User talk:Wildhartlivie

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for September has been published. October's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Archives

Helpful templates

Just cut an paste them when you need them from this page, I keep them on my user page. The dates are always formatted correctly, just remember to increment the date, as often as possible, as I sometimes forget to do.

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2007-10-31 |quote= |publisher= }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |quote= | url= |isbn= }}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |publisher=[[New York Times]] |date= |accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref>

Referencing

Thanks. Yes, I wrote it to provide a simple intro for new users, as referencing is essential and the existing pages something of a maze. You can post it on user or article talk pages as {{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB. You might like to watchlist the template and essay talk page to help keep an eye on it. Ty 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WML etc.

Thanks for the heads up :) TheHYPO (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fight against crime

I found a new toy in the Wikifight against vandals.

What do you think??? Oh, maybe you have already seen it...IP4240207xx (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see some Doris Day, some flowers, puppies, articles like that popping up on your list, or I'll get worried...IP4240207xx (talk)

I removed the lists, don't need them sitting around cluttering up the talkbox, Peter Frampton. Here was what I was thinking, create a new account, say Wildhartlivietoo and then put all the pages from the vandal you are tracking on the watch list for that account? So, what's her name and all her socks top 15 pages. Then you could just sign in and check the history? IP4240207xx (talk)

Yes, if you run that list on me, half of those articles/edits are reversion of HC+SPs. Just imagine if there wasn't any vandalism? IP4240207xx (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....

Sorta, yeah. It's like there's no war to fight anymore. It's almost boring now. By the way, I have a question for you, I'll shoot you an email. Pinkadelica 05:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but who else is going to do such detailed research involving kinescopes and interlibrary loans? Pinkadelica 05:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my user page. Don't you just love vandals and their unique sense of originality? Pinkadelica 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mickey Mouse Club

I am having trouble with an editor removing information of mine that is sourced and cited very well. They are telling me that an "uninterested" editor needs to publish the information, which makes no sense to me as an "uninterested" editor would have no reason to do so. Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club, and I have cited numerous Official, Reliable, Non-Secondary Disney Publications that provide this information clearly. The editor keeps removing the information without taking the time to check the sources, which can be done if a small amount of effort is put into it. I believe that this goes against Wiki policy as well as a major lack of the assumption of good faith. Removing unsourced information is one thing, but when an editor takes the time to make an article more informative and accurate, it's very discouraging. Please help!

Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award winning actors

Hi Wildhartlivie, I was wondering if you know where it is written that we should avoid going into award overdrive in the opening sentence of actor articles. I notice Judy Garland has won just about every award going, and so it's now all blurted out in the first sentence. Also - have you read the first sentence of Marilyn Monroe? What a laundry list. I wonder if anyone has actually read it out loud. It makes me cringe, especially with all the citations (sourced fluff is still fluff in my opinion) and the word "icon" should be struck from Wikipedia's lexicon. (See Julie Andrews - I removed "icon" and it was about 5 minutes later that it was angrily reinserted) I'm hesitant to do anything that will just get reverted straight away. I've looked at the MoS for biographies, and Marilyn Monroe could probably be fixed if the guideline was adhered to. Do you think the awards come under the heading of "peacock terms"? If the awards have to be mentioned, I think it's far better executed in Paul Newman's article. I would be interested in your opinion. Rossrs (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was so hoping there was a law somewhere carved in stone, so I'll give it some more thought. I guess it's not exactly "peacockery" but perhaps it's "undue emphasis". Garland's article didn't have the award references in the opening sentence when it passed FA - that's been added later. Even so, nobody's been bothered enough by it to remove it. I may try rewording it Paul Newmanesque and see what happens. Marilyn is going to require more creativity than I can muster at the moment. Yikes! :-) cheers Rossrs (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well funny you should mention... I've just hit the "save page" button on Judy Garland (and Paul Newman and Katharine Hepburn - living dangerously....). I'd appreciate your thoughts, especially regarding Garland. I didn't actually remove anything, but just gave it the context and the explanation that was missing, so I can't imagine that I've offended any Garlandites. The Marilynites scare me though. Rossrs (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Have fun eating weeds. Rossrs (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm home from work sick, and in my possibly delusional state, I've made a rewrite to Marilyn Monroe's lead section. If you get a chance, could you please cast your critical eye over it. I've explained my thought processes on the talk page but I'm aware there could be a backlash. You always seem to be able to comment impartially, and I would really appreciate that, whenever you may get a chance. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Yes, I'll add a source for the suicide bit in the article. That whole section is citable from one work, so I'll revise that. Rossrs (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick suggestions on assessments

Hi. I've just been following up on some of your recent assessments for the Italy Project. Two quick suggestions. I tend to scatter listas= over all the Projects on biographical articles, it's useful whatever the project. And for the likes of Giuseppe Beghetto, the {{Cycling project}} banner makes more sense than the general Sports one - it's one of the annoying non-standard ones. Which I've had to get quite familiar with, they've been chucking hundreds of articles in the direction of the Italy Project! :-( Oh, and WikiProject Rowing is another you could use. No big deal, just things I noticed when following you up. Oh and thanks for classing the article quality for all the projects, not everyone does that. Finally, I suspect you've probably noticed, but in a whole load of articles a few weeks ago, you missed the first curly bracket on {{blp}} Cheers FlagSteward (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Lizzie Borden

Two sentences into your complaint I already knew which editor you were talking about. He is manifesting the same uncivil behavior and insinuation of his own policies that he has done with other editors. I hope the ArbCom deals with him. In the meantime, please take this specific incident to WP:RfC and I will comment on the talk page then, just for the sake of due process (which is very important with this editor, or he will accuse you of ownership.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been editing overdrive on that article, to the point that it's very confusing ... but anyhow, I know we usually talk about movie stars, but curiously enough I'm also interested in notable murder cases, although I hardly ever edit them. I agree that the name shouldn't be in the lead sentence (on the bright side, at least she didn't win any Academy Awards). I can't find the link to the cropped newspaper article that you mention. Can you point me to it please. Rossrs (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Aww...thanks for the Barnstar! Pinkadelica 04:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Serial Killer Task Force logo

I see where you deleted the logo image for this project under a speedy delete tag. I don't know who the original uploader was, so I can't speak to why a notice wasn't responded to, but I would like to know how to recover this logo so that whatever licensing or copyright information that is needed can be provided. This has left a blank template across scores of articles. Whoever nominated didn't leave notice at the task force talk page. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know how this image can be retrieved so it can be licensed properly. It is a major project logo used in the project template on scores of articles. Could you respond please? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help considerably if you linked to the actual page where the image was rather than referring to it descriptively. I delete hundreds of images a day and I can't remember them all. Melesse (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've restored it for now, but it's not actually missing license info, it's missing source info (both cases get deleted with the same explanation). Probably have to ask the creator about that. Melesse (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWFR examples

Hey Wildhartlivie,
I didn't know you were on Wikipedia too. Looks like you've done a lot here. I focus mostly on Middle East and film technique-related articles.
I originally wrote the FWFR article a long time ago before there was a FWFR article. I wanted some examples of reviews in the article, but I didn't want to put my own personal favorite reviews or the reviews in the top 100 or self-promote my own reviews. Instead, I used the "What Film?" feature on FWFR to choose a handful of reviews at random. Once about a year ago, I deleted all of the examples and redid my random selection so that different reviews would be featured on the Wikipedia article. Maybe I'll do it again soon.
The reason I'm writing you is to ask you if you wouldn't mind doing the same in the future. I'm going to insert a hidden comment on the FWFR article asking that others do the same. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentino

I have never been certain about the proper place of "said to be" and so on in Wikipedia; I have been cautioned that they must be used in some situations, because of NPOV. You can't say "John Lennon was the greatest rock musician of all time", you have to say "Many people name John Lennon as", or better yet "In 1990, a poll in (insert name of respected newspaper or magazine here) named John Lennon..." and hopefully give a citation. There were a number of superlatives about Valentino and without crediting somebody, it could look like original research. These are all things I have been warned about, or seen warnings about, on other articles. (I am still looking for documentation stating that Our Lady of Fatima is one of the best-known apparitions of Mary, because someone (not me) had said that on her page and it had been called into question with a citation-needed tag.) So thank you for straightening that out.

About the 'Caucasian' thing; You're right, it was kludgy. Valentino, of course, was Caucasian, he was just Mediterranean. He was most popular in exotic roles such as The Sheik, but that was beside the point. My purpose in changing those sentences was to get Hayakawa's name in there for fairness' sake, and I knew there was a way to do it. I have seen a number of interviews by experts in Asian-American film (you can guess where I saw them) and there is a book out about his career, where we are reminded that he actually preceded Valentino as the first 'matinee idol' women fell for, and that his exotic foreignness was a big factor. (The female equivalent, of course, was Anna Mae Wong.) Thank you for your help and messages. --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Craig

Hi, I noticed you removed a section[1] from the article for Jenny Craig. You noted in the comment field that there was a copyright violation. Can you elaborate? Thanks! ʝuѕтɛn 11:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Review

I'm working on this spammer as well as "Special:Contributions/Markieboy1989 Markieboy1989", ze is generally ignoring warnings. So, I've given a final warning[2]. As "Special:Contributions/Pulsetech Pulsetech", ze is at least trying to appear responsive and I'm approaching the situation from that angle.[3]

Although I'm trying to assume good faith here, the website in question has been scattered far and wide in wikipedia, with numerous warnings from numerous editors. The only editor(s) I have found who have added the link is Markieboy1989/Pulsetech, always with similarly deceptive edit summaries with very similar wording.

I'm yanking the site universally and will be watching this editor and for other uses of the site. Thanks for your confirmation and work on this. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AFI

It's OK; after I'm done with gangster films I'll be having a rest for a couple of hours anyway. If you're still busy plugging away by the time I return, I'll let you know which genre I'll be tackling. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 15:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of an error in your cut-and-paste code. :) Steve ^{T • C} 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. It's surprising how much can be done when more than one person takes a task on. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Brian!

Hi there. I was just wondering why you deleted the "I'm Brian!" note from the Spartacus (film) article with the explanation "removed odd stuff". I was just wondering, as I thouhgt I deserved its place. I'll listen if you explain why you did it on the talk page; if not, somebody might replace it like I suggested. Which seems stupid, since you obviously found an issue with it. Thanks! :) Fuzzibloke (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response

Thanks for the response to my question about "filmmaker" vs. "film maker". I didn't make the connection at first, but I just realized that you're probably the same person from the Four Word Film Review. Small world. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, the citation I used was from the book Hollywood Be Thy Name

It's a story about the Warner Bros. and their studio.Kevin j (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being ridiculous sir. I am doing it properly. How about I report you for violating Wikipedia's good faith policy, because that's what you are doing by witholding reliable information from a page. If you think it should be done a different way, THEN ADD IT IN THAT FORMAT. I'm not stopping you from doing so. You have only erased my content without rewriting it in your terms, like you did on the Harry Warner page. Thank you Kevin j (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, the Harry Warner page revision history says you did make edits to it yesterday, so don't play me. I do not like personal attacks myself, but to say that my citations don't deserve a chance to back my claims is an insult to me. I try to be reliable with my sources. I meant what I said, because you are acting childish to me. The articles are all not about your edits or your POV. I tend to follow the NPOV policy, and so should you. I'm not erasing any of your format revisions, but I am encouraging you to act civilKevin j (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Harry Warner revision history page, and yes, I see your name so don't lie.[[4]] Ma'am, I am trying to cooperate with you, but you seem to think otherwise. I have no problem with the citations, and that's why I added more of them on the Harry Warner page today. If you just reformated them on the other pages and not erase them, I would have absolutely no problem with it.Kevin j (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Turner

Eek, looks like we both just nominated this article for deletion.--Beloved Freak 00:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Here

Yeah, I answered your email. Did you get it? I don't think there's anything to add which is why I didn't add anything. You pretty much covered it all. She's a persistent little thing, ain't she? Pinkadelica 04:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of Your Trust

Wild, I just wanted to apologize to you personally for abusing your trust. Read my comments here. Please carry on with some of the good things I tried to do. Once again, I am sorry. 4.240.165.59 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your message, I have deleted the comments from my talkpage...:), Best wishes, --Badgernet (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links or not?

I notice you've been wiping various links to Lux, the successor organisation to the London Filmmakers Coop. Looking at these, I don't feel that they are worthy of the designation "spam link"? For example, you deleted this link to a history of experimental film in the UK from the London Film-Makers' Co-op page; it looks to me to be a very useful history, featuring information probably not readily available. Just to be clear, I have absolutely no affiliation with Lux or LFMC, nor am I a fan of most External Links, but I'm merely seeking the rationale, as that seems to be far less spam-like than most External links. AllyD (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: AN/I request in January

Hello. Apologies that it's taken a while for me to get back to you. Thanks for bringing the debbie/sock thing to my attention. I'm happy to agree that your motives were good, and on reflection I have no complaints about your method: and so I apologise for & withdraw my acerbic comments; they cannot have added to much to your situation and were unhelpful. I'm glad that your heart's still in the game despite the brickbats thrown & vicissitudes suffered. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Provine/WB Movie In B&C?

Hello Wild - I appreciate the work you've done to keep the popular culture section in B&C pure (I personally detest the presence of these and trivia sections in encyclopedia articles and have had to do similar work in articles on which I've worked extensively).

Getting rid of "Gun Crazy" is fine, but the Dorothy Provine "Bonnie Parker Story" is a classic B movie from Warner Brothers and with the unfortunate exception of changing Clyde's name to Guy (legal reasons perhaps? Blanche was still alive - I know under a different married name) stays fairly close to the doings of the real person and seems to me to fit your criteria. That's just an IMHO and I'm wondering what you think. regards Sensei48 (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Entwistle Death

Hey there, Wild! Long time no write! I left some information on Peg's Wiki Discussion that I think you will find interesting. I also sent word to the other editor with whom you had the "date of death" chat. I hope you'll take a look.

Also, I see that a rather rude and callous comment has been left near the top of the Discussion page regarding the death of Peg's father. I don't know who wrote it or when, but is there a way to remove this, please? I rather think that the comments "Who cares about her father's death," and, "Some one needs to get a life," are uncalled for--and an obvious dig at me.

If you have any more Q's about Peg and her end, feel free to hit me up! Thanks and Best to you... JZ Jameszerukjr (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and References

I support your change to References. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

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) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with you!!!

dont spam my talk page!! 24.184.206.83 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]