User talk:Pinkadelica/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

A Quick Apology

From your last comment at Talk:Jeanne Carmen, I can tell that you are frustrated. My comments were written when I was tired and probably not expressing myself well. Working on WP has become a hassle for me lately and I guess I'm inadvertently spreading that hassle around. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

iPass

I didn't actually add the section on limitations. However the whole article is largely unsourced, so removing one particular section seems odd :) iRoam is a reseller of iPass. Aaron Lawrence (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Cotillard

I will have a look. Oh, and hi, long time, no talk. Haven't felt all that great the last few days, not sleeping much, but too something to be active. Yes, it would be great if you would table the filmography. You can find the sort of template Rossrs and I were kind of using on my little hidden work page here, which also has some basic templates for more prominent outside links. I've distracted my lazy self by just working on assessment with WPBiography the last few days. Also, have you noticed that although the page protect on Colbert has expired, and my editing yesterday on it, that the other guy hasn't returned yet? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You can take care of a LOT of that awards listing nonsense by incorporating it into the notes section of the filmography. I usually include Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Emmy Awards, BAFTA, Screen Actors Guild and the major awards from the actors home country (in this case, César Awards). Then I delete the major awards from the lists. My advice in this case for the rest is to consider grouping it by films, since the predominant number of nominations and wins were for La Vie en Rose, and make awards a prose based section. At first, I balked at the lead paragraph, because it said it was a "career-making performance," but once I looked at the awards, it was. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think someone came up with a clever little format and just stuck it in regardless of whatever else there was on the page. If I had the enthusiasm, I'd go look to find who it was and see if that person has done that elsewhere, but I'm not ethusiastic. Heh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, does that look great!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Angel

There was e-mail contact regarding the birthdate several months ago; however, since then there was a followup (I went back and rechecked the ticket) indicating that the correct date is OK to post. FCYTravis (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Colbert

Help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently, the 3RR thing does have meaning to the person, if nothing else does. I must say, I was boiling by the time I went to sleep, which was on the end of 26 hours of not sleeping. If you have time, go over to Janis Joplin and give your opinion on something I proposed. Ta! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Valentino page

PLEASE! Theres a user (Kevin J) who is usuing a gossip unsourced biography as his reference and putting a bunch of dribble in the article (I made all my points on the talk page). After a huge edit war some admins stepped in but locked the page on HIS edits; which driving me batty especially on the talkie issue. Seems trolls like to harass me left and right on this site. Any help would be appreciated thanks!--Thegingerone (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! May I request that we keep it semi protected for awhile (maybe 6 months)? Beyond this guy it seems to get vandalized a lot especially by anoymous ips; this is reflected in the history (usually nonsensical edits about being gay or nothing to do with the article itself). And like I said theres a loooooot of disinformation out there on Valentino; probably more so then any old stars. So that would be another reason. Again THAAAAAAAAAANK you. Im not the fanciest Wikipedian; I just like to add to articles I can and hope that others can fix things Im not knowledgeable on. Several times trolls have come along and I try to take the steps to beat them away but it always takes forever. Valentino is one of my passions; so his article must be perfect :). Im quite proud of Olive Thomas as I barely knew anything on her but there were so many good sources at the bottom it was easy. Thanks again :) --Thegingerone (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandboxes go under your userspace

Hello, remember when that you are creating a sandbox to put it under your userspace. I moved Pinkadelica/Sandbox to User:Pinkadelica/Sandbox. Thanks! Cunard (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ray

I finally added a response to the proposition on the Johnnie Ray talk page. Sent an email about it as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You For Taking Your Time on Valentino

I would like to raise some of the issues. I don't want to be involved in anymore arguments or add anymore insults, and I hope the page is properly written. One issue I would like to bring up is that I did discover that Valentino:The First Superstar did include a bibliography in the back page, therefore it is just as reliable The Dark Lover. Also, it appears to me that the user Thegingerone has been labeling some of her opinions as facts. She also has not given a source vouching for some of the claims she has made in the talk page either.Kevin j (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I Really Don't think it needs An Index to Be Reliable

It has a bibliography, and that proves that Mr. Botham has looked it over from other sources. I think he is also a very reliable author, and I also think if he made his biography about Queen Elizabeth II's sister Margaret bad and unreliable, the royal family would have criticized him to the international public. Thank you for taking your time to read this, and I do want the article to be encyclopedic.Kevin j (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Trashing Angelina

The first paragraph sources consist of a gossip-type website that I'd never seen before and one that says the Daily Mirror is the source. Written on January 22, 2008 - her brother is telling people they are going to go look for a new baby over Easter when she was already what? 3 or 4 months pregnant with twins? HIGHLY doubtful. As for the second paragraph addition, the languageoftheblood is a self-published blog, and youtube parodies are meaningless. This is a featured article, NONE of this crap is reliable. I fully support your removal of it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The only really close to credible thing added was that IMDB did have that short news article when the adoption agency she used to adopt Maddox had problems, but once the "could effect Angelina's adoption" hit the air, it quickly died back down, with the adoption being cleared. It turned out to be a false alarm, but the person who added it didn't follow that up. In fact, the person who added it seems to be on WP with an anti-cross cultural adoption crusade. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for having my back!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hate to ask

But is there any way I can get a little help with another user? God must sound horrible I know! In the history of Wikipedia its been Kevin J and this other user TragedyStriker who was giving me trouble earlier last year. Basically his name is Zachary Jaydon and he likes to edit articles on himself making up claims (Zachary Jaydon deletion log will prove that). Literally thats about all he does at Wikipedia; that and slander the pages of anyone he didnt like or fought with in real life like Ben Bledsoe.

I knew him in real life and hes usuing someone else's name on here. Basically hes just an attention vandal who likes to lob claims left and right. He was blocked for awhile but apparently hes been watching me since November; as he edited the Valentino talk page and struck up a little comradeship with Kevin J a few days ago. I find that quite creepy as hes really an unnerved individual. In addition to usuing someone else's name on here he's used my username on imdb to post slander on Bledsoe's page to try and make me look bad.

I guess of late he hasnt done much to deserve a block (maybe beyond the fact he likes to keep posting my personal info all over here; including my myspace and full name); but is there any way to keep him off my talk page/leave me alone? Id greatly appreciate it. I cant handle a vandal and a psycho all at once. Thanks!--Thegingerone (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the links; I have a lot of trouble navigating the vast adminship of Wikipedia :p! I did what I could and I'll take your advice. Its just this is someone who has been slandering me left and right since November; its hard to bite my tongue. But I will...two crazies are not worth the fight. I have better things to do with my time. Thanks!--Thegingerone (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Um

Did you see? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I answered your email. I'm so angry my ears are ringing and my hands are shaking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Give the admin this diff. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

and also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re

Who do you suspect him/her to be a sock of? Also, you're referring to the "hogwash" comment, right? Khoikhoi 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, as it takes a long time to get results. I recommend that you try WP:RFCU - requests for CheckUser. You get results very quickly there. I would suggest that in your CheckUser report you give the code "G" and cite WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY as your reason for starting a request. Because of Dooyar's block log, and the fact both Nyannrunning and Dooyar are active on the Johnnie Ray article, I think you have grounds for a check. Just make sure to state all of this and you'll be good. Regards, Khoikhoi 04:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay

Here's what I'd written on the AN/I but not saved yet. It's got a lot of diffs:

Title: Intolerable behavior by User:Nyannrunning at Talk:Johnnie Ray#Question

We have been trying for a very long time to work out disputes over this article with User:Nyannrunning, who also has posted contentiously using other usernames, including User:Dooyar, who was blocked last fall for similar attacks (see User_talk:Dooyar#Blocked_.282.29). Our sock puppet report was denied, mostly because it was filed the week of Thanksgiving and this user wasn't online that week. After that, she basically backed away from major editing until recently again, and is now using another name (the Nyannrunning) that wasn't in the report or registered until after the sock report was filed, as well as another username registered the same day (User talk:Debbiesvoucher, to see the same "get help" commentary). Tonight, this user has posted personal information about my visual disability today diff, which was only ever mentioned once on Wikipedia, in a now long archived dispute resolution some months ago with the Dooyar name diff. Now once again, she has told me to get help diff, which is one of the specifics for which she was blocked before. As this diff shows, she also has been quite rude, accusing me of running off our admin mediator, calling my comments "nonsense" and general incivility. This is becoming intolerable.

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 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) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Link

Hi, could you explain why you removed this site from Tyrone_Power#External_links? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo yo

Hey!! Go look at what we did (see new template - the second from the top)!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gary Catona

Bonjour Pinkadelic. Considering the work done to gain further citations, is it still necessary to have this at the top of the page? "This article needs additional citations for verification." What does one do to have it removed? Is it something you can do? K W LaQua (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lara Berk

Would you mind going over and checking out this article? I nominated for speedy delete based on notability. The author has contested it and I answered her on the article talk page. See what you think? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Meagan Good

Hi Pinkadelica. Thank you for the link I had no idea that it used to look like that I appreciate it. It's just getting slightly frustrating finding anything that is considered legit without a doubt. Sorry for the confusion.Mcelite (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)mcelite

399 to go

We are almost done, Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is down to less the 400 articles to find references for. I would like to thank you for listing yourself as a volunteer at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and would like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit the project again and work on getting the last few articles referenced. We started with 5,572 and we are in the home stretch, please come and try to do a couple a day and we can finish it up in no time. Jeepday (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fan sites

Hi, just to let you know it doesn't seem to be consensus that fan sites should be removed so you might want to hold off deleting them. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, looking at the actual guideline page, it seems to put fan sites in the category of social networking sites which seems wrong. Maybe what was meant to be put was fan forums? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Joan

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:1956wedding.jpg

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.

June Mathis

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)

Re: Jason Sklaver

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)

Note

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)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

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)

KYLIEX2008 Set List Dispute

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)

Re: Vandalism

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)

Kylie Minogue Wikiproject question

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)

KYLIEX2008 Set List

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)

General wiki question

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)

Winehouse

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)

Re: The Golddiggers

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

Re: The Golddiggers

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

New Focus at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles

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)

Bernadette Protti

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)

Hey

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)

Help

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)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

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)

Sockpuppets

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)

Another Kylie question

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)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:No Secrets Album.jpg)

⚠

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)


Archive This 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.