note on the Supernatural talk page about the two new stars. However, a vandal keeps reverting the changes I make. If you don't mind, could you please help me with him? Thanks Ophois ( talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The latest sock has been blocked... and appears to be the banned user, Primetime. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick resolution of the (non-)relationship link which had been added yesterday. AllyD ( talk) 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | Awarded for your sterling work in battling trolls and other vandals; back to the ramparts! Keep up the good work! Bzuk ( talk contribs) FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC). |
Whoops, should have explained a bit more. A barnstar is a Wiki invention to recognize accomplishments, both major and minor. See: Barnstar and Wikipedia:Barnstars for a further explanation. Needless to say, I have noted that you were greatly involved in trying to curb some of the vandalism that can be rampant on celebrity articles. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
I'd welcome any help you could provide on this article. I've been meaning to get to it for a while now. I just picked up a copy of John J. Crittenden: The Struggle for the Union at the library today, and will try to get to another library this weekend to get Kentucky Governors by Robert Powell and see what I can find in there. Of course, there are also the sources I've already linked in the references and further reading sections. My intention is to get the article to at least good and possibly featured status. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 18:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The request was removed because you were granted rollback permissions [9] Your request was malformed so I fixed it for you, and another admin approved you for the tool. Pedro : Chat 16:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was malformed because you didn't use the code as detailed at th etop of the page, which auto generates links etc etc - see [10]. It's no biggie so don't worry - enjoy the tool! Pedro : Chat 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not rollback an entire edit simply because you personally feel the edit was not justified as you did on the Alan Ladd article. In addition to deleting unsourced content (which is the only content I removed), I added metadata and information regarding Ladd's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. All of that content was erased. If you feel the inclusion of the information I removed is paramount, please provide a reference. Also, please be aware of what section you're adding content under. As it stands now, information about Ladd's personal life is under the "Death" section. As a show of good faith, the content I originally removed and you added back will remain in the article, but I have tagged it in addition to adding back the information that you removed. Pinkadelica ( talk) 02:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
1928 vs 1933 - If it were 1933, he would have been only 18 when he made the first Adventures of Superman series. I'm not a good judge of ages, but I don't think he was quite that young. So your 1928 would make more logical sense. Now, I have to ask you, since you say you've talked to him directly - what is his take on suicide vs. murder of George Reeves? The more I've read about it, the more I've become convinced that it was, in fact, suicide. But I wonder what Larson thinks about it, as I've heard different interviews where he has seemed to lean different ways. Thank you for your time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the good info. I think that what I'm thinking about is an interview in which he acknowledged some of the questions about Reeves' death, and it could be that the editing made it seem like he believed it could be murder. However, that would have contradicted a statement quoted in Superman: Serial to Cereal, in which I think the quote was that he "accepted" suicide right away... which means that in Larson's mind, it was perfectly logical that Reeves could have done himself in. A year or so ago, a researcher on the George Reeves page pointed out to me that every question raised about the suicide story has a reasonable explanation that's within the framework of the official report, and that the murder theory requires the hit man to somehow get into the house and out without anyone knowing about it. That pretty well convinced me. Many people want to believe it was murder, because it makes a presumably more interesting story and/or they just don't want to believe that their hero was so flawed. However, there is no question in my mind that Reeves was hanging around with too many shady characters who resembled the villains his TV character would beat up on, and that certainly didn't do him any good, but it helped to feed the conspiracy theorists. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again Monkeyzpop. Have you had a chance to pick the Postwar Kurosawa DVD set that Eclipse and the Criterion Collection released last month? When I got it I decided to watch all of the 27 of his films that I have in the order that they were made. I have done this once before and it is a wonderful journey. I had never seen The Idiot before and the only thing that I knew about it is that it was an adaptation of Dosteyevsky's novel. Through a piece of sheer serendipity I watched it on a day that it was snowing here (though not as heavily as in the film). It was fascinating to see but it left me wondering what the original cut must have been like. Last Saturday I watched Ikiru and Seven Samurai on the same day and I don't think that there has ever been two such different and extraordinary performances back-to-back as Shimura's in these two films.
I have a question for you. When I saw No Regrets for Our Youth at the Denver Film Festival back in the late 80's the line that was a mantra for Yugie and Noge was always subtitled as "No regrets for our youth". The new DVD translates it as "No regrets for our life". As the film went on this started to bother me. Now the reasons why it bugged me would take too many words to describe and it may not make sense to you anyway, but briefly as possible, for me,
- "Life" means no regrets for anything that is happening now.
- "Youth" means not having any regrets about their idealism as students in spite of the vagaries that life has put in their way that has tempered those ideals. The contrast between the choices that they made as opposed to Itakawa's betrayal of those ideals is the best example.
I was wondering if the Japanese word that was being translated was ambigous enough to encompass both English words or do neither of them convey the full meaning of the Japanese term. Any ideas that you can give will be most appreciated but if you are too busy, or if any of this doesn't make a lick of sense, please don'e feel obligated to respond. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
...has been blocked indefinitely. What do you think of simply reverting his changes? He's about the only one (besides me) doing any work on the "Superman" (and "Gidget") articles recently. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I filed an ANI case against him for several reasons
[11] and they zapped him, officially for being disruptive, and unofficially for being a probable sockpuppet. He spent a lot of time on the episode list page, to cover the fact he had lifted it from a wiki-banned website. The dilemma, as you say, is that he might have actually improved the main page.
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc? 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like they found a sockpuppet.
[12] And the senior citizens' home story is a new one. Usually it's a roommate or a sibling.
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc? 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Defending his other self [13] is also typical sockpuppet behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like they found a sockpuppet.
[12] And the senior citizens' home story is a new one. Usually it's a roommate or a sibling.
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc? 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Suspiciously similar behavior to the blocked User:Overjoyed, apparently including some of the same uploads as per a note on my talk page. Also, his claim to be 99 years old squares with Overjoyed's dubious claim of being in an old folks home. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- And of course extending to deleting notifications from his talk page, without comment. The admin that blocked Overjoyed recommends taking this to an RFCU. Maybe I'll just let the user have his way this time and see how things go. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Monkeyzpop.
You undid my contribution to the Puerto Penasco tranportation section, stating that the airport is not yet open, and the Aeromexico has recently cancelled flight to that town. I believe you are mistaken. My primary reason for believing this is that I currently have a reservation to fly into there on Aeromexico this Tuesday, March 18, 2008.
Do you have access to some information that contradicts this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdwriter ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry mate I slipped up ther. Thanks Walking the blues ( talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Monkey: Just wondering about your revert of 92.11.146.196's two comments on the Talk page regarding Heston's alleged homophobia. Seems to me that 92's use of the Talk page instead of just going right into the article and inserting unsourced stuff was an invitation to discuss and not an overtly hostile or aggressive edit of the article itself. 92 seems to have an agenda, and that's not good - but if independent sourcing can establish a pattern of homophobic speech in CH's utterances, might that not qualify in terms of notability for inclusion in the article? Isn't that what 92 is asking on the Talk page? Wouldn't a response of "source it and present it in a balanced manner with counter argument" be more in keeping with the collaborative nature of Wiki article creation?
I have no regard at all for PC and detest it when it creeps (or charges) into Wiki articles trying to disguise itself as fact -but my questions above are genuinely informational. I don't know and hope that you do. Cheers Sensei48 ( talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response, Monkey! You wrote "He has been banned under several dozen identities and now edits without a Username in order to escape the bans" - after I posted the note above, it occurred to me that that might be the case. I've been heavily involved in a number of articles (most notably Battle of the Little Bighorn)where the principal figure is like Heston a flash point for political agendas from both extremes of the spectrum. I agree with your assessment of Heston - but I hope you understand that to me, without knowing the background of said sock puppet, the dismissal of the questions appeared possibly a bit peremptory (if such a thing is possible). Thanks for filling me in, and I will take a look at that editor's other disruptions. Sensei48 ( talk) 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I assume that other editors are too quick to assume that edits made by anonymous users are unproductive, and I especially don't want to scare legitimate anonymous editors away by silencing their concerns on talk pages, however ludicrous they may seem. If, however, I had known when I made the second revert about the identity of the original editor (i.e., the HarveyCarter sockpuppet issue), I wouldn't have had a problem with your original revert- if there had been a note to that effect in your original edit summary, I'm sure I wouldn't have reverted it. Thanks for filling me in. QuixoticKate ( talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken, I am no great speller. I rely heavily on my spell check which does no check my edit summaries! :( I will try to be careful. Now that I think about it I probly have about 500 edit summaries now where I have mispelled grammar as grammer. Thank you for pointing that out to me! Charles Edward 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
See: [14]. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC).
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
~ IP4240207xx ( talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you see an edit from 92.x.x.x on any of your watch pages, after reverting, check the users CONTRIBS and if you see the same pattern (they all have been), revert all edits please. Thanks. x IP4240207xx ( talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this really acceptable for an encyclopedia:
Is this still not the rule of thumb:
Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided
And if this part is not, then what part of Boze Hadleigh is? Our standards are slipping. IP4240207xx ( talk) 09:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a difficult one. I'm absolutely sure that the claimed confession is deeply unreliable, for reasons inferrable from the background about her Alzheimers. But WP:SYNTH stops us from explicitly creating that argument if nobody else has said it.
I am investigating allegations of copyright violation posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. With regards to your assertion that the IMDb profile for this individual copied Wikipedia rather than the other way around, the evidence suggests otherwise, as the material added in one piece at 20:40, 30 December 2005 was identical to the IMDb profile, but alterations were made two minutes later that differ. Hence, anyone copying this for IMDb would have had to do so within that two minute window or go back to an earlier version in history. The assertion of copyright violation seems credible, and the material will need to be removed. Of course, editors are free to rewrite that information in their own words. Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for your note. I have responded at my talk page, here. And, P.S., if I have misunderstood your point and you were just notifying me rather than asking to restore the material, please let me know. In that case, message received, and I will blank your note from my talk page. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind. I decided to revise my answer here and go ahead and remove your note from my talk page. Feel free to remove this as well as my original note at your leisure. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Permission for re-use has to come through official channels. This is essential, because Wikipedia does not require verification of identity on account creation, and obviously we would have no other way of knowing that an individual contributor has authority to release the information to GFDL. For the legal protection of Wikipedia as well as copyright holders, we must verify that before allowing re-use on the encyclopedia. See this for specifics. IMDb prominently reserves copyright of material on its site to itself and its contributors. Unless we can verify that a contributor is the contributor in question, our allowance of the material is in violation of copyright. In your specific circumstances, it might serve your purpose better simply to change the language sufficiently that it is no longer an issue. And I'm trying to be succinct here in honor of your request. If I have been succinct to the point that I've become unclear, please let me know, and I will try to address that. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
MzP, I just wanted to apologize to you personally for abusing your trust. Read my comments here. Please carry on with some of the good things I tried to do. Once again, I am sorry. 4.240.165.59 ( talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my manner of speaking. I'm too irritable. I can't speak English well. CDChen ( talk) 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Pop,
The movie, The Searchers is about the Comanche in 1868. And I never heard of the "Great Comanche Raid of Galveston".
The Comanches are not known to have gone east of the Trinity River after Fort Worth, and hardly ever east of the Brazos River, at point in Bosque County south of Fort Worth, near Hillsboro. The farthest West that they are known to have usually gone is the Sacramento Mountains of southern New Mexico and the Rio Grande headwaters in Northern New Mexico/Southern Colorado. After the White hunters depleted the Buffalo they were then forced to seek government beef as far west as Fort Wingate in Gallup, New Mexico.
By 1868 the land east of the Trinity was fairly settled and did not have Indian raids. And everything west of Fort Worth is: West Texas.
- Foster, Morris W., Being Comanche: A Social History of an American Indian Community
- Kavanagh, Thomas W., Comanche Political History
- Richardson, Rupert N., The Comanche Barrier to South Plains Settlement
- Wallace, Ernest, and E. Adamson Hoebel, The Comanches
Also, if you read the book, The Searchers by La May.
Additionally, articles like:
- "The rider is John Wayne, cast in one of his strongest roles, the vengeful, remorseless Texas frontiersman Ethan Edwards. After an absence of several years, he returns to his remote west Texas ranch and his wife, son, two daughters and a young man named Martin Pauley (Jeffrey Hunter), adopted by the Edwardses after a Commanche raiding party massacred his own family years earlier."
- Arnold, Gary. - "Heroes' Welcome for 'The Searchers'". - Washington Post. - September 23, 1979
So, if it looks like West Texas, smells like West Texas, tastes like West Texas, guess what, it is West Texas.
Best O Fortuna ( talk) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
How come you removed my comment about William Shatner doing nyeh in Boston Public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.230.173 ( talk) 16:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
> "Dozens of people (even people with WP articles) could comment on Asner as a neighbor, favorably or not. It's NOT notable in itself."
- Dozens of people are not under discussion. Dr. Pournelle's comment is specifically, individually notable due to his own notability as an author of several dozens of books, his past political work in Los Angeles, and the extraordinarily wide gap between his own politics and Mr. Asner's. In this day of vicious hatreds spawning due to political differences, Dr. Pournelle's consideration of Mr. Asner as a good neighbor is an extraordinary compliment to Mr. Asner, and worthy of notation in an encyclopedic article. -- Davidkevin ( talk) 05:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. The user has been a bit over-aggressive in his edits, but enthusiasm is usually a good thing. Hopefully he'll learn the ropes of WP soon, and become a good contributor. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
hello. i'm not sure why you performed a wholesale undo on my edits, however, given your wiki-experience, i have no doubt you well know it wasn't vandalism as described in your edit comments. whatever the reason, you might be better served by offering a softer, less condescending and contentious tone. cheers. -- emerson7 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Your deletion of my referenced information has been reversed in Leslie Howard. It would have been better to edit it rather than delete completely. JMcC ( talk) 14:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The difference is, the article says that it is "slang" for what they call it. It is not slang, but what it is in the film. The paper says it. Stoddard says "Picketwire River" when he is in school teaching about the politics of statehood. The boy, Herbert Carruthers (played by O.Z. Whitehead; who actually 51 years old when he did the movie-but John Wayne tells him that he is to young to be in the bar or vote, and then is eating lollipops at the statehood meeting...), went fishing on the Picketwire. The article implies that it is slang, but it wasn't slang in the film, it is what they called the river. The article contains POV, OR, and supposition. 4.240.78.134 ( talk) 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't like my good faith edits being reverted. Technically, you're correct that the material I entered was already in the article, however it was poorly placed in the article and needed to be searched for specifically, rather than the information being placed in a location that actually made sense... where people looking for the information would find it. My concern is that you simply reverted rather than taking the time to understand the underlying issue and improve the article, and I think that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. I then looked at your contribution history and noted that most of your edits are reversions and some of them are reversions of good faith edits.
I'd like to urge you to take a little more care in reverting good-faith edits. If someone puts the time in to try to improve an article and you don't like the way it was done, please don't just revert the edit. Instead, please try to understand why the edit was made and work with the editor to improve the article. — X S G 09:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll add that I agree with about 95% of your most recent edits and can see that you quite frequently do revert for very good reasons. — X S G 09:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The WikiProject Films Award | |
| I noticed you've done a lot of work on film-related articles; so, I thought I'd award you The Film Barnstar. Good job! -- Luke4545 ( talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC) |
And, after months of only working on it in fits and starts, I've pretty well finished the James Cagney article. I've added the personal and political life sections which hopefully give a bit more insight into the man. I've also updated all the references to the standard wiki templates. I'd really appreciate your comments on it, and what you think might be needed to improve it further. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK ( talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Questions: How can you hijack a reference:
- Rubinowitz, Susan. - "Vultures Again Hawk a Cancer Snake Oil' Cure". - New York Post. - April 2, 2000.
Which says nothing of the kind? Do you always just make stuff up? If you are willing to do this, what else have you falsified?
You can't say that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Abraham Lincoln and use a reference that doesn't back that up.
This is one of the big problems with Wikipedia. Not only false text, but false use of references.
Please see:
I am very disappointed in you.
- 4.240.159.123 ( talk) 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Monkeyzpop, could you explain why the words about Ealing Studios, on the stewart granger page, saying it was a studio ' of high technical, screenplay and direction standards', which is critical orthodoxy,transgresses the neutral point of view rule, whereas the view that granger was ' equally at home in comedies' , which goes against critical orthodoxy, does not transgress the neutral point of view' rule? i think you did tighten and improve the edit otherwise Sayerslle ( talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you did a bangup job on Violent Saturday. That was one of my earlier efforts and I think my rawness showed in some of the writing. I should have gone back and fixed a long time ago. I should probably do that with some of my other past writings. Question: on the Lee Marvin character's "benzedrine" habit, are you 100% sure of that? I don't recall it being mentioned in the movie itself, but it has been a long time since I saw it. He was always sniffing at something. Stetsonharry ( talk) 18:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe we need to say "apparent" or something like that. Yes, it is one hell of a movie. It's interesting to compare how modern audiences react to this movie with how it was trashed by reviewers back then. What that says to me is that it was ahead of its time. Stetsonharry ( talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC) And by the way, if that era interests you, you may want to take a look at two neglected articles Peter Falk and Murder, Inc. (film) Stetsonharry ( talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You said you could in a way contact Charles Darning about Malmedy. Well, if he made an official statement we could use this in his article. To be verifiable the statement must be recorded somehow on a publically available platform(a homepage for example or a note to reuters). Wandalstouring ( talk) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my edits on the Wallace Beery article from last night. Why? Much of it was minor grammatical clean-up for smoothness and clarity (sometimes of my own earlier writing--I wrote much of this article at one time or another over the years) and the opening observation change that "Treasure Island" is only one of two signature sound-era roles could be looked at subjectively (Beery was just as famous for Viva Villa! and The Champ), but one thing really bothers me because it's just plain wrong and casts the entire article in a slipshod light: please explain to me why you would prefer that the article state that William Beery had a long career when he only made one film, playing George Washington in 1917. Skymasterson ( talk) 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for you wonderfully thoughtful and action-packed response to my post to this page. I didn't know about William Beery's behind-the-scenes career in movies, especially since there's never been any sort of proper Beery biography and the references have to be accumulated piecemeal from other people's biographies and accounts (among the currently living, apparently only Mickey Rooney actually liked him as a person). The only real treatment of any scope dealing with Wallace Beery that I've ever run across was nine or ten pages in Janine Basinger's recent book, "The Star Machine." It's not even a whole chapter but I did manage to glean some things I didn't know and she writes well, although she doesn't begin to appreciate Beery's sheer power and unique persona, the obvious reasons that no Beery picture in the sound era ever lost money. I was intrigued by someone mentioning the census in the Wikipedia article; I remember that my grandmother had an old Reader's Digest-style magazine from around 1915 or so that had a paragraph about the Beery brothers referring to "Noah Beery and his half-brother Wallace," which leads me to wonder whether the census records are accurate. They sure do look and sound like full brothers, which means nothing, of course. About William Beery I knew less than nothing except the next to nothing that imdb told me and I'd love to learn more about him and see a photo out of curiosity (Wallace, Noah, and Noah, Jr. all resemble each other closely).
I'd missed your comment on the Discussion page of the article and I agree with you, by the way, about it being unnecessary to refer to Jean Harlow by her full name more than once in a paragraph, which is why my edit had changed " Jean Harlow" to "Harlow" in the reference to China Seas. Whenever I otherwise pointlessly replace a word with a synonym, it's a possibly misplaced attempt to improve word flow and enhance the musicality of the writing (and hence, readability) although expanding the opening paragraph of the article to include another signature film admittedly does not do that since it definitely inserts a bit clunkiness at the very least desirable point, the very beginning of the page, so I'm tempted to remove it myself and let the addition of "arguably" suffice. In fact, I think I will in a moment, for the sake of the clarity and flow of the opening sentence.
As a final aside, I recently learned (from his Archive of American Television interview) that the maiden name of the mother of another of my favorite entertainers, George Carlin, was "Beery." I think I can see a bit of a resemblance in early photographs but I'm not sure. Names are funny; I remember getting a kick out of it when I learned that Wallace Beery and John F. Kennedy had the same middle name, although not as big as the kick I got when I found out that Kennedy and Adolf Hitler had dated the same woman, Inga Arvad. Makes Judith Campbell Exner seem pedestrian by comparison.
Thank you again for taking a second look at this and responding so graciously. You're no stranger to doing fine work yourself, that's for sure. It's a privilege to correspond with you. Skymasterson ( talk)
Yo man this a menial issue. Whats up want to be friends. I would side with you over emerson. That guy is very selfish If you want will join you side to fight against emerson. I would consider it an honor.
what on earth are you talking about? -- emerson7 02:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You described this revision as unhelpful. [15] - Look, we have Wikipedia:BLP - We have to be careful about posting info about living people. Of course some people on that list are dead too, but we should not have unreferenced lists of people like that.
If you want the list to continue, please gather references for the people listed and add back each person when you find a reference. It is better to over-reference than under-reference a Wikipedia article. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing the citations :) WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to think of a Western, about 1950-1955 (I think).
A man goes undercover to infiltrate a gang of thieves and murderers. Once there he becomes involved in a love triangle with the woman of the headman. (He might have know her somewhere in his past.) The tension builds between the three of them.
I can't remember much else.
Robert Ryan came to mind, but in looking at his films, nothing jumped out at me. The woman was in the Susan Hayward vein (but it wasn't her; just of that era).
If you can help let me know.
> Best O Fortuna ( talk) 11:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know. The plot is about right. Arthur Kennedy seems like a very choice, but Ferrer and Dietrich don't seem right to me. I was thinking the other male lead was bigger than Ferrer and the woman was not as big as Dietrich. Maybe it was a later film.
- I am guessing that the basis for the story may have been the Hughes Ranch in Oklahoma and the Bert Casey gang, and the guy that goes undercover is Lute Houston (but that didn't turn out like the movies.
- > Best O Fortuna ( talk) 04:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Eugene O'Neill. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
emerson7 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
hello again. i really have not interest in swapping insults and casting aspersions. i do, however, have a problem with your indiscriminate reverts without regard to content, formatting, and other mos guidelines. i would also like to refer you to wp:own as i am unsure of whether you are aware of the collaborative nature of editing wikipedia. -- emerson7 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- you seem to be hung up on the issue of whether or not ah wilderness is his 'only' comedy, and that, however, is not what i'm addressing. you may not execute wholesale reverts on articles on unrelated content. we can discuss wording on the comedy issue, but that is another subject altogether. -- emerson7 22:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I intend to edit the section dealing with the "Playboy" magazine interview per the discussion on the article's talk page (last updated 24 February). This will take place sometime during the next five or so days (though probably not this weekend, I'm very busy). Do you have any input? Mark Shaw ( talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Helmed?= directed. I think you are right, and thanks for the information. I did work on 13 films and never really got a handle on all that lingo. I have changed the article accordingly. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
I appreciate your assisting my edit to the James Coburn page. I am the managing director of the James and Paula Coburn Foundation (JPCF) and wanted to elaborate on a few details. While your edit regarding Paula's work on the biography is more grammatically correct, it is inaccurate. She was not able to complete the book. She finished transcribing his own hours of recorded tapes and interviews. The project was resumed by the JPCF, who have hired Lionel Chetwynd and Alain Gansberg. They have continued a research process consisting primarily of interviews with Jim's friends and colleagues. The book is slated for completion within a year. As I am new to Wikipedia, I will ask your help to best convey this information on the page. Also, what kind of "cite" would I need to legitimate this information. Thank you for any aid you can provide. 98.233.38.66 ( talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm very glad to help you get the information into the article. Wikipedia has, as one of its first rules, a requirement for verifiability. It is not enough IN WIKIPEDIA to make a statement of fact. In fact, truth is not the priority in WP; verifiability is. Statements made in WP articles must be verifiable, or as the guidelines state, "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." It is not enough for the editor himself to know something is true. The editor must be able to back it up with a published source (published in print, on the internet, in a retrievable document or broadcast program, etc.). Unsourced statements based purely on the editor's own knowledge are OR ( Original Research) and are disallowed. Therefore a statement such as yours that the Coburn autobiography is being completed by someone is, in WP terms, sort of "hearsay" until it gets a citation. If you have even a line from a newsletter or a reliable website that confirms the statement, it may be included with that citation. If you have such a citation, I'll be glad to enter it for you if you like, or you can look at the WP citation guidelines. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks for catching that for me. Mark Shaw ( talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me. I wasn't thinking about him, but the "92" IP should have been a clue. If it's not bisexuality it's something about lung disease and smoking, isn't it? Except for Tyrone Power, who was a bisexual chain-smoker, if you believe everything you read. ;-) If I see any others I'll just remove them. Cheers. Rossrs ( talk) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I've also been requesting semi-protection, such as here for Rex Harrison. It's only a short term solution, and it encourages him to move onto to another article, and although that's the last thing I want to encourage, I suspect that would occur even without the semi protection. I notice Brando is today's target. Rossrs ( talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I asked a clarification question at this topic and would appreciate your feedback regarding the question. Thanks! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- The alternative suggestion was to rename the current article, James Stewart (actor), to simply James Stewart. That page named James Stewart is currently the name of the disambiguation page for the name. James Stewart (disambiguation) currently redirects to James Stewart. All the varieties of James Stewart articles could remain there. The disambig page Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) already notes Jimmy Stewart is the popular name of the actor. The suggestion is that the main use of James Stewart is the actor and therefore shouldn't have (actor) tacked on to distinguish it. That makes absolutely sense to me. Both names are used by more than one person. Does that clear it up? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't understand why you reverted my edit [16], where I simply replaced braces by parentheses. In the Manual of style ( [17]), I didn't see anything about the use of braces, but I'm ready to learn. According to you, what was the special purpose of braces in this sentence : « Aissa Wayne - (Actress, now Attorney) Born March 31, 1956 {Appears in The Alamo at the end} » ? Elagatis ( talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the vote of confidence, and for pointing this out to me. I do agree that "Evanston" is not entirely accurate, and for the infobox and persondata, I was not (and still am not) sure what to do. In the article it gives his birthplace as "No Man's Land" (linking to No Man's Land which is a generic term that makes no specific reference to Evanston or Heston.) I wonder if maybe we should say "near Evanston..." in the infobox and then in the article explain it more clearly. I'm unsure about the No Man's Land link, and wonder if it was added to try to give clarity to something that is unclear. A similar situation exists with the place of death for Carole Lombard and it says "Mount Potosi near Las Vegas...." Perhaps that's not right for that article because it has a link to Mount Potosi, so the "near Las Vegas" bit is somewhat redundant, but maybe the format is suitable. What do you think? I'll also ask User:Wildhartlivie for her thoughts and between the three of us, we should come up with something good. Rossrs ( talk) 03:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I read the snippet I could bring up from In the Arena on Google Books, and the actual quote, as close as I could get it was "I wasn't born in Michigan, but in No Man's Land. ... bit of Chicago's northern suburbs where my parents, Russell Whitford Carter and Lilla Charlton..." Current Biography Yearbook for 1985 says "Charlton Heston was born on October 4, 1923 in Evanston, Illinois, where his parents..."
[18]. Biography.com, which is the website for A&E Television and the Biography Channel, lists his birthplace as Evanston, Illinois.
[19], while the
New York Times obituary says "It was all a long way from Evanston, Ill., where John Charles Carter was born on Oct. 4, 1923." If I had to hazard a guess, not having better access to In the Arena, I'd say that the reference to "No Man's Land" is probably a euphemism for being born in the middle of nowhere. Evanston and Wilmette, Illinois are certainly on the northern edges of Chicago, just off Lake Michigan, and it's highly likely it was relatively remote in 1923 when looking at the Chicago proper area. My suggestion would be to say "in an unincorporated area between Wilmette and Evanston, Illinois, an area Heston referred to as "No Man's Land." and put near Evanston, Illinois in the infobox. At least at this point with no better specificity than what we have. My family lived in the middle of nowhere too, when I was born, and generally, when one has to refer to where they were born in cases like that, the nearest town is given as the birthplace, whether incorporated or not. My 2¢ worth.
Wildhartlivie (
talk) 05:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like a euphemism to me. I agree with Wildhartlivie's suggestion regarding the infobox and the expansion that could be given in the article section about his origins.
I like Heston's quotation though, and perhaps it would be suitable to include a relevant portion of it; it may give the prose a little bit of texture, and it sounds a little more authoritative when referenced back to him. That's of lesser importance, of course, so if either of you don't like the idea, I'm happy.Rossrs ( talk) 07:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) - Just striking out that last part because I don't think the quotation makes it clearer. It certainly reads like Heston being a bit folksy about his origins, and that's fair enough, but when it also says about Chicago's northern suburbs, it contradicts the "No Man's Land" term. Evanston was probably used as the closest town for the purpose of recording the birth - ie the birth certificate couldn't say "middle of nowhere, Illinois". I should have thought of that, as this was also quite common in Australia, and some of my ancestors were born in "the middle of nowhere...." too.
Rossrs (
talk) 07:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard to tell all of the area history, or the validity of the area name given the cite that is given in the article without trekking off to the library, so I'll bow to whatever you decide. I do think it would be immensely helpful for clarification to have the article about that area's history and early name. For what it's worth, more supporting cites for the name perhaps?
Wildhartlivie (
talk) 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think that creating a specific article and directing to that page rather than the generic term, is the best way of dealing with it. I also found this Encyclopedia of Chicago page which refers to "No Man's Land" only once, but within quotation marks. All other place names are given without the quotation marks, so I wonder now if this was in any way an "official" name (for want of a better term) or whether it was the name by which the area was commonly known. Rossrs ( talk) 11:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard to tell all of the area history, or the validity of the area name given the cite that is given in the article without trekking off to the library, so I'll bow to whatever you decide. I do think it would be immensely helpful for clarification to have the article about that area's history and early name. For what it's worth, more supporting cites for the name perhaps?
Wildhartlivie (
talk) 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like a euphemism to me. I agree with Wildhartlivie's suggestion regarding the infobox and the expansion that could be given in the article section about his origins.
Yes, I thought so too. He certainly does like to stick to a few particular themes, doesn't he? :-) I suppose we should be thankful that nobody has yet written any suggestion that Walter may have been bisexual. Rossrs ( talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Monkeyzpop, Normally I only revert changes which I think actually damaged the article substantially, which was certainly not the case of your recent edits to Clark Kent. However, yours is the second of two changes I have reverted in the past week in which I reverted just because the stated reason for doing so just seemed wrong. You state that the use of "we" in the article, as in "we see" is unencyclopedic. I have been in graduate school for a few years now and been extensively using the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the so-called "rhetorical we" is all over the place there. For example in the article "Theories of Criminal Law" one reads "Once we have identified the salient features that distinguish criminal law from other kinds of law" followed by "we see it as a process through which alleged wrongdoers". The article on "Aesthetic Judgment" contains the sentence "we make aesthetic judgments about nature". There are thousands of other examples. The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy strikes me as a reasonable standard for what is or is not "encyclopedic". Also there is considerable ambiguity over whether the correct possessive of George Reeves really is "George Reeves'" not "George Reeves's". This is not consistent in modern English, a most notable example being that there is a British football ground in Newcastle called "St James' Park", but a park in London called "St. James's Park." With cordial regards, -- WickerGuy ( talk) 20:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Bold text
MR TODD'S POETRY IS TRIVIAL (I DON'T THINK SO )
What is trivial about war heroe's for us that have served our country which you have not every thing that we say or do is not trivial come into our world and take the Queen's shilling and not be a paperback war hero i have sat in a fox hole working with H/E with people that you could not imagine in your worst dream's it's not like it in the war book's sonny do it and come back if you can and say what Mr Todd said is trivial Or are you a member of the hair bear bunch ????-- Crazyoldcat ( talk) 23:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's time. That was a pretty vile and inexcusable post, although I have no idea what was being said. Rossrs ( talk) 09:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't have the knowledge or the authority either, but let's bide our time. He may get tired, run out of steam and move away. If not, I'll figure out where to report him. That post really was vile. I'm beyond offended by it.
Rossrs (
talk) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I never thought I'd see someone going after my family here. I used my second permitted revert to set things right as I saw you were both out. His block is only for 24 hours. If he comes back again, we should just go straight to page protection. I'm sure that
User:Gogo Dodo will be more than happy to oblige.
UncleDouggie (
talk) 11:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- His account has now been blocked indefinitely. UncleDouggie ( talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I never thought I'd see someone going after my family here. I used my second permitted revert to set things right as I saw you were both out. His block is only for 24 hours. If he comes back again, we should just go straight to page protection. I'm sure that
User:Gogo Dodo will be more than happy to oblige.
UncleDouggie (
talk) 11:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that I'd say that kind of billing formula, with one actor billed first in the previews and posters and another in the film itself, is common, although it is seen occasionally today, and was virtually unheard of at the time. Hoffman did it twice, I think, with All the President's Men and the comedy Ishtar with Warren Beatty, but I don't believe you'll find an example of it between "Valance" and "President's Men." The idea for the practice, at least in modern times, seems to have originated with "Valance," which I find interesting. It generally only happens when two actors with precisely the same amount of clout work together. Storyliner ( talk) 02:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's not important one way or the other, just kind of intriguing. The whole subject of billing has always kind of fascinated me, I'm not sure why. But I'm not so sure I like the idea of sullying an article about "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" with a reference to "All the President's Men," so it's certainly fine with me to leave it out. Storyliner ( talk) 02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll certainly defer to your experience on this one, and as I said, after thinking about it, I rather like the idea of omitting any reference to President's Men in the Valance article (Valance, by the way, is probably my favorite movie since childhood--it's so endlessly rich, profoundly misunderstood by some of the most perceptive critics, and vastly underrated on so very many levels, and contains Wayne's and Stewart's finest performances and Marvin's best apart from Cat Ballou). The Ally Sheedy films and so on do tend to escape my notice. Am I right, though, that this wasn't actually done with a mainstream film between Valance and All the President's Men, or at least in that precise formula? I can't think of any examples between them although there are plenty of modern examples of all kinds of billing juggling, I guess; I still don't know who has top billing in the Rush Hour sequels, for example, Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker, and I wonder if anyone does. I think they switched it up on the prints themselves to heighten the confusion but I'm of course no surer about that than about anything else regarding those films' billing. And it's a little weird since Tucker apparently only does Rush Hour movies. Storyliner ( talk) 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw your message on Wildhartlivie's talk page about HC's sockpuppets. I noticed he was back the other day on the Peter Lawford article and forgot to tag his page. I've done so and I'll find someone to block him since he's a pretty big quacker and a SPI report would probably be denied because of that. Pinkadelica ♣ 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I too noticed the new registered name. I actually think if you approached the administrator who last blocked the IP, or one who was involved prior, the block to the new name would be quickly coming. I would look at whatever edit the registered account has made, compare edits to any of the 92. IPs and show that to the administrator, it wouldn't require an SPI request.
Wildhartlivie (
talk) 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I contacted Tedder (who protected Steve McQueen which was being hit by 92. range) and he blocked LouisWalshFan :) Pinkadelica ♣ 03:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Stacey Adams
An article that you have been involved in editing, Stacey Adams, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Adams. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I did reference what JBSupreme deleted, but there's still not a lot of "there" there, I'm afraid. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Why this revert to Lead Belly? 92.1.93.82 ( talk) 12:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I was concerned to see that you recently altered a correction I made to Caroline Chikezie's date of birth. Please be assured that I Know Caroline personally and was in the same year and class as her at school from when we were both 5 years old onwards...until 18! We both attended St. Antony's (infant & junior's) and St. Angela's Ursuline schools in Forest Gate London. I was actually born in 1973 which means that if Caroline was born on February 19th, the year would have to be 1974. (If she was born from September onwards then her year of birth would be 1973, but I made my correction on the assumption that her month of birth was correct, which means that she will be 36 in three days time). I would appreciate it if you refrain from changing her year of birth again, as I can assure you that she was not a newborn when she started school and whilst I can appreciate that actesses would love to wind the clock back once they hit thirty (wouldn't we all!) I like to think that Wikipedia can be a reliable resource for us all to use in the knowledge that information submitted is accurate and honest. Rest assured I would not have been petty enough to make corrections on wikipedia just to be a nuisance, but when I saw her birth details I felt obliged to submit an accurate and truthful amendment and would appreciate it if you would respect the changes made. Thank you. Ticklecreek ( talk) 11:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I appreciate your comments and your desire to help. However, the rules of Wikipedia are very specific and may seem unusual. Personal knowledge of a subject is not allowed as the sole source of information. This is known as Original Research WP:OR. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable based on a published or publicly available source, and that source must be cited in any edits made to an article. It does not matter, on Wikipedia, if something is true if it cannot be verified by a citation. Therefore I reverted your edit, not because it isn't true, but because it wasn't cited. You must come up with a citation (a reference to this information in a book or article or public document, even a school yearbook) before the information can be allowed to change standing material. One note, too: there are even more stringent guidelines regarding biographies of living people WP:BLP. As Caroline Chikezie has chosen to state publicly that her birth year is a certain year, WP editors must provide very clear documentation in order to counter what the person herself has publicly stated. Without a citation for such documentation, the general rule is that what the subject of the article says to be true remains in place. Thank you. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence of Caroline's birth date and given that Ticklecreek knows her suggests to me that you are behaving in a deliberately provocative and antagonistic manner, the fact that you have deliberately re-submitted a false date of birth suggests to me that you are either Ms. Chikezie herself (deceitfully trying to claim that you are younger than 36) or that you are a troll.
Besides, her true year of birth is also on IMDb. So I suggest that you stop playing games and grow up. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ticklecreek (
talk •
contribs) 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- First rules of Wikipedia: Presumption of good faith and civility. I was civil to you and to the other editor (whom, by good faith, I will presume is not you under another name, though why two different users would both be so interested in this exact topic at the same time is interesting). I am not Miss Chikezie, nor do I have an agenda here other than following Wikipedia rules. Have you read Wikipedia's guidelines on original research WP:OR or verifiability WP:VERIFIABILITY? It's a simple rule: you can't change what's there if you can't verify and cite your changes. I don't care if Caroline Chikezie is 900 years old, if you can cite that, put it in. Otherwise please follow the rules. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I was no less civil to you if you read my submission and therefore find your 'presumption' based on 'good faith' somewhat tainted by the accompanying statement of yours which followed:"(whom, by good faith, I will presume is not you under another name, though why two different users would both be so interested in this exact topic at the same time is interesting)". I would appreciate it if you did not direct your hostility/sarcasm at me for the contribution of a third party who is clearly the source of your displeasure. However, given that her year of birth is verified on IMDb,(and she is definitely not 900 years old) I consider this matter closed. Ticklecreek ( talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your removal of text from the lead of John J. Crittenden. A lead is per WP:LEAD supposed to summarize an article, which this lead does better than two sentences. Hekerui ( talk) 20:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
And don't worry, I'm not done with that lead either. I just ran out of time this morning. I've still got a lot of work to do on the body of the article, and I anticipate expanding the lead by at least two paragraphs. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 21:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
was appreciated. [20] Thanks Piratejosh85 ( talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now, caregiver is much better than caretaker! I must say I didn't realise that carer wasn't a word used in the US. This common language that divides us! Hopefully I've not left too much British English scattered in there. I'm still planning on getting this to FA when I can find the time to work on a peer review etc. Ged UK 13:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your previous attention to the Akira Kurosawa page. As you indicated on the talk page, you objected to the headings "Son and immediate post-war works" and "Daughter and international recognition". As supervisory editor for the project, I had the same objection for the same reason, so I deleted "Son" and "Daughter" from those headings. Yesterday, I nominated the article as a candidate for Featured Article. I would be interesting to know what you think of the revised work. If you could go to the Featured Article Candidates list and offer your support, I would be thrilled. If you have constructive comments to make to improve the page, I would be happy to hear them. Thanks. Dylanexpert ( talk) 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You notified, erroneously, me about having created an article, now up for AFD, which i did not create. Not sure what is up, i didn't create or edit that article. Please do notify the correct editor. No further reply to me needed. Thanks. -- doncram ( talk) 01:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
I couldn't help noticing that you take exception to listing Karl Malden as a "Serbian American." Please don't continue to remove this description without a valid reason and without discussion leading to consensus. Wikipedia does not allow discrimination or bigotry. If you have a problem calling Malden a Serbian American, then you are showing a lack of civility and unnecessary sensitivity to adding an ethnic origin to a person's name. Check out this page if you are in doubt: Being Serbian American.
A similar reversion to yours did at least give a reason relating to the opening paragraph of a biography. However, in this case it could be argued that Karl Malden's Serbian origin was very much a part of his notability, especially for those people who are proud of their Serbian/Yugoslavian origin, or from Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no harm in identifying his origins, except to bigots who would prefer that Americans suppress their ethnicity. You might not be aware that according to the Wiki article, Karl Malden "was fluent [in Serbian] till his death." Obviously, he cared to maintain this fluency throughout his life.
If you revert more than three times in 24 hours you will be in danger of being blocked as an editor (see: The three-revert rule). Once a dispute has been moved to the Malden Talk Page, there are several ways to resolve the dispute (see WP:DR). Thank you. -- Skol fir ( talk) 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I got back onto wiki again after a long break due to work. I see that you are still keeping the odd 'vandals' out of John Wayne. I remember dealing with a major sock puppet guy with you back in 2007. I hopefully will be able to help out again here and there. Xiahou ( talk) 02:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am happy to work anyway you wish. I noticed that the plot summary is way too long as noted by the wikipedia note and it had been that way for almost 12 months so I assumed that others weren't planning to do anything. I would suggest that if you plan to introduce more content be mindful not to blow out the size of the section again. The summary is a summary not a mid movie script so it covers the main story threads and shouldn't have dialogue for example. I left some dialogue in the section because as you point out there have been a lot of edits so I wanted to leave it to others (including you) to finish the job. If as a result of our efforts the section is much briefer, our collaboration can be judged a success.
I would like to know why you removed my recent comment on Phil Carey, I feel The comment i made would be of interest to some people and i even included a reference, therefore i would like to know why you removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincelord ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Your IP edit-warrior is back at it - I could use some help over there... MikeWazowski ( talk) 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello M. It was good to hear from you again after so many moons! I appreciate the time to let me know the info about Mr Adams (or is that Maxwell Smart - er I mean Tennessee Tuxedo.) A few editors, including Ponyo and myself, have been dealing with an IP hopper who keeps adding unsourced info to infoboxes. Based on what you told me I wouldn't fuss if you put the item back in. If you ever come across some sourcing that we be great. On another note I was lucky enough to receive the Kurosawa 100th anniversary boxed set of DVD's as a gift last year. It is a gorgeous item. Then I tracked down The Quiet Duel thru Amazon so my collection of his films is complete. After watching them in chrono order I can say two things (well I could say many more but I wont take up your time with all that) - those films of his that are considered lesser are better than most of the product that is being put out today - I am very lucky to like film and to have seen all that he did. I hope that you have a great weekend and again thanks for your message. MarnetteD | Talk 12:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you leave the edit that I made please > it says I deleted references, but I didn't I just moved them in the next edit. The page is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.215.95 ( talk) 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
In case this wasn't clear, I need you to revert it back for me as I have already reverted the page twice today (in trying to get my HELPFUL edit to stay, it keeps being bloody deleted...) 82.47.215.95 ( talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I only changed a few lines, any other problems are nothing to do with me. Sorry if it's not PERFECT but it's better than it was - I just desperately want that comment about catholicism removed, because it is so misleading, and it's being made so difficult for me. It's extremely frustrating... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.215.95 ( talk) 21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Monkeyzpop, I'm pasting this exchange from the Katharine Hepburn talk page about a vandal called 76.176.167.130 who was apparently active in 2007 and has returned to delete about half a dozen photographs I'd uploaded recently on the Bette Davis and Hepburn sites from Wikipedia Commons. Every time something like this happens, I tell myself I'm going to stop contributing to Wikipedia but so far I haven't managed to keep my promise to myself. Upsmiler ( talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- An editor identifiable only by 76.176.167.130 has been on a campaign to remove material he apparently finds personally offensive or discomfiting from a number of articles. He has deleted entire sections (and removed any citations which might support those sections) dealing with quite legitimate topics regarding the sexual orientation or sobriety of various celebrities, in particular Randolph Scott, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Cary Grant. Although I myself am rampantly opposed to gossip and to the increasingly frequent "outing" of anyone and everyone that seems to be de rigeur in some circles, I believe that the material relating to sexual orientation may well have a legitimate place in these articles, especially as cited and most currently expressed. Therefore, the wholesale deletion of anything which in some fan's eyes "denigrates" the subject is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated purposes. I have reverted a couple of times, but see an edit war brewing. Is there a means of preventing this activity when the editor, 76.176.167.130, is not a registered editor? Monkeyzpop ( talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's gotten escalating warnings up to final warnings. The next time he does this, he should be reported to
WP:AIV. Whomever writes up the report at AIV needs to make sure that they note that this seems to be a static IP address as the editing pattern has remained the same for many days. —
Elipongo (
Talk
contribs) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's at it again four years later. He's gone through the Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn articles, eliminating maybe half a dozen or more photos I'd posted recently from Wikipedia Commons. Someone with some clout in these matters should do something immediately. Upsmiler ( talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- He's gotten escalating warnings up to final warnings. The next time he does this, he should be reported to
WP:AIV. Whomever writes up the report at AIV needs to make sure that they note that this seems to be a static IP address as the editing pattern has remained the same for many days. —
Elipongo (
Talk
contribs) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the unconstructive edits by 69.124.71.248 but those were good for a laugh ;) Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 17:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, either is correct I guess. It's not a major point and if you want to put it back that would be fine. It's quite possible that you're correct both on linguistic grounds and the procedural grounds of reverting an edit which is not an improvement.
My thinking (and I didn't look up any refs for this, it's off the top of my head) is that in common speech "entitled" is most often used in the "empowered" sense. "I did the dishes so I'm entitled to that last piece of pie" is probably more common than "I think the book is entitled Hitler's Dating Tips for Teens or something"; people would say "named" or "called" rather than "entitled" usually. (They might also say "titled" and if Random House says that "titled" is not used this way I think they're wrong.) Granted the Wikipedia is a formal reference work. But even then "entitled" strikes me as just a little bit stuffy.
Granted "titled" has other meanings also, such as holding a title of nobility, but these are not used much.
However, the point is well taken that the edit (changing "entitled" to "titled") was basically change for change's sake -- neither an improvement nor a degradation, to an appreciable degree anyway. These add nothing and so the edit is just pointless roiling of the text, and I've occasionally reverted edits for that reason, so that's fine. On the other hand, it was new editor, and given that there's little difference (if one does grant that) then, meh, let him have his edit, I guess. Herostratus ( talk) 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The trivia about the possible origin of the name "Taggart" might have some merit IF a source could be found that asserts that the other film was indeed its origin. Otherwise, it's just an editor drawing possibly-erroneous inferences. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Cecily Adams, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Murder One, Home Improvement and Check It Out ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the new reference, but would you kindly add the page number where the information is found? Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
please do not revert my edits again. It was the wrong move that you did. Voggyer 20:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voggyer ( talk • contribs)
did you seen the 2012 kids choice awards? Voggyer ( talk) 02:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Alan Hale, Sr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanley Fields ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Howdy,
I see you edit a great many articles of actors who starred in Westerns, such as John Wayne, Yul Brenner, Lee Van Cleef, etc - as such I hope you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Westerns, and if you can find time to comment or support the proposal for a Westerns WikiProject, as we will also need people who are good with biographies, it would be appreciated. Thanks. — Ma®©usBritish[ chat 20:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Beaver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Justified and FX ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice. A conversation is happening at WikiProject Military history regarding disruptive edits to Audie Murphy. You are receiving this notice because your name has been listed in the article's history as having reverted some of the troublesome edits. — Maile ( talk) 17:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I was looking back over my previous edits and saw that you (just today!) put up credible information which I had asked for on Bea Arthur. Then I checked your contributions and saw your long history of work. Good job. Catherinejarvis ( talk) 19:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States Marines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maude ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, i just changed the wording of the lead section. It s just a minor alteration, but since you were heavily involved in the article and the effort to try to change the impression that O'Neill only wrote one comedy, maybe you would like to have a look and change it back if you deem it unfitting. Regards, Gott ( talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raikin Ben-Ari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UCentral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KUCO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red River (1948 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rio Bravo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited And Then There Were None, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Monkeyzpop. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to
Sarah Spiegel (singer). I noticed that when you added the image to the
infobox, you added it as a
thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see
WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]
Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg.
There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 18:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You used the word "disgust" in this edit, though it seems too strong a word. Are you able to soften it? Also at The Last Hunt (novel) and Milton Lott. Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 01:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello
I noticed your edit here; I've had to change it, for the reasons given
here. Just to let you know. Otherwise, good catch! Regards,
Swanny18 (
talk) 21:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Monkeyzpop. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Monkeyzpop. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi there. I support to the idea of using the full name "Mako Iwamatsu" to its article instead of "Mako" alone. Could it be possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.107.55 ( talk) 13:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not in a position to authorize such a change, but I would be opposed to it, since Wikipedia consistently uses the name by which subjects are most commonly known. Mako worked and was extensively known by the shortened version of his name, and very few people would quickly recognize Makoto Iwamatsu. Mako was his official Screen Actors Guild name of record, too. Changing the page's name would be akin to changing John Wayne's page to "Marion Morrison" -- accurate in one sense, but very misleading. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 04:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hugh Marlowe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway Theatre. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You keep reverting back to the original data on Shemp's date/location of birth as well as his surname as recorded on his birth certificate. I have a copy of Shemp's original birth certificate, State of New York, #12184. Shemp was born Samuel Hurvitz on March 11, 1895 at 39 Henry Street, Manhattan, NY. He was delivered by midwife Olga Donn of 59 Rivington Street. Don't know where you get your information from or why you stubbornly refuse to allow the edit, especially when I've clearly explained it in the discussion page. Please stop undoing my edit, as it is from a primary source record. I've been in contact with the head of the Three Stooges fan club, who agrees the biographical data on the Stooges in general is well over 30 years old and is more word of mouth than by documented sources. I'm working on all the Stooges' biographical data in an attempt to set the record straight, so unless you have verifiable primary record data I would ask that you refrain from creating an edit war - especially on issues where you have no evidence. Brprivate ( talk) 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand how a verifiable copy of Shemp Howard's birth certificate is somehow an unacceptable and unpublished source of his birth statistics/information - unless it is the wrong one, which is what you are apparently accusing me of using. It is the correct certificate, obtained from the president of the Three Stooges fan club. I cited the source with its certificate number which anyone can use to look it up independently within the vital statistics system in the State of New York. You also state that "a wide variety of cited sources state that Shemp Howard was born on a different date and in Brooklyn". These "sources" do not themselves cite their source, which considering my primary record citation are clearly hearsay. Additionally, your contention there are "dozens" of other Samuel Horwitz/Hurvitz's is unsubstantiated. Finally, I have a copy of the original in hand, wherein Samuel Hurvitz was born to Jennie and Solomon Hurvitz (both of the correct age corresponding to their years of birth), both born in Russia. There is also a little hand-written note in the lower left corner that states it is Shemp's birth certificate, noting the "Hurvitz" surname and the Manhattan address. What more do you want? Brprivate ( talk) 20:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In this case at least, it appears that Wikipedia supports hearsay over actual, verifiable facts - as long as a large number of sources cite the same incorrect information. Anyone wishing to correct the record with an actual verifiable source appears to be thwarted by consensus. I've seen two different dates for Shemp's birth on 10 different websites - none of which provide a source - yet when I state I have his birth certificate in hand with a slightly different date it is somehow the wrong one. Show me your birth certificate and I'll show you mine. Brprivate ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears that no matter the facts, Wikipedia appears hell-bent on enforcing a standard which stifles accuracy in favor of “evidence” based on published content, whether or not this published content has any basis in reality. I can assure you that family lore – especially that of public figures/movie stars – is highly subject to error and revision (sometimes outright fraud), generally depending on how many generations it has passed through. As such, unless someone has actually undertaken the job to check into the matter, any inaccuracies will forever linger, rendering an accurate accounting impossible if held to the standards by which Wikipedia operates. For example, after investigating my own family history and carefully documenting the results, I found a very large published history for one branch, which I was very happy to locate - until I looked into the line where our branches met. It was absolutely incorrect, which I was absolutely certain of because I had carefully documented the source records (all relatively easily obtained). I found the reason for the inaccuracy was due to a submission by a cousin who used oral tradition and memory (and probably a little guesswork) rather than publicly available primary source information. There is an old saw in genealogy circles: “Genealogy without documentation is mythology” and this certainly applied. When I called the publisher to submit my corrections, he stated that he would gladly take my submission for the record but no corrections would be made, as he did not intend to publish any more volumes (too expensive, too much work, etc.). So for the last 50 years, people have been citing a source that has the authority of being published but lacks credibility. Indeed it is positively misleading. Its publishers should be dismissed for accepting such information, as it completely compromises the integrity of the genealogy not only from that point on, but in a more general manner, for its standards cannot then be trusted. If Wikipedia’s standard is “published citation” in a “reputable resource”, then the problem becomes “what is a reputable resource”? In my case, are the books (and websites) published on the Stooges credible as regards genealogical information? Without citing primary documents, the answer is a resounding “no”, regardless of the author’s family connections, if any. As my “original research” proves, not one person who has published anything on the Stooges appears to have looked into the matter of obtaining Shemp’s birth certificate! I haven’t read Moe’s autobiography, but unless he had a photographic memory, I’m willing to bet he got many of the details wrong. The possibilities for inaccuracy are endless (parents lie to their children for many reasons…)
This whole thing started because I found a 1900 census record that has Moe’s family living in Manhattan rather than Bensonhurst as claimed in all the literature; I found this curious since it is now so easily checked. In addition, I found that Moe’s month and year of birth were different on the census than in the known record as well. While census records are notoriously inaccurate, it was accurate as to Shemp’s birth dates, leading me to believe there is an issue with Moe’s actual date of birth as well as the birth-in-Bensonhurst claim. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Moe didn’t know his correct birthday?
In the case of the Stooge websites and (some of the) published materials, it appears people repeated what they were told and then published the results, to unknown standards. Others then cite these results to bolster their own arguments, but how worthy are they to be cited? If not held to a high standard, they are essentially worthless. I’m sorry, but repeating the same falsehoods over and over doesn’t make them any truer; they are worthless as a “published citation”, the Wikipedia standard. And so Wikipedia carries on with this worthless information, which renders much of Wikipedia worthless. You state that “there is a reasonable means of getting the information you wish published on WP to be included, but you have not achieved that yet. If you do, WP editors such as myself will champion your edits”. Excuse me for being thickheaded, but I cannot see how this can be done without amending the cited, published material and/or breaking the Wikipedia edict of “no original research”. Any help in this matter would be most appreciated.
All I wanted to do was make people aware of an error in the date of birth of a beloved public figure; maybe uncover a few more inaccuracies somewhere down the line. While Wikipedia provides a wonderful way in which to look into the matter, it appears Wikipedia might work to keep the facts of the matter from ever seeing the light of day. I will defer to your edit and hope a way can be found to publish accurate information. Brprivate ( talk) 05:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
For all your good work on John Wayne especially keeping the politically slanted POV out. Thanks. -- Xiahou 05:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like one of the articles worst POV vandals has bitten off more than he should have by attacking living persons in the same way so he is indef. Blocked. Reap what you sow I guess...-- Xiahou 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Again thanks. Keep up the good work -- Xiahou 21:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Again thakns. I like the clairfy edit, looks alot better. As far as the reoccuring sockpuppet guy his latest account is on last waring for personal attacks to other users. Hopefully when the admins review the sockpuppet case they can do something more than just block the names possibly the IP if its not dynamic. Since all he seems to do is just create a new acct. And repeat the same things. Even using the exact same statments. Though that does make indentifying him as a sockpuppet rather easy. Anyway thanks. -- Xiahou 22:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed that in a lot of your edit summaries, you include the four tildes that are used to sign contributions. The tildes are normally just used on talk pages - on the edit summaries it just looks like 4 tildes, not a signature. The thought of documenting your contributions so thoroughly is a nice one, though. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Verkhovensky 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{
prod}}" template to the article
Bob Nolan (author), suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
Leuko 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You removed "Character deaths - deleting improper quotation marks". Why? The itaizing of the words shot in the back was used because a link didn't exist. The concept of shooting a person in the back is one of the most significant taboos in western lore. Considered the ultimate act of cowardice, back-shooters were despised in the west. Wayne was portaying a gunslinger who made his last stand. A man of honour. I would like to know why you consider emphasizing the fact (I call it significant) improper? -- Jason Palpatine 13:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did here:
Talk:John Wayne. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
njan 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to
Anthony Quinn included one or more links to the page
Broadway, which is a
disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can
help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to
Anthony Quinn to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and
report the error to help us improve this feature.) Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.
RussBot 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comments to my close wikipedian "Uber" about him deleting remarks made by DaveyJones. I am actually glad he has taken this action. Davey jones has called me a fagboy and generally been very insulting and homophobic. No1 has the balls to block him which is a shame. Realist2 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I just found out myself one word "over the moon" ok make that three. still about time. Bigot. Realist2 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Bad news- CheckUser results came back, and DaveyJones is using AOL, so they can't block him. Just revert, report, and ignore any vandalism/personal attacks towards you. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've filed the 4th report[ [1]] on HarveyCarter aka [ [2]] all those guys about 1/2 I turned in in the previous 3 reports plus a host of others. Looks like he is trying to go out with a bang. Thanks for keeping on top of it. At least he makes it obvious its him througout the different accounts. Well if he was smart he'd be making decent contributions though. -- Xiahou 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well its case closed on 2 more of his accounts. Hopefully quite possibly he will learn and not do this (wouldn't bet money on it). At the very least take a break from it and actually let the articles be improved rather than fight his pov vandalism. See you around wiki -- Xiahou 21:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is tedious. However the hope is that it is even more frustrating to the vandals. If we revert their additions and block their accounts they usually give up eventually. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification about the new accounts. Regarding archives, there's rarely a good reason to edit them, except to fix a link or change a username. Instead of continuing a thread, you can simply reference the archived discussion. Sections can be linked with the pound sign. For example, User talk:Will Beback/archive18#John Wayne sock. If that looks ugly you can use a pipe to rename the link, perhaps to say, "per our previous discussion..." Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added his filmography. There's films to be checked but I don't have more time. Rohmerin 10:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I got enough sleep last night.... WikiDon 20:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess someone will have to do some digging. Just because he was born there doesn't make it so. WikiDon 05:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the same person that changed Foraker to Pawhuska is the one that changed Cherokee to Osage. His obit says born in Foraker, I think he was born at home, on the ranch, near there. I emailed his nephew, Dale Christenson last night about the Osage/Cherokee question, but I did not ask about the birthplace. I think the obits are good unless there is something better. I don't have CENSUS account, if you do that would be super. If you want to call feel free, I don't. His niece, Ann Whitehorn, of Pawhuska manages the Gift Shop at Tallgrass Prairie Preserve.
- Coach Dale Christenson
- Pawhuska High School
- phone: 918-287-1262
- fax: 918-287-1236
- Ann Whitehorn, Gift Shop Manager
- Tallgrass Prairie Preserve
- Pawhuska, Oklahoma
- Phone 918-287-4803
WikiDon 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch on the mother's maiden name, once again, I should have been in bed two hours before then...., three? WikiDon 19:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Don,
Sorry I haven't gotten back sooner. Uncle Ben and my mother are half brother and sister. My understanding is Granddad Ben was of Irish descent and Uncle Ben's mother Ollie was Cherokee. Mom's mother died when my mom was 2 years old. She said she was told her mother was "French Indian". Not real sure what that means, but that's about all the information I have.
Dale
Dale Christenson (dchristenson@pawhuska.k12.ok.us)
- What is your problem? 1) I have references that say that he was Cherokee. 2) A documentary about his life says he was. 3) His family says that he is. Just because he born on the Osage Reservation does not make him Osage. Joan Fontaine and her sister were born in Japan, are they Japanese? You know, you are not always right. ~ WikiDon ( talk) 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't yelling. It was meant in nice rapport. It was a question (?), not a statement with ALL+CAPS, bolding, or an exclamation mark "!". 1) You got the documentary, 2) you got the Hal Erickson bio, and 3) (although OR and not to be used in the article, but just to double check which bio's are right and which bio's are wrong) you have his family-first hand testimony-Dale Christenson and Ann Whitehorn, above for confirmation. ~ WikiDon ( talk) 10:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
On Victor Mature's father nationality
Hi, Monkeyzpop, thanks you for your interest in my edition on the nationality of Victor Mature’s father. I have checked through the Wikipedia and found 6 entries for the subject. The results are as follows:
1.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (German)
(It says nothing about his ancestry)
2.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (French)
(It says nothing about his ancestry)
3.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/ (Japanese)
(Unfortunately I cannot read Japanese)
4.
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (Norwegian)
“Victor Mature ... var en italiensk-amerikansk skuespiller.”
= “Victor Mature ... was an Italian-American actor”
5.
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (Portuguese)
“Victor John Mature ... Seu pai, Marcellus Gelindo Mature(ou no italiano, Maturi), era um cuteleiro italiano que sabia falar alemão, que migrou da Itália para os Estados Unidos com sua família em 1912, para fugir da dominação Áustro-Húngara, e sua mãe, Clara Mature, era de origem suiça.”
= “Victor John Mature ... His father, Marcellus Gelindo Mature (or in Italian, Maturi), was an Italian cutler who knew German and emigrated to the USA with his family in 1912, in order to run away from the Austro-Hungarian domination, and his mother, Clara Mature, was of Swiss origen”
6.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mature (Swedish)
“Mature var son till en schweizisk saxslipare, som invandrat till USA.”
= “Mature was the son of a Swiss scissors-grinder who immigrated to the USA”
There seems to be such a fuzz about the nationality of Mr Mature’s father. But I am afraid your statement that he was “Tyrolean” does not fit, as “Tyrolean” is not a nationality. You are right about the current division of Tyrol, but all Tyroleans were Austrian nationals before 1918, when the region was divided between Austria and Italy. From then on, North Tyroleans went on being Austrian, but South Tyroleans became Italian citizens.
If we are to trust the Portuguese version, which is the most detailed one, Mr Mature Sr could have more probably been South Tyrolean but, as he emigrated in 1912, possessed Austrian nationality yet. Irrelevant for the case, but would you kindly note that, no matter how many times one crosses a border, comings and goings, one’s nationality remains the same?
Nevertheless, I am not at all convinced about this stuff. The lack of verifiable sources is absolute. I greatly appreciate your contribution.
Kind regards,
Zack Holly Venturi 12:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Zack, thanks for your comments. I should point out that you're on shaky ground, using other Wikipedia articles to determine the accuracy of something in a Wikipedia article. All those articles could change tomorrow and may have changed two days before you looked at them. One really needs to look outside the Wikipedia format for citations. Now, I got my initial information from Mature himself in an interview I did several years ago. But I can't use original research in Wikipedia, so I took what he told me and looked up verifiable sources, including the census records of the United States, obituary notices for Mature's father, birth notices and census records for the town and area the father lived in, and so forth. I don't have all the information easily to hand, but the area Mature's father came from was an EXTREMELY transitory area, falling back and forth into Italian and Austrian rule over the years. And while the Tyrol is not, as you say, a country, "Tyrolean" IS a legitimate way of describing someone, just as Arizonan or Latin American or Mongolian is. Given that it's the ONLY certain thing about where Mature's father was from (and Mature's father lived there long enough to be Italian and Austrian several times over), I used it as the most accurate depiction. Also, it's what Mature himself used to describe his father when I talked to him. I said, "So your father was Austrian?" and he said, "No, he was Tyrolean. I mean sometimes he was Austrian and sometimes Italian, depending on where the border was that week." By backing that up with other sources, I felt justified in stating it the way I did. All the best. Monkeyzpop 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:HarveyCarter
Please leave input there. Thanks, IP4240207xx 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you agreed to "former residents" to describe people who are dead (smile). I'm not going to edit-war over the "alleged" about Oswald, though this adjective carries a strong overtone that his guilt was questionable. Which I think is pretty silly. Of course, Oswald wasn't convicted because his own assassin got in the way. But there's never been convincing evidence exonerating him, and there have been thorough investigations establishing his guilt. Casey Abell 01:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your question. First I want to apologize because I may be telling you several things that you are already aware of, but, if your not this is based on a few things that I have been through before (just as a coincidence this last weekend was the most difficult example). First, if you look at the edits that have been added by this IP [3] it is a single purpose account as the only edits that they have added are books published by the Univ of Mississippi press. Wikipedia has several rules against this kind of self promotion, most notably here [4] and in the section just below it. Even though this specific edit was not an external link it was added so that readers would be aware of its existance. Please note (and this is highly important) that nothing from this publication was added to the article to enhance its information. This anon IP is from Mississippi (which is easily checked at the WP:AIV) making it highly likely this it is someone who is trying to get these books known to a wider audience. Again, this is one of the things that the guidelines of Wikipedia is strongly against. This is not a value judgement about the work itself but Wikipedia is not a sales platform. It would, most certainly, be wrong to ask you to trust my judgment in this situation (and I could be wrong), but, I have gone through this a few times. If you disagree then I will be happy to file reports at WP:COIN (update: which I have just done) as well as any other areas that you might wish me to and go with what other editors and admins decide. The information contained in this edit can exist at many places on the web, but as it stands now I just don't think that it is a legitimate wikipedia entry. MarnetteD | Talk 03:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your followup note. I want to apologize for the lateness of my reply and for the rudeness in my last edit summary. The last 16 hours have been stressful off-wiki. Your point about it being in the references section as opposed to an external link is well taken. I just want to let you know that I have been an admirer and a student of Kurosawa's films for a long time now and I have not heard this authors name before as someone who is an expert on him. As noted above I am leary of the source due to it being a single purpose account. This said if you want to put it back in I am not going to kick up a fuss. You may want to refer to our discussion here in your edit summary so that others do not think that this is an escalating edit war. Based on the rule that Wikipedia is not just a series of lists I just wish that either of us had a chance to read the book so that we could judge whether it had any real value as a resource about this fine (POV I know but I can't help it) filmmaker. Thank you for your time and, again, my apologies for any rudeness. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your new note. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde - to watch Kurosawa films is the beginning of a life long romance. I have 26 of AK's 30 films on tape or DVD. I'm only missing - and have never had the chance to see - The Most Beautiful, Sanshiro Sugata Part II, The Quiet Duel and The Idiot. I have also never encountered Those Who Make Tomorrow. While there are some that I see more often than others I find them all fascinating. Two or three times I have watched them in the order that they were made and I can recommend doing this - if you haven't already. I first saw the Seven Samurai on a Saturday night on PBS when I was 13 or so and even at that age I knew that I had experienced something profound. Interestingly, as I have gotten older, I now think (sometimes anyway - the debate often goes on in my head) that Ikiru may have even more to say about the human condition and I recommend it to everyone that I meet who like his films. Well, thanks for letting me share this with you. If you have the time and the inclination would you please leave a note on my talk page about your thoughts on the book that you are going to get? Oh, I almost forgot - that is a laugh out loud :-D good one about the motorcycles. MarnetteD | Talk 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia style is to include punctuation only if it's actually part of the quoted speech. See WP:PUNC for a full description. Colonies Chris 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- "come sprang" back-to-back is incorrect! Call your English professor. ~ WikiDon 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Where did you go school?
- Independent clause: "with which he was so identified"
- Independent clause: "in the decades to come"
- Independent clause: "sprang"
- ~ WikiDon 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about that, podner... "come sprang, here in Texas, them flares starts ta bloom." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Snort..~ WikiDon 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- When I said that they were independent, I didn't mean that they were finished, but could be parts of separate sentences. Can we re-write that sentence? It just seems bad to me. ~
WikiDon 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's a fine sentence, grammatically, and I personally (as the guy who wrote it) like the style and flow of it, but I've rewritten it in simpler terms. Hope you like! Monkeyzpop 01:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- When I said that they were independent, I didn't mean that they were finished, but could be parts of separate sentences. Can we re-write that sentence? It just seems bad to me. ~
WikiDon 01:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nag again here. "thus appears" sounds waffly and POV. ~ WikiDon 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Suggestion: What about if we let Pilar, and other third parties say if he was or was not, and to what degree, then it won't seem so POV and waffly, we will simply be stating both sides with cites and attribution???? ~ WikiDon 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
User 67.83.176.54
It has become apparent that user:67.83.176.54 is just a vandal here to stir the poop. I have expunged all traces of him in John Wayne and Talk:John Wayne. I suspect he is one of our familiar sockpuppets. IP4240207xx 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. I checked his "reference". It has nothing what-so-ever to do with Wayne's military issue. Please double check it and help me out on this guy:
- This might be our old friend Robert Seager, who has been banned. ~ WikiDon 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently the entire contribution (Wayne, though a leading tough guy on screen and qualified to perform military service during World War II, managed, with the help of his studio, to avoid the draft.") was a footnote and re-quoted from:
- Roberts, Randy, and James Stuart Olson, John Wayne: American. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. 1998. p. 581. ISBN 0803289707 (New York: Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0029238374)
- ~ WikiDon 02:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was defending you [5], and is this true [6] - Kain Nihil 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Near as I can tell, that IP address is engaged in pure trolling behavior, since he continually ignores our requests to cite things properly and to sign with 4 tildes. He's got an admin watching him now, so I recommend we not engage him directly in any further discussion, until or if he decides to do things the right way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Monkeyzpop. I noticed that you put several books in on AK's page including the one that we have discussed before. I am a little surprised at its inclusion since I received a message from someone at the Univ Of Miss press that the book hasn't even been published yet. Based on our earlier discussions I would appreciate if you would rethink its entry until you have actually seen it but I am not going to edit war over it.
Of more importance I wanted to pass along two pieces of info. I know that you may already be aware of them but, just in case, here goes. Drunken Angel is coming out on a Criterion Collection DVD the last Tuesday of this month. Then I received a newletter from them yesterday showing that next mointh they will be coming out with this boxed set [7] I found this to be very exciting news. These Eclipse series DVD's only have one drawback. They do not include the fine extras that are available on the single film release DVDs. I have found the "Akira Kurosawa: It is Wonderful to Create" series that they have included on their releases of the last three or four years to be a marvelous learning tool about this master filmmaker. I hope that you are looking forward to these releases too and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. I just want to point out that when you made this edit [8] I "assumed good faith" and trusted that you would follow through on your proposal before adding this book back to the further reading section. Since the book hasn't been published yet you can't have read it and there is no way to judge its value. Please remember that wikipedia is not just a series of lists and adding this book without being able to verify its value flies in the face of wikipolicies. I admit that this has hurt a bit but I will get over it. I wish you happy editing in the future and keep enjoying AK's films. MarnetteD | Talk 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't your fault that I have had a couple of bad experiences with assuming good faith with other editors here who abused that. The most recent one became so ugly that I have some lingering angst over it and I probably took some of this out on you so I can only offer my apologies. As to your question there is no way to know entirely. If I had known (a most unlikely situation I admit) that it hadn't been published yet I would have been inclined to take it out no matter who had put it in. But, as you so rightly point out, there are scads of bad publications in the other reading sections of many pages here at wikiP. It was me who provided the link in my above message that informed you about the new AK set that is coming out next month and it is very exciting news. For one thing it will give me my first ever opportunity to see The Idiot. I don't know if you have seen them but I have an affection for No Regrets for our Youth and One Wonderful Sunday which are two of the films that he made before hooking up with Mifune. Of course, if you have seen - or when you do see - them, you may not like them as much. I am also looking forward to the Drunken Angel release. While Kurosawa and Mifune are one of the great director/actor combinations I find myself marveling and the wide range of characters that Takashi Shimura played over the years. He often gave such an interesting contrast to Mifune's characters and I just feel that he is underated by critics and scholars, in the West at least. But that is just my feelings and I may be in the minority in this. Thanks for keeping me up to date on your research and, once again, happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Some editors at John Wayne have brought the matter to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Rms125a.40hotmail.com. It seems like a content dispiute to me. Would you give John Wayne a read through and make any needed changes. And if you can bring the John Wayne talk page under some control, that would be great, too. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/ c 23:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Monkeyzpop. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know about the new Criterion Collection DVD of this film that came out today. The film looks great although it may not have gotten the full restoration treatment as the are still a few scratches that appear film. The new subtitles add much to appreciating the full scope of the film. The Akira Kurosawa: It is Wonderful to Create documentary has, as always, some great interviews with those that worked on the film and some marvelous pictures of the young Mifune in the years leading up to his working with AK. There is also an interesting documentary about AK's dealings with the US censors between 1945 and 1948. Of course, if you have already puchased this DVD you may be aware of all of this.
I have one question about your last note to me. If you and your wife had had a boy, and if she had let you live after naming him Takashi, would you have bought him a Kurosawa motorbike for his 16th birthday? :-) MarnetteD | Talk 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
But let's be real for a minute.
Google searches return the following counts:
- " coming soon to a theatre" -- 37,600 hits
- " coming soon to a theater" -- 152,000 hits
- " my favorite movie theatre" -- 7,680 hits
- " my favorite movie theater" -- 18,600 hits
- " "liberty valance" theatres -theaters" -- 24,800 hits
- " "liberty valance" theaters -theatres" -- 54,500 hits
So, you're pretty much PWND. Don't revert my simple improvement to the encyclopedia, since you are very clearly outnumbered. - Vividraise ( talk) 19:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I brought it to WP:ANI. It's so clear to me that the link in that sentence should be to movie theater (a structure) and not to theatre (an arte forme), I will be interested only in seeing how you respond to "Wikipedia" seeing things my way, and not yours. -- Vividraise 03:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you've commented on a couple of talk pages about an anon removing information that perhaps is personally offensive. I agree with you, although I am a bit dismayed that some articles discuss the person's sexuality in some detail, and then briefly skims through the career. I think some of the material could and should be removed just to keep the balance, but just deleting the whole section is counterproductive and suggests a bias. To answer your question, the only way I can it being prevented is to first warn the anon on their talk page. If this is ignored, a second warning, and then I would suggest listing the article/articles at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. A semi-protect would restrict editing to registered users, and as has often happened in the past, the anon gets bored and moves onto something else. Mind you, requesting semi protection doesn't guarantee it will be semi protected and you would need to demonstrate that you've been unable to stop the edit war with standard warnings. I'll keep an eye on these articles also and see if they continue to be vandalised. Hope this helps. Rossrs ( talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Report him at WP:AIAV- IP addresses can be reported there, along with usernames. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 23:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your note on the Supernatural talk page about the two new stars. However, a vandal keeps reverting the changes I make. If you don't mind, could you please help me with him? Thanks Ophois ( talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The latest sock has been blocked... and appears to be the banned user, Primetime. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick resolution of the (non-)relationship link which had been added yesterday. AllyD ( talk) 10:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | Awarded for your sterling work in battling trolls and other vandals; back to the ramparts! Keep up the good work! Bzuk ( talk contribs) FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC). |
Whoops, should have explained a bit more. A barnstar is a Wiki invention to recognize accomplishments, both major and minor. See: Barnstar and Wikipedia:Barnstars for a further explanation. Needless to say, I have noted that you were greatly involved in trying to curb some of the vandalism that can be rampant on celebrity articles. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 23:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
I'd welcome any help you could provide on this article. I've been meaning to get to it for a while now. I just picked up a copy of John J. Crittenden: The Struggle for the Union at the library today, and will try to get to another library this weekend to get Kentucky Governors by Robert Powell and see what I can find in there. Of course, there are also the sources I've already linked in the references and further reading sections. My intention is to get the article to at least good and possibly featured status. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 18:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The request was removed because you were granted rollback permissions [9] Your request was malformed so I fixed it for you, and another admin approved you for the tool. Pedro : Chat 16:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was malformed because you didn't use the code as detailed at th etop of the page, which auto generates links etc etc - see [10]. It's no biggie so don't worry - enjoy the tool! Pedro : Chat 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not rollback an entire edit simply because you personally feel the edit was not justified as you did on the Alan Ladd article. In addition to deleting unsourced content (which is the only content I removed), I added metadata and information regarding Ladd's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. All of that content was erased. If you feel the inclusion of the information I removed is paramount, please provide a reference. Also, please be aware of what section you're adding content under. As it stands now, information about Ladd's personal life is under the "Death" section. As a show of good faith, the content I originally removed and you added back will remain in the article, but I have tagged it in addition to adding back the information that you removed. Pinkadelica ( talk) 02:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
1928 vs 1933 - If it were 1933, he would have been only 18 when he made the first Adventures of Superman series. I'm not a good judge of ages, but I don't think he was quite that young. So your 1928 would make more logical sense. Now, I have to ask you, since you say you've talked to him directly - what is his take on suicide vs. murder of George Reeves? The more I've read about it, the more I've become convinced that it was, in fact, suicide. But I wonder what Larson thinks about it, as I've heard different interviews where he has seemed to lean different ways. Thank you for your time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the good info. I think that what I'm thinking about is an interview in which he acknowledged some of the questions about Reeves' death, and it could be that the editing made it seem like he believed it could be murder. However, that would have contradicted a statement quoted in Superman: Serial to Cereal, in which I think the quote was that he "accepted" suicide right away... which means that in Larson's mind, it was perfectly logical that Reeves could have done himself in. A year or so ago, a researcher on the George Reeves page pointed out to me that every question raised about the suicide story has a reasonable explanation that's within the framework of the official report, and that the murder theory requires the hit man to somehow get into the house and out without anyone knowing about it. That pretty well convinced me. Many people want to believe it was murder, because it makes a presumably more interesting story and/or they just don't want to believe that their hero was so flawed. However, there is no question in my mind that Reeves was hanging around with too many shady characters who resembled the villains his TV character would beat up on, and that certainly didn't do him any good, but it helped to feed the conspiracy theorists. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello again Monkeyzpop. Have you had a chance to pick the Postwar Kurosawa DVD set that Eclipse and the Criterion Collection released last month? When I got it I decided to watch all of the 27 of his films that I have in the order that they were made. I have done this once before and it is a wonderful journey. I had never seen The Idiot before and the only thing that I knew about it is that it was an adaptation of Dosteyevsky's novel. Through a piece of sheer serendipity I watched it on a day that it was snowing here (though not as heavily as in the film). It was fascinating to see but it left me wondering what the original cut must have been like. Last Saturday I watched Ikiru and Seven Samurai on the same day and I don't think that there has ever been two such different and extraordinary performances back-to-back as Shimura's in these two films.
I have a question for you. When I saw No Regrets for Our Youth at the Denver Film Festival back in the late 80's the line that was a mantra for Yugie and Noge was always subtitled as "No regrets for our youth". The new DVD translates it as "No regrets for our life". As the film went on this started to bother me. Now the reasons why it bugged me would take too many words to describe and it may not make sense to you anyway, but briefly as possible, for me,
- "Life" means no regrets for anything that is happening now.
- "Youth" means not having any regrets about their idealism as students in spite of the vagaries that life has put in their way that has tempered those ideals. The contrast between the choices that they made as opposed to Itakawa's betrayal of those ideals is the best example.
I was wondering if the Japanese word that was being translated was ambigous enough to encompass both English words or do neither of them convey the full meaning of the Japanese term. Any ideas that you can give will be most appreciated but if you are too busy, or if any of this doesn't make a lick of sense, please don'e feel obligated to respond. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
...has been blocked indefinitely. What do you think of simply reverting his changes? He's about the only one (besides me) doing any work on the "Superman" (and "Gidget") articles recently. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I filed an ANI case against him for several reasons
[11] and they zapped him, officially for being disruptive, and unofficially for being a probable sockpuppet. He spent a lot of time on the episode list page, to cover the fact he had lifted it from a wiki-banned website. The dilemma, as you say, is that he might have actually improved the main page.
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc? 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like they found a sockpuppet.
[12] And the senior citizens' home story is a new one. Usually it's a roommate or a sibling.
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc? 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Defending his other self [13] is also typical sockpuppet behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like they found a sockpuppet.
[12] And the senior citizens' home story is a new one. Usually it's a roommate or a sibling.
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc? 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Suspiciously similar behavior to the blocked User:Overjoyed, apparently including some of the same uploads as per a note on my talk page. Also, his claim to be 99 years old squares with Overjoyed's dubious claim of being in an old folks home. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- And of course extending to deleting notifications from his talk page, without comment. The admin that blocked Overjoyed recommends taking this to an RFCU. Maybe I'll just let the user have his way this time and see how things go. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Monkeyzpop.
You undid my contribution to the Puerto Penasco tranportation section, stating that the airport is not yet open, and the Aeromexico has recently cancelled flight to that town. I believe you are mistaken. My primary reason for believing this is that I currently have a reservation to fly into there on Aeromexico this Tuesday, March 18, 2008.
Do you have access to some information that contradicts this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdwriter ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry mate I slipped up ther. Thanks Walking the blues ( talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Monkey: Just wondering about your revert of 92.11.146.196's two comments on the Talk page regarding Heston's alleged homophobia. Seems to me that 92's use of the Talk page instead of just going right into the article and inserting unsourced stuff was an invitation to discuss and not an overtly hostile or aggressive edit of the article itself. 92 seems to have an agenda, and that's not good - but if independent sourcing can establish a pattern of homophobic speech in CH's utterances, might that not qualify in terms of notability for inclusion in the article? Isn't that what 92 is asking on the Talk page? Wouldn't a response of "source it and present it in a balanced manner with counter argument" be more in keeping with the collaborative nature of Wiki article creation?
I have no regard at all for PC and detest it when it creeps (or charges) into Wiki articles trying to disguise itself as fact -but my questions above are genuinely informational. I don't know and hope that you do. Cheers Sensei48 ( talk) 00:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt response, Monkey! You wrote "He has been banned under several dozen identities and now edits without a Username in order to escape the bans" - after I posted the note above, it occurred to me that that might be the case. I've been heavily involved in a number of articles (most notably Battle of the Little Bighorn)where the principal figure is like Heston a flash point for political agendas from both extremes of the spectrum. I agree with your assessment of Heston - but I hope you understand that to me, without knowing the background of said sock puppet, the dismissal of the questions appeared possibly a bit peremptory (if such a thing is possible). Thanks for filling me in, and I will take a look at that editor's other disruptions. Sensei48 ( talk) 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I assume that other editors are too quick to assume that edits made by anonymous users are unproductive, and I especially don't want to scare legitimate anonymous editors away by silencing their concerns on talk pages, however ludicrous they may seem. If, however, I had known when I made the second revert about the identity of the original editor (i.e., the HarveyCarter sockpuppet issue), I wouldn't have had a problem with your original revert- if there had been a note to that effect in your original edit summary, I'm sure I wouldn't have reverted it. Thanks for filling me in. QuixoticKate ( talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken, I am no great speller. I rely heavily on my spell check which does no check my edit summaries! :( I will try to be careful. Now that I think about it I probly have about 500 edit summaries now where I have mispelled grammar as grammer. Thank you for pointing that out to me! Charles Edward 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
See: [14]. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC).
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
~ IP4240207xx ( talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you see an edit from 92.x.x.x on any of your watch pages, after reverting, check the users CONTRIBS and if you see the same pattern (they all have been), revert all edits please. Thanks. x IP4240207xx ( talk) 17:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this really acceptable for an encyclopedia:
Is this still not the rule of thumb:
Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided
And if this part is not, then what part of Boze Hadleigh is? Our standards are slipping. IP4240207xx ( talk) 09:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a difficult one. I'm absolutely sure that the claimed confession is deeply unreliable, for reasons inferrable from the background about her Alzheimers. But WP:SYNTH stops us from explicitly creating that argument if nobody else has said it.
I am investigating allegations of copyright violation posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. With regards to your assertion that the IMDb profile for this individual copied Wikipedia rather than the other way around, the evidence suggests otherwise, as the material added in one piece at 20:40, 30 December 2005 was identical to the IMDb profile, but alterations were made two minutes later that differ. Hence, anyone copying this for IMDb would have had to do so within that two minute window or go back to an earlier version in history. The assertion of copyright violation seems credible, and the material will need to be removed. Of course, editors are free to rewrite that information in their own words. Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for your note. I have responded at my talk page, here. And, P.S., if I have misunderstood your point and you were just notifying me rather than asking to restore the material, please let me know. In that case, message received, and I will blank your note from my talk page. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind. I decided to revise my answer here and go ahead and remove your note from my talk page. Feel free to remove this as well as my original note at your leisure. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Permission for re-use has to come through official channels. This is essential, because Wikipedia does not require verification of identity on account creation, and obviously we would have no other way of knowing that an individual contributor has authority to release the information to GFDL. For the legal protection of Wikipedia as well as copyright holders, we must verify that before allowing re-use on the encyclopedia. See this for specifics. IMDb prominently reserves copyright of material on its site to itself and its contributors. Unless we can verify that a contributor is the contributor in question, our allowance of the material is in violation of copyright. In your specific circumstances, it might serve your purpose better simply to change the language sufficiently that it is no longer an issue. And I'm trying to be succinct here in honor of your request. If I have been succinct to the point that I've become unclear, please let me know, and I will try to address that. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
MzP, I just wanted to apologize to you personally for abusing your trust. Read my comments here. Please carry on with some of the good things I tried to do. Once again, I am sorry. 4.240.165.59 ( talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my manner of speaking. I'm too irritable. I can't speak English well. CDChen ( talk) 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Pop,
The movie, The Searchers is about the Comanche in 1868. And I never heard of the "Great Comanche Raid of Galveston".
The Comanches are not known to have gone east of the Trinity River after Fort Worth, and hardly ever east of the Brazos River, at point in Bosque County south of Fort Worth, near Hillsboro. The farthest West that they are known to have usually gone is the Sacramento Mountains of southern New Mexico and the Rio Grande headwaters in Northern New Mexico/Southern Colorado. After the White hunters depleted the Buffalo they were then forced to seek government beef as far west as Fort Wingate in Gallup, New Mexico.
By 1868 the land east of the Trinity was fairly settled and did not have Indian raids. And everything west of Fort Worth is: West Texas.
- Foster, Morris W., Being Comanche: A Social History of an American Indian Community
- Kavanagh, Thomas W., Comanche Political History
- Richardson, Rupert N., The Comanche Barrier to South Plains Settlement
- Wallace, Ernest, and E. Adamson Hoebel, The Comanches
Also, if you read the book, The Searchers by La May.
Additionally, articles like:
- "The rider is John Wayne, cast in one of his strongest roles, the vengeful, remorseless Texas frontiersman Ethan Edwards. After an absence of several years, he returns to his remote west Texas ranch and his wife, son, two daughters and a young man named Martin Pauley (Jeffrey Hunter), adopted by the Edwardses after a Commanche raiding party massacred his own family years earlier."
- Arnold, Gary. - "Heroes' Welcome for 'The Searchers'". - Washington Post. - September 23, 1979
So, if it looks like West Texas, smells like West Texas, tastes like West Texas, guess what, it is West Texas.
Best O Fortuna ( talk) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
How come you removed my comment about William Shatner doing nyeh in Boston Public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.230.173 ( talk) 16:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
> "Dozens of people (even people with WP articles) could comment on Asner as a neighbor, favorably or not. It's NOT notable in itself."
- Dozens of people are not under discussion. Dr. Pournelle's comment is specifically, individually notable due to his own notability as an author of several dozens of books, his past political work in Los Angeles, and the extraordinarily wide gap between his own politics and Mr. Asner's. In this day of vicious hatreds spawning due to political differences, Dr. Pournelle's consideration of Mr. Asner as a good neighbor is an extraordinary compliment to Mr. Asner, and worthy of notation in an encyclopedic article. -- Davidkevin ( talk) 05:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. The user has been a bit over-aggressive in his edits, but enthusiasm is usually a good thing. Hopefully he'll learn the ropes of WP soon, and become a good contributor. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
hello. i'm not sure why you performed a wholesale undo on my edits, however, given your wiki-experience, i have no doubt you well know it wasn't vandalism as described in your edit comments. whatever the reason, you might be better served by offering a softer, less condescending and contentious tone. cheers. -- emerson7 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Your deletion of my referenced information has been reversed in Leslie Howard. It would have been better to edit it rather than delete completely. JMcC ( talk) 14:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The difference is, the article says that it is "slang" for what they call it. It is not slang, but what it is in the film. The paper says it. Stoddard says "Picketwire River" when he is in school teaching about the politics of statehood. The boy, Herbert Carruthers (played by O.Z. Whitehead; who actually 51 years old when he did the movie-but John Wayne tells him that he is to young to be in the bar or vote, and then is eating lollipops at the statehood meeting...), went fishing on the Picketwire. The article implies that it is slang, but it wasn't slang in the film, it is what they called the river. The article contains POV, OR, and supposition. 4.240.78.134 ( talk) 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't like my good faith edits being reverted. Technically, you're correct that the material I entered was already in the article, however it was poorly placed in the article and needed to be searched for specifically, rather than the information being placed in a location that actually made sense... where people looking for the information would find it. My concern is that you simply reverted rather than taking the time to understand the underlying issue and improve the article, and I think that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. I then looked at your contribution history and noted that most of your edits are reversions and some of them are reversions of good faith edits.
I'd like to urge you to take a little more care in reverting good-faith edits. If someone puts the time in to try to improve an article and you don't like the way it was done, please don't just revert the edit. Instead, please try to understand why the edit was made and work with the editor to improve the article. — X S G 09:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll add that I agree with about 95% of your most recent edits and can see that you quite frequently do revert for very good reasons. — X S G 09:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
|
|
The WikiProject Films Award | |
| I noticed you've done a lot of work on film-related articles; so, I thought I'd award you The Film Barnstar. Good job! -- Luke4545 ( talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC) |
And, after months of only working on it in fits and starts, I've pretty well finished the James Cagney article. I've added the personal and political life sections which hopefully give a bit more insight into the man. I've also updated all the references to the standard wiki templates. I'd really appreciate your comments on it, and what you think might be needed to improve it further. Thanks in advance! --Ged UK ( talk) 13:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Questions: How can you hijack a reference:
- Rubinowitz, Susan. - "Vultures Again Hawk a Cancer Snake Oil' Cure". - New York Post. - April 2, 2000.
Which says nothing of the kind? Do you always just make stuff up? If you are willing to do this, what else have you falsified?
You can't say that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Abraham Lincoln and use a reference that doesn't back that up.
This is one of the big problems with Wikipedia. Not only false text, but false use of references.
Please see:
I am very disappointed in you.
- 4.240.159.123 ( talk) 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Monkeyzpop, could you explain why the words about Ealing Studios, on the stewart granger page, saying it was a studio ' of high technical, screenplay and direction standards', which is critical orthodoxy,transgresses the neutral point of view rule, whereas the view that granger was ' equally at home in comedies' , which goes against critical orthodoxy, does not transgress the neutral point of view' rule? i think you did tighten and improve the edit otherwise Sayerslle ( talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you did a bangup job on Violent Saturday. That was one of my earlier efforts and I think my rawness showed in some of the writing. I should have gone back and fixed a long time ago. I should probably do that with some of my other past writings. Question: on the Lee Marvin character's "benzedrine" habit, are you 100% sure of that? I don't recall it being mentioned in the movie itself, but it has been a long time since I saw it. He was always sniffing at something. Stetsonharry ( talk) 18:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe we need to say "apparent" or something like that. Yes, it is one hell of a movie. It's interesting to compare how modern audiences react to this movie with how it was trashed by reviewers back then. What that says to me is that it was ahead of its time. Stetsonharry ( talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC) And by the way, if that era interests you, you may want to take a look at two neglected articles Peter Falk and Murder, Inc. (film) Stetsonharry ( talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You said you could in a way contact Charles Darning about Malmedy. Well, if he made an official statement we could use this in his article. To be verifiable the statement must be recorded somehow on a publically available platform(a homepage for example or a note to reuters). Wandalstouring ( talk) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my edits on the Wallace Beery article from last night. Why? Much of it was minor grammatical clean-up for smoothness and clarity (sometimes of my own earlier writing--I wrote much of this article at one time or another over the years) and the opening observation change that "Treasure Island" is only one of two signature sound-era roles could be looked at subjectively (Beery was just as famous for Viva Villa! and The Champ), but one thing really bothers me because it's just plain wrong and casts the entire article in a slipshod light: please explain to me why you would prefer that the article state that William Beery had a long career when he only made one film, playing George Washington in 1917. Skymasterson ( talk) 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for you wonderfully thoughtful and action-packed response to my post to this page. I didn't know about William Beery's behind-the-scenes career in movies, especially since there's never been any sort of proper Beery biography and the references have to be accumulated piecemeal from other people's biographies and accounts (among the currently living, apparently only Mickey Rooney actually liked him as a person). The only real treatment of any scope dealing with Wallace Beery that I've ever run across was nine or ten pages in Janine Basinger's recent book, "The Star Machine." It's not even a whole chapter but I did manage to glean some things I didn't know and she writes well, although she doesn't begin to appreciate Beery's sheer power and unique persona, the obvious reasons that no Beery picture in the sound era ever lost money. I was intrigued by someone mentioning the census in the Wikipedia article; I remember that my grandmother had an old Reader's Digest-style magazine from around 1915 or so that had a paragraph about the Beery brothers referring to "Noah Beery and his half-brother Wallace," which leads me to wonder whether the census records are accurate. They sure do look and sound like full brothers, which means nothing, of course. About William Beery I knew less than nothing except the next to nothing that imdb told me and I'd love to learn more about him and see a photo out of curiosity (Wallace, Noah, and Noah, Jr. all resemble each other closely).
I'd missed your comment on the Discussion page of the article and I agree with you, by the way, about it being unnecessary to refer to Jean Harlow by her full name more than once in a paragraph, which is why my edit had changed " Jean Harlow" to "Harlow" in the reference to China Seas. Whenever I otherwise pointlessly replace a word with a synonym, it's a possibly misplaced attempt to improve word flow and enhance the musicality of the writing (and hence, readability) although expanding the opening paragraph of the article to include another signature film admittedly does not do that since it definitely inserts a bit clunkiness at the very least desirable point, the very beginning of the page, so I'm tempted to remove it myself and let the addition of "arguably" suffice. In fact, I think I will in a moment, for the sake of the clarity and flow of the opening sentence.
As a final aside, I recently learned (from his Archive of American Television interview) that the maiden name of the mother of another of my favorite entertainers, George Carlin, was "Beery." I think I can see a bit of a resemblance in early photographs but I'm not sure. Names are funny; I remember getting a kick out of it when I learned that Wallace Beery and John F. Kennedy had the same middle name, although not as big as the kick I got when I found out that Kennedy and Adolf Hitler had dated the same woman, Inga Arvad. Makes Judith Campbell Exner seem pedestrian by comparison.
Thank you again for taking a second look at this and responding so graciously. You're no stranger to doing fine work yourself, that's for sure. It's a privilege to correspond with you. Skymasterson ( talk)
Yo man this a menial issue. Whats up want to be friends. I would side with you over emerson. That guy is very selfish If you want will join you side to fight against emerson. I would consider it an honor.
what on earth are you talking about? -- emerson7 02:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You described this revision as unhelpful. [15] - Look, we have Wikipedia:BLP - We have to be careful about posting info about living people. Of course some people on that list are dead too, but we should not have unreferenced lists of people like that.
If you want the list to continue, please gather references for the people listed and add back each person when you find a reference. It is better to over-reference than under-reference a Wikipedia article. WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing the citations :) WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to think of a Western, about 1950-1955 (I think).
A man goes undercover to infiltrate a gang of thieves and murderers. Once there he becomes involved in a love triangle with the woman of the headman. (He might have know her somewhere in his past.) The tension builds between the three of them.
I can't remember much else.
Robert Ryan came to mind, but in looking at his films, nothing jumped out at me. The woman was in the Susan Hayward vein (but it wasn't her; just of that era).
If you can help let me know.
> Best O Fortuna ( talk) 11:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know. The plot is about right. Arthur Kennedy seems like a very choice, but Ferrer and Dietrich don't seem right to me. I was thinking the other male lead was bigger than Ferrer and the woman was not as big as Dietrich. Maybe it was a later film.
- I am guessing that the basis for the story may have been the Hughes Ranch in Oklahoma and the Bert Casey gang, and the guy that goes undercover is Lute Houston (but that didn't turn out like the movies.
- > Best O Fortuna ( talk) 04:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Eugene O'Neill. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
emerson7 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
hello again. i really have not interest in swapping insults and casting aspersions. i do, however, have a problem with your indiscriminate reverts without regard to content, formatting, and other mos guidelines. i would also like to refer you to wp:own as i am unsure of whether you are aware of the collaborative nature of editing wikipedia. -- emerson7 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- you seem to be hung up on the issue of whether or not ah wilderness is his 'only' comedy, and that, however, is not what i'm addressing. you may not execute wholesale reverts on articles on unrelated content. we can discuss wording on the comedy issue, but that is another subject altogether. -- emerson7 22:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I intend to edit the section dealing with the "Playboy" magazine interview per the discussion on the article's talk page (last updated 24 February). This will take place sometime during the next five or so days (though probably not this weekend, I'm very busy). Do you have any input? Mark Shaw ( talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Helmed?= directed. I think you are right, and thanks for the information. I did work on 13 films and never really got a handle on all that lingo. I have changed the article accordingly. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
I appreciate your assisting my edit to the James Coburn page. I am the managing director of the James and Paula Coburn Foundation (JPCF) and wanted to elaborate on a few details. While your edit regarding Paula's work on the biography is more grammatically correct, it is inaccurate. She was not able to complete the book. She finished transcribing his own hours of recorded tapes and interviews. The project was resumed by the JPCF, who have hired Lionel Chetwynd and Alain Gansberg. They have continued a research process consisting primarily of interviews with Jim's friends and colleagues. The book is slated for completion within a year. As I am new to Wikipedia, I will ask your help to best convey this information on the page. Also, what kind of "cite" would I need to legitimate this information. Thank you for any aid you can provide. 98.233.38.66 ( talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm very glad to help you get the information into the article. Wikipedia has, as one of its first rules, a requirement for verifiability. It is not enough IN WIKIPEDIA to make a statement of fact. In fact, truth is not the priority in WP; verifiability is. Statements made in WP articles must be verifiable, or as the guidelines state, "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." It is not enough for the editor himself to know something is true. The editor must be able to back it up with a published source (published in print, on the internet, in a retrievable document or broadcast program, etc.). Unsourced statements based purely on the editor's own knowledge are OR ( Original Research) and are disallowed. Therefore a statement such as yours that the Coburn autobiography is being completed by someone is, in WP terms, sort of "hearsay" until it gets a citation. If you have even a line from a newsletter or a reliable website that confirms the statement, it may be included with that citation. If you have such a citation, I'll be glad to enter it for you if you like, or you can look at the WP citation guidelines. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks for catching that for me. Mark Shaw ( talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me. I wasn't thinking about him, but the "92" IP should have been a clue. If it's not bisexuality it's something about lung disease and smoking, isn't it? Except for Tyrone Power, who was a bisexual chain-smoker, if you believe everything you read. ;-) If I see any others I'll just remove them. Cheers. Rossrs ( talk) 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I've also been requesting semi-protection, such as here for Rex Harrison. It's only a short term solution, and it encourages him to move onto to another article, and although that's the last thing I want to encourage, I suspect that would occur even without the semi protection. I notice Brando is today's target. Rossrs ( talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I asked a clarification question at this topic and would appreciate your feedback regarding the question. Thanks! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- The alternative suggestion was to rename the current article, James Stewart (actor), to simply James Stewart. That page named James Stewart is currently the name of the disambiguation page for the name. James Stewart (disambiguation) currently redirects to James Stewart. All the varieties of James Stewart articles could remain there. The disambig page Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) already notes Jimmy Stewart is the popular name of the actor. The suggestion is that the main use of James Stewart is the actor and therefore shouldn't have (actor) tacked on to distinguish it. That makes absolutely sense to me. Both names are used by more than one person. Does that clear it up? Wildhartlivie ( talk) 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't understand why you reverted my edit [16], where I simply replaced braces by parentheses. In the Manual of style ( [17]), I didn't see anything about the use of braces, but I'm ready to learn. According to you, what was the special purpose of braces in this sentence : « Aissa Wayne - (Actress, now Attorney) Born March 31, 1956 {Appears in The Alamo at the end} » ? Elagatis ( talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the vote of confidence, and for pointing this out to me. I do agree that "Evanston" is not entirely accurate, and for the infobox and persondata, I was not (and still am not) sure what to do. In the article it gives his birthplace as "No Man's Land" (linking to No Man's Land which is a generic term that makes no specific reference to Evanston or Heston.) I wonder if maybe we should say "near Evanston..." in the infobox and then in the article explain it more clearly. I'm unsure about the No Man's Land link, and wonder if it was added to try to give clarity to something that is unclear. A similar situation exists with the place of death for Carole Lombard and it says "Mount Potosi near Las Vegas...." Perhaps that's not right for that article because it has a link to Mount Potosi, so the "near Las Vegas" bit is somewhat redundant, but maybe the format is suitable. What do you think? I'll also ask User:Wildhartlivie for her thoughts and between the three of us, we should come up with something good. Rossrs ( talk) 03:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I read the snippet I could bring up from In the Arena on Google Books, and the actual quote, as close as I could get it was "I wasn't born in Michigan, but in No Man's Land. ... bit of Chicago's northern suburbs where my parents, Russell Whitford Carter and Lilla Charlton..." Current Biography Yearbook for 1985 says "Charlton Heston was born on October 4, 1923 in Evanston, Illinois, where his parents..."
[18]. Biography.com, which is the website for A&E Television and the Biography Channel, lists his birthplace as Evanston, Illinois.
[19], while the
New York Times obituary says "It was all a long way from Evanston, Ill., where John Charles Carter was born on Oct. 4, 1923." If I had to hazard a guess, not having better access to In the Arena, I'd say that the reference to "No Man's Land" is probably a euphemism for being born in the middle of nowhere. Evanston and Wilmette, Illinois are certainly on the northern edges of Chicago, just off Lake Michigan, and it's highly likely it was relatively remote in 1923 when looking at the Chicago proper area. My suggestion would be to say "in an unincorporated area between Wilmette and Evanston, Illinois, an area Heston referred to as "No Man's Land." and put near Evanston, Illinois in the infobox. At least at this point with no better specificity than what we have. My family lived in the middle of nowhere too, when I was born, and generally, when one has to refer to where they were born in cases like that, the nearest town is given as the birthplace, whether incorporated or not. My 2¢ worth.
Wildhartlivie (
talk) 05:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like a euphemism to me. I agree with Wildhartlivie's suggestion regarding the infobox and the expansion that could be given in the article section about his origins.
I like Heston's quotation though, and perhaps it would be suitable to include a relevant portion of it; it may give the prose a little bit of texture, and it sounds a little more authoritative when referenced back to him. That's of lesser importance, of course, so if either of you don't like the idea, I'm happy.Rossrs ( talk) 07:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) - Just striking out that last part because I don't think the quotation makes it clearer. It certainly reads like Heston being a bit folksy about his origins, and that's fair enough, but when it also says about Chicago's northern suburbs, it contradicts the "No Man's Land" term. Evanston was probably used as the closest town for the purpose of recording the birth - ie the birth certificate couldn't say "middle of nowhere, Illinois". I should have thought of that, as this was also quite common in Australia, and some of my ancestors were born in "the middle of nowhere...." too.
Rossrs (
talk) 07:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard to tell all of the area history, or the validity of the area name given the cite that is given in the article without trekking off to the library, so I'll bow to whatever you decide. I do think it would be immensely helpful for clarification to have the article about that area's history and early name. For what it's worth, more supporting cites for the name perhaps?
Wildhartlivie (
talk) 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think that creating a specific article and directing to that page rather than the generic term, is the best way of dealing with it. I also found this Encyclopedia of Chicago page which refers to "No Man's Land" only once, but within quotation marks. All other place names are given without the quotation marks, so I wonder now if this was in any way an "official" name (for want of a better term) or whether it was the name by which the area was commonly known. Rossrs ( talk) 11:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's hard to tell all of the area history, or the validity of the area name given the cite that is given in the article without trekking off to the library, so I'll bow to whatever you decide. I do think it would be immensely helpful for clarification to have the article about that area's history and early name. For what it's worth, more supporting cites for the name perhaps?
Wildhartlivie (
talk) 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like a euphemism to me. I agree with Wildhartlivie's suggestion regarding the infobox and the expansion that could be given in the article section about his origins.
Yes, I thought so too. He certainly does like to stick to a few particular themes, doesn't he? :-) I suppose we should be thankful that nobody has yet written any suggestion that Walter may have been bisexual. Rossrs ( talk) 20:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Monkeyzpop, Normally I only revert changes which I think actually damaged the article substantially, which was certainly not the case of your recent edits to Clark Kent. However, yours is the second of two changes I have reverted in the past week in which I reverted just because the stated reason for doing so just seemed wrong. You state that the use of "we" in the article, as in "we see" is unencyclopedic. I have been in graduate school for a few years now and been extensively using the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the so-called "rhetorical we" is all over the place there. For example in the article "Theories of Criminal Law" one reads "Once we have identified the salient features that distinguish criminal law from other kinds of law" followed by "we see it as a process through which alleged wrongdoers". The article on "Aesthetic Judgment" contains the sentence "we make aesthetic judgments about nature". There are thousands of other examples. The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy strikes me as a reasonable standard for what is or is not "encyclopedic". Also there is considerable ambiguity over whether the correct possessive of George Reeves really is "George Reeves'" not "George Reeves's". This is not consistent in modern English, a most notable example being that there is a British football ground in Newcastle called "St James' Park", but a park in London called "St. James's Park." With cordial regards, -- WickerGuy ( talk) 20:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Bold text
MR TODD'S POETRY IS TRIVIAL (I DON'T THINK SO )
What is trivial about war heroe's for us that have served our country which you have not every thing that we say or do is not trivial come into our world and take the Queen's shilling and not be a paperback war hero i have sat in a fox hole working with H/E with people that you could not imagine in your worst dream's it's not like it in the war book's sonny do it and come back if you can and say what Mr Todd said is trivial Or are you a member of the hair bear bunch ????-- Crazyoldcat ( talk) 23:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's time. That was a pretty vile and inexcusable post, although I have no idea what was being said. Rossrs ( talk) 09:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't have the knowledge or the authority either, but let's bide our time. He may get tired, run out of steam and move away. If not, I'll figure out where to report him. That post really was vile. I'm beyond offended by it.
Rossrs (
talk) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I never thought I'd see someone going after my family here. I used my second permitted revert to set things right as I saw you were both out. His block is only for 24 hours. If he comes back again, we should just go straight to page protection. I'm sure that
User:Gogo Dodo will be more than happy to oblige.
UncleDouggie (
talk) 11:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- His account has now been blocked indefinitely. UncleDouggie ( talk) 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- I never thought I'd see someone going after my family here. I used my second permitted revert to set things right as I saw you were both out. His block is only for 24 hours. If he comes back again, we should just go straight to page protection. I'm sure that
User:Gogo Dodo will be more than happy to oblige.
UncleDouggie (
talk) 11:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that I'd say that kind of billing formula, with one actor billed first in the previews and posters and another in the film itself, is common, although it is seen occasionally today, and was virtually unheard of at the time. Hoffman did it twice, I think, with All the President's Men and the comedy Ishtar with Warren Beatty, but I don't believe you'll find an example of it between "Valance" and "President's Men." The idea for the practice, at least in modern times, seems to have originated with "Valance," which I find interesting. It generally only happens when two actors with precisely the same amount of clout work together. Storyliner ( talk) 02:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's not important one way or the other, just kind of intriguing. The whole subject of billing has always kind of fascinated me, I'm not sure why. But I'm not so sure I like the idea of sullying an article about "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" with a reference to "All the President's Men," so it's certainly fine with me to leave it out. Storyliner ( talk) 02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll certainly defer to your experience on this one, and as I said, after thinking about it, I rather like the idea of omitting any reference to President's Men in the Valance article (Valance, by the way, is probably my favorite movie since childhood--it's so endlessly rich, profoundly misunderstood by some of the most perceptive critics, and vastly underrated on so very many levels, and contains Wayne's and Stewart's finest performances and Marvin's best apart from Cat Ballou). The Ally Sheedy films and so on do tend to escape my notice. Am I right, though, that this wasn't actually done with a mainstream film between Valance and All the President's Men, or at least in that precise formula? I can't think of any examples between them although there are plenty of modern examples of all kinds of billing juggling, I guess; I still don't know who has top billing in the Rush Hour sequels, for example, Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker, and I wonder if anyone does. I think they switched it up on the prints themselves to heighten the confusion but I'm of course no surer about that than about anything else regarding those films' billing. And it's a little weird since Tucker apparently only does Rush Hour movies. Storyliner ( talk) 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I saw your message on Wildhartlivie's talk page about HC's sockpuppets. I noticed he was back the other day on the Peter Lawford article and forgot to tag his page. I've done so and I'll find someone to block him since he's a pretty big quacker and a SPI report would probably be denied because of that. Pinkadelica ♣ 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I too noticed the new registered name. I actually think if you approached the administrator who last blocked the IP, or one who was involved prior, the block to the new name would be quickly coming. I would look at whatever edit the registered account has made, compare edits to any of the 92. IPs and show that to the administrator, it wouldn't require an SPI request.
Wildhartlivie (
talk) 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I contacted Tedder (who protected Steve McQueen which was being hit by 92. range) and he blocked LouisWalshFan :) Pinkadelica ♣ 03:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Stacey Adams
An article that you have been involved in editing, Stacey Adams, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Adams. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I did reference what JBSupreme deleted, but there's still not a lot of "there" there, I'm afraid. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Why this revert to Lead Belly? 92.1.93.82 ( talk) 12:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I was concerned to see that you recently altered a correction I made to Caroline Chikezie's date of birth. Please be assured that I Know Caroline personally and was in the same year and class as her at school from when we were both 5 years old onwards...until 18! We both attended St. Antony's (infant & junior's) and St. Angela's Ursuline schools in Forest Gate London. I was actually born in 1973 which means that if Caroline was born on February 19th, the year would have to be 1974. (If she was born from September onwards then her year of birth would be 1973, but I made my correction on the assumption that her month of birth was correct, which means that she will be 36 in three days time). I would appreciate it if you refrain from changing her year of birth again, as I can assure you that she was not a newborn when she started school and whilst I can appreciate that actesses would love to wind the clock back once they hit thirty (wouldn't we all!) I like to think that Wikipedia can be a reliable resource for us all to use in the knowledge that information submitted is accurate and honest. Rest assured I would not have been petty enough to make corrections on wikipedia just to be a nuisance, but when I saw her birth details I felt obliged to submit an accurate and truthful amendment and would appreciate it if you would respect the changes made. Thank you. Ticklecreek ( talk) 11:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I appreciate your comments and your desire to help. However, the rules of Wikipedia are very specific and may seem unusual. Personal knowledge of a subject is not allowed as the sole source of information. This is known as Original Research WP:OR. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable based on a published or publicly available source, and that source must be cited in any edits made to an article. It does not matter, on Wikipedia, if something is true if it cannot be verified by a citation. Therefore I reverted your edit, not because it isn't true, but because it wasn't cited. You must come up with a citation (a reference to this information in a book or article or public document, even a school yearbook) before the information can be allowed to change standing material. One note, too: there are even more stringent guidelines regarding biographies of living people WP:BLP. As Caroline Chikezie has chosen to state publicly that her birth year is a certain year, WP editors must provide very clear documentation in order to counter what the person herself has publicly stated. Without a citation for such documentation, the general rule is that what the subject of the article says to be true remains in place. Thank you. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence of Caroline's birth date and given that Ticklecreek knows her suggests to me that you are behaving in a deliberately provocative and antagonistic manner, the fact that you have deliberately re-submitted a false date of birth suggests to me that you are either Ms. Chikezie herself (deceitfully trying to claim that you are younger than 36) or that you are a troll.
Besides, her true year of birth is also on IMDb. So I suggest that you stop playing games and grow up. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ticklecreek (
talk •
contribs) 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- First rules of Wikipedia: Presumption of good faith and civility. I was civil to you and to the other editor (whom, by good faith, I will presume is not you under another name, though why two different users would both be so interested in this exact topic at the same time is interesting). I am not Miss Chikezie, nor do I have an agenda here other than following Wikipedia rules. Have you read Wikipedia's guidelines on original research WP:OR or verifiability WP:VERIFIABILITY? It's a simple rule: you can't change what's there if you can't verify and cite your changes. I don't care if Caroline Chikezie is 900 years old, if you can cite that, put it in. Otherwise please follow the rules. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I was no less civil to you if you read my submission and therefore find your 'presumption' based on 'good faith' somewhat tainted by the accompanying statement of yours which followed:"(whom, by good faith, I will presume is not you under another name, though why two different users would both be so interested in this exact topic at the same time is interesting)". I would appreciate it if you did not direct your hostility/sarcasm at me for the contribution of a third party who is clearly the source of your displeasure. However, given that her year of birth is verified on IMDb,(and she is definitely not 900 years old) I consider this matter closed. Ticklecreek ( talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your removal of text from the lead of John J. Crittenden. A lead is per WP:LEAD supposed to summarize an article, which this lead does better than two sentences. Hekerui ( talk) 20:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
And don't worry, I'm not done with that lead either. I just ran out of time this morning. I've still got a lot of work to do on the body of the article, and I anticipate expanding the lead by at least two paragraphs. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 21:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
was appreciated. [20] Thanks Piratejosh85 ( talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now, caregiver is much better than caretaker! I must say I didn't realise that carer wasn't a word used in the US. This common language that divides us! Hopefully I've not left too much British English scattered in there. I'm still planning on getting this to FA when I can find the time to work on a peer review etc. Ged UK 13:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your previous attention to the Akira Kurosawa page. As you indicated on the talk page, you objected to the headings "Son and immediate post-war works" and "Daughter and international recognition". As supervisory editor for the project, I had the same objection for the same reason, so I deleted "Son" and "Daughter" from those headings. Yesterday, I nominated the article as a candidate for Featured Article. I would be interesting to know what you think of the revised work. If you could go to the Featured Article Candidates list and offer your support, I would be thrilled. If you have constructive comments to make to improve the page, I would be happy to hear them. Thanks. Dylanexpert ( talk) 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You notified, erroneously, me about having created an article, now up for AFD, which i did not create. Not sure what is up, i didn't create or edit that article. Please do notify the correct editor. No further reply to me needed. Thanks. -- doncram ( talk) 01:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
I couldn't help noticing that you take exception to listing Karl Malden as a "Serbian American." Please don't continue to remove this description without a valid reason and without discussion leading to consensus. Wikipedia does not allow discrimination or bigotry. If you have a problem calling Malden a Serbian American, then you are showing a lack of civility and unnecessary sensitivity to adding an ethnic origin to a person's name. Check out this page if you are in doubt: Being Serbian American.
A similar reversion to yours did at least give a reason relating to the opening paragraph of a biography. However, in this case it could be argued that Karl Malden's Serbian origin was very much a part of his notability, especially for those people who are proud of their Serbian/Yugoslavian origin, or from Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no harm in identifying his origins, except to bigots who would prefer that Americans suppress their ethnicity. You might not be aware that according to the Wiki article, Karl Malden "was fluent [in Serbian] till his death." Obviously, he cared to maintain this fluency throughout his life.
If you revert more than three times in 24 hours you will be in danger of being blocked as an editor (see: The three-revert rule). Once a dispute has been moved to the Malden Talk Page, there are several ways to resolve the dispute (see WP:DR). Thank you. -- Skol fir ( talk) 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I got back onto wiki again after a long break due to work. I see that you are still keeping the odd 'vandals' out of John Wayne. I remember dealing with a major sock puppet guy with you back in 2007. I hopefully will be able to help out again here and there. Xiahou ( talk) 02:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am happy to work anyway you wish. I noticed that the plot summary is way too long as noted by the wikipedia note and it had been that way for almost 12 months so I assumed that others weren't planning to do anything. I would suggest that if you plan to introduce more content be mindful not to blow out the size of the section again. The summary is a summary not a mid movie script so it covers the main story threads and shouldn't have dialogue for example. I left some dialogue in the section because as you point out there have been a lot of edits so I wanted to leave it to others (including you) to finish the job. If as a result of our efforts the section is much briefer, our collaboration can be judged a success.
I would like to know why you removed my recent comment on Phil Carey, I feel The comment i made would be of interest to some people and i even included a reference, therefore i would like to know why you removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincelord ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Your IP edit-warrior is back at it - I could use some help over there... MikeWazowski ( talk) 14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello M. It was good to hear from you again after so many moons! I appreciate the time to let me know the info about Mr Adams (or is that Maxwell Smart - er I mean Tennessee Tuxedo.) A few editors, including Ponyo and myself, have been dealing with an IP hopper who keeps adding unsourced info to infoboxes. Based on what you told me I wouldn't fuss if you put the item back in. If you ever come across some sourcing that we be great. On another note I was lucky enough to receive the Kurosawa 100th anniversary boxed set of DVD's as a gift last year. It is a gorgeous item. Then I tracked down The Quiet Duel thru Amazon so my collection of his films is complete. After watching them in chrono order I can say two things (well I could say many more but I wont take up your time with all that) - those films of his that are considered lesser are better than most of the product that is being put out today - I am very lucky to like film and to have seen all that he did. I hope that you have a great weekend and again thanks for your message. MarnetteD | Talk 12:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you leave the edit that I made please > it says I deleted references, but I didn't I just moved them in the next edit. The page is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.215.95 ( talk) 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
In case this wasn't clear, I need you to revert it back for me as I have already reverted the page twice today (in trying to get my HELPFUL edit to stay, it keeps being bloody deleted...) 82.47.215.95 ( talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I only changed a few lines, any other problems are nothing to do with me. Sorry if it's not PERFECT but it's better than it was - I just desperately want that comment about catholicism removed, because it is so misleading, and it's being made so difficult for me. It's extremely frustrating... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.215.95 ( talk) 21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Monkeyzpop, I'm pasting this exchange from the Katharine Hepburn talk page about a vandal called 76.176.167.130 who was apparently active in 2007 and has returned to delete about half a dozen photographs I'd uploaded recently on the Bette Davis and Hepburn sites from Wikipedia Commons. Every time something like this happens, I tell myself I'm going to stop contributing to Wikipedia but so far I haven't managed to keep my promise to myself. Upsmiler ( talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- An editor identifiable only by 76.176.167.130 has been on a campaign to remove material he apparently finds personally offensive or discomfiting from a number of articles. He has deleted entire sections (and removed any citations which might support those sections) dealing with quite legitimate topics regarding the sexual orientation or sobriety of various celebrities, in particular Randolph Scott, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Cary Grant. Although I myself am rampantly opposed to gossip and to the increasingly frequent "outing" of anyone and everyone that seems to be de rigeur in some circles, I believe that the material relating to sexual orientation may well have a legitimate place in these articles, especially as cited and most currently expressed. Therefore, the wholesale deletion of anything which in some fan's eyes "denigrates" the subject is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated purposes. I have reverted a couple of times, but see an edit war brewing. Is there a means of preventing this activity when the editor, 76.176.167.130, is not a registered editor? Monkeyzpop ( talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's gotten escalating warnings up to final warnings. The next time he does this, he should be reported to
WP:AIV. Whomever writes up the report at AIV needs to make sure that they note that this seems to be a static IP address as the editing pattern has remained the same for many days. —
Elipongo (
Talk
contribs) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- He's at it again four years later. He's gone through the Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn articles, eliminating maybe half a dozen or more photos I'd posted recently from Wikipedia Commons. Someone with some clout in these matters should do something immediately. Upsmiler ( talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- He's gotten escalating warnings up to final warnings. The next time he does this, he should be reported to
WP:AIV. Whomever writes up the report at AIV needs to make sure that they note that this seems to be a static IP address as the editing pattern has remained the same for many days. —
Elipongo (
Talk
contribs) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the unconstructive edits by 69.124.71.248 but those were good for a laugh ;) Regards, Scieberking ( talk) 17:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, either is correct I guess. It's not a major point and if you want to put it back that would be fine. It's quite possible that you're correct both on linguistic grounds and the procedural grounds of reverting an edit which is not an improvement.
My thinking (and I didn't look up any refs for this, it's off the top of my head) is that in common speech "entitled" is most often used in the "empowered" sense. "I did the dishes so I'm entitled to that last piece of pie" is probably more common than "I think the book is entitled Hitler's Dating Tips for Teens or something"; people would say "named" or "called" rather than "entitled" usually. (They might also say "titled" and if Random House says that "titled" is not used this way I think they're wrong.) Granted the Wikipedia is a formal reference work. But even then "entitled" strikes me as just a little bit stuffy.
Granted "titled" has other meanings also, such as holding a title of nobility, but these are not used much.
However, the point is well taken that the edit (changing "entitled" to "titled") was basically change for change's sake -- neither an improvement nor a degradation, to an appreciable degree anyway. These add nothing and so the edit is just pointless roiling of the text, and I've occasionally reverted edits for that reason, so that's fine. On the other hand, it was new editor, and given that there's little difference (if one does grant that) then, meh, let him have his edit, I guess. Herostratus ( talk) 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The trivia about the possible origin of the name "Taggart" might have some merit IF a source could be found that asserts that the other film was indeed its origin. Otherwise, it's just an editor drawing possibly-erroneous inferences. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Cecily Adams, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Murder One, Home Improvement and Check It Out ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the new reference, but would you kindly add the page number where the information is found? Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
please do not revert my edits again. It was the wrong move that you did. Voggyer 20:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voggyer ( talk • contribs)
did you seen the 2012 kids choice awards? Voggyer ( talk) 02:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Alan Hale, Sr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanley Fields ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Howdy,
I see you edit a great many articles of actors who starred in Westerns, such as John Wayne, Yul Brenner, Lee Van Cleef, etc - as such I hope you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Westerns, and if you can find time to comment or support the proposal for a Westerns WikiProject, as we will also need people who are good with biographies, it would be appreciated. Thanks. — Ma®©usBritish[ chat 20:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Beaver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Justified and FX ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice. A conversation is happening at WikiProject Military history regarding disruptive edits to Audie Murphy. You are receiving this notice because your name has been listed in the article's history as having reverted some of the troublesome edits. — Maile ( talk) 17:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I was looking back over my previous edits and saw that you (just today!) put up credible information which I had asked for on Bea Arthur. Then I checked your contributions and saw your long history of work. Good job. Catherinejarvis ( talk) 19:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of United States Marines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maude ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, i just changed the wording of the lead section. It s just a minor alteration, but since you were heavily involved in the article and the effort to try to change the impression that O'Neill only wrote one comedy, maybe you would like to have a look and change it back if you deem it unfitting. Regards, Gott ( talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raikin Ben-Ari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UCentral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KUCO. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red River (1948 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rio Bravo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited And Then There Were None, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Monkeyzpop. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to
Sarah Spiegel (singer). I noticed that when you added the image to the
infobox, you added it as a
thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see
WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]
Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg.
There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!
Zackmann08 (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 18:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You used the word "disgust" in this edit, though it seems too strong a word. Are you able to soften it? Also at The Last Hunt (novel) and Milton Lott. Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 01:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello
I noticed your edit here; I've had to change it, for the reasons given
here. Just to let you know. Otherwise, good catch! Regards,
Swanny18 (
talk) 21:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Monkeyzpop. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Monkeyzpop. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi there. I support to the idea of using the full name "Mako Iwamatsu" to its article instead of "Mako" alone. Could it be possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.107.55 ( talk) 13:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not in a position to authorize such a change, but I would be opposed to it, since Wikipedia consistently uses the name by which subjects are most commonly known. Mako worked and was extensively known by the shortened version of his name, and very few people would quickly recognize Makoto Iwamatsu. Mako was his official Screen Actors Guild name of record, too. Changing the page's name would be akin to changing John Wayne's page to "Marion Morrison" -- accurate in one sense, but very misleading. Monkeyzpop ( talk) 04:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hugh Marlowe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway Theatre. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)