Template:Archive box collapsible

{{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB.

Could you of said that in the edit summary ? Gnevin (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No i don't think so it's a function of the way the template works, feel free to revert but remember the edit summary this time :) Gnevin (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S i can't see much difference with or without the grouping Gnevin (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Firefox and not seeing this behavour, can you take a screenshot of it? Gnevin (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 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) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i left you a message a few days ago, but you never responded. there is some trimming of the albert fish page that i think needs to be done, but i wanted to discuss it with you since you are quite active at patrolling (and reverting) recent changes to that article. i'll go ahead and cross post the section that an ip started on the talk page:

Too detailed?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a collection of horror novels. Whilst, of course, Fish's crimes should be mentioned, one could dispute if it is necessary to get so detailed about how exactly he tortured, killed and cooked his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.28.95 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. "He sent a letter detailing how he killed and ate the child to the parents," would be much better. There is a link to the full text for those who wish to read it. these block quotes are unnecessary and sensationalistic. untwirl (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

please join me there or respond here or my talk, whichever you prefer. untwirl(talk) 01:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I personally like unresolved (red) links on the pages I work on, since I think that encourages someone to respond to the "red flag in front of a bull", by creating the page in question. They can't react to something they don't notice. And that particular title is quite well known, at least here in Canada anyway, so someone could see that and get motivated. I had read that book myself back in university, then noticed later that my thesis supervisor kept a copy in his office.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto, Ont.)[reply]

Sometimes I also like the red links as encouragement for someone to provide the article. Thought Ondaatje's book on Billy the Kid was outstanding, one of the first by him which I read, along with Coming Through Slaughter.--Parkwells (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Question was:

Hi. Please show me the discussion where consensus was determined to change the date template in articles from WP:ACTOR. It has not been broached on the project talk page, nor can I tell that it has been determined by consensus that the present use is acceptable. My understanding is that at present this is essentially a trial/study, etc. and from reading some discussion pages, I do not see that it has been accepted on a wholesale basis. Please do not change any more infoboxes related to this project without first obtaining consensus from the project. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Savolya"

Answer: My Feb. 16th revision on Erika Eleniak was changed:

On Feb. 27th by: (cur) (prev) 21:30, 27 February 2009 J JMesserly (talk | contribs) (10,281 bytes) (Article text unchanged- inserted birth and death date templates for microformats "event" functionality. (Further info here) (assisted manual edit)) (undo)

On March 1st by: (cur) (prev) 15:49, 1 March 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m (10,319 bytes) (Date maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)

Thanks

Savolya (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)savolyaSavolya (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Savolya (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)savolyaSavolya (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it helps, but I tagged Actismel's comment to make it easier to find.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_sockery_and_assertion_thereof

Good luck in getting to the bottom of it, and my sympathies. arimareiji (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. I don't know if you picked it up from my reaction with Snipercraft - I consider sockery to be one of the worst things around. But stupid "cute" veiled threats like that in the pretense of friendly chatter make it outright disgusting, and I'm sorry you had to deal with it. People like that, I really do want to see go away and never come back.

People like Victor, I want to see stay. I know you don't believe me, and I don't blame you for feeling that way, but my objections are based only on how I perceive his behavior. I think it would be an utter shame to lose him as an expert advisor to the article, and I would much rather that he listen to someone about working civilly in consensus than to see him go. I know it won't be me, but I hope there is someone. arimareiji (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for giving the impression that I thought you and Victor were socks - I had only meant that being close friends (as Wikipedians go) makes it really hard to be neutral. If I think someone's a sock, I say so even if that means I get yelled at for ABF. I don't know whether Snipercraft was a sock, but I was still willing to throw out a strong caution for that reason.

What bothers me most about that now is that I think it really is possible that s/he simply came to the article at the wrong place / wrong time. I just don't know what to think about that one. arimareiji (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is why I just don't know what to think, even though I want to AGF (mainly due to the fact that those were good edits in the language sense). I'm a big believer in WP:DUCK too, and I heard a couple of quacks.

But there've also been a couple of times when I thought I'd found sockery, and later it turned out to be simple partisan tag-teaming... that made me quite leery of being "sure" of suchlike. As Victor's previously noted, I spend a fair amount of time with partisans who are happy to jump on each others' bandwagons. arimareiji (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably feel completely different about it once I've actually come across and had the "pleasure" of dealing with one. But I do wonder - are that kind actually the majority of sockery, or are they just the most nauseating kind? I frequently find myself suspecting that the majority of sockery flies under the radar, and it's only the griefers who really get everyone's attention. Just idle curiosity, and I'll probably be happier if it's a long time before I know that answer from experience. arimareiji (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aiyaa... actually, I didn't know either had anything to do with Manson, I'm woefully uninformed. That has to be comforting, dealing with a griefer obsessed with Manson. 0.0 arimareiji (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome – I did it with a heavy heart, but ultimately it had no place there or anywhere else on the page. I'm still alive and kickin' it. Got through the latest busy period at work, so I have more time to waste here. I'm gonna send you an email about your latest "savings" project. Have a good one, momoricks (make my day) 07:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at my watchlist and saw yesterday's vandalism battle on Serial killer. I requested semi-protection for the umpteenth time...sigh. momoricks (make my day) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting Manson permanently protected. How long did that take? That's my goal for the Serial killer page. Feel free to reply to my email at my work address. I can't check personal email at work. :( momoricks (make my day) 00:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser result is already in. I've opened a thread at an admin board, if you'd like to comment there. Durova^Charge! 03:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you think I was objecting to your statement on the Manson talk page (in the discussion about "Cultural Reverberation"). I have just posted a statement that makes clear I was not.71.242.171.202 (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message. Thanks.71.242.171.202 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I this edit you wrote in your edit summary: "rem dubiously sourced content; moved succession box to bottom". I supplied the content of the Anthony Pelligrano material. I thought it was adequately sourced. If you think you have noticed a problem with those sources that escaped me I would really appreciate you returning to Talk:Linda Fiorentino and offering an explanation.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this, I decided it might be safe to edit the article again, so I started the task of getting rid of some of the fact tags. I added a few refs and deleted some other stuff that probably couldn't be proved with a source anyway. I'll do some more cutting and ref finding tomorrow, but it should be done very soon....thank God! I've had my fill of that woman. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all that. I caught the similarities in speech last night when I read the whole "Please don't fight this!" diatribe. I've yet to see another person use that odd phrasing coupled with the whole persecution bit. Oh, and the ranting about you being an angry mastodon, that's the cherry on the crazy cake. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 02:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, vent away. I'd be peeved if someone was rambling on and dissecting every move I made here too. I read what he wrote and we all know it's a big pile of steaming poop (ha!). You've contributed and created GAs and (am I wrong here?) contributed to Commons. That's a hell of a lot more than I do! Even if you hadn't done any of those things, it doesn't warrant the outbursts that inevitably come when dealing with whathisface. I don't take any of it seriously because it's like a child throwing a tantrum, albeit with a keyboard and lot of exclamation points. He'll be back in a few months, get whacked again, go to his coffee klatch and brood, regroup and come back. Have we learned nothing from Dooyar? Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 03:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo...seems I'm missing the Dooyar drama. I must take a look at that talk page. I don't watch AI. It's never been my cup of tea for some reason. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got yet another filmography for you to look at! Yes, I know he's not an Academy Award winner, but I think he's worthy of a good filmography page. For this one I used the Woody Allen filmography as a model.

By the way, perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I think that among the pages that have attained Featured List status regarding the performing arts (notably discographies and episode guides) there seems to be an overwhelming bias in favor of contemporary entertainment. Care to comment on that? Jimknut (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just got around to checking it out and it is a mess. I take it that our old friend is back from what I could see from the Mae West talk page. I followed it to the sock page. Now that everything is archived, is everything ok or is there another link to go to? He sure doesn't give up does he? Anyways, please let me know if there is more I should be looking at. I got myself a bad cold so sorry for the delay. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Diane Downs article the paragraph about the gun reads weird to me. Would you take a look? I am not feeling well and to be honest I can't tell if it's me or the paragraph. She didn't buy the gun, it was stolen by her husband. Then the paragraph goes on to say the bullet cartridges were run through this gun that of course was never found. Anyways, I would appreciate it if you would take a peek at your convenience. I will be going offline here in a sec. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its no problem, I see you are interested in Existentialism, if you need help in any of articles in that genera, Id be glad to help. Thanks happy editing! --Zaharous (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added article alerts subscription templates to the WP Crime/Criminal main page under a new section: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography#Article_Alerts. Would you prefer to see the alerts for the Serial Killer Task Force grouped with those or on its main page? Thanks! momoricks (make my day) 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I too don't think it is a major issue to have the color there, but I'd rather the article pass than fight something as small as the color in the table. I would have thought more people would have commented on the review in general, but surprisingly, it's been limited. I've learned more about the FLC process, so I may go on and work on Little Miss Sunshine awards and nominations modeled after your FL. Thanks again for taking a look. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to commend you for your history of responsible edits to the Cher page. Some of my posts and edits there have called out exaggerations made there, so I'd like to make a point in Cher's favor with regard to a recent series of edits there. A glance at her albums discography shows that Living Proof is probably the fifth best-charting album of the woman's long career worldwide, yet the section about it reads as if it was a massive disappointment. By that standard, everything she did before the late '80s was a complete flop. That's simply not the case. Obviously chart and sales figures tell a good part of the story of an album's popular reception in that there are some which are among an artist's most popular and others which do not gain major national success. But beyond noting things like that, we shouldn't make too much of contrasting the success of one album with the another unless we are citing an examination of trends in an artist's career made by a notable source to make a larger point. But if we are going to compare, Living Proof was her second-highest charting studio album in the U.S. in her five-decade career. No, it wasn't a Platinum-selling album, but let's get some perspective! I understand your desire to not overstate the album's success but I think it could read a little less harshly. Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the site had just about any other name, we could also refer to it by abbreviation in the talk pages. For some reason, I don't think it's a good idea with this particular website. :) —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn funny..but even funnier that it already exists! Template:FAG ...no kidding! ☻...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any though about changing the template syntax so that {{findagrave|12345}} and {{findagrave|id=12345}} both resolve the same way? I've added a comment at Template talk:Findagrave. —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to create a main article for the Tate-LaBianca murders, and link from the Tate page for various reasons, including length of the Tate article. It bothers me that that poor woman has to share space with the persons who unmercifully killed her and her unborn baby. What say you?

I reverted the paragraph about immunity to elim use of passive voice (e.g., "was seen as" and immunity "was offered"), wordiness ("candidly stated" instead of criminal law vernacular "admitted"), and clarity and accuracy. Linda Kasabian, for example, could have been tried for murder as a co-conspirator or accomplice as driver of the getaway car, or both, though she was not an active participant in the stabbings and shooting. My revision reflects that Atkins testified before the grand jury, but refused to repeat her testimony for trial, which forced the DA's office to withdraw immunity. My revision can be shortened and worded better, but this paragraph is a cleaner edit than what I found. You weaken it if you just revert it back. Swinterich (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you said on my talk page, disagree with some other things, but appreciate how you said it. Fair enough about the "I'm not like you, Charlie." I'll quote it in its entirety below and give you a page cite. Swinterich (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accurate quote is "I'm not you, Charlie. I can't kill anybody." Bugliosi 1974 hardback, p. 270 (p. 273 in Google Books). It's out now, because it interrupts the flow of the paragraph, which I cleaned up. I agree that the sentence of mine that you excerpted needed work. I believe that in any article involving this a sensational crime the editors have to be accurate about who committed murder and who did not. The edition I corrected said that Kasabian did not murder anyone (I'm sure the previous writer meant to write that Kasabian was not actively murdering). Kasabian, though she stayed in the car until it was too late to affect the outcome, drove three well-armed accomplices to a house in the canyon for an obvious purpose, so she was a conspirator. I've thrown open the topic of the separate article in the talk page, though I mentioned it on your talk page moments before. It did occur to me that there is a reason for the lack of a separate article. If consensus goes against me, so be it. Though I believe it's warranted, without help, it's too much work. Swinterich (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Here are the wiki pages that generated errors at Find A Grave today (duplicate entries have been reduced to a single line): *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Lombard

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_and_Clyde
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groucho_marx
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Blanchard_(Wheaton)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Merrill
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Jones
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Lombard#External_links
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_%26_Clide
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Carter_Cash
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_%26_Clyde
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Holdridge
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.
• http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80,_%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0
• http://www.answers.com/topic/june-carter-cash - can't fix
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peg_Entwistle
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Miller_(Missouri)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ireland_(actor)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gig_Young
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mahone
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Holt
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Jackson_(politician)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Lebow
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peg_Entwistle
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Little_(football_player) [DUPLICATE?] it was a redirect, so it may have shown up because the redirect page was first clicked?
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Little_(American_football)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Lee_(New_Jersey)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupe_Velez
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Jackson_(defensive_back)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dimbleby
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelma_Todd

Thanks for helping out with this! It shouldn't be anywhere near this long again and should eventually taper off to zero as the links are corrected. Sorry for the double spacing. When I single spaced them, they wrapped like a paragraph?? GraveGuy (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized some redundant info into other sections and closed the previous section.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the report. They first looked at the parafin slides of Dr. Chenar's original autopsy, then had the brain re-examined to come to their conclusions. They even diagramed the brain and mention Dr. Chenar's sectioning and the damage from the gun shots.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 10-11 of the PDF file - http://alt.cimedia.com/statesman/specialreports/whitman/findings.pdf --Victor9876 (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., that should do it.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that is what you meant, and I did.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on one's definition of difficult. Not mine however. --Victor9876 (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm not following the course of the conversation, or something has been misinterpreted. What are we talking about? --Victor9876 (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you used the term obtuse, it sounded like I must have insulted you. I don't know where if I did. Did I? --Victor9876 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, our responses probably got answered out of order. My fault! Too tired to continue. Goodnight.--Victor9876 (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying a Robert Hawkins approach to writing. I'll combine the sections and then sit and breathe in AND out for awhile. --Victor9876 (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coens and Rudin.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some clown is trying not only to include the JayZ song but is also removing your "No More Additions" warning. FYI - I've reverted twice already. Sensei48 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just thought I'd let you know that James Cagney has been promoted to Good Article! Thanks for all your help on this article! Featured article, here we come (eventually)! --GedUK  09:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Coen brothers and Scott Rudin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you did absolutely the right thing and did a terrific job of working on references. I don't know where the new editors are coming from, either; they don't seem to understand how different authors can use the same sources, or that Wikipedia can show more than one opinion, or that history interpretation may change. Will try to pay more attention.--Parkwells (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coen brothers and Scott Rudin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wildhartlivie, listen, I have a question, regarding a filmography table included in an article. See, John Cena, is a wrestler, but is also an actor. So far, he's starred in two films, though, his second film doesn't get released until weeks later, it still counts at his second. Alright, my question to you is, is the table required or needed, despite just appearing in two films? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it helps. Another user removed the table, so, for the future, I'll use this discussion, as future reference. I didn't know who to turn too, so thanks for the know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which TV show/interview did Natalie Portman actually reveal herself as "Natalie Hershlag"? Boinga (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please stop by Charles Whitman at your convenience and respond also to an editor's request at [1]. I gave my opinion when I noted I was asked in the subject line to pop in from my watchlist. I think the editor might appreciate your response also. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you note on the time those articles were posted they were all posted on the Silent Film Wiki first, thus Wikipedia is the copy article which is fine under the free liscense but I think the links belong there still.--Maggiedane (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the articles, I brought them here so no I am not a double. However I find it odd Wikipedia doesnt feel the original sources should be credited; there wasnt anything significantly expanded in any of the articles beyond some spelling changes and wiki linking (the [[]] things). That just seems very odd to me.--Maggiedane (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are welcome to believe whatever you like, I try my best to contribute decent edits to wikipedia. All I am saying is I find it odd that they dont/wouldnt/whatever want the original place cited. I know wiki articles from any wiki are not sources; I just felt it was relevant and honestly I'm still not a 100% convinced as it is very odd. But I'm not about to pick a revert war over it as its not the important or relevant. --Maggiedane (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wildhart. I was checking the contribs of a guy who was cited at WP:COIN, and in fixing up Rupert Everett I changed something you recently added. If I messed up, please correct. (I thought you added a ref to a different article than the one that mentioned Everett). EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed the wording from "released" in March 2009 to "conducted" in March 2009. The cite itself said "released". Since the poll was interactive it is probably was "conducted" this month but we don't know that. Edkollin (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've seen them try to push their image before. I haven't taken a look at the text that they're trying to push but if it's anything like their rationale for that image, then it isn't worth keeping the text their way either. Dismas|^(talk) 08:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've already updated the template once I saw you correct it on Sam Cooke a few days back. Same goes with the IMDb template. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 22:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I recently added a point on the Meryl Streep artricle about her Polish accent when speaking German in the film Sophie's choice. I see you removed it questioning the source? Yet the preceeding comments stating that she speaks with an Australian or Polish accent are left in. These are also unsourced? But my point is its like asking someone to source she has Blonde hair or is caucasion, or american...Its simply a fact, (a very immpreesive one) that she perfectly imitates the way a Polish person would speak German. I live in Germany, there are many Poles here and I know what I am talking about. what source would you expect for this exactly? And if you remove my comment at least explain the inconsistency in your reasoning why you haven't removed the other comments on her accent which are also unsourced.

I feel strongly that this is am impressive and important highlite of her talent, which is why I feel it should be added to the entry. I Look forward to hearing from you. Regards Navsikand (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you can see I have added many citations in the "TV and musical stardom", can you remove the notice of the lack of citations?

Kekkomereq4 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Just to let you know I've restored the Amy Jade Civil opening for now - according to the WP:MOSBIO#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names guideline we should actually be using the legal name in the lead, closely followed by the stage name. I think that form should remain, unless I'm wrong and her name is still legally Winehouse? (a source for this would be needed, if so).

Cheers — SteveRwanda (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Based on our prior discussion at Talk:List of Jewish American mobsters, I thought I could get back to editing but Evermoremotor is reverting my edits as a "sockpuppet". I'm only vaguely familiar with the term but wouldn't I have to have an account (or two) to be accused of that ? I fully explained my edits when I reverted Ike Bloom and Johnny Spanish and have no problem defending these edits on WP:RS. I realize your not an administrator but thanks for taking the time to step in a settle this. Ideally, I would have liked to settle this like adults but his talk page kinda scared me off. I've left a message at WP:3RR but I'm not sure when it'll be noticed. 72.74.198.46 (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in a edit war, they are in one with me. There are multiple IP's for this person. This persons only edits are to undo mine. Personal pages/blogs, etc are not for external links and not for references. I see you deleting them also with your edits.

Evenmoremotor (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Evenmoremotor[reply]