User talk:Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Referencing

ar

RE:

Well, we could certainly do with some help clearing out this category! I'm not sure that there is a single consistant format for these sections; you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information. If an article has no details about the cast at all, a simple cast list would probably be a good start. Hope that helps! :) PC78 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan Good

There's a bit of a kerfuffle over at Talk:Meagan Good. Would you mind weighing in and letting me know your opinion (I think the talk page is self explanatory)? Thanks. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know who you're talking about but I can't remember the username. Was it the one creating article about Jewish stereotypes? It's possible they're the same person and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were. I found the "bureaucratic wrangling" comment to be odd coming from a supposed newbie, but assumed they were a lurker or a long time anonymous editor. All I know is I find the entire situation irritating. My solution was to copy the next verbatim but I'm sure that will someone make me a racist anyway. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 06:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented. I think sometimes people see what they expect to see, whether it's racism or whatever. I think it was a good idea to use Good's own words. It's not our job to interpret them or check her family history to see what percentage of each ethnic group she represents. Rossrs (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're beautiful, aren't they? I hope people spend more time noticing that, than wondering about their genetic composition. I thought your reply was restrained and correct. I do like the "Editor Wildhartlivie gets emotional..." assessment, as it reminds me of a school report. I was waiting to see what it said about how well you play with other children. Rossrs (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can read all about Stormfront's plan to join the ranks of Wikipedia here. I guess it was all talk, but I guess they did try awhile back. CAMERA's plan was a bit more organized and, as you can see at the article, fairly newsworthy. After reading those groups' plans, I really found the whole Meagan Good complaint laughable. I also don't get why people take to the talk page to complain when the page can be edited by anyone, but I guess it's more fun to bitch and call people zealots and dorks. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 11:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They look like a lovely family. Thank you for sharing these pictures with me. I appreciate it. The eldest boy in the family photo has a strong resemblance to the older of the two boys in the first photo. Although I guess not everybody sees the same resemblance in people. I thought your comment about your niece not hearing derogatory comments until she went to the second place, but she was pretty.... that's so interesting. I wonder if being raised in a safe environment and being pretty and popular gave her the confidence to deal with bad comments later. Looking back to when I was at school, some of non-caucasion kids (some Aboriginal, some Islander, some Asian backgrounds) were very popular and I can't remember anyone giving them a bad time. The only thing I can think of that made them different was that they had self-confidence, but some of the quieter non-caucasion kids who didn't fit in so well, did suffer, along with some of the caucasion kids who also didn't fit in. Thanks again - better take them down before Brooke gets mad at ya! :-) Rossrs (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least your Aunt didn't object to your sister having a biracial child, which says a lot about her heart. The wedding ring was always the big thing wasn't it? I can remember when that was an issue in my family too, but we moved on to bigger things. Our big family "secret" was that my father was my mother's second husband. He didn't want us to know because he didn't think we'd understand. He also had a fit because my brother chose not to have his children baptised. Not that he was religious but it just wasn't done. He's been dead for a long time now, and after he died my mother told us about the first husband. We were just relieved that she had a "past". We always thought she was such a goody-two-shoes. So my Dad missed all the family developments - gay son, divorced daughter, spousal abuse, murdered grandchild, heroin addicted other grandson who also ended up in prison for 3 years, illegitimate children (and not baptised either) and one abortion that we know about. Plus of course, he missed all the good things, and the children, grand and great-grandchildren who are happy, well adjusted and devoid of drama. My mother, who grew up in the same generation - actually she's 83 this week - has had to take all this in her stride, but I don't know how my Dad would have dealt with it all. I'm sure they would have welcomed a biracial child if they'd had the choice ;-) There may be a soap opera somewhere in all of this. Hopefully one where we discover oil and found a dynasty, and I'm played by a good looking actor who can't act. Rossrs (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manson and Monkees

I just saw your note on my talk page. The heading made me chuckle.

On the article's talk page, you did a good job, I thought, of arguing that the article has been protected against trivia. To me personally, the Monkees thing can go either way. I see the objection to it, but I also see why someone would think it worth mentioning. I wouldn't be surprised if there are persons who come to the article for information on that very subject. Wikipedia does a good job of providing sources for little things like that.

Just to let you know: I probably won't be doing any more work on the article. I might look in on it once in a while, but I'm unlikely to be visiting my own talk page with any frequency. In other words, this (sniff) is probably goodbye. Thanks for everything. You've been a good buddy.

PS: As I remarked just last night to a friend of mine (and about a year ago to my brother), that Monkees theme seems modeled on the Dave Clark Five's "Catch Us If You Can."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, everything's all right with me. I simply have a few other things to take care of and have decided I'd better not give any more time over to the article. Thanks again.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed: Sitakunda Upazila

The article failed an FAC mostly because of irregularities in citation format. I found you at the ciitation cleanup project, and I am really hoping that you can help the article. Would you consider helping it, please? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auschwitz concentration camp

You have tagged this article as needing additional in-text citations. There are at present sixty-nine listed, which is quite a lot. Could I ask you to indicate which statements in the article need additional citation? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please believe me when I say that I have no wish to appear to criticise; I have spent a lot of time on this article and on its talkpage, was instrumental in achieving its permanent semiprotected status, and feel about it rather as a mother lioness feels for her cubs! (Yes, I do know that we don't own articles). --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Cate Blanchett

Hello, Wildhartlivie. You have new messages at NYScholar's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--have already moved the exchange from there to Talk:Cate Blanchett, where it pertains more directly. --NYScholar (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Thanks for removing the date links on a number of royal biographies. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Rains

What's the latest on the preferred form that filmographies should take in actor articles? An editor just replaced a list with a table in Claude Rains. I don't really like tables much, but I don't want to revert if tables are preferred.

Could you take a look? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the come-back. I'm glad I didn't do anything about it! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Regarding the filmography of Claude Rains, I put it in a table because I think that it looks better than merely listing the films. Ed, who commented up above, thinks otherwise but we are all, of course, entitled to our own opinion. A lot of filmographies that I've seen use the rowspan= function for the year listing and, in the past, I have as well. Until I received your inquiry today I've never had anyone inform me as to whether or not there is a preferred style. I can always alter the Rains filmography to use the rowspan style if anyone prefers to see it that way.

The Bette Davis filmography was not created be me. I did, however, expanded upon it to bring it up to possible "Featured List" status. I have considered taking out the radio and television credits and awards list since these are items that really do not belong in a filmography list (in my opinion, at least, as well as the opinion of one of the peer reviewers). However, the Christopher Walken filmography includes stage, TV, and Award listings, and this has received featured list status.

In regards to numbering the films in the Claude Rains article I realize that this is seldom done. It just seems to me to be a handy way to tell how many films he made. (The Michael Caine filmography, which I did not work on, also numbers the films.) This is also something that can easily be changed.

So far, over the past few years I've put together filmographies for (among others) John Wayne, Tyrone Power, Errol Flynn, Barbara Stanwyck, Anna Neagle and Gene Tierney. (I also wrote the article on the lovely Miss Neagle and want to expand it, but I can't find any more significant information.)

Until I received your note today I have never received any comments about a uniform style for filmographies. In fact, I've been pretty much an "island" and not part of any network of "Wikipedists" (although I'd like to be). Thus I'm looking forward to more feedback. Thanks. — Jimknut (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I upgraded the filmography on the Claude Rains page to include the names of the directors and co-stars as well as some notes. I removed the numbering of the film along with the television section.

In the near future I plan to work on the filmographies of Ronald Colman and Gary Cooper. As Cooper's filmography runs to well over 100 titles I will probably move it to its own page. — Jimknut (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BS at Imitation of Life (1934 film)

Take a look, if you're so inclined. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here too. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's tendentious and that it targets Ed. Last time we discussed this editor, regarding the images from The Palm Beach Story, I went through the edit history of the editor and I had to go back more than 80 edits before I found an edit that did not relate to Ed, and then about another 50 before I found the second edit that did not relate to Ed. I notice your comments were removed as "guesswork". Interesting choice of word - specific but inappropriate. I don't see anything positive in any of this editor's contributions, and the attitude being conveyed when he/she chooses to interact, is worse than poor. Rossrs (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would, take a look at this. Edit it, punch it up, make it stronger or less so, I'm open to whatever needs to be done. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb

Hi, and thanks for your post!

I do see after some digging that Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, which is an essay and not a policy guideline, allows certain things from IMDb, including cast lists from released films. So thanks -- that's good to have in mind.

An uncredited role would not be in the film's cast list, of course, so information about that in IMDb could not have come from the film but from a user. I'd bet we're of the same mind that in cases of uncredited-role claims that it'd be wisest to seek independent confirmation, particularly for claims about living persons. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb employees let errors get into cast and credits list constantly. One TV Guide editor a couple years ago, making a point for the copy editors, added a non-existent "turtle wrangler" credit to a film; it still exists.

You're citing an essay -- it's not a policy, and the use of IMDb is highly controversial among Wikipedia editors. But if we're using this essay, it also says contentious things about living persons cannot be sourced with IMDb. Clearly, from this discussion, a claim of an uncredited role is contentions.

IMDb has even been deprecated from movie infoboxes, the template page for which says IMDb goes into External links.

The larger point here is, an editor is asking in good faith for a source citation. It goes against Wiki Etiquette to remove it, and I'm not sure why an editor would not want the most reliable citation possible. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you've been on Wikipedia for years. So have I; only the IP is relatively new, after a move.

Wikipedia considers a controversial source -- and I would, in all collaborative honesty, like your take on whether it has been controversial or not -- but IMDb is not an unimpeachable Bible. Therefore, I'm surprised and confounded at why any editor would deliberately want to block another editor from asking for a more reliable source. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pursuing dispute resolution, at the WP:FILMS talk page, with you yourself and others! And given that I haven't made an edit to Sean Penn or Marisa Tomei since 20:10 and 20:09, respectively, your putting a 3RR tag on my page at 21:07, an hour later, smacks of harassment. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering in from Project Film. No source is unimpeachable, as ANYthing that involves humans has a potential for error. IMDB is controversial in some aspects just as is the New York Times, in that those parts of each that do not have editorial oversight are not acceptable by Wikipedia. Containing informations that do not have oversight does not automatically make a source completely unreliable... it only means a determination must be made as to what is or is not acceptable. It is generally accepted by Project Film and Project TV that the certain non-controversal informations as defined in the Cite IMDB essay are reasonable and prudent. Better sources are always preferred, but in their lack, it is acceptable to turn to IMDB cast listings. Rarely will a production's website or film review list all the minutae of a film production department or minor roles... but they will submit such to IMDB... to vett and to post. That Penn had a walk on in Cool Blue as Phil the Plumber is not contentious. I saw the film. I saw Penn in the film. Wikipedia accepts the film itself as a source for such information. That it was done as a favor for his friend Woody Harrelson and was a last minute production decision and was never listed in the onscreen credits does not mean it now requires a cite. The film IS the cite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this was meant as a clarification for the anonymous IP, not for Wildhartlivie. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now wasn't this an interesting day? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I made it apparent that you were correct in your removing of the cite tag. How that got turned around to his hope that no one removes an actual citation is beyond me. If he had posed that question to the co-ordinator of Project Film, he would have recieved a similar answer. This is why plots are not sourced. This is why cast listings are not sourced. The film itself is accepted as a WP:V of a non-contetious fact. Notability is a whole different issue. Hope things remain calm. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, and no insult ever intended, unless an editor makes a point about gender, I usually presume the masculine. However, and I did suspect as much... I saw Stevie Nicks live in concert back in 1985 when she played at the Orange County Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa, CA, at a venue called the Pacific Amphitheater. She had a surpise opener ... Bob Dylan... and they sang a terrific duet in their encore. A great evening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he only joined her at the Pacific Amphitheater... but is was terrific when they did an encore together at the performance I saw. I remember very well how she took the hat right off of Bob's head and wore it while she sang with him... and I remember how much Dylan's voice had changed since I first heard him in the 60's. She was hot. He was Dylan. Where was it you saw the tour? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I have to consider myself quite lucky to have been at the event. It was great. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Birthdates and Years of Notables- Commitment to Accuracy

FYI: The Astrodatabank is the most reliable source of accurate birth data on the planet. The late Lois Rodden was an impeccable data collector and created the "Rodden Rating System" of accuracy. It is used to determine and log the source of where a birth record comes from, and gague it's reliability. John Travoltawas definitely born in 1954, Mae West was born in 1892 not 1893, and Jackie Mason was born in 1928 NOT 1931 or 1936 (My father went to school with him, if you must know). Wiki is notoriously sloppy with birth years. It's a shame, because so much else about Wikipedia is so on the money.--Starfish1014 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the most reliable source in the world, but not on your say so. It has to be cited by a reliable source or don't change it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Depp

And I added a source. What would have been reasonable would be to leave me a note asking for one, and adding a citation request on the article, not just removing it because you've never heard of it. Anyway, I've added one now, so that's the end of it. Sky83 (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem, I was always going to. And just to be clear, it is on imdb, if you scan down the list of appearances as himself. Sky83 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Replace this image' notice

Hello! Re this edit. Personally, I couldn't care less, but some users (I can't remember who off the top of my head) insist on this to encourage a free image. Personally, I think it looks bad, and would support your edit. Just so you know... The JPS^{talk to me} 13:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that discussion; thanks for pointing it out. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Killers

On this page the Serial Killers in Popular Culture and References are mixed up and need to seprated...please reply on my talk page Jon Ascton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award show tables

Thanks for quickly and easily reverting those pages where the lists were unnecessarily transformed into tables. I'll try to fix others if I find them, but thanks again for taking care of the main ones. --Mtjaws (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Note

Hello Wildhartlivie. Thank you for your note. I apologize for not taking the time to find out that those pages had been moved and no longer had {film} in thier titles. Please feel free to change back my edits. One question though, with the page moves am I correct in thinking that the links no longer need to be piped? Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detail

To the Manson article, I've added what should be, for me, a final detail: The discovery of the Tate bodies and the beginning of the crimes as a news story. Just wanted to let you know. Take care.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manson investigation

On the Manson talk page, I've just posted a comment about a problem with the "Investigation" info. As I told you last week or so, I really have to put the article aside; but this has been bothering me for some time. Wanted to get it on the record before I duck out.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response on the talk page. If that was, indeed, an error on the part of Bugliosi and Gentry, it was a minor one, which didn't harm their argument that the Tate investigators had been too quick to dismiss the lead; but I didn't want to delete it without notice.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by

The more I look at Raymond Aaron the more I think the article is worth taking to AfD. I've done a pretty comprehensive google search for the man and all I get is gossip and puffery leading to people flogging their own get rich quick schemes.

This is one of the reasons I flagged it on the project talk page. I feel somewhat too close to the article having striven to improve it to make that call with any objectivity currently. Perhaps a few days will solve that! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may well press the AfD button myself. I may be cynical but I think this stuff surfaces as soon as a recession is announced. No-one will die if I leave it a few days, but I shall not stand in your way if you propose it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in..

Hi, I haven't crossed paths with you for awhile so I just want to pop in to say hello. I hope things are going well and you are editing and having fun. Take care, I hope we cross paths again soon. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong gender

My apologies! PC78 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pauley Perrette

No worries, it happens to the best of us. :) Have a Great Wednesday...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 11, 2009 @ 09:26

AfD nomination of Raymond Aaron

An article that you have been involved in editing, Raymond Aaron, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Aaron. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Houdini!

You've disappeared from the Whitman page. Alright, I'll be nicer. How's the weather and other bad habits?--Victor9876 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's good that you got out. Weather has been fair here. Colder than expected, but nothing like your area. I'm reluctant to share this, but I did an interview for a local TV Access producer and I was satidfied with the interview, but the graphics he put behind us was rather bohemic and risque'. Watch it if you like, I'm the one with the Cowboy Hat. Number 22 or third video down. I've sunk rather low for this, but...it was practice. http://pleasuresaucer.com/--Victor9876 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM! Hmmmm! The talk page doesn't get resolved for a few contributors and than a newbie shows up with the same issues. Hmmmmm! Passive-Agressive maybe? Thanks again!--Victor9876 (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Colman

Added a filmography for him. Take a look see. Any suggestions? — Jimknut (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Surratt

Hello Wildhartlivie,

Thank you for your message on my page. I put those fact tags on this article because, I'm actually translating in french, "Abraham Lincoln assassination", and all articles regarding actors of the drama. I have no doubt the Surratts were supporting the South, but as all statements in Wikipedia articles, it has to be referenced. For each of the fact tags, I need to find a book, author and page that coroborate the statement. If by any chance you have such books, thank you very much to share. Best regards. Giovanni-P (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Banizewski

Woops, I should have read the article on Sylvia Likens befor I made the edits on poor Gertrude. You might want to edit out traveling throughout the "Country" and insert "The State of Indiana" as this was my intent before getting "carried away" with creative license. RegardsKaltenborn (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Turner

Hi, I've commented on the talk page. I can understand your frustration. When someone new begins to make radical changes without discussion, it isn't the ideal approach. Some good may come of it, maybe. I have to say, although I prefer your version of the lede, I don't like it. It's not balanced, and I think it sells Turner short. She's notable not only for her success but her success through adversity, and this is not mentioned at all. It's just praise and acclaim, rather than a summary of the article, and the last paragraph of quotes, I think is very wrong. I've never (to my recollection) edited this article, at least not in any depth, so I'm not familiar with its progression. A side comment - it's interesting how successful she became, and the number of people she's played to is staggering, WP:RS or not. I remember when she was at her crossroads, between leaving Ike and breaking through with 'What's Love Got to Do With It', she spent a bit of time in Australia. She played service clubs and football clubs, and in Australia that's only about one or two steps up from Whoopi Goldberg's cabaret act in Sister Act. I could have driven about 3 minutes from my house and seen her for about $5 and I thought, nahh, not even worth my time. Stupid me. To go from that, to everything she has achieved - oh my god!! Rossrs (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment as well (sorry I'm a bit late). I used some example articles to prove my point, but have a feeling it will fall on deaf ears. Like I said, I'm a fan of Turner's as well, but there's no need to drive the point home that she's accomplished. I seem to remember someone on AN/I stating that "award-winning" shouldn't be in the lede, but since it's not policy, people keep sticking it in to prove notability. You know I worked on the article before and gave up because it's overrun with POV and more fancruft than you can shake a stick at, so I'm really not surprised by the latest turn of events. If you ever get it to GA status, you deserve a Grammy yourself (they'll create a new category for you, I'm sure). Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Christina Applegate once said, "The mind wobbles". I think that sums up my feelings at the moment. Rossrs (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's my take. I think the editor sincerely believes that he/she has good intentions but those good intentions seem to be to the exclusion of all else including politeness. What's difficult to deal with is that he/she replies without actually addressing comments that have been made, but latching onto one minor point that was not the intention (ie the format of the lead sentence vs. the content. Where the hell did I mention content?) A discussion only works if both sides are at least discussing the same topic. I think we're discussing Wikipedia and he/she's discussing Tina Turner. He/she seems not to distinguish between the two, at least not to the degree that allows an impartial view. The 'if I'm to be believed' comment was offensive, but even more offensive was that it offered proof that although I'd provided links to FAs etc, the FA page hadn't been read. So, in good faith, how do you work with someone who thinks they know it all? Even when you point them towards information that may help them understand, they choose to disregard it while still disagreeing with it. It's annoying, but remember, new editors often come along with a burst of enthusiasm and then disappear when they get bored. It may happen again. On the other hand, sometimes it's good to walk away, even for a while. I've done that with a number of articles, and have returned to find that someone else has successfully dealt with the issue. Someone else will notice. It's a kind of "medium traffic" article. Not exactly Rihanna, but given time enough editors will see it. Meanwhile, the article stinks, and it should be nominated for delisting. I don't think even Tina's publicist could come up with a blurb like the current lead section. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the FA/GA mention. I understand what you were saying. Unfortunately I think you may as well have been saying it in Swahili. The fires were a long way from me, but I know people in the area, and the real horror of it is the randomness. It could have been anyone, depending on which way the wind blew, and it was the unexpected shift in wind that caught so many people by surprise. They're expecting the death toll to well exceed 200. Horrific. Coincidental that you mentioned Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and the fires in the same message. One of the minor actors from the first Mad Max, Reg Evans, is among the dead. Rossrs (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Moore

Hello and thank you for your contributions and support. The power of Wikipedia is that many people edit and add content, which makes it more relevant, I think, than written text. However, I have since read via http://www.more.com/more-women/model-search/2006/melissa-moore/ that Melissa is single. I continue to seek information about her as she is truly a fascinating person.l santry (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi, be careful not to use rollback on edits which are not vandalism. See this edit. Garion96 (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it happens. Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jolie

Threats mean absolutely nothing to me. Threating to report me for vandalism when I’m not is just foolish so spare me the BS. Just because a man is in a relationship with a woman he has a child with does not mean they are domestic partners. First of all the term is very broad an even a platonic friend can be considered a domestic partner. Oprah Winifred has been with her guy for God knows how long. They own property etc, but on her page it does not state Steadman as domestic partner. Harrison ford also has been with Calista Flockhart for very long time and even though it states that they are domestic partners it goes on to CLARIFY that she is his engaged girlfriend. I have been with boyfriend for 10 years we have 2 children, but I’m not his domestic partner. So just because Brad and Angelina have children and live together do not mean they are domestic partners. All I’m trying to do is help the article I did not know boyfriend didn’t show. If I had known it wouldn’t show I wouldn’t have repeatedly edit it but I will see if it will allow me to clarify and if it does I will state it ProfXY (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I signed by name then removed it because latley even after I sign by name "sinebot" come and sign it again. "A domestic partnership is a legal or personal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are neither joined by a traditional marriage nor a civil union" That you for proving my point that the term is indeed broad this does not mention whether the relationship is a "romantic" one or not. Like I said before a domestic partner can even be a platonic friend. That is why I wanted to add that they were indeed boyfriend and girlfriend and please again with the BS spare me the non sense with the vanderlism crap because I'm not and your not the 1st person who goes around "crying" I'll report vanderlism just because someone write something they disagree with. So in your defense they have high-profile public relationship so that equals to a domestic partnership. I guess all of the non married couples who have children in hollywood are in "domestic partnerships". You said they called themselves partners going back to what I mentioned about Oprah steadman is stated on her page as her partner. theres a difference between a partner and domestic partner. Get your facts straight before I report YOU for unsourced information and vadalism. ProfXY ([[User talk:ProfXY|talk]]) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is arguing? your the one who wrote to me if "Clarifying" that they are boyfriend/girlfriend is both juvenile.." I had no idea calling someone a boyfriend was childish or juvenile I guess only children have these thing. Seriously in what world do you live in, because in the real world if a man is not married to a woman he is with she is his girlfriend. New papers and article refer to Angelina as brad girlfriends.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/barack-obama-and-brad-pit_n_93356.html Where do you see people going around saying this is my "domestic partner". Maybe you don't know the definition but Domestic partner is a term to define a situation not a relationship so again, spare me the bull. if it is a feature article and up to editors then and stop wasting my time and let people who know what they are doing worry about it and if you didn't want to "argue" you shouldn't have written to me threatening to report me for something I have not done. I didn't vandalize ProfXY (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC) anything[reply]