Hi Susie. I am traveling with spotty internet access so can't be dependable to comment in the next month or so. If I do find myself with a good connection I'll be happy to add my opinion. I have a connection right now but not good enough to support the time I'd need to look at an article. Best wishes.(0live)
Dear TrueHeartSusie3. Please excuse me communicating out of the blue. On 26th July last I was among a number of people who met Michael Chaplin on Black Patch Park, a place with which I and others have been associated for over a decade. It's just under 2 miles from my home in Birmingham. I'm an academic, now retired, as well as a local historian and a wiki contributor. I recognise flimsy evidence - I hope. I care about the history of Black Patch Park. I've no pecuniary interest in establishing the likelihood that there's some truth in the rumour that Charlie Chaplin was born on the Black Patch, but in the absence of proof he was born anywhere else, I believe that the possibility deserves attention. Michael Chaplin who seemed a charming man, very unassuming, has now visited the Black Patch on three occasions over the past three years. Last month was the first time I met him, as a representative of The Friends of Black Patch Park, a lovely but messy place which we have helped save, for the time being, from being built over. As a group we rather like the idea that Hannah Chaplin, a troubled woman, may have found temporary refuge among the Gypsies of the Black Patch, some of whose descendants have helped us in our campaigns to save the place. One day we and others hope to see see it restored, so that might be a motive for hoping Charlie Chaplin was born here. We have thoughts of a local football Derby for the Chaplin Cup! The Friends make no claims to the truth of Jack Hill's letter, only that the idea should be given the same consideration it seems to have been given by Charlie Chaplin. I was impressed by the credence Michael Chaplin gives to Jack Hill's letter claiming the star was horn on the Black Patch. I used my camera to catch his words on Youtube. I think this matter will remain a mystery, but so is the likelihood that the great man was born in London. I suggest the idea that Charles Chaplin was born on the Black Patch in 1898 be given the same credence his son, our patron, gives that idea. Forgive me if this is an inappropriate posting. Kind regards Simon Baddeley Simon Baddeley ( talk) 14:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear TrueHeartSusie3.Thanks so much for your polite reply. Sorry, that sounds patronising as I realise you are one who is stringently respectful of Wikipedia's desired culture. I have contributed several articles to Wiki. One involved a so-called 'academic diplomat' editing me with such testiness that I had to stand back while he was smacked for his unkindness by another editor who helped me adjust the presentation of evidence to make it acceptable - namely the submission of a letter to my subject, Richard Pine, from Seamus Heaney. Of course Wiki should not be used for 'activism' - other than the magnificent one of Wikipedia. I carelessly missed the vital note to which you've referred me. If I'd been less preoccupied with finding a place for the Friends of Black Patch Park's birthplace 'conjecture' I'd have picked it up. It remains intriguing to study successive Wikipedia entries for CC between 2010 and now. The ‘note’ you pointed out to me appeared in 2011 'An MI5 investigation in 1952 was unable,,,etc' Earlier entries had 'confidently' reported the great man born in London, where of course he was, indisputably, 'brought up'. The assertion about a London 'birthplace' has, however, faded. Thus is Wikipedia's iterative genius demonstrated, notwithstanding the legitimate points you make. Of course forcing this point to give weight to our interest in the Black Patch would be 'problematic' given the array of agreed facts and expert judgements surround CC's early years. I'm a Popperian from my undergrad days. With you, I don't doubt this matter, barring some exceptional finding, will remain a mystery and should never, barring new and credible evidence, be appealed to Wikipedia as 'a fact'. All I/we wanted to get on the Wiki record was a gentle muddying of the waters on the matter of Charlie Chaplin's birthplace, which was how Michael Chaplin explained his views on where his father might have been born when, on Sunday 26th July 2015, we and friends, including Gypsies, stood together on the Black Patch in pouring rain. Your kind and helpful reply made my day. Thanks again. May the force of Wiki be with you! Simon Baddeley ( talk) 09:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Marilyn Monroe's "paternal grandfather", Edward Mortensen, was born in Haugesund in Norway. A statue of Marilyn has been raised there. Mbakkel2 ( talk) 30.8 2015 15:31 (CEST)
Hi I noticed the following is in correct. “In 1924, she married her second husband, Martin Edward Mortensen, but they separated only some months later and divorced in 1928.” Please change this because her page is locked for editing. Justanotherwikieditor27653 ( talk) 13:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Martin Edward Mortensen was briefly her step father. She never married him. Her second marriage was to Joe DiMaggio. That’s why that statement is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherwikieditor27653 ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marilyn Monroe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Kelley and Sam Shaw. 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) 09:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
So sorry, totally forgot. Where are we with it? Did you replace the article with your own? I'd like to take a look at it before you take to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Will try to look tomorrow. Well, three isn't too bad, but yeah for somebody like Monroe you'd ideally think it would be best to read a few more before taking to FAC. With Sinatra between us we're planning on perusing about 25 books! It might be worth mentioning the sexual abuse was claimed and disputed. Perhaps ask We hope on that one who is usually good with controversial claims and footnotes (and getting images) ;-). I'll see when I give it a read!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll be putting in a grant request for books shortly for Sinatra books. If there's any extra Monroe books you want at the same time I'll request them, and you won't have to pay a penny for them. If there are ones you want list them below with an Amazon.co.uk link and the price next to them and total.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I might get one book on Monroe too. Once that extras reading is done we can take it to FAC I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Marilyn , Leaming £12:40 American Monroe, Baty £17:41
OK I'll get those when I make the request. Sending them to you wouldn't be impossible, but I think they might interest me and I can help with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey! I've started reading through and making some comments in my sandbox. It's generally really good! But there's always things to nitpick over, which is what I'm doing :) I generally think it's better to have reviews publicly open though, so that you can refer to them when you go to GAN or FAC. I can either put them on the article talk page, or you could open a PR? It's quick and easy. You decide and let me know. I'll carry on later, and also look at your specific questions here. Regarding sources though, I think you're absolutely fine. There's no reason you should need more than 2 or 3 books for biographic detail - as long as you're using the most comprehensive/highly regarded that's fine, since you're literally just reproducing the facts of her life. I can tell you're digging deeper for the analytical stuff, and that's a very good source list you have in your sandbox. It's more than I used for Hepburn, for example, and that seemed to be fine for FA! You'll never be able to look at all the books written about her and no-one expects you to. -- Loeba (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll give Monroe a full read tomorrow, but in glancing at it I already sniff future FA potential, great job! I may request the two books with the Sinatra stuff though just to see if anything has been missed. That way we can be sure! As Loeba says though, it wouldn't be essential to read more biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
So what's your intention for the article now? It's most definitely at GA and I'm pretty sure it could pass for FA as well (I'd certainly support it), it's just a matter of how much you're bothered and feeling like facing FAC! But it would be nice for you to get recognition for your efforts. -- Loeba (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
These are your options for Clash by Night, let me know if you like one and I'll upload it: [1], [2], [3] (that ones probably no good). Also I had another question I forgot to ask - about "the walk" in Niagara, did you check that it's actually 30 seconds? That was just a guess on my part, is it definitely that long? -- Loeba (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3, you can always combine references like what I have done here so as to prevent any cluttering of references ( WP:CITEBUNDLE) like for example
"In late 1944, Monroe met photographer David Conover, who had been sent by the U.S. Army Air Forces' First Motion Picture Unit (FMPU) to the factory to shoot morale-boosting pictures of female workers.[51][52] Although none of her pictures were used by the FMPU, she quit working at the factory in January 1945 and began modeling for Conover and his friends.[53][54][55] He also encouraged her to apply to the Blue Book Model Agency, run by Emmeline Snively, to which she was signed in August 1945.[51] She began to occasionally use the name Jean Norman when working, and had her curly brunette hair straightened and dyed blond.[56][57] As her figure was deemed more suitable for pin-up than fashion modeling, she was employed mostly for advertisements and men's magazines.[58] According to Snively, Monroe was one of the agency's most ambitious and hard-working models; by spring 1946, she had appeared in 33 magazine covers for publications such as Pageant, U.S. Camera, Laff, and Peek.[59][60]"
You can combine the references into one like for references [51] and [52] as below with the year of publication in increasing order like 2001, 2004, 2012 and so on.
{{sfnm|1a1=Spoto|1y=2001|1pp=90–91|2a1=Churchwell|2y=2004|2p=176}}
You can do this for the book references say Spoto, Churchwell, Banner and Summers. Cheers. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marilyn Monroe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conspiracy, Monkey Business and Foul play. 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) 10:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll give you a hand with them. First of all I need to look at some film trailers for the film screenshots you currently have. Know that File:Marilyn Monroe, Betty Grable and Lauren Bacall in How to Marry a Millionaire trailer.jpg is OK because we viewed it for a Lauren Bacall-related project a while back. File:Marilyn Monroe in Niagara.jpg This one isn't OK because it's from the Doctor Macro site-there's no proof at the site that anything of theirs is in the public domain. I note this is a wardrobe test photo, so it would have been something which wouuld not have been released to the public. A good question about whether it's PD or not. Let me have a further look. We hope ( talk) 17:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You don't even need to find magazines that are out of copyright - as long as you can prove through searches that the publicity images themselves didn't have copyright renewed (which they never did) you're fine. Honestly, I've gotten about a dozen images on the Hepburn and Chaplin articles cleared even by super-strict FAC. -- Loeba (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld's next FAC of which I'm a co-nominator. Feel free to leave comments at the FAC page. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, TrueHeartSusie3. Do let me and Doc know if you are willing to re-review the article again. Cheers. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For the perseverance and scrutiny you have shown in the difficult re-write, editing and Wikipedia:RS citing of the Marilyn Monroe and Death of Marilyn Monroe articles, I award you this Barnstar! Well done. Kierzek ( talk) 18:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Susie. Which were the books you said you didn't have for Monroe again? I'll do my best to get hold of them before this proceeds just to ensure it is definitely comprehensive. Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with Sinatra!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The only fault I can see with Monroe at the moment is that I think you overuse the Spoto source. I mean it is Monroe, hundreds of books and thousands of articles written about her. I think it would be good to vary the sourcing a bit more, but there's nothing wrong with using the definitive biography on a subject if it's reliable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I tell you what Susie, nominate it for Good article and I'll review it for you. It should easily pass. My comments would be better going into that. Then you can open a peer review afterwards. Contact me on my talk page when you've nommed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marilyn Monroe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Review done, good job, just some pointers and critical thoughts though. I think after I pass it you'd be best opening a peer review and asking for wide input and see if people agree with my comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Passed, well done! A vital article too! I really do think though that you should open a peer review asap for some broader input on improving it. I think if enough people comment and provide input an FA is possible. But see how is goes with the review. That's what I'm going to do with Sinatra. It is difficult producing an FA on such people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to open a peer review then? I do hope you weren't put off by my comments on it. I couldn't just pass it and simply say "perfect" as Loeba might have ;-) Others might not agree it needs more source material from her time period and might think it FA worthy as it is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I caught your message! Yes see what people think at peer review and if you get positive vibes take it to FAC. I'm going to do the same with Sinatra once I get the Kaplan book and trim it down and then take to GA next week. We'll see how it goes. Ssven2 and myself will definitely be doing Cary Grant next month anyway, about time too! Thanks for your work on such a big personality anyway and good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I asked a few people to look at the peer review, hope it helps.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you like to be a co-contributor to Cary Grant along with Doc and Me? It would be great having you on board. I will get to Grant once my exams are over in mid-November this year. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, exact;y, Maureen O'Hara beckons ;-). But at the same time I want to pin much of wikipedia's other side onto my dartboard and throw darts at it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. Marilyn Monroe, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 00:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC) |
Moved:
Well, I do in fact stand corrected: the way you were doing it is certainly unattractive but seems to have had support at WP:FULLNAME. I think it's a mistaken overuse of situations like Ms Manning's, where you don't want to have to say "born" two times in a row:
is certainly an improvement on the alternative. It's not odd, though. There are plenty of things that you can do in more than one way and (as with #Notes sections) quite a few "standards" that are simply being misapplied at the moment.
Reverts are an unpleasant way to go about it—I'm not a vandal—but as long as you're keeping the nowrap tags, it looks like either way is fine. As for pin-up model, there's nothing on the talk page about it... found it. You were right and Tim Riley was wrong. There's nothing "standard" about pin-up modeling and foreign and younger users have no idea what it's talking about. It isn't remotely WP:OVERLINK.
Sorry you took my moving this discussion as unpleasant. Took me a little bit to poke around on the policy &c. and seemed better to talk about it here, where other people will come to look for all things Marilyny.
So to do a tl;dr: apologies for overreacting to the revert. It looks like either way is fine and, given the work you've put into the article, I'll defer to you if you really like the other way. I really do disagree about the link: I certainly was looking for that link and it wasn't on the page for me to click and other editors simply won't know what it is in the first place. Kindly do keep the certain improvements like the comma thing and the nowrap tags so her name displays clearly. Thank you again for your time and hard work and sorry for the unpleasantness. — LlywelynII 13:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Susie, I think you're definitely onto a winner with Monroe. Those 50s reviews you added settle my own concerns with it. And given that Tim and Brian are fine with the Spoto source. Perhaps given it a couple more days but if you proceed to FAC soon afterwards I think I'd be in a position to support it, as I'm sure would some of the others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The article Marilyn Monroe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marilyn Monroe for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Susie. Just wanted to say the article so far is very well composed. I've left a few more comments and will continue after they're addressed. Shouldn't be too hard to pass at FAC. Have you thought of making her TFA for her 90th birthday, perhaps? Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It's been quick failed. I suggest you just continue with editing it. If LS starts getting difficult again then a topic ban might be on the cards. You or I could have told LS what Snuggums told him in the GAR. I disagree on her friendship with Michael Jackson being trivial though, and I also disagree with LS's recent removal of relationships she had. A decent article would mention those names. Your call though if you're going for it! If you want a collaborator I may see later in the month, though I have Cary Grant planned. I think for a decent article on Taylor it would need a great deal of reading like the Sinatra article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Going back to Monroe for a second: I added the Clash image - do you think it looks better as a multi image with Monkey Business or separated? I don't know so will leave it with you! Maybe the Clash one needs to be cropped more... As for Taylor, I don't mind helping out with copyediting and things like that. For structuring, I suggest:
Something like that would be the ideal IMO. If you want to keep it more simple for now though, I understand that..! -- Loeba (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"You've said nothing positive about the current article. Nothing." - Susie, how dare you not be a beacon of positivity and encouragement like Lightshow! Lol. -- Loeba (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool. I see Spoto also authored a book on Taylor which looks good!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Taylor. 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) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Kailash29792 has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
On 15 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marilyn Monroe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marilyn Monroe was featured on the cover and on the centerfold of the first issue of Playboy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marilyn Monroe. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh my god, Susie and @ Dr. Blofeld: you have to watch this. So so SO good! Ha, love it! -- Loeba (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
LOL!! You know I might work on Ginger Rogers sometime, I love her to bits. In my opinion one of the most gorgeous actresses but underrated in looks. Her eyes are about the same colour as mine LOL, I think that's the attraction ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit addicted to watching it haha, it makes me so happy. I'm sure it helps that I already love the song. There's a comment from the uploader saying it took him three weeks, so there you go! Yeah I will read through Liz, possibly tomorrow. -- Loeba (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Errol Flynn might be an interesting to do too. Can't say I'm a fan, but he was one of the most badass actors of that period which I'm sure would make a fascinating read!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Loeba: @ Dr. Blofeld: I'm otherwise ready to take MM to FA review, but I noticed that there are still two reference mistakes which I don't know how to fix. I've used Thomas Harris' 1957 and Richard Dyer's 1978 (I think, have to re-check) essays, but they are included in Christine Gledhill's 1991 anthology. The problem is that at the moment both essays are shown as being from 1991, which is wrong, and I have no idea how to fix this so that the essays have different publ years from the anthology. Do you know how to do this? TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 11:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elizabeth Taylor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valentino. 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) 09:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jack Hemingway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vansockslayer ( talk) 12:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the price you pay for trying to protect the encyclopedia I'm afraid!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 23 November 2015 (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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi TrueHeartSusie3, I see that you're a woman Wikipedian. Would you be interested in reviewing this nomination, which is about an Indian actress? I'll most probably review the Monroe FAC. Thanks, — Vensatry (Talk) 09:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Bingo TrueHeartSusie3! Glad for what you've said. Look forward to see some improvements in the article! — Vensatry (Talk) 18:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3, can you do me a favour by striking out the concerns (which you think are addressed) in the FAC page. I'll implement the pending changes probably in a week's time. As for Rohan Antao being her former publicist, you might want to have a look at Relentlessly's thoughts at the per review. Thanks, — Vensatry (Talk) 06:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I took a look at it too and sadly agree that it's not FA material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
@ TrueHeartSusie3: You may have an interest in checking out: THIS. --- Professor JR ( talk) 12:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you call it a reliable source? I was once told that a major news website can be considered a RS if it has a well-developed article on Wikipedia. Kailash29792 ( talk) 10:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Suzie, I am not in the business of adding 'factoids' or edit warring. I am a long time editor of Wikipedia and I respect its conventions. I added these paras in order to support this part of the article. That Marilyn herself directly influenced a major magazine to use an established photojournalist known for a particular style of reportage - candid , available light photography - to promote her at this particular moment in her career, for quite clear reasons (in references I supply) is entirely relevant to this article. Please reconsider less reactively. Thank you,James
James McArdle www.mcardle-carrington.com
Mobile: 0411 275 289 Email: jamesmcardle@me.com sinarau ( talk) 08:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello TrueHeartSusie! I recently saw your review in an FAC which is about an Indian actress, and it was quite good. Would you mind reviewing this peer review for me? I would like to take it to FAC if I receive positive feedback from reviewers. -- Frankie talk 19:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Merry Christmas BTW!
The Special Barnstar | |
Congratulations on bringing Marilyn Monroe to Featured Article status! A really excellent wiki-achievement that you should be very proud of =) Loeba (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC) |
..And happy Christmas/Hyvää joulua! Hope you've had a lovely few days. -- Loeba (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, just noticed!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Congrats, as I just noticed as well. Great job! Kierzek ( talk) 22:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Again, thanks for the PR comments, quite helpful. However, this is for achieving an FA with Marilyn Monroe. Congratulations and happy new year! -- Frankie talk 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC) |
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Wow! Truly a great accomplishment! Taking MM to FA! Great going, TrueHeartSusie! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
Charlie Chaplin | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 758 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Today we enjoy Marilyn Monroe, thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Three years now, and Marylin mentioned as a model in a recent RfC ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
... four years now, and still a model! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
... and five -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
... and six -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear TrueHeartSusie3., it's a real pity that you removed this image from the article... As it's about MM, why not having an image which is only showing her? Let me propose the following: Let's show Gill's portrait of MM in the legacy-part and the other one in the context of MM and society. Gill's painting shows MM as she was reflected in (pop-) art, while the actual image is more related to society and barely related to arts. Best regards, NORPpA ( talk) 11:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Susie and Loeba,
I'm Ed Erhart, although you might know me better as The ed17 when I'm volunteering. I'm writing this in my role as an editorial associate with the Wikimedia Foundation.
I'm interested in doing an examination of the work that goes into writing a FA for the Wikimedia Blog—in this case, on Charlie Chaplin. I have a small suspicion that people in the real world have no idea how much work FA writers put in (a statement that could probably apply to the WMF too :-) ), and I think it would be intriguing to illuminate that.
With this in mind:
Hello, I got pinged. Sounds good, it's nice that you've picked the Chaplin article to focus on! I'd be happy to help, but will wait for THS to chip in...especially since it's her talk page -- Loeba (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I haven't logged in for ages and forgot about this - until I saw a Chaplin book in a shop today and thought "Ohhh yeah". I will try and write my answers tomorrow! -- Loeba (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay I'm finally doing this! Sorry again, wikipedia really hasn't been on my mind lately. I also wrote quite a lot, I hope you can structure something decent from both our answers..!
Answers from Loeba
|
---|
What got you interested in Charlie Chaplin and that period of film history? What caused you to work on his article? I'll be honest that I didn't have any interest in him growing up. I remember seeing a Chaplin short when I was a kid, but didn't care for it; I think most of my early life I assumed he was silly and annoying! I was closed-minded to any films made before, say, the 1970s. But in my early 20s I started to get really interested in cinema, and realised there's was loads of talent and charm in the early stuff. I've always been deeply interested in 20th century history, so I also embraced classic films as a way to "go back in time". This is still part of the reason I love watching old stuff. Anyway: when this was brewing (probably 2010) I caught Richard Attenborough's Chaplin biopic was on TV. It's not a great film, but it traces his fascinating life and demonstrates his charm. It was enough to spark my interest: I loved his Dickensian childhood, how lefty and political he was, how completely and passionately he controlled his work...The first feature of his I watched was The Kid (the first silent I ever watched, in fact) and I was surprised how much I loved it. I watched more, and loved them as well. I decided to order his autobiography, which is such a great read. By then I had caught the Wikipedia bug, and I decided Chaplin would make a great project and I'd genuinely be interested to research his life and write about it. I first proposed overhauling the article in November 2011, making a plea for collaborators, but didn't actually start until April 2012. I think I'd written two or three sections when TrueHeartSusie got in touch to say she'd like to help. So that's how it began! What makes the Chaplin significant in world and/or North American history? Why does he still garner so much interest even today? I think because he's genuinely so good. Obviously he was such a huge star in his lifetime, and for such a long time, that he inevitably became a part of cultural history. That was always going to happen, especially with the distinctive Tramp look that makes for a great image. But I don't think that would be enough to still generate enthusiasm if he wasn't brilliantly entertaining. I showed The Circus (film) to my mum and sister - my mum was born in 1950 but couldn't remember fully seeing one of his films before - and they loved it! They didn't expect to, but it's so funny and easy to watch. I remember my mum making a Facebook status with something like "Just watched The Circus, and now understand why Chaplin is so popular." The films are great, simple as that, and hold up perfectly. Add that to his very interesting life story: the "rags to riches" tale, the unprecedented level of popularity followed by the dramatic rejection, the politics, the controversial womanising...He was a complicated man, and there's plenty there to maintain interest. Film buffs are particularly interested in the level of control he had over productions; that's very rare in the industry. Can you describe how writing a big-picture article (ie a large biography like Chaplin) differs from daughter articles (ie the individual films)? Like THS I can't comment on how it compares to working on film articles, since I've never done that. I'll use this question to talk about writing an FA on a core article. In short: it's hard work! With these major figures there's always loads to talk about, and so much literature out there, that the articles are inevitably very long (even when you consciously try and be succinct, and chose things to leave out). You don't want to deprive readers of key/juicy information! Alongside the life story, there's also "analytical" sections to write (artistry, legacy) if you want to be comprehensive. These are quite tricky and require loads of research. You're aware of how many people will be reading the article, so there's real pressure to produce high-quality stuff. I'd also decided from the start that I'd like to get the article to FA, which meant paying close attention that everything is referenced (literally every detail, no matter how obviously true it is, FAC expects to be sourced; even if it means citing 3 sources for one sentence), always written entirely in my own words, following the MOS, mentioning numerous sources. On a personal level, writing actually doesn't come naturally to me, so I work pretty damn slowly. Add all these factors together, and it takes a long time. Then once you're "finished" you still need to go through the whole thing to trim excess detail (I cut about 1000 words from Chaplin), copy edit, make sure the sources are perfectly formatted. Even once all this is done you still need to go through several reviews before getting FA status, and make changes based on those, which adds on more time. Thank god THS was able to work on it as well - we split the sections between us - otherwise it just wouldn't have happened. Some people seem able to write huge FAs on their own, which I find crazy and admirable, but I think I'd still be finishing Chaplin now! I'll tell you one thing: it's essential to have a passionate interest in the subject if you're going to take on an article like this. What sort of special research have you done to complete these articles? Do you feel like you could write an academic work on Chaplin yourselves now? Looking at my shelves, I seem to own eight Chaplin books. I think I read about five of these cover-to-cover, and I'd basically keep notes in my phone as I read. The others I read bits of, and there were also other film books I have that I made use of. I used Google Books to read chapters and get information from multiple other sources. We knew that for an FA on a figure like Chaplin they'd expect extensive research, so we consciously sought out as much stuff as possible. Then there's the images, which is an area many people don't consider. I think these are really important, so (for my previous FA) I spent a long time learning about US copyright law (yep, seriously) so that I could include good ones (FAC looks very closely at copyright). On that article and Chaplin I'd spend time seeking out good images (high quality, but also demonstrating something interesting about his life), and checking that they're out of copyright (searching in the renewal records). It's surprisingly time consuming, and I added all but about 3 of the images on the article. They really make a difference though, so to me it's worth it. Could I write an essay on Chaplin? Well, I'm no academic, and I'm not really interested in thinking about film that way, but I'd probably have the knowledge to...I hardly every come across a Chaplin fact that I don't know. I literally feel like I know almost everything about him there is to know, heh. I've seen all his features (several times) and about half his shorts, so I have good understanding of his filmmaking as well. This doesn't mean I could write a decent essay on him though: that's a specific skill. Who knows until I try...which I won't. What else do you think I should write about? I've managed to cover the process pretty thoroughly, I think we're good! |
I'll ping both your accounts so you can find this @ The ed17 and Ed Erhart (WMF): Thanks again for approaching us. It would be lovely to have the blog out on his birthday, but no worries if not - take all the time you need. Let me know when it's done. Cheers! -- Loeba (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
An epic Hollywood adventure film from 1935 starring Gary Cooper. I'm trying to get this article to FA-status. Would be nice if you would take a look and perhaps do some copyediting or leave some suggestions on the talk page, that is, if you currently have the time. Let me know. Regards, Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your prize!) 13:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Susie, I saw in the Marilyn Monroe infobox that she married Joe DiMaggio in 54 and divorced in 55, but don't they divorced October 27, 1954 ? Please have a look at this article --> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/marilyn-free-love-caught-cold-joe-article-1.2009811 Thanks. -- Danielvis08 ( talk) 13:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
All my congratulations for your wonderful Wikipedia contributions in general and your input towards film in particular. All my very best wishes for "une bonne continuité" (continued excellent progress). with appreciation, Natalie Natalie.Desautels ( talk) 22:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
For all your recent reduction to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. It was well-needed. Keep up the good work! Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
I appreciate your edits on the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis article, one which I ruined with every word I typed, according to some of the other editors on here. You did a great job condensing that atrocious text that I branded onto the page. As that Barnstar said, it was a much needed improvement over the trashy and horrendous quality of my entries, almost disgusting to even think about. I see you've also improved on some other articles as well and for those I thank you again. I dread to think how horrible I would have made those pages. My entries on there might have ruined the entire site. Where did you develop these superb skills in writing? I should have gone to your schools. Maybe I could have learned a thing or two about writing and knowing what's notable and what is not, as opposed to the limited skills I have, according to the Wikipedia census. Informant16 8 April 2016
At the Jacqueline Kennedy article, you recently removed valid content and replaced content that was POV and said in wiki-voice. Diff here. You need to walk that revert back and discuss same on the talk page per the WP:BRD cycle. Reminder: it's BRD, BRRD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 08:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For your excellent work on Charlie Chaplin. The interview we did with you and Loeba is now published on the blog! :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 22:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
Feeling like a Wikipedia celebrity now THS?! Haha. I love what you said about Chaplin's popularity, you nailed it :) -- Loeba (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way, did you notice that the Chaplin museum has finally opened? There's a nice video here, though it may not play outside of Britain. It looks amaazing, I seriously think I need to take a minibreak to Switzerland...Tickets aren't even that expensive (£17). -- Loeba (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
GA or FA? Great to see somebody finally taking it on. Glad you're still editing too, Loeba hasn't been around much in recent months.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Been too busy with WP:Atdrag to continue with Grant, should have more time next month for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Susie, I'll start trimming this one tomorrow. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Congrats on yesterday's TFA, hope the damage inflicted by random idiots wasn't too great. Yes, I've resumed with Cary Grant now. Did you also intend getting ET to GA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Cool, congratulations!! Isn't it weird to imagine her still alive now at 90...I think she'd be regarded very differently, to be honest. -- Loeba (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate on your work for Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin, I appreciate your hard work and commitment, cheers. ^.^ " -- User:LoveFromBJM ( talk)
Planning on Natalie Wood next. It's a case of either quitting or ignoring the idiots!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you or Loeba find anything more on Hannah Chaplin?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't edited the article. Perhaps Ipigott is the one you're looking for?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
While writing on him, have you ever pondered on a world without the great artist? Who do you think would not have made their mark in the film industry if Chaplin wasn't around? To me, the first few people who crop up are Cary Grant, Woody Allen, Marlon Brando, Jerry Lewis and, of course, Mr. Bean. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I see we also got the Asphalt Jungle photo from that magazine too. The entire magazine is out of copyright, so anything you see there in the way of photos can be used. Just copy the file information from here and change the link for the photo (source) to the page the photo is on in the magazine.
I see the Marilyn-Arthur Miller marriage photo is here on page 22-the same page where the Actors Studio and some childhood pics are. This is a better and larger photo of the marriage one in the magazine. You can use it as the uploaded photo. It's a larger, better quality one than the magazine has--it's also identical to the one you were interested in here. Just ask if you need anything else ;-) We hope ( talk) 12:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I browsed the Marilyn Monroe's Wikicommons category a few months ago and have found that there's actually a picture of Marilyn Monroe when she did shoots for calendar photos by the ocean in the 1940s (according to the description given) placed in the Marilyn Monroe in art category, this is the picture, I noticed you're searching images from her modeling career and this might help. It was actually uploaded by We Hope back in 2013. The picture doesn't state the photographer and the date captured, I did search the image on google, and this is the result, some same pictures appeared in the search result but I couldn't find the information indicating the photographer or the date captured, there's a series of Monroe's modelling-by-the-beach pictures which was also captured by Andre de Dienes in 1945 and by the time she still has her natural hair colour, I wonder maybe it might come from the same source? And if is, is it copyrighted? User:LoveFromBJM ( talk) 16:34, 2 July 2016
Hi Susie, I see you've been having trouble with LS! Are you sure the new photo in the infobox is better quality? Her position looks a bit awkward and the background a little blurry, I thought the other one was a better image, more classic looking, but up to you!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Seeing his edit patterns of late, I'd say trolling constitutes most of it. He's looking to spark a reaction from people by saying a section is loaded with trivia. Having experienced this sort of thing on the Kubrick and Grant articles, remain positive, I know just how irritating it can be, curbs enthusiasm for contributing here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Will be working on Laff next. Found some photos from Something's Gotta Give. We hope ( talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
A search for renewal at copyright.gov turned up no listings using the newspaper's title. There's no evidence of continuing copyright for the newspaper. Copyright not renewed
A search for renewal at copyright.gov turned up no listings using the newspaper's title. There's no evidence of continuing copyright for the newspaper. Copyright not renewed
File:Marilyn1962.PNG This is now in the PD if you have use for it. Also can get some photos of the scenes surrounding the death if you want or need them--her bedroom and so on. These were in old newspapers. We hope ( talk) 14:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry to see you have run into "resistance" in your efforts to improve this article and in your desire to bring it up to GA. I can only think that regular editors therein are suffering from a touch of WP:OWN. I commented on the talk page since you had mentioned my name therein when discussing updating the citation method used. Good luck in carrying forward on that article and obtaining consensus. I am sure some of them will come around on matters; at least I hope so. Kierzek ( talk) 15:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Kailash29792 has aimed to make it an FA. Feel free to leave comments and do let me or him know if you intend to do so by pinging either of us. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you, Loeba and Bede735 and others would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest.Even if you might not participate I need some names signed to show support for it. The idea would be a daily prize like a DVD, or book etc for whoever produces the most content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frida Kahlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angel of Death. 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) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Susie! I've got a quick question for you, if you have a moment. Can you email me at eerhartwikimedia.org? Thank you :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 03:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. 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 - an edit you made on this page had a serious factual error: Helen Thomas was not Jacqueline's press secretary. I do not know how that error could have happened, and I did not notice it before - someone corrected it now. I don't have the source book you used for your edits - can you please go over them and confirm with other reliable sources that any other material you entered is factually correct. Thank you. Tvoz/ talk 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2017! | |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello TrueHeartSusie3: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Pauciloquence ( talk) 12:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of larger copies of the current lead photo available. What about choosing one of them and sending it to the WP photo lab for some sharpening, etc?
106 hits at TinEye
These are just a few of the larger copies--take a look through what TinEye brought up and find one you think would be good for the WP photo lab to give a try re: cleaning, sharpening. We hope ( talk) 15:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
No, you were right — I hadn't noticed that someone had stuck a date in that the cites there did not support. Thank you for going back in and correcting it. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Guess who is back and really making a lot of changes? I'm afraid some of them may not be in agreement with what the references from the books say; I see no changes in citations from him. You have the books available to check to see if what's been changed still agrees with your refs, so thought I'd let you know. We hope ( talk) 02:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frida Kahlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modigliani. 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) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frida Kahlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page What the Water Gave Me. 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) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Have a look to see if these changes are in keeping with your refs. We hope ( talk) 22:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Take it back to ANI if you want but leave the archive alone.' Toddst1 ( talk) 20:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This guy doesn't know or care when to quit, does he? Another ANI thread is probably warranted if you've got enough evidence of blatant disruption since the last time he was brought up there (you know more about him and his bad habits than I do). Snuggums ( talk / edits) 00:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've started a new thread at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:IDHT behavior from Light show. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 16:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Let me take a look. I see some already which really have no PD proof. I need to check the copyright status for the one from The Last Time I Saw Paris. Am also seeing that the articles for her parents have no photo; the one from the Stork Club could be cropped for their photos and then added to their respective articles.
The box photo has been nominated for deletion at Commons multiple times. I personally am not convinced, but consensus there has said it's PD every time it's been nominated. There's also the thought of viewing various film trailers and getting screenshots of any without copyright notices; this is what we had to do for the Rod Steiger article. A good thing there were quite a few free trailers as it was hard to get PD photos otherwise. Will post the questionable ones here. Glad to hear you're giving this another shot! :) We hope ( talk) 11:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Will check on The Last Time I Saw Paris. We hope ( talk) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry for taking so long to get back to you! First of all, thank you once again. I had a look at Modern Screen and Film Bulletin and found two versions of what I think is the A Place in the Sun still, here and here, though the latter one looks like it's drawn to me. I was also wondering whether it would be possible to use a full version of this photo if I were to find it (which I haven't so far)? As for childhood photos, I found this. What do you think? TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 12:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
It's all good, so clip away! :-) We hope ( talk) 19:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
is ripping up Monroe (again). Think you'll need to make sure the text changes agree with the refs. We hope ( talk) 01:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie, bearing in mind that I'm writing you for the first time even though I share your main interest, have read most of the articles to which you have so patiently contributed, and consider Chaplin a genius as well – there should probably be one or two clichés in this opening paragraph, either expressing my admiration for your work or my gratitude for your tirelessness. However, I'll allow myself the freedom to skip each of them, so as to sound less maudlin and more practical.
Now, few days ago (based on the date, in fact, it seems much more than few days ago; but things move too fast to keep track anyway), while reading the personal life section of the article about Elizabeth Taylor, I came across an information about a certain Jason Winters, allegedly her last fiancée (fortunately, I guess, not Wikipedia's Jason Winters – which, by the way, is an article that needs to be either seriously edited/reformatted or deleted straight away!). I quickly went over the references but, even though they seemed reliable (since I hadn't heard of such an information before), I bookmarked one of them so that I don't forget to check the information more carefully in the future and return to the article once again if necessary to edit it.
Well, after reading through few relevant texts, I returned to the Elizabeth Taylor's article few minutes ago to edit the part on Jason Winters (I too came across the Vanity Fair article and Taylor's tweet refuting a possible engagement) only to notice that you have altogether deleted it. Since I didn't really have an idea in which direction to edit the short paragraph, yours maybe the better (if not the only) solution. However, since I spent some time researching, I happened upon few interesting facts/speculations which may grant Winters some kind of a mention in the article. Since, during the last years of her life, he is mentioned in all kinds of contexts beside her name: as her gay manager ( the Vanity Fair article among many others), her partner (at least as late as 2013), probable inheritor to the bulk of her fortune ( here, here or even here; but, see here as well) - or at least just her Jean Hersholt ( here) – and even her murderer ( good gracious lord!). Now, I didn't have time to research this thoroughly, but Luna and Stein are mentioned in Taylor's article, and there's a whole article about Larry Fortensky. So, before doing any more research, I thought I might ask you for an opinion. What do you think? Should Winters be included in Taylor's article in some other form (manager, inheritor...)? (So as not to let my research go to waste, I even thought about sketching a short Wikipedia article about Winters for a moment (since I saw that he was a businessman, etc. etc.), but I neither have the time for something like that at the present moment nor do I believe that he deserves a separate Wikipedia article).
On a completely unrelated matter (or, as you say, for no useful reason): have you ever watched The Innocents? I see that The Others is among your all-time favourites, and The Innocents is similarly inspired by The Turn of the Screw. But, it is one of my all-time favourites and I think it surpasses The Others (though The Others is both creepy and brilliant as well). (By the way, the Slugs mention on your user page is listed under the year of the novel and links to a disambiguation page: it should link here; and yes - it's hilariously bad: from the premise to the execution).
Sorry about the long message. Didn't intend to at all. However, since the length totally subverts my attempt at being practical, at least now I can use this ending paragraph to thank you, both as a user and a contributor, for your dedication to the Wikipedia project. I'm an administrator at the Macedonian Wikipedia, but recently started contributing almost exclusively here, mostly to fill a gaping hole about East European writers and films, but, due to the evil grip of procrastination (and, to quote you, the rabbit holes around here), I usually end up doing something different altogether.
Like spending few hours/days checking/removing/updating an obsolete reference. But, you already know the feeling... -- Виктор Јованоски ( talk) 22:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. 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)
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018! | |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC) |
May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please have a look at the Monroe article when you have time; there is a difference of opinion of language (verbiage, grammar). Kierzek ( talk) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently requested a PR for the article Fawad Khan ( see here). It'd be an honour for me if you consider reviewing it. Thanks. Amirk94391 ( talk) 05:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. 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)
Hi, I noticed that you are the contributor to some actors/actresses FAs i.e. Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin. I want to have your advice on finding sources for articles, as sources available for Classic era figures are mostly books, which I believe are not easy to retrieve. As I'm planning to work on some articles, may I know how did you manage to find information from book sources? Thanks so much, HĐ ( talk) 02:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The article of Love Happy and Monroe's filmography displays the date as 1949, so I don't think showing it as 1950 in other sections is correct. Sebastian James ( talk) 08:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
No need for the tone in this edit summary. You appear not to be in full view if the facts. I reverted (for the second time) someone adding unsourced information. I hadn't realised there were intervening edits, one of which, was the edit you made. Cassianto Talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you contribute often to Frida Kahlo. I invite you to contribute to writing the blurb for a photo of her that is due to appear on the Main Page. --- Coffeeand crumbs 17:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Although it shouldn't make a difference in your reversal of the edit at death of Marilyn Monroe, but wanted to mention that the paragraph removed was a class assignment in Wikipedia writing. Maybe you can consider posting your analysis of what was wrong with it on the student editor's talk page. I knew it was a class assignment, and was watching for when it would appear, and was interested in that the student wasn't doing an entire rewrite as much as putting something new on the page to improve it. If the student goes to the article's talk page, or if you consider writing something on their page and they respond, I'll probably join in with my (semi-)constructive comments. Thanks, and smooth sailing! Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Stewart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Brown and Robert Young ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello there, Big fan of your style of writing and contributions to Wikipedia, especially your work on Chaplin's biography. I solicited some help from Blofeld and Loeba a few years ago, both helping me with a copyedit of Nolan's biography, and taking it to GA. It should have been taken to FA by now, but I've been less active of late.
I'm posting this in hope of recruiting you for a quick copy edit. I completely understand if you don't have time or interest in this.
Best regards, Sammyjankis88 ( talk) 18:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
You deserve a kitten for your kindness in helping out a random editor. I hope this kitten will give you some warm and fuzzy feelings during this holiday season, merry christmas! Sammyjankis88 ( talk) 10:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, I noticed that you haven't been super active on Wikipedia recently and I hope things are going well. Are you still interested in helping finish up the James Stewart article? We were working on finishing the legacy section. I can understand if you are burned out by it so just let me know. I gave an editor who expressed interest doing a GA review about a month ago the greenlight to do so if he's still interested. Thanks for all your help, you're awesome! :) Skyes(BYU) ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You should consider spending your time more wisely and spend less of it protecting domestic abusers.
You keep deleting any references to the fact that Amber has abused Depp, and your agenda is painfully obvious. Please refrain from protecting abusers in the future.
OnsceneBoos ( talk) 16:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, the way you are white knighting Amber Heard is truly disgusting. You keep deleting all references to Amber being the abuser and leave all the ones alleging Depp is the abuser, despite audio recordings being out where Amber admits to being the abuser.
I can only imagine how you would react if the situation was reversed.
OnsceneBoos ( talk) 14:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
OnsceneBoos ( talk) 10:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey he wasn't threatening you in any way. All he did was call out your blatant sexism and asked to keep it accurate. This is just sorry behavior — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.114.16 ( talk) 19:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Earlier today, you undid an edit by another user that was similar (but not the same). I was lead to make the edit by the discussion at WP:BLPN, which I reviewed and which contains an emerging consensus in favour of including the fact. You have now undid my edit. You are not entitled to keep blocking edits to the article and I have accordingly undid your revert. Please continue discussing this matter with all the involved users at the BLPN thread. AGK ■ 19:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TrueHeartSusie3 reported by User:AGK (Result: ). Thank you. AGK ■ 19:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I've created 700 Nimes Road, but cannot think how to incorporate it into Taylor's article. The photographs are stunning and elegiac. Thanks for all your great work on her biography! No Swan So Fine ( talk) 21:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello: please have a look at recent changes. I believe revisions are needed, but I know you have the RS books. Thanks, Kierzek ( talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your removal of the section that I added regarding Playboy's acquisition of her pictures. While you can make the argument that additional sources would have been better, that does not mean the section was inaccurate. There are multiple sources that I could easily have added. Nowhere in that passage did I imply that pinup work was something she would not have done. That was your interpretation, not what was written. And it has nothing to do with what actually occurred. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/09/28/marilyn-monroe-helped-launch-hugh-hefners-career-but-they-never-even-met/ , https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hugh-hefner-pay-to-be-buried-next-to-marilyn-monroe/, page 83 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Marilyn_Her_Life_in_Her_Own_Words/H3IpUvGxg_YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=hefner%20marilyn%20monroe%20plaYBOY , https://www.businessinsider.com/how-marilyn-monroe-appeared-nude-in-first-issue-of-playboy-2017-9#:~:text=Hefner%20launched%20Playboy%27s%20first%20issue,of%20her%20in%20the%20magazine.&text=But%20Monroe%20never%20actually%20signed%20an%20agreement%20to%20be%20in%20Playboy.
Hi TrueHeartSusie3. I respect your work at MM's article so I want your opinion. I added her name to the disambig page MM because during her lifetime and since her death I've seen a number of publications that referred to her as "MM". My edit was reverted because her article "doesn't support the initials". I have considered adding it to her article (with a citation, such as [6]), possibly in the infobox ("other names"), or elsewhere if you have any suggestion. I wanted to see what you think about it. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 00:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
... for your comments at FAC and for these corrections. I'm working on some other Finnish scientist articles (eg. Teuvo Ahti, Runar Collander, Fredrik Elfving and several in development) and frequently have to translate Finnish source material, so I hope you don't mind if I add you to my mental list of helpful resources! Esculenta ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amber Heard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I commend you for your impressive FA work and stewardship on high-visibility Marilyn Monroe. That pagespace is spare yet comprehensive, well-referenced but well written, five+ years after promotion. It demonstrates both a broad knowledge of sources and a wikipedian's willingness to work with others to make this encyclopedia a place to be trusted when looking for information on the subject of Norma Jean Baker. I personally admire and respect the effort. I'm only saying this because somebody should have, and it didn't seem appropriate there. BusterD ( talk) 16:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is the repetition of your username in your sig intentional? What does it mean? It makes me think that you've returned to sign something a second time... – SJ + 20:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johnny Depp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Justice.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this:
That important? I think it would be better to take it off, it steals too much space. Or a crop could be the solution? TheBellaTwins1445 ( talk) 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, Marilyn Monroe, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page or ping me. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 ( talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3, I am writing to you with concern regarding your
[8] usage of quotes in
Depp v. Heard. For example, you wrote that: Kipper ... testified that a nurse who was working for Kipper had witnessed Depp with "bloody knuckles after hitting a wall in frustration or anger", that he "kicked in a trailer door on a movie set" when unhappy with a director
. From reading the quotes, it sounds like this was Kipper's exact words, however, from reading
the reference, this was description given by the source (Edward Helmore of The Guardian). There was no indication that this was Helmore's description. There are other examples, you wrote that Baruch "became emotional" without attributing it to Sky's
Gemma Peplow, and you wrote that Dembrowski "struggled" without attributing to AP's
Ben Finley or
Helmore again. I would suggest that to avoid this, we simply avoid using direct quotes unless it was the witness' direct words.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 12:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Kipper stated that Depp had on several occasions tried to end treatment as he "was concerned he’d never feel normal without his drugs".That's not what the source said. The quote came first, even before attempts to end treatment. The specific reason for ending treatment was “He didn’t think he could do it.” starship .paint ( exalt) 12:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
source - Dr David Kipper, Depp’s addiction specialist, testified that he had planned to detox the actor several years ago from dependencies on alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines and cocaine over two weeks on Depp’s island in the Bahamas. “He was concerned he’d never feel normal without his drugs,” Kipper said.
In August 2014, Kipper visited Depp on the island to begin the process. The actor reported that he was uncomfortable, and repeatedly tried to fire his doctor and to back out of treatment. “He didn’t want to proceed,” Kipper said. “He didn’t think he could do it.”
starship .paint ( exalt) 12:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just to check - is the problem with the quotes that you think it gives the impression that those are exact words the witness said, instead of being quotes from the journalist who wrote the source? That’s a fair point that I did not think of, given that quoting journalists is standard practice here. Paraphrasing instead of directly quoting the text from now on! However, I’m not sure I understand your point regarding Dr. Kipper’s words? Those are his exact words regarding the matter. I admit I have not had the time to watch his depo, but from the source it seems it is his comment regarding the entire situation, not a specific part of it. Can you point me to where this is stated? TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 15:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
he’d never feel normal without his drugs, this was a general comment by Kipper, and he didn't mention any attempted firings. The part where Kipper discusses the attempted firings is a bit later, 65:40, where he does mention Depp
didn’t think he could do it. The problem is that you directly attributed the attempted firing to
he’d never feel normal without his drugswhen Kipper himself, and our sources, did not do that. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3, I've removed a bunch of "admitted" from the trial article. Some of them were originally added by me, some I'm pretty sure were added by you (since you are the #1 content adder), though I haven't checked. Seems to me it's POV as it implies wrongdoing (e.g. 'admit fault', 'admit a mistake'), unless the sources use an equivalent word. I've changed them to more neutral words if the source also used neutral words. starship .paint ( exalt) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to be a major contributor to Depp's article and have done a great work so far, as I can see. I have two eBooks on Depp (one from Greenwood Publishing and the other from Rutgers University Press), and was thinking to use them here for a potential GA and later FA. After all the hell this iconic actor has recently endured, he at least deserves a decent article on Wikipedia. What are your thoughts on a future collaboration after his lawsuit with Heard cools down a little? FrB.TG ( talk) 14:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi - don't think we've ever talked directly before, but I wanted to thank you for your work on keeping the Amber Heard article as neutral as possible. I know it's difficult given that the trial is a... very newsworthy event right now, to say the least, but you have been diligent at keeping the perspective as neutral and fair as possible, and standing your ground on making sure that the information that makes it into the article is relevant, timely, and properly sourced. And for what it's worth, I appreciate that a lot. Take care! Afddiary ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I echo Afddiary's words. Thinnyshivers ( talk) 19:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Depp v. Heard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deadline and Vanity Fair.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Suzie, could you please point to a reference to the 12 month payment schedule that you mentioned?
Also I've raised a discussion on Coverage of the settlement of the Depp-Heard divorce at Talk:Amber Heard.
Thanks
Greg Kaye 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@ GregKaye:, you’re moving the goalposts. I did not introduce that article to the Depp v Heard article, where I copied it from. The radio station states their info comes from NPR, but I do agree that better sources exist, hence why I replaced it. I assume you are referring to when you scrubbed all mention of the reason for Depp losing the libel trial against NGN from the lead. If we don’t mention it, it’s very unclear what the trial was about and why he lost; and he lost overwhelmingly due to evidence, not due to a technicality. The judgment was vetted by two further judges and found to be sound. As for ACLU, it’s only Depp’s side who are problematizing Heard not having completed her donations. ACLU has been clear that they expected the money in installments over a ten-year period (and I’ve understood that this is generally the practice with large donations) and that in 2019 they learned that Heard was having financial difficulties. Heard further testified about how much she has earned from DCEU, The Stand and the indie film she just finished, as well as that she has had to spend more than $6 million by May 2022 in legal costs. I do agree that Heard definitely should have been more up front about this once Depp’s team began accusing her of not paying, and also her PR team should understand that most of the public does not understand how transferring large sums goes, whether they are part of a divorce settlement or a charity donation. But let’s assume that Heard had no intention of donating the money (she was entitled to keep it as it was her divorce settlement; also, if she’s a golddigger, why not go for the full 30+ million she was entitled to by CA law?). It still doesn’t help in countering her claims that Depp was abusive, because it’s not just her word against his - she has photos, contemporary text messages and emails, medical records and therapist records, and several witnesses to her having injuries and Depp being aggressive towards her and severely drug-addicted. Even many of Depp’s own witnesses are saying they saw Heard with bruises and cuts. So what I am asking is, if you think that Heard is a mentally ill hoaxer, what is the narrative? How does all the evidence she has presented fit in it? How does the narrative explain the UK judgment? This is what I would like to genuinely learn. But I understand you do not want to discuss this, which is fine. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 09:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here I can say, yes a lot of my viewing of the trial was with the commentary of the wonderful Emily D. Baker on her youtube channel [14] which I'd recommend to anyone. She has also done some great work on #freebritney related legalities and I don't see any signs she has MRA type traits.
As far as my activism goes it has mainly been in ecology with Camp for climate action but my arrests were in anti-capitalist protest and, bizarrely, twice as a suspected Islamic terrorist while caravanning in Europe. No MRA interest anywhere.
My first psychological concerns for Amber Heard were that she might go the same way as Caroline Flack and I spent much time on social media combatting people promoting anti-Amber memes. I go by my own name without embellishment, I put my "cards on the table" and what you see is what you get. I'd ask you to please reconsider any view you might have of us being monsters. Otherwise, that's all I can give you to work with.
On the Depp v. Heard talk page I had described going through (an elsewhere initiated) "living hell of accusation"
. It's up to editors including
TheTimesAreAChanging
Gtoffoletto and yourself, the extent you'd chose to perpetuate an accusatory style of approach. edited
Greg
Kaye 07:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your hard work on promoting the article! Miss you and Loeba! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Susie. I am traveling with spotty internet access so can't be dependable to comment in the next month or so. If I do find myself with a good connection I'll be happy to add my opinion. I have a connection right now but not good enough to support the time I'd need to look at an article. Best wishes.(0live)
Dear TrueHeartSusie3. Please excuse me communicating out of the blue. On 26th July last I was among a number of people who met Michael Chaplin on Black Patch Park, a place with which I and others have been associated for over a decade. It's just under 2 miles from my home in Birmingham. I'm an academic, now retired, as well as a local historian and a wiki contributor. I recognise flimsy evidence - I hope. I care about the history of Black Patch Park. I've no pecuniary interest in establishing the likelihood that there's some truth in the rumour that Charlie Chaplin was born on the Black Patch, but in the absence of proof he was born anywhere else, I believe that the possibility deserves attention. Michael Chaplin who seemed a charming man, very unassuming, has now visited the Black Patch on three occasions over the past three years. Last month was the first time I met him, as a representative of The Friends of Black Patch Park, a lovely but messy place which we have helped save, for the time being, from being built over. As a group we rather like the idea that Hannah Chaplin, a troubled woman, may have found temporary refuge among the Gypsies of the Black Patch, some of whose descendants have helped us in our campaigns to save the place. One day we and others hope to see see it restored, so that might be a motive for hoping Charlie Chaplin was born here. We have thoughts of a local football Derby for the Chaplin Cup! The Friends make no claims to the truth of Jack Hill's letter, only that the idea should be given the same consideration it seems to have been given by Charlie Chaplin. I was impressed by the credence Michael Chaplin gives to Jack Hill's letter claiming the star was horn on the Black Patch. I used my camera to catch his words on Youtube. I think this matter will remain a mystery, but so is the likelihood that the great man was born in London. I suggest the idea that Charles Chaplin was born on the Black Patch in 1898 be given the same credence his son, our patron, gives that idea. Forgive me if this is an inappropriate posting. Kind regards Simon Baddeley Simon Baddeley ( talk) 14:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear TrueHeartSusie3.Thanks so much for your polite reply. Sorry, that sounds patronising as I realise you are one who is stringently respectful of Wikipedia's desired culture. I have contributed several articles to Wiki. One involved a so-called 'academic diplomat' editing me with such testiness that I had to stand back while he was smacked for his unkindness by another editor who helped me adjust the presentation of evidence to make it acceptable - namely the submission of a letter to my subject, Richard Pine, from Seamus Heaney. Of course Wiki should not be used for 'activism' - other than the magnificent one of Wikipedia. I carelessly missed the vital note to which you've referred me. If I'd been less preoccupied with finding a place for the Friends of Black Patch Park's birthplace 'conjecture' I'd have picked it up. It remains intriguing to study successive Wikipedia entries for CC between 2010 and now. The ‘note’ you pointed out to me appeared in 2011 'An MI5 investigation in 1952 was unable,,,etc' Earlier entries had 'confidently' reported the great man born in London, where of course he was, indisputably, 'brought up'. The assertion about a London 'birthplace' has, however, faded. Thus is Wikipedia's iterative genius demonstrated, notwithstanding the legitimate points you make. Of course forcing this point to give weight to our interest in the Black Patch would be 'problematic' given the array of agreed facts and expert judgements surround CC's early years. I'm a Popperian from my undergrad days. With you, I don't doubt this matter, barring some exceptional finding, will remain a mystery and should never, barring new and credible evidence, be appealed to Wikipedia as 'a fact'. All I/we wanted to get on the Wiki record was a gentle muddying of the waters on the matter of Charlie Chaplin's birthplace, which was how Michael Chaplin explained his views on where his father might have been born when, on Sunday 26th July 2015, we and friends, including Gypsies, stood together on the Black Patch in pouring rain. Your kind and helpful reply made my day. Thanks again. May the force of Wiki be with you! Simon Baddeley ( talk) 09:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Marilyn Monroe's "paternal grandfather", Edward Mortensen, was born in Haugesund in Norway. A statue of Marilyn has been raised there. Mbakkel2 ( talk) 30.8 2015 15:31 (CEST)
Hi I noticed the following is in correct. “In 1924, she married her second husband, Martin Edward Mortensen, but they separated only some months later and divorced in 1928.” Please change this because her page is locked for editing. Justanotherwikieditor27653 ( talk) 13:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Martin Edward Mortensen was briefly her step father. She never married him. Her second marriage was to Joe DiMaggio. That’s why that statement is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherwikieditor27653 ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marilyn Monroe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Kelley and Sam Shaw. 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) 09:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
So sorry, totally forgot. Where are we with it? Did you replace the article with your own? I'd like to take a look at it before you take to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Will try to look tomorrow. Well, three isn't too bad, but yeah for somebody like Monroe you'd ideally think it would be best to read a few more before taking to FAC. With Sinatra between us we're planning on perusing about 25 books! It might be worth mentioning the sexual abuse was claimed and disputed. Perhaps ask We hope on that one who is usually good with controversial claims and footnotes (and getting images) ;-). I'll see when I give it a read!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll be putting in a grant request for books shortly for Sinatra books. If there's any extra Monroe books you want at the same time I'll request them, and you won't have to pay a penny for them. If there are ones you want list them below with an Amazon.co.uk link and the price next to them and total.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I might get one book on Monroe too. Once that extras reading is done we can take it to FAC I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Marilyn , Leaming £12:40 American Monroe, Baty £17:41
OK I'll get those when I make the request. Sending them to you wouldn't be impossible, but I think they might interest me and I can help with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey! I've started reading through and making some comments in my sandbox. It's generally really good! But there's always things to nitpick over, which is what I'm doing :) I generally think it's better to have reviews publicly open though, so that you can refer to them when you go to GAN or FAC. I can either put them on the article talk page, or you could open a PR? It's quick and easy. You decide and let me know. I'll carry on later, and also look at your specific questions here. Regarding sources though, I think you're absolutely fine. There's no reason you should need more than 2 or 3 books for biographic detail - as long as you're using the most comprehensive/highly regarded that's fine, since you're literally just reproducing the facts of her life. I can tell you're digging deeper for the analytical stuff, and that's a very good source list you have in your sandbox. It's more than I used for Hepburn, for example, and that seemed to be fine for FA! You'll never be able to look at all the books written about her and no-one expects you to. -- Loeba (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll give Monroe a full read tomorrow, but in glancing at it I already sniff future FA potential, great job! I may request the two books with the Sinatra stuff though just to see if anything has been missed. That way we can be sure! As Loeba says though, it wouldn't be essential to read more biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
So what's your intention for the article now? It's most definitely at GA and I'm pretty sure it could pass for FA as well (I'd certainly support it), it's just a matter of how much you're bothered and feeling like facing FAC! But it would be nice for you to get recognition for your efforts. -- Loeba (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
These are your options for Clash by Night, let me know if you like one and I'll upload it: [1], [2], [3] (that ones probably no good). Also I had another question I forgot to ask - about "the walk" in Niagara, did you check that it's actually 30 seconds? That was just a guess on my part, is it definitely that long? -- Loeba (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3, you can always combine references like what I have done here so as to prevent any cluttering of references ( WP:CITEBUNDLE) like for example
"In late 1944, Monroe met photographer David Conover, who had been sent by the U.S. Army Air Forces' First Motion Picture Unit (FMPU) to the factory to shoot morale-boosting pictures of female workers.[51][52] Although none of her pictures were used by the FMPU, she quit working at the factory in January 1945 and began modeling for Conover and his friends.[53][54][55] He also encouraged her to apply to the Blue Book Model Agency, run by Emmeline Snively, to which she was signed in August 1945.[51] She began to occasionally use the name Jean Norman when working, and had her curly brunette hair straightened and dyed blond.[56][57] As her figure was deemed more suitable for pin-up than fashion modeling, she was employed mostly for advertisements and men's magazines.[58] According to Snively, Monroe was one of the agency's most ambitious and hard-working models; by spring 1946, she had appeared in 33 magazine covers for publications such as Pageant, U.S. Camera, Laff, and Peek.[59][60]"
You can combine the references into one like for references [51] and [52] as below with the year of publication in increasing order like 2001, 2004, 2012 and so on.
{{sfnm|1a1=Spoto|1y=2001|1pp=90–91|2a1=Churchwell|2y=2004|2p=176}}
You can do this for the book references say Spoto, Churchwell, Banner and Summers. Cheers. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marilyn Monroe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conspiracy, Monkey Business and Foul play. 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) 10:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll give you a hand with them. First of all I need to look at some film trailers for the film screenshots you currently have. Know that File:Marilyn Monroe, Betty Grable and Lauren Bacall in How to Marry a Millionaire trailer.jpg is OK because we viewed it for a Lauren Bacall-related project a while back. File:Marilyn Monroe in Niagara.jpg This one isn't OK because it's from the Doctor Macro site-there's no proof at the site that anything of theirs is in the public domain. I note this is a wardrobe test photo, so it would have been something which wouuld not have been released to the public. A good question about whether it's PD or not. Let me have a further look. We hope ( talk) 17:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You don't even need to find magazines that are out of copyright - as long as you can prove through searches that the publicity images themselves didn't have copyright renewed (which they never did) you're fine. Honestly, I've gotten about a dozen images on the Hepburn and Chaplin articles cleared even by super-strict FAC. -- Loeba (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld's next FAC of which I'm a co-nominator. Feel free to leave comments at the FAC page. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, TrueHeartSusie3. Do let me and Doc know if you are willing to re-review the article again. Cheers. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For the perseverance and scrutiny you have shown in the difficult re-write, editing and Wikipedia:RS citing of the Marilyn Monroe and Death of Marilyn Monroe articles, I award you this Barnstar! Well done. Kierzek ( talk) 18:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Susie. Which were the books you said you didn't have for Monroe again? I'll do my best to get hold of them before this proceeds just to ensure it is definitely comprehensive. Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with Sinatra!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The only fault I can see with Monroe at the moment is that I think you overuse the Spoto source. I mean it is Monroe, hundreds of books and thousands of articles written about her. I think it would be good to vary the sourcing a bit more, but there's nothing wrong with using the definitive biography on a subject if it's reliable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I tell you what Susie, nominate it for Good article and I'll review it for you. It should easily pass. My comments would be better going into that. Then you can open a peer review afterwards. Contact me on my talk page when you've nommed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marilyn Monroe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Review done, good job, just some pointers and critical thoughts though. I think after I pass it you'd be best opening a peer review and asking for wide input and see if people agree with my comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Passed, well done! A vital article too! I really do think though that you should open a peer review asap for some broader input on improving it. I think if enough people comment and provide input an FA is possible. But see how is goes with the review. That's what I'm going to do with Sinatra. It is difficult producing an FA on such people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to open a peer review then? I do hope you weren't put off by my comments on it. I couldn't just pass it and simply say "perfect" as Loeba might have ;-) Others might not agree it needs more source material from her time period and might think it FA worthy as it is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I caught your message! Yes see what people think at peer review and if you get positive vibes take it to FAC. I'm going to do the same with Sinatra once I get the Kaplan book and trim it down and then take to GA next week. We'll see how it goes. Ssven2 and myself will definitely be doing Cary Grant next month anyway, about time too! Thanks for your work on such a big personality anyway and good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I asked a few people to look at the peer review, hope it helps.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you like to be a co-contributor to Cary Grant along with Doc and Me? It would be great having you on board. I will get to Grant once my exams are over in mid-November this year. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, exact;y, Maureen O'Hara beckons ;-). But at the same time I want to pin much of wikipedia's other side onto my dartboard and throw darts at it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. Marilyn Monroe, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 00:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC) |
Moved:
Well, I do in fact stand corrected: the way you were doing it is certainly unattractive but seems to have had support at WP:FULLNAME. I think it's a mistaken overuse of situations like Ms Manning's, where you don't want to have to say "born" two times in a row:
is certainly an improvement on the alternative. It's not odd, though. There are plenty of things that you can do in more than one way and (as with #Notes sections) quite a few "standards" that are simply being misapplied at the moment.
Reverts are an unpleasant way to go about it—I'm not a vandal—but as long as you're keeping the nowrap tags, it looks like either way is fine. As for pin-up model, there's nothing on the talk page about it... found it. You were right and Tim Riley was wrong. There's nothing "standard" about pin-up modeling and foreign and younger users have no idea what it's talking about. It isn't remotely WP:OVERLINK.
Sorry you took my moving this discussion as unpleasant. Took me a little bit to poke around on the policy &c. and seemed better to talk about it here, where other people will come to look for all things Marilyny.
So to do a tl;dr: apologies for overreacting to the revert. It looks like either way is fine and, given the work you've put into the article, I'll defer to you if you really like the other way. I really do disagree about the link: I certainly was looking for that link and it wasn't on the page for me to click and other editors simply won't know what it is in the first place. Kindly do keep the certain improvements like the comma thing and the nowrap tags so her name displays clearly. Thank you again for your time and hard work and sorry for the unpleasantness. — LlywelynII 13:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Susie, I think you're definitely onto a winner with Monroe. Those 50s reviews you added settle my own concerns with it. And given that Tim and Brian are fine with the Spoto source. Perhaps given it a couple more days but if you proceed to FAC soon afterwards I think I'd be in a position to support it, as I'm sure would some of the others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The article Marilyn Monroe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marilyn Monroe for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld ( talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Susie. Just wanted to say the article so far is very well composed. I've left a few more comments and will continue after they're addressed. Shouldn't be too hard to pass at FAC. Have you thought of making her TFA for her 90th birthday, perhaps? Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It's been quick failed. I suggest you just continue with editing it. If LS starts getting difficult again then a topic ban might be on the cards. You or I could have told LS what Snuggums told him in the GAR. I disagree on her friendship with Michael Jackson being trivial though, and I also disagree with LS's recent removal of relationships she had. A decent article would mention those names. Your call though if you're going for it! If you want a collaborator I may see later in the month, though I have Cary Grant planned. I think for a decent article on Taylor it would need a great deal of reading like the Sinatra article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Going back to Monroe for a second: I added the Clash image - do you think it looks better as a multi image with Monkey Business or separated? I don't know so will leave it with you! Maybe the Clash one needs to be cropped more... As for Taylor, I don't mind helping out with copyediting and things like that. For structuring, I suggest:
Something like that would be the ideal IMO. If you want to keep it more simple for now though, I understand that..! -- Loeba (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"You've said nothing positive about the current article. Nothing." - Susie, how dare you not be a beacon of positivity and encouragement like Lightshow! Lol. -- Loeba (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool. I see Spoto also authored a book on Taylor which looks good!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Taylor. 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) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Kailash29792 has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
On 15 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marilyn Monroe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marilyn Monroe was featured on the cover and on the centerfold of the first issue of Playboy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marilyn Monroe. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh my god, Susie and @ Dr. Blofeld: you have to watch this. So so SO good! Ha, love it! -- Loeba (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
LOL!! You know I might work on Ginger Rogers sometime, I love her to bits. In my opinion one of the most gorgeous actresses but underrated in looks. Her eyes are about the same colour as mine LOL, I think that's the attraction ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit addicted to watching it haha, it makes me so happy. I'm sure it helps that I already love the song. There's a comment from the uploader saying it took him three weeks, so there you go! Yeah I will read through Liz, possibly tomorrow. -- Loeba (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Errol Flynn might be an interesting to do too. Can't say I'm a fan, but he was one of the most badass actors of that period which I'm sure would make a fascinating read!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Loeba: @ Dr. Blofeld: I'm otherwise ready to take MM to FA review, but I noticed that there are still two reference mistakes which I don't know how to fix. I've used Thomas Harris' 1957 and Richard Dyer's 1978 (I think, have to re-check) essays, but they are included in Christine Gledhill's 1991 anthology. The problem is that at the moment both essays are shown as being from 1991, which is wrong, and I have no idea how to fix this so that the essays have different publ years from the anthology. Do you know how to do this? TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 11:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elizabeth Taylor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valentino. 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) 09:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jack Hemingway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vansockslayer ( talk) 12:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the price you pay for trying to protect the encyclopedia I'm afraid!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 23 November 2015 (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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi TrueHeartSusie3, I see that you're a woman Wikipedian. Would you be interested in reviewing this nomination, which is about an Indian actress? I'll most probably review the Monroe FAC. Thanks, — Vensatry (Talk) 09:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Bingo TrueHeartSusie3! Glad for what you've said. Look forward to see some improvements in the article! — Vensatry (Talk) 18:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3, can you do me a favour by striking out the concerns (which you think are addressed) in the FAC page. I'll implement the pending changes probably in a week's time. As for Rohan Antao being her former publicist, you might want to have a look at Relentlessly's thoughts at the per review. Thanks, — Vensatry (Talk) 06:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I took a look at it too and sadly agree that it's not FA material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
@ TrueHeartSusie3: You may have an interest in checking out: THIS. --- Professor JR ( talk) 12:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you call it a reliable source? I was once told that a major news website can be considered a RS if it has a well-developed article on Wikipedia. Kailash29792 ( talk) 10:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Suzie, I am not in the business of adding 'factoids' or edit warring. I am a long time editor of Wikipedia and I respect its conventions. I added these paras in order to support this part of the article. That Marilyn herself directly influenced a major magazine to use an established photojournalist known for a particular style of reportage - candid , available light photography - to promote her at this particular moment in her career, for quite clear reasons (in references I supply) is entirely relevant to this article. Please reconsider less reactively. Thank you,James
James McArdle www.mcardle-carrington.com
Mobile: 0411 275 289 Email: jamesmcardle@me.com sinarau ( talk) 08:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello TrueHeartSusie! I recently saw your review in an FAC which is about an Indian actress, and it was quite good. Would you mind reviewing this peer review for me? I would like to take it to FAC if I receive positive feedback from reviewers. -- Frankie talk 19:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Merry Christmas BTW!
The Special Barnstar | |
Congratulations on bringing Marilyn Monroe to Featured Article status! A really excellent wiki-achievement that you should be very proud of =) Loeba (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC) |
..And happy Christmas/Hyvää joulua! Hope you've had a lovely few days. -- Loeba (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, just noticed!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Congrats, as I just noticed as well. Great job! Kierzek ( talk) 22:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Again, thanks for the PR comments, quite helpful. However, this is for achieving an FA with Marilyn Monroe. Congratulations and happy new year! -- Frankie talk 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC) |
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Wow! Truly a great accomplishment! Taking MM to FA! Great going, TrueHeartSusie! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
Charlie Chaplin | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 758 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Today we enjoy Marilyn Monroe, thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Three years now, and Marylin mentioned as a model in a recent RfC ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
... four years now, and still a model! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
... and five -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
... and six -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear TrueHeartSusie3., it's a real pity that you removed this image from the article... As it's about MM, why not having an image which is only showing her? Let me propose the following: Let's show Gill's portrait of MM in the legacy-part and the other one in the context of MM and society. Gill's painting shows MM as she was reflected in (pop-) art, while the actual image is more related to society and barely related to arts. Best regards, NORPpA ( talk) 11:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Susie and Loeba,
I'm Ed Erhart, although you might know me better as The ed17 when I'm volunteering. I'm writing this in my role as an editorial associate with the Wikimedia Foundation.
I'm interested in doing an examination of the work that goes into writing a FA for the Wikimedia Blog—in this case, on Charlie Chaplin. I have a small suspicion that people in the real world have no idea how much work FA writers put in (a statement that could probably apply to the WMF too :-) ), and I think it would be intriguing to illuminate that.
With this in mind:
Hello, I got pinged. Sounds good, it's nice that you've picked the Chaplin article to focus on! I'd be happy to help, but will wait for THS to chip in...especially since it's her talk page -- Loeba (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I haven't logged in for ages and forgot about this - until I saw a Chaplin book in a shop today and thought "Ohhh yeah". I will try and write my answers tomorrow! -- Loeba (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay I'm finally doing this! Sorry again, wikipedia really hasn't been on my mind lately. I also wrote quite a lot, I hope you can structure something decent from both our answers..!
Answers from Loeba
|
---|
What got you interested in Charlie Chaplin and that period of film history? What caused you to work on his article? I'll be honest that I didn't have any interest in him growing up. I remember seeing a Chaplin short when I was a kid, but didn't care for it; I think most of my early life I assumed he was silly and annoying! I was closed-minded to any films made before, say, the 1970s. But in my early 20s I started to get really interested in cinema, and realised there's was loads of talent and charm in the early stuff. I've always been deeply interested in 20th century history, so I also embraced classic films as a way to "go back in time". This is still part of the reason I love watching old stuff. Anyway: when this was brewing (probably 2010) I caught Richard Attenborough's Chaplin biopic was on TV. It's not a great film, but it traces his fascinating life and demonstrates his charm. It was enough to spark my interest: I loved his Dickensian childhood, how lefty and political he was, how completely and passionately he controlled his work...The first feature of his I watched was The Kid (the first silent I ever watched, in fact) and I was surprised how much I loved it. I watched more, and loved them as well. I decided to order his autobiography, which is such a great read. By then I had caught the Wikipedia bug, and I decided Chaplin would make a great project and I'd genuinely be interested to research his life and write about it. I first proposed overhauling the article in November 2011, making a plea for collaborators, but didn't actually start until April 2012. I think I'd written two or three sections when TrueHeartSusie got in touch to say she'd like to help. So that's how it began! What makes the Chaplin significant in world and/or North American history? Why does he still garner so much interest even today? I think because he's genuinely so good. Obviously he was such a huge star in his lifetime, and for such a long time, that he inevitably became a part of cultural history. That was always going to happen, especially with the distinctive Tramp look that makes for a great image. But I don't think that would be enough to still generate enthusiasm if he wasn't brilliantly entertaining. I showed The Circus (film) to my mum and sister - my mum was born in 1950 but couldn't remember fully seeing one of his films before - and they loved it! They didn't expect to, but it's so funny and easy to watch. I remember my mum making a Facebook status with something like "Just watched The Circus, and now understand why Chaplin is so popular." The films are great, simple as that, and hold up perfectly. Add that to his very interesting life story: the "rags to riches" tale, the unprecedented level of popularity followed by the dramatic rejection, the politics, the controversial womanising...He was a complicated man, and there's plenty there to maintain interest. Film buffs are particularly interested in the level of control he had over productions; that's very rare in the industry. Can you describe how writing a big-picture article (ie a large biography like Chaplin) differs from daughter articles (ie the individual films)? Like THS I can't comment on how it compares to working on film articles, since I've never done that. I'll use this question to talk about writing an FA on a core article. In short: it's hard work! With these major figures there's always loads to talk about, and so much literature out there, that the articles are inevitably very long (even when you consciously try and be succinct, and chose things to leave out). You don't want to deprive readers of key/juicy information! Alongside the life story, there's also "analytical" sections to write (artistry, legacy) if you want to be comprehensive. These are quite tricky and require loads of research. You're aware of how many people will be reading the article, so there's real pressure to produce high-quality stuff. I'd also decided from the start that I'd like to get the article to FA, which meant paying close attention that everything is referenced (literally every detail, no matter how obviously true it is, FAC expects to be sourced; even if it means citing 3 sources for one sentence), always written entirely in my own words, following the MOS, mentioning numerous sources. On a personal level, writing actually doesn't come naturally to me, so I work pretty damn slowly. Add all these factors together, and it takes a long time. Then once you're "finished" you still need to go through the whole thing to trim excess detail (I cut about 1000 words from Chaplin), copy edit, make sure the sources are perfectly formatted. Even once all this is done you still need to go through several reviews before getting FA status, and make changes based on those, which adds on more time. Thank god THS was able to work on it as well - we split the sections between us - otherwise it just wouldn't have happened. Some people seem able to write huge FAs on their own, which I find crazy and admirable, but I think I'd still be finishing Chaplin now! I'll tell you one thing: it's essential to have a passionate interest in the subject if you're going to take on an article like this. What sort of special research have you done to complete these articles? Do you feel like you could write an academic work on Chaplin yourselves now? Looking at my shelves, I seem to own eight Chaplin books. I think I read about five of these cover-to-cover, and I'd basically keep notes in my phone as I read. The others I read bits of, and there were also other film books I have that I made use of. I used Google Books to read chapters and get information from multiple other sources. We knew that for an FA on a figure like Chaplin they'd expect extensive research, so we consciously sought out as much stuff as possible. Then there's the images, which is an area many people don't consider. I think these are really important, so (for my previous FA) I spent a long time learning about US copyright law (yep, seriously) so that I could include good ones (FAC looks very closely at copyright). On that article and Chaplin I'd spend time seeking out good images (high quality, but also demonstrating something interesting about his life), and checking that they're out of copyright (searching in the renewal records). It's surprisingly time consuming, and I added all but about 3 of the images on the article. They really make a difference though, so to me it's worth it. Could I write an essay on Chaplin? Well, I'm no academic, and I'm not really interested in thinking about film that way, but I'd probably have the knowledge to...I hardly every come across a Chaplin fact that I don't know. I literally feel like I know almost everything about him there is to know, heh. I've seen all his features (several times) and about half his shorts, so I have good understanding of his filmmaking as well. This doesn't mean I could write a decent essay on him though: that's a specific skill. Who knows until I try...which I won't. What else do you think I should write about? I've managed to cover the process pretty thoroughly, I think we're good! |
I'll ping both your accounts so you can find this @ The ed17 and Ed Erhart (WMF): Thanks again for approaching us. It would be lovely to have the blog out on his birthday, but no worries if not - take all the time you need. Let me know when it's done. Cheers! -- Loeba (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
An epic Hollywood adventure film from 1935 starring Gary Cooper. I'm trying to get this article to FA-status. Would be nice if you would take a look and perhaps do some copyediting or leave some suggestions on the talk page, that is, if you currently have the time. Let me know. Regards, Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your prize!) 13:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Susie, I saw in the Marilyn Monroe infobox that she married Joe DiMaggio in 54 and divorced in 55, but don't they divorced October 27, 1954 ? Please have a look at this article --> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/marilyn-free-love-caught-cold-joe-article-1.2009811 Thanks. -- Danielvis08 ( talk) 13:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
All my congratulations for your wonderful Wikipedia contributions in general and your input towards film in particular. All my very best wishes for "une bonne continuité" (continued excellent progress). with appreciation, Natalie Natalie.Desautels ( talk) 22:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
For all your recent reduction to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. It was well-needed. Keep up the good work! Snuggums ( talk / edits) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) |
I appreciate your edits on the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis article, one which I ruined with every word I typed, according to some of the other editors on here. You did a great job condensing that atrocious text that I branded onto the page. As that Barnstar said, it was a much needed improvement over the trashy and horrendous quality of my entries, almost disgusting to even think about. I see you've also improved on some other articles as well and for those I thank you again. I dread to think how horrible I would have made those pages. My entries on there might have ruined the entire site. Where did you develop these superb skills in writing? I should have gone to your schools. Maybe I could have learned a thing or two about writing and knowing what's notable and what is not, as opposed to the limited skills I have, according to the Wikipedia census. Informant16 8 April 2016
At the Jacqueline Kennedy article, you recently removed valid content and replaced content that was POV and said in wiki-voice. Diff here. You need to walk that revert back and discuss same on the talk page per the WP:BRD cycle. Reminder: it's BRD, BRRD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 08:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
For your excellent work on Charlie Chaplin. The interview we did with you and Loeba is now published on the blog! :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 22:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC) |
Feeling like a Wikipedia celebrity now THS?! Haha. I love what you said about Chaplin's popularity, you nailed it :) -- Loeba (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way, did you notice that the Chaplin museum has finally opened? There's a nice video here, though it may not play outside of Britain. It looks amaazing, I seriously think I need to take a minibreak to Switzerland...Tickets aren't even that expensive (£17). -- Loeba (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
GA or FA? Great to see somebody finally taking it on. Glad you're still editing too, Loeba hasn't been around much in recent months.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Been too busy with WP:Atdrag to continue with Grant, should have more time next month for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Susie, I'll start trimming this one tomorrow. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Congrats on yesterday's TFA, hope the damage inflicted by random idiots wasn't too great. Yes, I've resumed with Cary Grant now. Did you also intend getting ET to GA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Cool, congratulations!! Isn't it weird to imagine her still alive now at 90...I think she'd be regarded very differently, to be honest. -- Loeba (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate on your work for Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin, I appreciate your hard work and commitment, cheers. ^.^ " -- User:LoveFromBJM ( talk)
Planning on Natalie Wood next. It's a case of either quitting or ignoring the idiots!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you or Loeba find anything more on Hannah Chaplin?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't edited the article. Perhaps Ipigott is the one you're looking for?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
While writing on him, have you ever pondered on a world without the great artist? Who do you think would not have made their mark in the film industry if Chaplin wasn't around? To me, the first few people who crop up are Cary Grant, Woody Allen, Marlon Brando, Jerry Lewis and, of course, Mr. Bean. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I see we also got the Asphalt Jungle photo from that magazine too. The entire magazine is out of copyright, so anything you see there in the way of photos can be used. Just copy the file information from here and change the link for the photo (source) to the page the photo is on in the magazine.
I see the Marilyn-Arthur Miller marriage photo is here on page 22-the same page where the Actors Studio and some childhood pics are. This is a better and larger photo of the marriage one in the magazine. You can use it as the uploaded photo. It's a larger, better quality one than the magazine has--it's also identical to the one you were interested in here. Just ask if you need anything else ;-) We hope ( talk) 12:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I browsed the Marilyn Monroe's Wikicommons category a few months ago and have found that there's actually a picture of Marilyn Monroe when she did shoots for calendar photos by the ocean in the 1940s (according to the description given) placed in the Marilyn Monroe in art category, this is the picture, I noticed you're searching images from her modeling career and this might help. It was actually uploaded by We Hope back in 2013. The picture doesn't state the photographer and the date captured, I did search the image on google, and this is the result, some same pictures appeared in the search result but I couldn't find the information indicating the photographer or the date captured, there's a series of Monroe's modelling-by-the-beach pictures which was also captured by Andre de Dienes in 1945 and by the time she still has her natural hair colour, I wonder maybe it might come from the same source? And if is, is it copyrighted? User:LoveFromBJM ( talk) 16:34, 2 July 2016
Hi Susie, I see you've been having trouble with LS! Are you sure the new photo in the infobox is better quality? Her position looks a bit awkward and the background a little blurry, I thought the other one was a better image, more classic looking, but up to you!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Seeing his edit patterns of late, I'd say trolling constitutes most of it. He's looking to spark a reaction from people by saying a section is loaded with trivia. Having experienced this sort of thing on the Kubrick and Grant articles, remain positive, I know just how irritating it can be, curbs enthusiasm for contributing here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Will be working on Laff next. Found some photos from Something's Gotta Give. We hope ( talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
A search for renewal at copyright.gov turned up no listings using the newspaper's title. There's no evidence of continuing copyright for the newspaper. Copyright not renewed
A search for renewal at copyright.gov turned up no listings using the newspaper's title. There's no evidence of continuing copyright for the newspaper. Copyright not renewed
File:Marilyn1962.PNG This is now in the PD if you have use for it. Also can get some photos of the scenes surrounding the death if you want or need them--her bedroom and so on. These were in old newspapers. We hope ( talk) 14:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry to see you have run into "resistance" in your efforts to improve this article and in your desire to bring it up to GA. I can only think that regular editors therein are suffering from a touch of WP:OWN. I commented on the talk page since you had mentioned my name therein when discussing updating the citation method used. Good luck in carrying forward on that article and obtaining consensus. I am sure some of them will come around on matters; at least I hope so. Kierzek ( talk) 15:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Kailash29792 has aimed to make it an FA. Feel free to leave comments and do let me or him know if you intend to do so by pinging either of us. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you, Loeba and Bede735 and others would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest.Even if you might not participate I need some names signed to show support for it. The idea would be a daily prize like a DVD, or book etc for whoever produces the most content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frida Kahlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angel of Death. 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) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Susie! I've got a quick question for you, if you have a moment. Can you email me at eerhartwikimedia.org? Thank you :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 03:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. 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 - an edit you made on this page had a serious factual error: Helen Thomas was not Jacqueline's press secretary. I do not know how that error could have happened, and I did not notice it before - someone corrected it now. I don't have the source book you used for your edits - can you please go over them and confirm with other reliable sources that any other material you entered is factually correct. Thank you. Tvoz/ talk 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2017! | |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hello TrueHeartSusie3: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Pauciloquence ( talk) 12:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of larger copies of the current lead photo available. What about choosing one of them and sending it to the WP photo lab for some sharpening, etc?
106 hits at TinEye
These are just a few of the larger copies--take a look through what TinEye brought up and find one you think would be good for the WP photo lab to give a try re: cleaning, sharpening. We hope ( talk) 15:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
No, you were right — I hadn't noticed that someone had stuck a date in that the cites there did not support. Thank you for going back in and correcting it. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Guess who is back and really making a lot of changes? I'm afraid some of them may not be in agreement with what the references from the books say; I see no changes in citations from him. You have the books available to check to see if what's been changed still agrees with your refs, so thought I'd let you know. We hope ( talk) 02:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frida Kahlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modigliani. 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) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frida Kahlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page What the Water Gave Me. 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) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Have a look to see if these changes are in keeping with your refs. We hope ( talk) 22:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Take it back to ANI if you want but leave the archive alone.' Toddst1 ( talk) 20:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This guy doesn't know or care when to quit, does he? Another ANI thread is probably warranted if you've got enough evidence of blatant disruption since the last time he was brought up there (you know more about him and his bad habits than I do). Snuggums ( talk / edits) 00:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've started a new thread at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:IDHT behavior from Light show. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 16:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Let me take a look. I see some already which really have no PD proof. I need to check the copyright status for the one from The Last Time I Saw Paris. Am also seeing that the articles for her parents have no photo; the one from the Stork Club could be cropped for their photos and then added to their respective articles.
The box photo has been nominated for deletion at Commons multiple times. I personally am not convinced, but consensus there has said it's PD every time it's been nominated. There's also the thought of viewing various film trailers and getting screenshots of any without copyright notices; this is what we had to do for the Rod Steiger article. A good thing there were quite a few free trailers as it was hard to get PD photos otherwise. Will post the questionable ones here. Glad to hear you're giving this another shot! :) We hope ( talk) 11:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Will check on The Last Time I Saw Paris. We hope ( talk) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, sorry for taking so long to get back to you! First of all, thank you once again. I had a look at Modern Screen and Film Bulletin and found two versions of what I think is the A Place in the Sun still, here and here, though the latter one looks like it's drawn to me. I was also wondering whether it would be possible to use a full version of this photo if I were to find it (which I haven't so far)? As for childhood photos, I found this. What do you think? TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 12:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
It's all good, so clip away! :-) We hope ( talk) 19:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
is ripping up Monroe (again). Think you'll need to make sure the text changes agree with the refs. We hope ( talk) 01:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie, bearing in mind that I'm writing you for the first time even though I share your main interest, have read most of the articles to which you have so patiently contributed, and consider Chaplin a genius as well – there should probably be one or two clichés in this opening paragraph, either expressing my admiration for your work or my gratitude for your tirelessness. However, I'll allow myself the freedom to skip each of them, so as to sound less maudlin and more practical.
Now, few days ago (based on the date, in fact, it seems much more than few days ago; but things move too fast to keep track anyway), while reading the personal life section of the article about Elizabeth Taylor, I came across an information about a certain Jason Winters, allegedly her last fiancée (fortunately, I guess, not Wikipedia's Jason Winters – which, by the way, is an article that needs to be either seriously edited/reformatted or deleted straight away!). I quickly went over the references but, even though they seemed reliable (since I hadn't heard of such an information before), I bookmarked one of them so that I don't forget to check the information more carefully in the future and return to the article once again if necessary to edit it.
Well, after reading through few relevant texts, I returned to the Elizabeth Taylor's article few minutes ago to edit the part on Jason Winters (I too came across the Vanity Fair article and Taylor's tweet refuting a possible engagement) only to notice that you have altogether deleted it. Since I didn't really have an idea in which direction to edit the short paragraph, yours maybe the better (if not the only) solution. However, since I spent some time researching, I happened upon few interesting facts/speculations which may grant Winters some kind of a mention in the article. Since, during the last years of her life, he is mentioned in all kinds of contexts beside her name: as her gay manager ( the Vanity Fair article among many others), her partner (at least as late as 2013), probable inheritor to the bulk of her fortune ( here, here or even here; but, see here as well) - or at least just her Jean Hersholt ( here) – and even her murderer ( good gracious lord!). Now, I didn't have time to research this thoroughly, but Luna and Stein are mentioned in Taylor's article, and there's a whole article about Larry Fortensky. So, before doing any more research, I thought I might ask you for an opinion. What do you think? Should Winters be included in Taylor's article in some other form (manager, inheritor...)? (So as not to let my research go to waste, I even thought about sketching a short Wikipedia article about Winters for a moment (since I saw that he was a businessman, etc. etc.), but I neither have the time for something like that at the present moment nor do I believe that he deserves a separate Wikipedia article).
On a completely unrelated matter (or, as you say, for no useful reason): have you ever watched The Innocents? I see that The Others is among your all-time favourites, and The Innocents is similarly inspired by The Turn of the Screw. But, it is one of my all-time favourites and I think it surpasses The Others (though The Others is both creepy and brilliant as well). (By the way, the Slugs mention on your user page is listed under the year of the novel and links to a disambiguation page: it should link here; and yes - it's hilariously bad: from the premise to the execution).
Sorry about the long message. Didn't intend to at all. However, since the length totally subverts my attempt at being practical, at least now I can use this ending paragraph to thank you, both as a user and a contributor, for your dedication to the Wikipedia project. I'm an administrator at the Macedonian Wikipedia, but recently started contributing almost exclusively here, mostly to fill a gaping hole about East European writers and films, but, due to the evil grip of procrastination (and, to quote you, the rabbit holes around here), I usually end up doing something different altogether.
Like spending few hours/days checking/removing/updating an obsolete reference. But, you already know the feeling... -- Виктор Јованоски ( talk) 22:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. 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)
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018! | |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC) |
May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please have a look at the Monroe article when you have time; there is a difference of opinion of language (verbiage, grammar). Kierzek ( talk) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've recently requested a PR for the article Fawad Khan ( see here). It'd be an honour for me if you consider reviewing it. Thanks. Amirk94391 ( talk) 05:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. 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)
Hi, I noticed that you are the contributor to some actors/actresses FAs i.e. Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin. I want to have your advice on finding sources for articles, as sources available for Classic era figures are mostly books, which I believe are not easy to retrieve. As I'm planning to work on some articles, may I know how did you manage to find information from book sources? Thanks so much, HĐ ( talk) 02:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The article of Love Happy and Monroe's filmography displays the date as 1949, so I don't think showing it as 1950 in other sections is correct. Sebastian James ( talk) 08:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
No need for the tone in this edit summary. You appear not to be in full view if the facts. I reverted (for the second time) someone adding unsourced information. I hadn't realised there were intervening edits, one of which, was the edit you made. Cassianto Talk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you contribute often to Frida Kahlo. I invite you to contribute to writing the blurb for a photo of her that is due to appear on the Main Page. --- Coffeeand crumbs 17:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Although it shouldn't make a difference in your reversal of the edit at death of Marilyn Monroe, but wanted to mention that the paragraph removed was a class assignment in Wikipedia writing. Maybe you can consider posting your analysis of what was wrong with it on the student editor's talk page. I knew it was a class assignment, and was watching for when it would appear, and was interested in that the student wasn't doing an entire rewrite as much as putting something new on the page to improve it. If the student goes to the article's talk page, or if you consider writing something on their page and they respond, I'll probably join in with my (semi-)constructive comments. Thanks, and smooth sailing! Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Stewart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Brown and Robert Young ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 07:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello there, Big fan of your style of writing and contributions to Wikipedia, especially your work on Chaplin's biography. I solicited some help from Blofeld and Loeba a few years ago, both helping me with a copyedit of Nolan's biography, and taking it to GA. It should have been taken to FA by now, but I've been less active of late.
I'm posting this in hope of recruiting you for a quick copy edit. I completely understand if you don't have time or interest in this.
Best regards, Sammyjankis88 ( talk) 18:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
You deserve a kitten for your kindness in helping out a random editor. I hope this kitten will give you some warm and fuzzy feelings during this holiday season, merry christmas! Sammyjankis88 ( talk) 10:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, I noticed that you haven't been super active on Wikipedia recently and I hope things are going well. Are you still interested in helping finish up the James Stewart article? We were working on finishing the legacy section. I can understand if you are burned out by it so just let me know. I gave an editor who expressed interest doing a GA review about a month ago the greenlight to do so if he's still interested. Thanks for all your help, you're awesome! :) Skyes(BYU) ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You should consider spending your time more wisely and spend less of it protecting domestic abusers.
You keep deleting any references to the fact that Amber has abused Depp, and your agenda is painfully obvious. Please refrain from protecting abusers in the future.
OnsceneBoos ( talk) 16:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, the way you are white knighting Amber Heard is truly disgusting. You keep deleting all references to Amber being the abuser and leave all the ones alleging Depp is the abuser, despite audio recordings being out where Amber admits to being the abuser.
I can only imagine how you would react if the situation was reversed.
OnsceneBoos ( talk) 14:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
OnsceneBoos ( talk) 10:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey he wasn't threatening you in any way. All he did was call out your blatant sexism and asked to keep it accurate. This is just sorry behavior — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.114.16 ( talk) 19:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Earlier today, you undid an edit by another user that was similar (but not the same). I was lead to make the edit by the discussion at WP:BLPN, which I reviewed and which contains an emerging consensus in favour of including the fact. You have now undid my edit. You are not entitled to keep blocking edits to the article and I have accordingly undid your revert. Please continue discussing this matter with all the involved users at the BLPN thread. AGK ■ 19:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TrueHeartSusie3 reported by User:AGK (Result: ). Thank you. AGK ■ 19:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I've created 700 Nimes Road, but cannot think how to incorporate it into Taylor's article. The photographs are stunning and elegiac. Thanks for all your great work on her biography! No Swan So Fine ( talk) 21:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello: please have a look at recent changes. I believe revisions are needed, but I know you have the RS books. Thanks, Kierzek ( talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your removal of the section that I added regarding Playboy's acquisition of her pictures. While you can make the argument that additional sources would have been better, that does not mean the section was inaccurate. There are multiple sources that I could easily have added. Nowhere in that passage did I imply that pinup work was something she would not have done. That was your interpretation, not what was written. And it has nothing to do with what actually occurred. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/09/28/marilyn-monroe-helped-launch-hugh-hefners-career-but-they-never-even-met/ , https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hugh-hefner-pay-to-be-buried-next-to-marilyn-monroe/, page 83 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Marilyn_Her_Life_in_Her_Own_Words/H3IpUvGxg_YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=hefner%20marilyn%20monroe%20plaYBOY , https://www.businessinsider.com/how-marilyn-monroe-appeared-nude-in-first-issue-of-playboy-2017-9#:~:text=Hefner%20launched%20Playboy%27s%20first%20issue,of%20her%20in%20the%20magazine.&text=But%20Monroe%20never%20actually%20signed%20an%20agreement%20to%20be%20in%20Playboy.
Hi TrueHeartSusie3. I respect your work at MM's article so I want your opinion. I added her name to the disambig page MM because during her lifetime and since her death I've seen a number of publications that referred to her as "MM". My edit was reverted because her article "doesn't support the initials". I have considered adding it to her article (with a citation, such as [6]), possibly in the infobox ("other names"), or elsewhere if you have any suggestion. I wanted to see what you think about it. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 00:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
... for your comments at FAC and for these corrections. I'm working on some other Finnish scientist articles (eg. Teuvo Ahti, Runar Collander, Fredrik Elfving and several in development) and frequently have to translate Finnish source material, so I hope you don't mind if I add you to my mental list of helpful resources! Esculenta ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amber Heard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I commend you for your impressive FA work and stewardship on high-visibility Marilyn Monroe. That pagespace is spare yet comprehensive, well-referenced but well written, five+ years after promotion. It demonstrates both a broad knowledge of sources and a wikipedian's willingness to work with others to make this encyclopedia a place to be trusted when looking for information on the subject of Norma Jean Baker. I personally admire and respect the effort. I'm only saying this because somebody should have, and it didn't seem appropriate there. BusterD ( talk) 16:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Is the repetition of your username in your sig intentional? What does it mean? It makes me think that you've returned to sign something a second time... – SJ + 20:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johnny Depp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Justice.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this:
That important? I think it would be better to take it off, it steals too much space. Or a crop could be the solution? TheBellaTwins1445 ( talk) 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, Marilyn Monroe, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page or ping me. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 ( talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3, I am writing to you with concern regarding your
[8] usage of quotes in
Depp v. Heard. For example, you wrote that: Kipper ... testified that a nurse who was working for Kipper had witnessed Depp with "bloody knuckles after hitting a wall in frustration or anger", that he "kicked in a trailer door on a movie set" when unhappy with a director
. From reading the quotes, it sounds like this was Kipper's exact words, however, from reading
the reference, this was description given by the source (Edward Helmore of The Guardian). There was no indication that this was Helmore's description. There are other examples, you wrote that Baruch "became emotional" without attributing it to Sky's
Gemma Peplow, and you wrote that Dembrowski "struggled" without attributing to AP's
Ben Finley or
Helmore again. I would suggest that to avoid this, we simply avoid using direct quotes unless it was the witness' direct words.
starship
.paint (
exalt) 12:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Kipper stated that Depp had on several occasions tried to end treatment as he "was concerned he’d never feel normal without his drugs".That's not what the source said. The quote came first, even before attempts to end treatment. The specific reason for ending treatment was “He didn’t think he could do it.” starship .paint ( exalt) 12:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
source - Dr David Kipper, Depp’s addiction specialist, testified that he had planned to detox the actor several years ago from dependencies on alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines and cocaine over two weeks on Depp’s island in the Bahamas. “He was concerned he’d never feel normal without his drugs,” Kipper said.
In August 2014, Kipper visited Depp on the island to begin the process. The actor reported that he was uncomfortable, and repeatedly tried to fire his doctor and to back out of treatment. “He didn’t want to proceed,” Kipper said. “He didn’t think he could do it.”
starship .paint ( exalt) 12:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just to check - is the problem with the quotes that you think it gives the impression that those are exact words the witness said, instead of being quotes from the journalist who wrote the source? That’s a fair point that I did not think of, given that quoting journalists is standard practice here. Paraphrasing instead of directly quoting the text from now on! However, I’m not sure I understand your point regarding Dr. Kipper’s words? Those are his exact words regarding the matter. I admit I have not had the time to watch his depo, but from the source it seems it is his comment regarding the entire situation, not a specific part of it. Can you point me to where this is stated? TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 15:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
he’d never feel normal without his drugs, this was a general comment by Kipper, and he didn't mention any attempted firings. The part where Kipper discusses the attempted firings is a bit later, 65:40, where he does mention Depp
didn’t think he could do it. The problem is that you directly attributed the attempted firing to
he’d never feel normal without his drugswhen Kipper himself, and our sources, did not do that. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
TrueHeartSusie3, I've removed a bunch of "admitted" from the trial article. Some of them were originally added by me, some I'm pretty sure were added by you (since you are the #1 content adder), though I haven't checked. Seems to me it's POV as it implies wrongdoing (e.g. 'admit fault', 'admit a mistake'), unless the sources use an equivalent word. I've changed them to more neutral words if the source also used neutral words. starship .paint ( exalt) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to be a major contributor to Depp's article and have done a great work so far, as I can see. I have two eBooks on Depp (one from Greenwood Publishing and the other from Rutgers University Press), and was thinking to use them here for a potential GA and later FA. After all the hell this iconic actor has recently endured, he at least deserves a decent article on Wikipedia. What are your thoughts on a future collaboration after his lawsuit with Heard cools down a little? FrB.TG ( talk) 14:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi - don't think we've ever talked directly before, but I wanted to thank you for your work on keeping the Amber Heard article as neutral as possible. I know it's difficult given that the trial is a... very newsworthy event right now, to say the least, but you have been diligent at keeping the perspective as neutral and fair as possible, and standing your ground on making sure that the information that makes it into the article is relevant, timely, and properly sourced. And for what it's worth, I appreciate that a lot. Take care! Afddiary ( talk) 01:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I echo Afddiary's words. Thinnyshivers ( talk) 19:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Depp v. Heard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deadline and Vanity Fair.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Suzie, could you please point to a reference to the 12 month payment schedule that you mentioned?
Also I've raised a discussion on Coverage of the settlement of the Depp-Heard divorce at Talk:Amber Heard.
Thanks
Greg Kaye 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@ GregKaye:, you’re moving the goalposts. I did not introduce that article to the Depp v Heard article, where I copied it from. The radio station states their info comes from NPR, but I do agree that better sources exist, hence why I replaced it. I assume you are referring to when you scrubbed all mention of the reason for Depp losing the libel trial against NGN from the lead. If we don’t mention it, it’s very unclear what the trial was about and why he lost; and he lost overwhelmingly due to evidence, not due to a technicality. The judgment was vetted by two further judges and found to be sound. As for ACLU, it’s only Depp’s side who are problematizing Heard not having completed her donations. ACLU has been clear that they expected the money in installments over a ten-year period (and I’ve understood that this is generally the practice with large donations) and that in 2019 they learned that Heard was having financial difficulties. Heard further testified about how much she has earned from DCEU, The Stand and the indie film she just finished, as well as that she has had to spend more than $6 million by May 2022 in legal costs. I do agree that Heard definitely should have been more up front about this once Depp’s team began accusing her of not paying, and also her PR team should understand that most of the public does not understand how transferring large sums goes, whether they are part of a divorce settlement or a charity donation. But let’s assume that Heard had no intention of donating the money (she was entitled to keep it as it was her divorce settlement; also, if she’s a golddigger, why not go for the full 30+ million she was entitled to by CA law?). It still doesn’t help in countering her claims that Depp was abusive, because it’s not just her word against his - she has photos, contemporary text messages and emails, medical records and therapist records, and several witnesses to her having injuries and Depp being aggressive towards her and severely drug-addicted. Even many of Depp’s own witnesses are saying they saw Heard with bruises and cuts. So what I am asking is, if you think that Heard is a mentally ill hoaxer, what is the narrative? How does all the evidence she has presented fit in it? How does the narrative explain the UK judgment? This is what I would like to genuinely learn. But I understand you do not want to discuss this, which is fine. TrueHeartSusie3 ( talk) 09:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here I can say, yes a lot of my viewing of the trial was with the commentary of the wonderful Emily D. Baker on her youtube channel [14] which I'd recommend to anyone. She has also done some great work on #freebritney related legalities and I don't see any signs she has MRA type traits.
As far as my activism goes it has mainly been in ecology with Camp for climate action but my arrests were in anti-capitalist protest and, bizarrely, twice as a suspected Islamic terrorist while caravanning in Europe. No MRA interest anywhere.
My first psychological concerns for Amber Heard were that she might go the same way as Caroline Flack and I spent much time on social media combatting people promoting anti-Amber memes. I go by my own name without embellishment, I put my "cards on the table" and what you see is what you get. I'd ask you to please reconsider any view you might have of us being monsters. Otherwise, that's all I can give you to work with.
On the Depp v. Heard talk page I had described going through (an elsewhere initiated) "living hell of accusation"
. It's up to editors including
TheTimesAreAChanging
Gtoffoletto and yourself, the extent you'd chose to perpetuate an accusatory style of approach. edited
Greg
Kaye 07:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your hard work on promoting the article! Miss you and Loeba! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)