User talk:Pinkadelica/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi.... no problem. She's on my list.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

there has been a comment added to Talk:Joan Crawford, and now that the editor has explained his/her viewpoint, I tend to agree. I've replied with my own opinion, but I would be interested in hearing what you think. Rossrs (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:1956wedding.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Can you tell me specifically what you don't like about the citations in June Mathis so that I might fix them?EraserGirl (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still unclear as to what you want fixed. I see there is a header issue, whereas I usually labeled the Notes and Bibliography as a subheadings under References. I have made that minor change.This isn't an article I have written, I am merely keeping an eye on the format. It is on my To Do list of Screenwriters. I will give it a rewrite eventually, she has far too few references for my taste. Can you point to an example of what you want me to emulate? EraserGirl (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I took a stab at a major rework of June Mathis. I haven't as yet added more material or collated the references from the Lieder book which I don't own, but I will add it to my list of things to do. If you still see issues as I go, point them out. EraserGirl (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Your reasons were clear enough, and I think you are right. I just figured it was close enough to the borderline that prod was the way to go.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello I am unable to edit the talk page visa(document). Am I doing something wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.218.53 (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

try saving the visa(document) talk page. I get that the page has spam in it (blocked). I can edit etc. just cannot save. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.218.53 (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Having trouble with email client changeover from Outlook Express to Windows Live. Yuck. Go take a look at my talk page and the corresponding pages and see what crap I've dealt with today. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh heck, good sir wasn't the start even. Look at the BOTTOM of the page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, who knows. I guess for me, the compelling fact is that it is well-researched and all the supporting articles and documents are scanned and readily available. I just think all of it got a bit out of hand. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All I know is that I "ain't in the mood, Archie." Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't suppose she was connected to the Kennedy assassination, do you? (Oh, and I love that you caught the Archie reference. Didn't you?) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should contact Doodles about this? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You should just take a look at What's My Line? I love that TheHYPO guy. You know who the mystery editor is, don't you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to KYLIEX2008 appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Please review the talk page or notes within the text before making edits. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was informed by another editor to place the response on every editor's talk page who altered that perticular section or the entire article. If was told wrong, I do apologize. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pinkadelica, I haven't been around for two or three days, so please excuse me for replying only now: It was a pleasure for me to repair your talk page. Best wishes, --Catgut (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Most of the information contained in KYLIEX2008 and the Showgirl - The Homecoming Tour articles seems to have come from original research. I believe scans from the tour book are floating around some Kylie forums. I will look around and see if I can find an official set list for KYLIEX2008. As for the other articles on her tours, they all need a major clean-up. All original research or duplicate information should simply just be removed. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Right now I'm going through the Showgirl - The Homecoming Tour article. It's a complete mess! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no set list in the KYLIEX2008 tour book. It only contains pictures and tour dates Alkclark (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I was wondering if I could get your advice. Apparently, Ms. Minogue plans on changing the set list for her KylieX2008 tour from date to date. Should this be chronicled in the article or should the set list from the Bercy pref. remain intact until the show is over and a official set list can be made? It seems that are cutting out songs due to time constraints and/or technical difficulties but there is not set list in the tour book and her official web page only refers to the first night's set list. Alkclark (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So far only 3-4 songs have been cut out and a fews songs have been moved around but the change seems to be constant, however, fans are gossiping that she's changing the setlist to suit which songs were hits in the countries she is performing in. I would say that its just gossip but its turning out to be true. I was only at the Paris performance so I cannot account for the others. I really don't want this page to be come as cluttered as SG:TGH Tour or SG:Homecoming articles. Yet I feel that some fans will edit the article after every show she performs. Alkclark (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm new to wikipedia and was wondering if you could explain to me how to cite sources in articles. In editing articles it looks like citing involves using basic programming code that I don't understand. Is there an easy way?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsEditor1000 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, just found out that not leaving your signature is uncouth. Just found out how to do that!

Cordially, --NewsEditor1000 (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I just cited my first source without a hitch. Booyah! Thanks for your help! Anyway, as I've said I'm pretty new to wikipedia and am still trying to grasp the general philosophy of the site. I've read wikipedia's official stance but it has some room for interpretation. I get the general idea pretty well, but still have some lingering questions, for instance, does all information need to be cited? Where is the line between common and not common knowledge? If you're ever bored I'd love to hear your take.

--NewsEditor1000 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind popping over to Talk:Amy Winehouse#"Musical Legacy" and read and render your opinion on what this guy is proposing now? Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! This is another one of those situations where I don't see how it's relevant. I keep saying "we can't include each and every time someone writes an article that mentions her." Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, it is rather you who are injecting your POV into a subject about which you manifestly know nothing. Your ignorance was apparent in your self-appointed first attempt to play editor of this article, when you removed the link to the website which actually represents a vastly larger number of members of The Golddiggers than the so-called "Official Website".

Taking a page straight out of the "believe-everything-you-read" book of credulity, you evidently seemed to think that because one website calls itself the "official, authorized" website, that that makes it so. Sorry, but it holds the distinction of being the "official, authorized" site only because the six individuals who established it declared it to be so.

The Golddiggers Super Site existed months before the other site appeared, is supported by nearly two dozen former members of The Golddiggers, and provides the most comprehensive, impartial and accurate history anywhere on the Internet of not only that group, but ALL of the women who performed on The Dean Martin Show. THAT is why it is essential to provide descriptive information about each of the two websites -- to distinguish between the two -- ESPECIALLY for those such as yourself who know absolutely nothing about the topic.

The creators of each website have provided brief, one-sentence summaries of what each has to offer. The Golddiggers Super Site is a completely non-commercial, not-for-profit site, and as such, is not selling anything. I assume that the same applies to the other site. Therefore, the links are there only to guide readers to destinations that can provide far more enlightenment about the topic than a skimpy article in Wikipedia is capable of doing.

The descriptions of the two websites existed for months before you launched your one-person crusade to remove them. Leaving them in place, just as they've been, isn't going to cause the earth to tremble or even Wikipedia to lose one iota of its credibility. Quite to the contrary, providing concise, factual information about worthwhile non-commercial external links is in the interest of Wikipedia readers.

If you have a lot of free time on your hands and are in need of something to do, it would be my suggestion to you to concentrate on editing articles concerning subjects about which you can bring some knowledge to the table. This clearly isn't one of them.

Interbang (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Interbang

I addressed you in a tone of voice no different than the one that you used in your introductory message to me, which was not only blatantly hostile, but also wantonly arrogant, from the very first sentence. So you'd do well to turn the mirror on yourself and examine your own M.O. before assailing someone else's. You may get away with bullying others on this site, but it's a little harder when the facts of the situation don't support your case.

For starters, you're reading the edit log to serve your own biased perspective. Your claim that "At least two other editors have changed your unneeded descriptions in the external links" fails to take into account the fact that one of those edits was made by someone who replaced the descriptions with bad links, and the other was made by one of the creators of the "Original Golddiggers" website, who, months after the link to The Golddiggers Super Site was entered, attempted to shove their link in above the existing one.

The two edits that I made were to: 1) revert the links to ones that worked; 2) reverse the order of the two links to restore them to the way they had been, in recognition of proper netiquette. But of course, your insistence on the righteousness of YOUR position doesn't permit taking such factual subtleties into consideration.

And it's not just past history that you've got wrong here -- you don't even seem to be able to keep track of your own actions, taken on this very day:

Your claim that "I have no objections to the links themselves and I didn't even question the validity of them" flies in the face of the fact that your very first act in this whole episode was to remove the link to The Golddiggers Super Site, without knowing anything about it (in the process, reinforcing my contention and proving your dearth of knowledge about the subject).

At the same time, you left in place the link to the "Official Website" because you accepted its premise at face value, without having any idea of the distinction between it and The Golddiggers Super Site (yet further demonstrating the validity of a short description which contrasts the difference between the two websites).

You're plainly someone with a very profound authority complex who seems determined to carry on her officious bent even at the expense of the facts and the truth. If that characterization sounds familiar, it should be: It's what landed us in the quagmire that is the war in Iraq.

So, if you think that all of your misconduct, misreading of the facts, and misguided mission to exert your authority in this situation are going to stand you in good stead with the folks who run WIkipedia, then by all means, proceed to report the matter to an administrator. But if you believe, as indicated by your threats, that it's just me that's at risk of being banned, then perhaps you'd do well to review Wikipedia policy about those who overstep their authority in instances such as this one.

Interbang (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Interbang

The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you for your contributions. The new focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for letting me know. I'd actually forgotten all about that merge proposal, I'm glad somebody else noticed it. :) As you pointed out, all the material in the Bernadette Protti article already exists in the Kirsten Costas article, so there's not actually anything to be merged - despite the objections of the anonymous IP, I think I'll just be bold and turn it into a redirect. There's no need for two separate articles. Terraxos (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even DREAM of asking you to weigh in on the crap going on over at the Talk:Jonestown page. Honestly. You don't wanna get in this one. But... if you had an opinion... Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll send you an email. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you here? PLEASE be here and go look at Talk:Jim Morrison. Something has to be done about this woman. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't honestly think I've ever edited the Morrison article. This is beyond ridiculous. I've started writing a posting at AN/I. I'll email what I have to you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a new sock case on all of the latest (and earlier stuff). It would be great if you could also comment or endorse what I've written. It is here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd). Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Use this: diff - it should preserve the link no matter what gets removed from the talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! It is a bootleg (see here). As for the tour being Dream or Dreams, I've seen it both ways, but most people I have asked say its Dream. Hopefully that helps. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:No Secrets Album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or have the last 2-3 days been a bit of a Wiki-letdown? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We could always find a new bad guy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Some people just can't take a gentle rebuke! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey girl, well I'm a NKOTB fan, I saw you removed the unexplained changes I added, I guess I should've explained it, but I corrected the info about Joey Mcintyre's album, because it was certified Platinum since then, not just Gold, also the New Kids are trying to like get away from Maurice Starr's "puppet masketeers" image, that's why i removed Maurice Starr from the top of the article to give more credit to the new kids themselves, because you know when people in the media read their wikipedia, maurice starr's name is gonna be up there on the top again, and it could spur their anti-new kids manufactured thing, you know what i'm sayin, if we remove maurice starr from at least the top of the article, then it gives more credit to the guys, well anyway, go New Kids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.3.67 (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey girl, well yeah I understand what you're saying about the vandalism, that's why I realized that you did what did with a good reason, anyway yeah take care fellow fan, hehe. -Rica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.3.67 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

SORRY! My mistake. I'm using a fairly new (to me ) script to look at recent changes and saw your edit with "Hillary is a lesbian" in it and should have read the rest of it! My bad!! Disregard the previous message. Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Someone was definitely screwing with those pages with some sort of bad intention. It's odd how all the contributions of one user are on pages on my watchlist or that I just edit a lot like the Arena Football teams. I don't recognize the username, nor have I given that particular talk page any warnings, unless I did to the IP Address talk page of that user, which is all I can guess what the motive for this is. Other than that idea, I have no clue what the heck any of that was about. Tampabay721 (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've opened a request for comment on this article at Talk:Lizzie Borden#Request for Comments. I hope you'll look over what is there and comment! Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pinkadelica. I apologize I seriously thought that was her actual official website. I did not realize it was fan made. I feel very at fault for this. If something is found I'm just going to have double check it, but I apologize for the mistake. Take care.Mcelite (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Hi Pinkadelica. This now exists at Bookworm (Tiny Toon Adventures) and has been cleaned up, so I doubt he/she'll create the other articles again. If they do, I'll delete them and ask the user not to reinstate them. Regards, Craigy (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the place to do it, but it seems a good a place as any. You recently gave me a message regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assonance?diff=219629847 , saying that it was vandalism. I was just wondering why this was vandalism, so I know not to do it in the future. You didn't really say anything about why it was reverted. Thank you for your time. 69.124.142.182 (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there,

User Cbosh1 AKA 67.158.69.30 has been purposefully vandalising over the past 24 hours. You recently fixed one of his vandalisms in "Empress Suiko". He's also vandalised "Coach Carter" and "Genghis Khan". I've been watching him because he's bragging about his vandalisms on facebook. Could you please do something about this?

Thanks,

IceFisher (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I have been removing everything he does, I just thought you could ban him. Thanks for the report link, I was looking for that.

IceFisher (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you tagged another disruptive edit of his. I left him a warning on his talk page. Zelse81 (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure if you are in any sort of administrative position, but I noticed that you had contacted User:202.149.116.4, and added a message to their talk page that involved a warning to stop vandalising articles. So I thought I'd help you out and alert you of another occurence of his vandalism on the article Mark Walberg. I reverted it, but I thought I'd let you know to prevent him from vandalising even more articles in the future. CoolKid1993 (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

... That's why they put erasers on pencils :) —97198 talk 07:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried using Huggle a while back but could never get it to do what I wanted it to, so gave up! —97198 talk 07:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The book states that Benjamin Warner never told anybody the original family name. That is why I stated it was only likely that Harry was born Hirsch Varna, because book only states that the family's original name was LIKELY Varna.Kevin j (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am by no means "vandalizing" the article; the part I removed is is poorly written PoV pushing about the game's story line - very un-encyclopedic. --89.27.16.166 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Very nice revision. 71.141.104.62 (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a edit on Scrubs (TV series). On the discussion I gave a reason for the edit. Can you please read the comments/questions I left on the discussion page for Scrubs (TV series) and tell me what I'm doing wrong? Why does my edit keep getting reverted? Thank you!--Meezer4641 (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your so nice,Thanks for answering my question!!! --Meezer4641 (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble knowing which sources are good, and which aren't, so far as third party stuff. Could you help with the Charles Morley site, because the sources are a bit difficult to find (due largely in part because of the guy having the same name as someone else). Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:American sex symbols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd). No explanation needed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you around? Is there anything more to add to this? Did you get my email? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I made a stupid edit to Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia. I was obviously messing around, and wanted to see how quickly it got reverted. I do think that these sorts of things show how silly wikipedia's NPOV policy can be in some cases. That the FARC is "murderous" is pretty much indisputable fact (and therefore not really POV), and you'd find a very small percentage of people who don't believe that the kidnapping of Ingrid Betancourt was "evil." Pretty silly--just thought I'd say that, you don't have to respond, and I promise not to make such "silly mood" edits from this IP again. Please don't flag me. I did one on the Burmese junta a while back that took a little longer to be reverted. Sometimes wikiusers just feel like making comments on brutal and illegitimate regimes as well as bloodthirsty jungle kidnappers from time to time.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.42.218 (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Poish President DIDN'T SING this Treaty. I don't know who gave this fals news that he ratified the Treaty. --193.0.242.40 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

im curious as to why you labelled my edits to the neopets page as "excess" and then removed it. i find it relevant, as it relates to the real-world time frame that neopia shares with the real world. other examples of this, such as the advent calender are already present in the article, so i dont see why my contribution was removed. i have since revised my contribution and will add it back onto the article shortly, without perhaps the information you considered "excess" Corythepaperboy (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing more serious than an angry 12 year old with a computer. Rossrs (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very good with finding sources, I tend to find great info and forget where I find it. However, I must warn you, It's a major waste of her talent, and I found it unwatchable, despite the fact that I sat through several episodes of My Mother The Car! I might create articles on more old TV shows soon, Icluding those by my favourite TV network ever, DuMont. {BTW, "My Mother The Car" actually wasn't that bad at all). Retro Agnostic (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've put back the English spelling of jewellery as Paula was from the UK. Thanks 86.29.226.236 (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Figment1 Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I just delivered my opinion on the diaday.com-issue. Wish you a nice day. ► robomod 11:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Pink, I added what references I could find to the IPass article. Does it need more? can I renmove the cites tag? Aaron Lawrence (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for copy-editing the Mindy McCready article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I've sent ya a couple emails but not sure if they are going through. Did you change addresses? In any case, check this out: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd). Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen IMDb.com used as a reference way more than a few times. I've used it on a number of edits and no one has ever said boo about it. Therefore...can you pls explain why?

Is there a "policy" against it?

I can understand, I suppose, not using (uncorroborated) items from IMDb's "Trivia" sections, but I don't see why the filmographies can't be used. (And, in the case, the "In Memoriam" page on GeoCities seems to me to be corroboration since it backs up, and was probably the source, for in the information on IMDb.com.)

Without using IMDb.com the Pettiet article should probably be removed since there's almost no other sources about him.

Ban IMDb.com as a source and the same could be said for almost any actor. IMDb.com has become the source for the Curriculum Vitae of actors, writers, directors, producers, et al (especially for older or deceased persons).

Contrary to what you may have read I am not interested in being "combative", I just would like to know what's behind this and why the references should be removed?

As for the "Open Letter" from his manager I don't see what the objection to that is. I suppose one could do some research to find if he was Pettiet's agent, but wouldn't that be "original research"?

Regards,

PainMan (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are right, obviously you did write: IMDb cannot be used as a reference (more specifically, the biographies & trivia sections which are user submitted and not fact checked). I could give a pedantic lecture about grammar, but that wouldn't be cool. Frankly, I'm getting tired of fighting (whether the "good" fight or not). I wanted to communicate to you that nothing I wrote (on your Talk Page) was written with the intent of starting a beef.

One thing I would like to say is that information on IMDb's Trivia sections are not entirely lacking fact-checking. Having a reliable source certain enhances the chances of getting an item placed on a page. Just as wikipedia, IMDb.com labors under the same libel laws thus can no more afford to post unchecked, outrageous material. Therefore I doubt that just anything is posted. I have had troubled getting perfectly fact-checked, sourced items posted for reasons that are clearly due to over-caution.

Without belaboring you with my various personal issues it should be noted that I'm somewhat dyslexic. This is not just being unable to read letters, it can also include missing entire words, sometimes entire sentences. In all seriousness, I didn't even see that qualifier to your initial phrase "IMDb can't be used as a source...". So my objection was based entirely on this clause sense I didn't ingram the parenthetical insertion. Without said insertion, you can see that I would be confused by the initial clause.

• I have no issue, either, with your removing the aforementioned references. It was probably redundant to repeat the source, but I don't know the wiki grammar to insert one ref and then use it repeatedly (superscript a's, b's, c's, etc). While I've been around a while, I admit my knowledge of wiki mechanics isn't as deep as might be hoped for.

Bottom-line: thanks for pointing the things that you did and helping to eliminate an unintentional error on my part. And I see no reason to "challenge" anything that you did. There's a lot wrong with wikipedia, however, you don't appear to be one of them. But I'm just one man. Used to be one man could change this country, perhaps this world. But those days past into history with Reynaldus Magnus. You handled the situation with tact and professionalism, something that's all to often sorely lacking on this website.

Sorry for the length of this post; brevity doesn't seem to be in my genome.

Regards,

PainMan (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'm sorry if I came off as defensive. I've been subjected to some, ah, rather "uncooperative" behavior recently in these electronic precincts. War seems a little grandiose. So does vendetta. So I chose to use beef since it fits more suitably what is usually described, in wiki-land, as a "war".

As for I searched and searched and there's not even a obituary for him which is strange the "Kathleen" who wrote the In Memoriam seem to have reached the same result. You'd think a prominent actor (even a once prominent actor) would deserve an obit. The manager comments on this as well. Either the young man annoyed a lot of people or The Machine was simply done with him. And, like garbage, they had no more use for him. A bitter commentary on contemporary Hollywood's mentality which is, of course, a reflection of the culture that supports it. The only thing rarer in Hollywood than gratitude is loyalty.

In any event, I hope to have the pleasure of working with you again.

PainMan (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you have championed shaky articles before and whipped them into shape. I came across Cynthia Stone while doing assessments and thought maybe you might want to tackle it. Interested? Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rossrs has made a preliminary checklist for writing leads. Would you take a look and make comment/suggestions? It's at User talk:Rossrs#Thoughts for checklist. P.S. You did a great job on Cynthia Stone! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen your alterations on the article and I think you've greatly improved it. I do miss many of the details surrounding his death, though. Is there a specific reason why you deleted them? Thanks Lenaxena (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you've got an enemy in Japan who has a sausage fixation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, except for that sausage thing. The other changes weren't all that controversial. Ah well!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You could ask for permanent semi-protection on your user page. It helps a lot! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sofia Shinas The Message.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BelovedFreak 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Happy to help :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, stop that!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell you how thrilled I am about it. So... did I send you the lithium posting, or did you see just see it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I've done no recruiting. However, there ARE some people who share our feelings on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My edit to those pages were correct - what are your reasons for deleting them??? And what makes your opinion of any greater value than mine?

I would appreciate a swift reply Romly (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.