User talk:Rossrs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rossrs (talk | contribs) at 08:55, 17 August 2008 (→Top priority: reply to Wildhartlivie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive
Archives
  1. January-December 2005
  2. January-April 2006
  3. April-December 2006
  4. January-June 2007
  5. July-December 2007
  6. January 2008 - ?

Jack Warner

I was wondering if you would mind putting this article on your watchlist? It passed featured article in March, which in all honestly probably shouldn't have happened, as the article doesn't appear to have been very stable at the time. A new editor had begun making contributions to it, which were contended by the editor who had been working on it. Since that time, the new editor has continued to make massive additions, most of which, while okay, aren't really clean yet. Also, I thought that one of the criteria for a featured article is using {{cite web}}/{{cite book}}, etc. formatting. I have had some brief run-ins with this editor along the way, mostly for relying on one source, bizarre use of combined ref names, and other things that aren't, in my view, contentious, but to him it was. In any case, when I realized the article was featured, I asked this guy to hold off on making any more edits until the references were cleaned up and I could look over the rest. He may not comply, but I hope he does. I was only hoping you'd keep an eye on it, and if any issues arise, I could contact you for opinions. Thanks much!! (Hope your winter isn't too bad!) Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I can see, the history of Warner Bros. has been added to this article as well as all the Warner brothers' articles. It would seem to be better to cut that down substantially and put a "Main article: Warner Bros." at the beginning of the career section. That would bring this back down to between 50 and 60kb, instead of the current 92. It was passed at around 52kb. I'm very concerned about how this is going to occur and the level of issue it will raise. But there is no real reason for the history of the studio to be repeated in 5 or 6 articles, either. *sigh* I'm starting by cleaning up the references and language style problems if I find them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Twelsht has worked wonders in a short time on this. I will be keeping an eye on it and plan to defend it from changes back fiercely. Hopefully we can all work together to keep this article as it now is. Don't fret, I was hesitant to tackle it myself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Magazines Image

Please see my comments. Image is within fair-use restrictions. Atom (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable Deletion

You completely unreasonably deleted a positive contribution which I made to an article. You did not even give any justification as to why it was deleted. Why is it necessary for so many people to abuse wikipedia? The thing that annoyed me was that I was making the contribution in an attempt to assit others who were looking for the information. I did not do it for fun or personal gain, yet you thought it would be funny to delete it, did you? Wikipedia is a great initiative, but it will only work if we all use it properly, and not as a place to get a cheap laugh. You may be interested to know, there is a website named Uncyclopedia. The address is http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. It is content-free, and anyone may edit it. The information may be as amusing an irrelevant as you want. I suggest you put your jokes on this page, rather than depriving those who are trying to use wikipedia properly from accessing information. It may give you a bit of a laugh, and increase your popularity, but please think of the people who try to use wikipedia properly. Thanks very much. (UTC)

and if you'd mentioned which article I deleted information from, I'd have a clue what you're talking about. Looking through your edit history, I haven't edited any of the articles you've edited, so maybe you're trying to educate the wrong editor. Rossrs (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jackson

hello, you contributed to the previous Janet Jackson FAC and I currently have the article in peer review. Would you mind giving your input? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 13:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Have you seen this image? I'm the lunatic that leaps off the balcony. :) Based on a semi-true story. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, that's dedication! I hope the semi-true part was related to the number of broken bones and that you didn't end up in traction!! You all better now? :-) Rossrs (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Rossrs (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. "Ace" and I really did attend the GLAAD Media Awards in April and saw Janet receive the Vanguard Award, but I didn't really leap off the balcony... though all my friends thought I would. Though, I did startle the people around me when I screamed "JANET!"
Oh! Read the last paragraph of "2004–2005: Super Bowl XXXVIII controversy and Damita Jo". I'm so glad that statement is on record. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How easily the nation forgot how effectively Janet told our nations young women to demand respect from their boyfriends and how she encouraged an entire generation to erase the color line. How many artists take the risk of preaching during a song nowadays? It saddens me how every conservative in America wanted to blame her for the entire downfall of American modern society. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I really disgusts me how modern society dictates "I can only feel good about myself if someone else is miserable". Ever since Michael's 1993 scandal, it seems Americans actually prefer to see entertainers go down in flames, over seeing them achieve any kind of success. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you been hiding? :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at FAC. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Janet Jackson. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Lee (reporter)

Hello Rossrs! Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia. I have just been looking at the article Jean Lee (reporter) which you created on 11 July 2007 as part of the Wikification wikiproject. However, I also noticed that the article contains no inline citations or proper references. Please remember that as it is a Biography of a Living Person

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately...

As the article is not exactly unsourced, but the (one) source there is is poorly formatted and located, I am leaving it for the present, but can I suggest that it is extremely urgent that the one source is appropriately formatted and further references are added. If this is not done I will have little choice but to flag it at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

Please note, this is not a personal issue; more so than with most articles, Biographies of living people must be factually accurate and verifiable. Please continue contributing! --Peeky44 (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That makes sense. Sorry to have troubled you. --Peeky44 (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get BRAINWASHED

I'm a former Acquaintance of Sarah Hudson (singer) and I absolutely love her new band Ultra Violet Sound. Listen to Brainwashed...its one of the greatest songs ever!

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
forgot to provide a link The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're online I see. I'm having a hell of a time keeping the Britney Spears article in tact with all the fanatics trying to ruin it by adding pointless material. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudette Colbert

Just posted a comment on my talk page, but I thought it highly probable that you weren't watching it any more, so I'm repeating here. It was to say that I thought your rewrite on the Claudette Colbert lede was good as well.

Let me also explain that my revert of the IP editor's deletion of "Academy-award winning" in the Colbert article wasn't a statement about a preference for having that specific statement in the article, I was just cleaning up the edits of that user who was deleting a lot of perfectly appropriate material under the pretext that it was "POV". The editor is currently blocked, so I don't need to follow him/her around for the time being -- but, in any case, I did not intend my reversion to be any kind of slap in the face to you considering our previous discussion, and I'm perfectly happy with the way you've reworked Gene Kelly and Claudette Colbert, which I intend to use as a model for other film bio articles when I get involved in revamping them.

I hope you didn't take offense, as none was intended. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have had an encounter with the Claudette Colbert fan you mentioned, on Imitation of Life (1934 film). This person kept reverting the poster I had on the article, and rejected the replacement I found as well, until I finally put one up that showcased Colbert more strongly than the others, and that settled things. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top priority

I usually check that category once a month or so to make sure no one is lopped in there where they shouldn't be. The only way to fix this is to have separate entries for music vs. film. I constantly have to re-separate film from music on Eminem (like he's ever going to be a top priority actor), and I notice that Michael Jackson has popped up on it too. As if. :) I'm not sure where we are going from here on the lead project. Pinkadelica said she would pitch in on the work if we have a good rule of thumb to use. Have you sorted out what needs what, or are there things I could be doing as well? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I'm afraid I've been distracted by the Olympics. Maybe Madge really is spending time bolstering her film career, she may be having a lot more free time on her hands soon, and really, how much longer can a 50 year old rock (Aerosmith and the Rolling Stones just aren't the same)? Eminem, who knows? He's been quiet lately.
I've looked at your page and I trust your critical eye regarding the current status of the article leads. Pinkadelica will follow our lead on what we're going to do. So let us choose one of the best leads to use as the ideal and we will work out a standard format based on that with suggestions for each point and a guideline of actor leads. I suppose many fall into that hollowness because they can tend toward fancruft. I've always been a little wishy-washy about the awards mentions, and I suppose that's because so often, I hear an actor introduced as "Academy Award-winning". It doesn't sound as bad as it actually is, though, and your quite eloquent description of enriching the profession does put it into perspective. How does this sound? Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect my interest in the Olympics may fall off following the last of the gymnastics and the conclusion of Michael Phelps' participation. What a guy, huh? I'm trying to follow tennis, though they aren't carrying enough here to satisfy me, and I didn't plan on subscribing to the complete tennis coverage at a cost of $30 extra for what amounts to one week's worth of coverage. I'm a bit of a Nadal fan. He's good, plus he's not unpleasant to the eye. :)
Anyway. I've looked at the tops, and I've four to suggest we look at. Bette Davis, Angelina Jolie, Marilyn Monroe, and for less thorough articles, Shirley Booth. What say you we also start a single discussion page, either in your or my user space, to minimize the back and forth? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just blown away last night (Saturday morning). I even scared my cats when I was screaming "Go Michael!! Go Michael!! Go Michael!! YAY!!!" after the 100m butterfly. I honestly didn't think he was going to win it. They've discussed his eating habits. Sheesh. But this is what you get when you're burning 10,000 calories a day and don't have an ounce of fat. It was fascinating to listen to the conversation between him and Mark Spitz last night. Ah well. After tonight, he'll be done, and someone like him comes along so rarely.
I started compiling a men's list last night at User:Wildhartlivie/Sandbox but didn't get too far in determining what goes where. I'm off for a few hours to the local rites of summer town carnival then I'll look further tonight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also started a list (User:Rossrs/Sandbox3). I copied all the names from List of male movie actors and then started going through. Some I removed from the list as I went. I should have done the same with the females, as I was all over the place with that. Going through some of the males, I was struck by the sheer awfulness of some of the infobox images, so I started a new section. I suppose the infobox is part of the lead? I didn't take any notice when I was going through the female list. Maybe there was nothing as glaringly bad as Danny Aiello or F. Murray Abraham or Jason Alexander.
I would have liked to have seen the Phelps/Spitz conversation. Much of the Australian coverage is Australo-centric (as I'm sure most countries are), so all we got was a pool-side chat between Phelps and former Australian swimmer Daniel Kowalski who has the interviewing skills of a stick of broccoli. Unless there was something better and I just missed it. One thing that fascinated me was the story of a Japanese equestrian entrant, Hiroshi Hoketsu, who was making his first OIympic appearance since 1964 !! His horse was spooked by a plane flying over and I think he was marked down because of it. He is 67 years old and had a 44 year gap between Olympics. I love stories like that. Underdogs like Hiroshi Hoketsu and superdogs like Michael Phelps. Hope the fair was fairly fun. Rossrs (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I missed your response! Yes, Michael made it 8 and once again, I scared my cats by screaming "Go!! GO!!!!" at the television. They commented that he now has more Olympic gold medals than some countries in their entire history. I was so happy for him, and them. I'm like you, the Olympics times are unique for bringing us those heartstring tugs, and it gives me something besides the Maxwell House coffee commercials to cry about. We were all buzzing about Dara Torres as well. 41 years old and won 3 silver medals in swimming!! I got home in time to see the swimming and then my attention has been stuck with watching the Ryan White article, which I was fairly active one, since it is today's featured article. God knows, the FA on a young person who died of AIDS is getting a lot of activity.
I had started my listing of actors, but I was a bit befuddled by how to classify them, so I will wait to see what you do. I am going to take a nap and try to catch a bit of Rafael Nadal's Gold game (go, go, good looking Spaniard!!). I'll check back a bit later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll talk to you later then. In the meantime I'm reporting you for cruelty to cats. Dara Torres is another one that interests me - swimmers are usually considered on their way out when they reach their late 20's so she's proving them wrong. I'll go through a few more of the male actors. Interesting little comment made at Talk:Shirley Temple correctly stating the her lead, and specifically the "Academy Award-winning" descriptive represents "common usage". I wonder how much opposition there will be to a concerted effort at improvement. I'm hoping that when people start to see work happening on the articles, they may join the fun. Ryan White on the main page is bound to attract a buzz, and the occasional outburst of stupidity. I kept an eye on Anne Frank when the article was on the main page - some articles attract some extreme viewpoints, don't they? Rossrs (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rossrs&oldid=232461333"