Hi Susie. I am traveling with spotty internet access so can't be dependable to comment in the next month or so. If I do find myself with a good connection I'll be happy to add my opinion. I have a connection right now but not good enough to support the time I'd need to look at an article. Best wishes.(0live)

Chaplin[edit]

Dear TrueHeartSusie3. Please excuse me communicating out of the blue. On 26th July last I was among a number of people who met Michael Chaplin on Black Patch Park, a place with which I and others have been associated for over a decade. It's just under 2 miles from my home in Birmingham. I'm an academic, now retired, as well as a local historian and a wiki contributor. I recognise flimsy evidence - I hope. I care about the history of Black Patch Park. I've no pecuniary interest in establishing the likelihood that there's some truth in the rumour that Charlie Chaplin was born on the Black Patch, but in the absence of proof he was born anywhere else, I believe that the possibility deserves attention. Michael Chaplin who seemed a charming man, very unassuming, has now visited the Black Patch on three occasions over the past three years. Last month was the first time I met him, as a representative of The Friends of Black Patch Park, a lovely but messy place which we have helped save, for the time being, from being built over. As a group we rather like the idea that Hannah Chaplin, a troubled woman, may have found temporary refuge among the Gypsies of the Black Patch, some of whose descendants have helped us in our campaigns to save the place. One day we and others hope to see see it restored, so that might be a motive for hoping Charlie Chaplin was born here. We have thoughts of a local football Derby for the Chaplin Cup! The Friends make no claims to the truth of Jack Hill's letter, only that the idea should be given the same consideration it seems to have been given by Charlie Chaplin. I was impressed by the credence Michael Chaplin gives to Jack Hill's letter claiming the star was horn on the Black Patch. I used my camera to catch his words on Youtube. I think this matter will remain a mystery, but so is the likelihood that the great man was born in London. I suggest the idea that Charles Chaplin was born on the Black Patch in 1898 be given the same credence his son, our patron, gives that idea. Forgive me if this is an inappropriate posting. Kind regards Simon Baddeley Simon Baddeley (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Simon, I understand why this is important to you, but Wikipedia is not a platform for activism (I believe this might also fall under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, but I am not sure). The letter and its implications, including Michael Chaplin's opinion about it, are already included in a note following a sentence that states that Chaplin did not have a birth certificate. You are right that it is possible that we will never get a 100% confirmation of his birth place, and that the letter might be correct. However, it was only very recently made public, and so far (that I am aware of), no Chaplin historian has evaluated its credibility. According to their research, all evidence seems to point to Chaplin having been born in London: he himself thought so, all of Hannah Chaplin's known family members and friends lived in London, his elder brother was born there, the Chaplins lived in London, and he is mentioned in the 1891 census as living in London. Given that Wikipedia must rely on the best possible sources and original research by editors is strictly prohibited, giving this speculation equal weight with what historians have written could be very problematic. If you want more publicity/legitimation for your cause, I suggest that a far more effective way would be to contact the Association Chaplin or any of Chaplin's children and ask whether they'd be interested in supporting the preservation of Black Patch. Or, even, David Robinson or some other Chaplin biographer? Maybe they would be interested in researching the letter's background and would be able to give more credibility to it? WIkipedia can really only go by what Chaplin's biographers have written. I wish you all the best in your fight to save Black Patch, but unfortunately it is against Wikipedia's rules to use it to further your cause. Kind regards, TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Dear TrueHeartSusie3.Thanks so much for your polite reply. Sorry, that sounds patronising as I realise you are one who is stringently respectful of Wikipedia's desired culture. I have contributed several articles to Wiki. One involved a so-called 'academic diplomat' editing me with such testiness that I had to stand back while he was smacked for his unkindness by another editor who helped me adjust the presentation of evidence to make it acceptable - namely the submission of a letter to my subject, Richard Pine, from Seamus Heaney. Of course Wiki should not be used for 'activism' - other than the magnificent one of Wikipedia. I carelessly missed the vital note to which you've referred me. If I'd been less preoccupied with finding a place for the Friends of Black Patch Park's birthplace 'conjecture' I'd have picked it up. It remains intriguing to study successive Wikipedia entries for CC between 2010 and now. The ‘note’ you pointed out to me appeared in 2011 'An MI5 investigation in 1952 was unable,,,etc' Earlier entries had 'confidently' reported the great man born in London, where of course he was, indisputably, 'brought up'. The assertion about a London 'birthplace' has, however, faded. Thus is Wikipedia's iterative genius demonstrated, notwithstanding the legitimate points you make. Of course forcing this point to give weight to our interest in the Black Patch would be 'problematic' given the array of agreed facts and expert judgements surround CC's early years. I'm a Popperian from my undergrad days. With you, I don't doubt this matter, barring some exceptional finding, will remain a mystery and should never, barring new and credible evidence, be appealed to Wikipedia as 'a fact'. All I/we wanted to get on the Wiki record was a gentle muddying of the waters on the matter of Charlie Chaplin's birthplace, which was how Michael Chaplin explained his views on where his father might have been born when, on Sunday 26th July 2015, we and friends, including Gypsies, stood together on the Black Patch in pouring rain. Your kind and helpful reply made my day. Thanks again. May the force of Wiki be with you! Simon Baddeley (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Marilyn Monroe's "paternal grandfather", Edward Mortensen, was born in Haugesund in Norway. A statue of Marilyn has been raised there. Mbakkel2 (talk) 30.8 2015 15:31 (CEST)

Mortensen's father may indeed have been from Norway, but the problem here is that he most likely was not Monroe's biological father as he and Gladys Baker were already estranged by the time she became pregnant. Therefore, it's misleading to categorize her as being of Norwegian heritage.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Hi I noticed the following is in correct. “In 1924, she married her second husband, Martin Edward Mortensen, but they separated only some months later and divorced in 1928.” Please change this because her page is locked for editing. Justanotherwikieditor27653 (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Justanotherwikieditor27653: Exactly how is it incorrect? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Martin Edward Mortensen was briefly her step father. She never married him. Her second marriage was to Joe DiMaggio. That’s why that statement is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherwikieditor27653 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marilyn Monroe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Kelley and Sam Shaw. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monroe[edit]

So sorry, totally forgot. Where are we with it? Did you replace the article with your own? I'd like to take a look at it before you take to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, no worries, it's definitely not finished yet! I'm currently working on the sections on her death, star image and legacy, hoping to get them done this week. Still a bit unsure whether to take it to FAC level, but maybe GA? What I'm most worried about is that I've essentially relied on only three biographies (Spoto 1993, Banner 2012, Churchwell 2004). Spoto's is one of the 'definitive' biographies; Banner's is quite recent but she is a professor at USC, has published academic articles on Monroe, and her book received good reviews in several major newspapers and magazines. Churchwell's isn't actually a traditional biography at all, but an analysis of the biographies written about Monroe up to 2004; she mainly concentrates on the way she has been portrayed overall (e.g. dumb blonde/crazy woman/victim) and the biggest debates between biographers (e.g. paternity/childhood/marriages/drug use/mental illness/death). Personally, I don't find using only three bios as a problem because the only other 'main' bios I can think of are quite old (Zolotow & Guiles, published in the 1960s-1970s) or were written to 'tell the truth' about her death (namely Anthony Summers' 1985 bio – the previous version of the article had used him as a source, and having checked that the references are indeed correct I've decided to leave some of them in, but haven't used the book myself because I can only find translations where I am now and because I don't think Summers presents any new evidence on her life and career; he really wrote the book to speculate on her death), and Churchwell comments on them extensively.
Oh and another thing – the separate articles focusing on Monroe's childhood, personal life, and death are not in good shape either, but I'm not interested in re-writing them (personally I think they should be deleted altogether, as all key facts of Monroe's life can be contained in one article. At the moment, the articles mainly repeat what's said in the main article with a little bit more trivia added in, and are generally poorly sourced, as well as contain a lot of factual errors. The 'death' one, if it's necessary to have it, should be renamed "Marilyn Monroe conspiracy theories" because that's essentially what it is for). Wouldn't this be a problem in GA/FAC?
In any case, I would still be very happy to get some feedback! Some things I've been wondering:
Given that there have been so many versions of the events of Monroe's childhood, I would feel weird relying on just Banner, and equally don't want to clutter the section with "X has stated... but Y instead thinks that...". To me, Banner's biography seems more thoroughly researched on Monroe's childhood, as she seems to have been able to interview people who had not been previously interviewed, and also having grown up in Los Angeles county in the 1940s seems to know more of the area's history. Actually, now that I've written this I feel like I would like to rely on Banner when she and Spoto disagree, but do you think this would be problematic? Banner is more recent, more thoroughly researched, and lists Spoto as a source as well so I assume she is familiar with his version.
Anyway, I would be very grateful if you could read through the section I've written so far (Life & career) – be ruthless! :) I want the article to be as clear as possible and to steer clear of the 'mythologizing' that seems so persistent in Monroe's case.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Will try to look tomorrow. Well, three isn't too bad, but yeah for somebody like Monroe you'd ideally think it would be best to read a few more before taking to FAC. With Sinatra between us we're planning on perusing about 25 books! It might be worth mentioning the sexual abuse was claimed and disputed. Perhaps ask We hope on that one who is usually good with controversial claims and footnotes (and getting images) ;-). I'll see when I give it a read!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much! :) To clarify, the bibliography that I've compiled for the article so far has around 16 different books and journal articles (and I probably will be adding a couple of more, we'll see), but I have based the Life and career and Death sections mainly on the three biographies which seem the most credible; there are references to other sources here and there, and the star image and legacy sections will have a lot more sources. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

I'll be putting in a grant request for books shortly for Sinatra books. If there's any extra Monroe books you want at the same time I'll request them, and you won't have to pay a penny for them. If there are ones you want list them below with an Amazon.co.uk link and the price next to them and total.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might get one book on Monroe too. Once that extras reading is done we can take it to FAC I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a great idea, but I'm not living in the UK at the moment :( Although Monroe certainly deserves a FAC-level article given her cultural importance, I would also be perfectly happy with just a GA. Which book are you thinking of getting? The only other serious biographies I can think of are Barbara Leaming's Marilyn Monroe (1998), and maybe Guiles (he seems to have re-published his 1969 bio in 1991), and Summers (though his focus is his own pretty dubious re-interpretation of her death, which involves a Kennedy conspiracy). S. Paige Baty's American Monroe (1995) also seems very interesting from the introduction that I have been able to read, but she focuses on Monroe's posthumous cultural importance, not on her life. I've done some more research and I think I will be able to access Steinem & Barris', Graham McCann's and Carl Rollyson's Monroe bios. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Marilyn , Leaming £12:40 American Monroe, Baty £17:41

OK I'll get those when I make the request. Sending them to you wouldn't be impossible, but I think they might interest me and I can help with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for getting the books and the offer of help, would definitely be much appreciated :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Couldn't help noticing about Monroe here. TrueHeartSusie3, you can write a thing or two about Albert Einstein if you like. It does make for a rather interesting read. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's definitely interesting! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Hey! I've started reading through and making some comments in my sandbox. It's generally really good! But there's always things to nitpick over, which is what I'm doing :) I generally think it's better to have reviews publicly open though, so that you can refer to them when you go to GAN or FAC. I can either put them on the article talk page, or you could open a PR? It's quick and easy. You decide and let me know. I'll carry on later, and also look at your specific questions here. Regarding sources though, I think you're absolutely fine. There's no reason you should need more than 2 or 3 books for biographic detail - as long as you're using the most comprehensive/highly regarded that's fine, since you're literally just reproducing the facts of her life. I can tell you're digging deeper for the analytical stuff, and that's a very good source list you have in your sandbox. It's more than I used for Hepburn, for example, and that seemed to be fine for FA! You'll never be able to look at all the books written about her and no-one expects you to. --Loeba (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Loeba:, I will reply in more detail tonight/tomorrow morning, but please feel free to put your comments on the article's talk page :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
I wanted to stop by and thank you for the hard work of revamping this main article. I am glad you are shying away from the speculation, conjecture and frankly unproven gossip as to Monroe, especially concerning her death (Summers, being an example of one who is much less credible than other bio writers). I further agree that with your detailed expansion of the main article, the need for the sub-articles amounts overall to unneeded redundancy; and certain ones, especially the "death" sub-article are not well WP:RS sourced and not well written. Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! :) I'm glad you like what I am doing with the article; it's comments like these which keep one going :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

I'll give Monroe a full read tomorrow, but in glancing at it I already sniff future FA potential, great job! I may request the two books with the Sinatra stuff though just to see if anything has been missed. That way we can be sure! As Loeba says though, it wouldn't be essential to read more biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will stop the conversion of the cites to sfn and harvnb for the sections which are still a work in progress. It seems that the sections after "Final films and personal difficulties (1960–1962)" are still being worked on. Let me know when you are done adding and tweaking the main article accordingly. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks so much for all the work you've done so far! I'll let you know once I'm done with the sections :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Great; I did want to ask about this sentence cite as to "Spoto": "Her drug use increased and according to Spoto, she had a miscarriage." Spoto; Banner, pp. 311–312. I assume there is a page cite for Spoto missing? Kierzek (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, sorry! I'll add them tomorrow. I'm almost finished re-writing the Death article and hopefully will be able to then get back to finishing the main article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Thanks for adding the page cites and if I have missed any cites during conversion, either let me know or please do fix them; it makes one bleary-eyed doing it some nights. Thanks for you efforts. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, I think some of them may have been refs I've myself forgotten to include in the first place. Again, thank you so much for your efforts! I think the Legacy and Star image sections should be pretty much done now. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Hey, I just noticed that "Footnote C" needs a page cite for a Churchwell entry. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another, at the end of this sentence (According to Dyer, Monroe became "virtually a household name for sex" in the 1950s and "her image has to be situated in the flux of ideas about morality and sexuality that characterised the fifties in America", such as Freudian ideas about sex, the Kinsey report (1953), and Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1963).) the second cite states "Dyer 1979, p. 58"; is that correct? I only see two Dyer books in the references and neither is 1979. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what's your intention for the article now? It's most definitely at GA and I'm pretty sure it could pass for FA as well (I'd certainly support it), it's just a matter of how much you're bothered and feeling like facing FAC! But it would be nice for you to get recognition for your efforts. --Loeba (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I would like to attempt FA! Since this is the first article that I am taking to FA on my own, doesn't the process go like this: 1.) request peer review(s); 2.) once they're done, I'll nominate the article for FA status? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
You may want to go for GA first, as a stepping stone, but it is up to you. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good for you! PR isn't a requirement, it's just a step people often go through; it's good to get several pairs of eyes looking at the article. If you want to go for FA then it's probably for the best. It can be difficult to get reviewers though unless you explicitly ask. Some of the users who helped us with Chaplin may be interested/willing, you could try asking them. --Loeba (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are your options for Clash by Night, let me know if you like one and I'll upload it: [1], [2], [3] (that ones probably no good). Also I had another question I forgot to ask - about "the walk" in Niagara, did you check that it's actually 30 seconds? That was just a guess on my part, is it definitely that long? --Loeba (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps the first one? Thank you! And yes, I did.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Well, I am done with the cites; if you can fix this lone cite:"Dyer 1979, p. 58"; that would be great. There is no reference source listed for it; I know it may be a scrivener's error. And if it is not needed, then it can be removed given there is another cite present. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TrueHeartSusie3, you can always combine references like what I have done here so as to prevent any cluttering of references (WP:CITEBUNDLE) like for example

"In late 1944, Monroe met photographer David Conover, who had been sent by the U.S. Army Air Forces' First Motion Picture Unit (FMPU) to the factory to shoot morale-boosting pictures of female workers.[51][52] Although none of her pictures were used by the FMPU, she quit working at the factory in January 1945 and began modeling for Conover and his friends.[53][54][55] He also encouraged her to apply to the Blue Book Model Agency, run by Emmeline Snively, to which she was signed in August 1945.[51] She began to occasionally use the name Jean Norman when working, and had her curly brunette hair straightened and dyed blond.[56][57] As her figure was deemed more suitable for pin-up than fashion modeling, she was employed mostly for advertisements and men's magazines.[58] According to Snively, Monroe was one of the agency's most ambitious and hard-working models; by spring 1946, she had appeared in 33 magazine covers for publications such as Pageant, U.S. Camera, Laff, and Peek.[59][60]"

You can combine the references into one like for references [51] and [52] as below with the year of publication in increasing order like 2001, 2004, 2012 and so on.

((sfnm|1a1=Spoto|1y=2001|1pp=90–91|2a1=Churchwell|2y=2004|2p=176))

You can do this for the book references say Spoto, Churchwell, Banner and Summers. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marilyn Monroe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conspiracy, Monkey Business and Foul play. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MM Photos[edit]

I'll give you a hand with them. First of all I need to look at some film trailers for the film screenshots you currently have. Know that File:Marilyn Monroe, Betty Grable and Lauren Bacall in How to Marry a Millionaire trailer.jpg is OK because we viewed it for a Lauren Bacall-related project a while back. File:Marilyn Monroe in Niagara.jpg This one isn't OK because it's from the Doctor Macro site-there's no proof at the site that anything of theirs is in the public domain. I note this is a wardrobe test photo, so it would have been something which wouuld not have been released to the public. A good question about whether it's PD or not. Let me have a further look. We hope (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working on these takes some time because if you can find a photo in a non-renewed film book or magazine, newspapers, magazine and so on. They were given permission by the film studios to use them in their publications; they waived copyright for this type of publication. I try to find an identical better quality copy of the magazine photo if possible. Take a look here page 23for a Misfits photo. Here's the photo, uncropped. I can get this for you if you like. We hope (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be wonderful! I'd definitely prefer to have a shot of Monroe with Gable rather than just a close-up of her face. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusieReply[reply]
As I said, finding photos in the magazines and trying for a match in a better quality copy can take time--am still out looking through the film magazines at Lantern. We hope (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't even need to find magazines that are out of copyright - as long as you can prove through searches that the publicity images themselves didn't have copyright renewed (which they never did) you're fine. Honestly, I've gotten about a dozen images on the Hepburn and Chaplin articles cleared even by super-strict FAC. --Loeba (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is quite a fun one from Some Like It Hot: [4], or this [5] --Loeba (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've checked all film trailer screenshots used in the article and added links for the trailers to the Commons photos. The only one that isn't OK is the one from The Asphalt Jungle. Have these if you want them:
We hope (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Reference errors on 15 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rod Steiger/archive1[edit]

Dr. Blofeld's next FAC of which I'm a co-nominator. Feel free to leave comments at the FAC page. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments, TrueHeartSusie3. Do let me and Doc know if you are willing to re-review the article again. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For the perseverance and scrutiny you have shown in the difficult re-write, editing and Wikipedia:RS citing of the Marilyn Monroe and Death of Marilyn Monroe articles, I award you this Barnstar! Well done. Kierzek (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Susie. Which were the books you said you didn't have for Monroe again? I'll do my best to get hold of them before this proceeds just to ensure it is definitely comprehensive. Sorry for the delay, I've been busy with Sinatra!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only fault I can see with Monroe at the moment is that I think you overuse the Spoto source. I mean it is Monroe, hundreds of books and thousands of articles written about her. I think it would be good to vary the sourcing a bit more, but there's nothing wrong with using the definitive biography on a subject if it's reliable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya! No worries, I completely understand – Sinatra is looking good btw! I was thinking of opening a peer review for Monroe in a week or so. Spoto is indeed the definitive biography, he did an unprecedented amount of research (his 'stature' in MM research is similar to David Robinson's in Chaplin scholarship). He is also different from the majority of MM biographers in that he seems to offer a reasonably balanced account (he only lapses to conspiracy theory in the end). The issue with the majority of books written about Monroe is that they are really unreliable. It's a different situation from for example Chaplin, who also has had a lot of books written about him, but most of them by film scholars as people interested in him tend to be film fans. The only other recent reliable biographies I can think of are Barbara Leaming and Carl Rollyson. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Oh, and also – if I open a peer review, is it possible for me to ask someone to do it? I don't remember what we did with Chaplin. What do you think about the lead image? I'd like to use the publicity shot with a red background that's in the "Public image" section at the moment, as I think it's more representative of Monroe than the current lead image. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Yeah Sinatra's a beast of a bio. I still have the Kaplan book to go through on it but I will have to condense it down further before it proceeds. It's always going to be one of the longer ones though given the size of his careers and status. I'm sure I can do a better job on it when it's done than any of them at Wiki'ocracy though! Yes I understand, somebody like Monroe is tabloid fodder, a lot of myths and exploitation of truth there to sell books. Yes, that's the point of a peer review, ask as many people as possible who might be interested in looking at it. OK we won't worry about the other books then. Let me give it a full read shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tell you what Susie, nominate it for Good article and I'll review it for you. It should easily pass. My comments would be better going into that. Then you can open a peer review afterwards. Contact me on my talk page when you've nommed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marilyn Monroe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review done, good job, just some pointers and critical thoughts though. I think after I pass it you'd be best opening a peer review and asking for wide input and see if people agree with my comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passed, well done! A vital article too! I really do think though that you should open a peer review asap for some broader input on improving it. I think if enough people comment and provide input an FA is possible. But see how is goes with the review. That's what I'm going to do with Sinatra. It is difficult producing an FA on such people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you going to open a peer review then? I do hope you weren't put off by my comments on it. I couldn't just pass it and simply say "perfect" as Loeba might have ;-) Others might not agree it needs more source material from her time period and might think it FA worthy as it is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr Blofeld: Sorry, I left a message on your talk page after you upgraded it to GA on Friday though? I've been away this weekend, will open a peer review tonight/tomorrow. No worries about the comments, honest feedback is the best kind! I got lots of new ideas on how to improve the article. I agree that it could be improved by also referencing Leaming and Rollyson in addition to the current Banner, Churchwell and Spoto. While I am not going to be able to buy those books, I will look into whether I have access to books about Monroe's directors/Zanuck etc., which might have information on her films. Even if the peer review does not lead to a successful FA nomination, I'm definitely not going to be heartbroken. I regard GA/FA status as just lovely "extra" – I know for a fact that the article is in a much, much better shape than when I started in July, and that's already enough for me :) Again, thank you for reviewing it! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

I don't think I caught your message! Yes see what people think at peer review and if you get positive vibes take it to FAC. I'm going to do the same with Sinatra once I get the Kaplan book and trim it down and then take to GA next week. We'll see how it goes. Ssven2 and myself will definitely be doing Cary Grant next month anyway, about time too! Thanks for your work on such a big personality anyway and good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked a few people to look at the peer review, hope it helps.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr Blofeld: Thank you! I'll be happy to help with the FS review(s) if you need more reviewers – also, the Grant project sounds exciting! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Do you have access to Newspapers.com?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Activate your email link briefly and email me and I'll show you something. Or you could put your name down at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. It's a brilliant resource, zillions of newspapers articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I appreciate the offer but I've already added some reviews/contemporary commentary on the Monroe article, and I think I'm pretty much done with it. Is there a specific paragraph which you think would need additional commentary? All I can think of would maybe be The Seven Year Itch. I'll definitely give newspapers.com a chance with whatever my next article will be, but I'm starting to feel so exhausted with Monroe, I really need a longer wikibreak... if you are able to find some great quotes which you think would improve the article, feel free to add them! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Would you like to be a co-contributor to Cary Grant along with Doc and Me? It would be great having you on board. I will get to Grant once my exams are over in mid-November this year.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I had more time I would but alas, I must take a longer wikibreak soon. I'm more than happy to give feedback on it or review it though, when the time comes! Thank you for all of the fixes you've made to the Monroe page btw. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
It was a pleasure to do so.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, I feel exactly the same as you Susie after the Sinatra article. It takes a lot out of you working on these core articles. I feel like a long break from here but I'll get Sinatra to GA first. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the same time, it's just so addictive as well! Here I am, really bored with MM and wanting to take a break, YET at the same time I'm thinking "hmm, Liz Taylor's article really needs to be overhauled... Frida Kahlo's is also in really poor shape... I'll just add the pages to my watchlist ..."! Seriously need to commit to this break – and maybe when I come back, I'll just focus on improving articles without taking them to GA/FA. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Yep, exact;y, Maureen O'Hara beckons ;-). But at the same time I want to pin much of wikipedia's other side onto my dartboard and throw darts at it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marilyn Monroe has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Marilyn Monroe[edit]

I

Moved:

Hi,
Regarding your edits to Marilyn Monroe; where in MoS does it say that it's not correct to list the birth name in brackets? I'm merely going by what seems to be the standard in GA/FA-level articles on Hollywood stars, so I realise I might be wrong, but it would be weird for so many articles to have passed GA/FA review if it's not standard form. As for pin-up, please see the peer review.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Well, I do in fact stand corrected: the way you were doing it is certainly unattractive but seems to have had support at WP:FULLNAME. I think it's a mistaken overuse of situations like Ms Manning's, where you don't want to have to say "born" two times in a row:

...(born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)...

is certainly an improvement on the alternative. It's not odd, though. There are plenty of things that you can do in more than one way and (as with #Notes sections) quite a few "standards" that are simply being misapplied at the moment.

Reverts are an unpleasant way to go about it—I'm not a vandal—but as long as you're keeping the nowrap tags, it looks like either way is fine. As for pin-up model, there's nothing on the talk page about it... found it. You were right and Tim Riley was wrong. There's nothing "standard" about pin-up modeling and foreign and younger users have no idea what it's talking about. It isn't remotely WP:OVERLINK.

II

Sorry you took my moving this discussion as unpleasant. Took me a little bit to poke around on the policy &c. and seemed better to talk about it here, where other people will come to look for all things Marilyny.

III

So to do a tl;dr: apologies for overreacting to the revert. It looks like either way is fine and, given the work you've put into the article, I'll defer to you if you really like the other way. I really do disagree about the link: I certainly was looking for that link and it wasn't on the page for me to click and other editors simply won't know what it is in the first place. Kindly do keep the certain improvements like the comma thing and the nowrap tags so her name displays clearly. Thank you again for your time and hard work and sorry for the unpleasantness. — LlywelynII 13:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries! I moved the name back into brackets with the formatting intact, but have kept pin-up linked. If you have any other ideas on how the article should be improved, please don't hesitate to leave a message on the peer review, it would be much appreciated! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Susie, I think you're definitely onto a winner with Monroe. Those 50s reviews you added settle my own concerns with it. And given that Tim and Brian are fine with the Spoto source. Perhaps given it a couple more days but if you proceed to FAC soon afterwards I think I'd be in a position to support it, as I'm sure would some of the others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Thank you, glad you liked the additions! And thanks again for asking people to review MM. I'll have to wait until the deletion discussions related to the article have been closed (Early life of Marilyn Monroe, Berniece Baker Miracle and James Dougherty (police officer)), which I think should be some time next week as I don't think any of them are controversial (feel free to add your opinion if you want to/have time btw!). And let me know if you want me to review FS. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of Marilyn Monroe[edit]

The article Marilyn Monroe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marilyn Monroe for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats, Kierzek (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marilyn Monroe PR[edit]

Hi Susie. Just wanted to say the article so far is very well composed. I've left a few more comments and will continue after they're addressed. Shouldn't be too hard to pass at FAC. Have you thought of making her TFA for her 90th birthday, perhaps? Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thank you for the feedback, it's lovely to hear you enjoyed reading the article! I'll think about the TFA thing – it won't be until June anyway so there's plenty of time. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Elizabeth Taylor[edit]

It's been quick failed. I suggest you just continue with editing it. If LS starts getting difficult again then a topic ban might be on the cards. You or I could have told LS what Snuggums told him in the GAR. I disagree on her friendship with Michael Jackson being trivial though, and I also disagree with LS's recent removal of relationships she had. A decent article would mention those names. Your call though if you're going for it! If you want a collaborator I may see later in the month, though I have Cary Grant planned. I think for a decent article on Taylor it would need a great deal of reading like the Sinatra article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr Blofeld: I've already moved material from my sandbox to the article... aside from the false info and use of unreliable sources such as The Daily Fail, LS has copied sentences in verbatim from Alexander Walker's bio. In other words, he is plagiarizing!!
It would be great to collaborate, but at first my aim is to just build a 'skeleton' using a couple of books rather than to develop it straight to GA-level – I don't think I have the energy to take it to GA any time soon, but I hope the improvements will make a difference. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Also – how would you structure the article? I'm thinking:
1. Early life
2. Career (including her perfume business, apparently she made as much or even more money through it than her in her film career)
3. AIDS activism (deserves its own section as her AIDS activism really wasn't your usual celeb philanthropy for good karma, she played a major role in it)
4. Personal life (with subsections for jewellery & fashion collection, Judaism + Jewish/Israeli charities in the same section)
As for MJ friendship, I think it could be mentioned when discussing the Fortensky marriage, as the wedding was held in Neverland? As for her romantic relationships, we'll see; I'll have to have a proper read through the books I have before giving my opinion. Some of them are certainly noteworthy. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Oh, and one more thing; if you don't want to participate in the research & re-writing, but are interested in somehow contributing, I'd really need someone to copyedit. I've already made a ton of grammatical mistakes today, probably have a migraine coming or something. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Going back to Monroe for a second: I added the Clash image - do you think it looks better as a multi image with Monkey Business or separated? I don't know so will leave it with you! Maybe the Clash one needs to be cropped more... As for Taylor, I don't mind helping out with copyediting and things like that. For structuring, I suggest:

Early Life
Acting career
Subsection
Subsection
Subsection etc
Other work
AIDS activism
Perfume company
Personal life
Personality and public image (include her religion and jewellery here)
Marriages
Illnesses and death
Reception and legacy (including commentary on her typical roles)

Something like that would be the ideal IMO. If you want to keep it more simple for now though, I understand that..! --Loeba (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help would certainly be much appreciated! :) That structure looks good as well. We'll see – I'm going to do this chronologically so "transition" is the next section. As for MM, I decided to delete the Monkey Business still; it's a wonderful shot, but tiny and grainy. I think the Clash by Night image is more important because it's better quality and demonstrates that MM wasn't automatically typecast to 'dumb blonde' roles. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

"You've said nothing positive about the current article. Nothing." - Susie, how dare you not be a beacon of positivity and encouragement like Lightshow! Lol. --Loeba (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See, I was still optimistic enough to think that maybe we could collaborate, maybe he has finally 'seen the light' given that he removed most of the quotefarm, maybe he is just a bit misguided... and then I realised that he has plagiarized Walker... yeah, I'm so evil for not respecting the hard work he has done! How could I make this mistake, when he has always been so fair in recognizing my good work? (Seriously though, I hope he'll stop digging now. He is already banned for recurrent copyvio when it comes to images...) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
He's either trolling or too hypocritical for words! Both lame, either way. --Loeba (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's started accusing me of having multiple accounts. Do I recall correctly that when he was banned from Sellers/Kubrick, he accused SchroCat and Cassianto of being the same person? It was really puzzling, but now I realise that maybe this is a way for him to rationalize the criticism he gets? That instead of having multiple editors who point out flaws in his edits, it's just one with multiple accounts who has a vendetta against him? Hmm, this is getting interesting. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Yes, an attempt to rationalize the criticism against him and all part of his tactics to continue to deter you from editing it. When I see Lightshow doing that I now see just the opposite, it would give me more reason to edit an article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld:, @Loeba: — phew, 'skeleton' for Taylor's acting career is up! Feel free to copyedit etc. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Cool. I see Spoto also authored a book on Taylor which looks good!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Taylor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mullum Malarum FAC[edit]

Kailash29792 has nominated the article for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added a new comment at the FAC. Please see and reply when you have time. BTW, congrats on your recent FAC success. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe the best thing ever[edit]

Oh my god, Susie and @Dr. Blofeld: you have to watch this. So so SO good! Ha, love it! --Loeba (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL!! You know I might work on Ginger Rogers sometime, I love her to bits. In my opinion one of the most gorgeous actresses but underrated in looks. Her eyes are about the same colour as mine LOL, I think that's the attraction ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't the editing and timing incredible?! I love Ginger as well, definitely one of my favourite classic stars. She was a big Republican which is a shame but (for me) but she's so much fun on screen. By the way THS, I'm giving Monroe another read through and making small copy edits as I go; as always, revert anything you disagree with. --Loeba (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like Cary Grant, with every film I see she grows on me and I get something new out of her. A wonderful comedienne too. I think I fell in love with her in Kitty Foyle.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow, that was really well made, I wonder how many hours they must've spent finding all the material! :D And thank you for the copyediting, I like all of the changes you've made! If you want to take a look at Liz Taylor as well, I won't mind ;) Aiming to re-write 'Illnesses & death' and 'Legacy' tomorrow. I think I'll nominate MM for FA on Monday. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

I'm a bit addicted to watching it haha, it makes me so happy. I'm sure it helps that I already love the song. There's a comment from the uploader saying it took him three weeks, so there you go! Yeah I will read through Liz, possibly tomorrow. --Loeba (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errol Flynn might be an interesting to do too. Can't say I'm a fan, but he was one of the most badass actors of that period which I'm sure would make a fascinating read!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Loeba: @Dr. Blofeld: I'm otherwise ready to take MM to FA review, but I noticed that there are still two reference mistakes which I don't know how to fix. I've used Thomas Harris' 1957 and Richard Dyer's 1978 (I think, have to re-check) essays, but they are included in Christine Gledhill's 1991 anthology. The problem is that at the moment both essays are shown as being from 1991, which is wrong, and I have no idea how to fix this so that the essays have different publ years from the anthology. Do you know how to do this? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Hmm, I've never had to tackle that. I guess the best option would be to use the "original year" parameter? Look at eg. how Chaplin's autobiography is formatted on his page. If there's a better way, you'll probably be shown it during the source review. Also, best to include the full page numbers for the chapters. Good luck with the nom, exciting!--Loeba (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the advice! I'm waiting for Wehwalt to let me know whether he is fine with me closing the peer review, and if he is, I'll then nominate for FA. Fingers crossed! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elizabeth Taylor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valentino. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jack Hemingway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vansockslayer (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's the price you pay for trying to protect the encyclopedia I'm afraid!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAC request[edit]

Hi TrueHeartSusie3, I see that you're a woman Wikipedian. Would you be interested in reviewing this nomination, which is about an Indian actress? I'll most probably review the Monroe FAC. Thanks, —Vensatry (Talk) 09:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, I'll give it a read tonight! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Thanks for your time. Would you mind striking out/collapsing the addressed concerns? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vensatry: Editors should be recognised here because of there contribution's, irrespective of there gender. Calling her a "woman wikipedian" was completely unnecessary. But its a result of the male-dominated society we live. Just my opinion. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh, I never knew "woman" is abusive in English Wikipedia. —Vensatry (Talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When did I mentioned that? I just think that you shouldn't have pointed that out, as you sounded like you have never talked to a female editor here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I "pointed" out her gender; she and her stalkers know she's a woman. Since the subject of my candidate is a woman, I thought she might be interested in reviewing it. Yes, I hardly come across/communicate with women editors here. You have a problem with that? —Vensatry (Talk) 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I see you're a women wikipedian" is enough proof for that, as you have completely misinterpreted my comment. Why would I have a problem with that, and why are you being angry on this? Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr. Punisher, that's not "pointing" out. I was rather telling it to "myself". I'm not angry, but you're being too judegmental. —Vensatry (Talk) 16:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to know that. This conversation is over. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amen! —Vensatry (Talk) 17:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vensatry: ..and thank you for leaving my FLC in the mid-way and not visiting it again. Amen to that as well. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vensatry:, @Yashthepunisher: — Yash, while you have a point in general, I think in this case Vensatry's done nothing wrong. I deliberately state that I'm a cis-woman on the userpage. I think it's important for me to declare that because of the imbalance of sexes here on Wikipedia, and the real problems that causes. It is good for editors to try to get as diverse group of people as possible reviewing their article(s). Vensatry, regarding Pinto and the peer review — I'll do some copyediting to the article tonight and get back to the review tomorrow. I hope you won't mind my changes — I think you have made some progress, and I hope that maybe if I demonstrate what I mean by the issues the article has by taking part in the actual developing of the article, you'll understand what I meant better (I'm under the impression that you are not a native speaker and hence I hope that many of our disagreements have to do with the language barrier – I'm not a native speaker either) and we can get Pinto to FA. Or at least, closer to FA. I can't give any promises, but I am really trying to help you here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Bingo TrueHeartSusie3! Glad for what you've said. Look forward to see some improvements in the article! —Vensatry (Talk) 18:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vensatry: I'll continue editing tomorrow, but I am sorry to say that even with my copyediting, this article is just not ready :( I'll explain in more detail tomorrow after my edits — I hope the fact that I've put so much of my time to this will demonstrate that my intentions are nothing but good. I've spent the evening going through the text again, sentence by sentence, and have checked every footnote and done additional reading on Pinto. I don't know you at all, but I want to assume that the shortcomings of the article are not deliberate but entirely accidental (i.e. that they were done in good faith), therefore please see my criticism and decision to not support the FA nom at this stage not as a defeat, but as a chance to learn and develop as an editor. I'll explain in more detail tomorrow as I'm too tired to continue editing/research any longer tonight. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
I just expressed what i felt at the spur of the moment. But, thank you for clarifying it yourself. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TrueHeartSusie3, can you do me a favour by striking out the concerns (which you think are addressed) in the FAC page. I'll implement the pending changes probably in a week's time. As for Rohan Antao being her former publicist, you might want to have a look at Relentlessly's thoughts at the per review. Thanks, —Vensatry (Talk) 06:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll restore the Rohan bit and do some more copyediting as promised. Once I'm done with that, I'll get back to the FA review and will explain in more detail what the article lacks and will strike those concerns which were taken care of. As I said, please understand that I'm just trying to help you. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Sure. I understand that! —Vensatry (Talk) 10:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vensatry: Ok, mostly done with my edits – have to take a break now (the edits took me 3 h!), will be back later for the FA comments and wrapping up my review.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm yet to go through the article. I'm busy in real life until the weekend, so my time here will be limited. May I request you to provide your overall feedback (on the review page) next Sunday? —Vensatry (Talk) 14:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem! :) I'd prefer to give my feedback/final decision tonight or tomorrow, depending on how much time it takes, but I can add a note stating that I'm aware that you won't be available until Sunday? I've not changed my view that the article is not yet FA standard, so there isn't anything that you need to reply to in detail – I'm just going to explain why I've come to this decision, and will strike the specific concerns which have been addressed from the list. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
I've added my comments, and mentioned that you don't need to reply to it, so it should be fine that you'll be away until Sunday. I'm sorry I couldn't support the FA nom and hope my help has aided you! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

I took a look at it too and sadly agree that it's not FA material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your revision of 11:54, 28 November 2015, to 'Charlie Chaplin'[edit]

@TrueHeartSusie3: You may have an interest in checking out: THIS. --- Professor JR (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have an issue with my conduct, I suggest you take it to ANI; I doubt you will do that though, since you have no case to argue and you probably realize that yourself. Otherwise, stop making completely unfounded claims about my behavior and respect the consensus that has been achieved regarding the filmmaker issue in CC's article. If you have an issue with something that has already been discussed several times, please open yet another discussion on the article's talk page. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Also, if you constantly end up in edit war situations here on WP, only with different people and in different articles, it might be worth considering that your conduct might be the issue. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

The Huffington Post[edit]

Why wouldn't you call it a reliable source? I was once told that a major news website can be considered a RS if it has a well-developed article on Wikipedia. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A reliable news media source is one which adheres to good journalistic practices, such as always stating their sources and being critical about them. It has nothing to do with how well-developed their article is on WP; many newspapers and magazines which are definitely not reliable, such as the Daily Mail and the National Enquirer, also have long and detailed WP articles. If in doubt about a source, I'd re-check Wikipedia: Reliable sources or even ask a more experienced editor. Hope this has been helpful! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Yes it does. But I thought you were going to say that THP fails WP:RS because of their reputation to report inaccurate information. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's exactly what I said though, so to further clarify: if a publication is not transparent about their sources (e.g. they write things like "sources close to X claim", "an unnamed insider says", or don't even mention having 'a source'), it's usually a sign that their information is inaccurate, or even completely false. Gossip magazines and tabloids rely on this type of reporting, presumably because they need to come up with scandalous stories every day/week to sell their publications, and because being vague about their source(s) allows them to legally get away with false/inaccurate claims (they can state that their anonymous 'source' lied to them etc.).
However, it's not enough for a publication to be transparent about their sources, they need to also be critical in choosing them. Take for example the current discussion about nutrition and health. Now, many people these days claim to be experts in nutrition, so when a publication wants to write about the topic, they have plenty of people to choose from. A reputable publication won't interview someone like Vani Hari as an expert on health and nutrition despite her claims that she is one and the fact that she has made a lot of money with this claim. This is because a quick background check shows that she 1.) doesn't have a degree in any scientific subject, let alone in nutrition or human health; 2.) her claims have been proven over and over again to be completely unscientific, and she is unable to back them up with evidence other than what she calls 'common sense'. Instead, a reputable publication will interview someone like Marion Nestle as an authority on nutrition and human health, given that she has the necessary scientific credentials and is well-esteemed in the scientific community for her research on this subject and doesn't base her claims on her opinions but on peer-reviewed research papers. If a publication is not critical and instead interviews someone like Vani Hari, they will most likely end up with an article that makes inaccurate claims.
In other words, not being transparent and source-critical is what leads to inaccurate information being published. The same goes for Wikipedia, of course — reputable information is the foundation of good journalism and of good WP articles. Hope this clarifies things up a bit — in addition, you might want to google "good journalistic practice" and check out Source criticism and the links in WP's Journalism template for additional information. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
In that case, James Tod and his works cannot be considered RS I guess. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that it's already stated in the lead that his writings are thought to be inaccurate I'd be extremely cautious when using them. But I'm confused, how is this related? Did you use his writings in the Mullum Malarum article? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
No. It convinces me that even if a source's Wikipedia article is FA, the source cannot be considered reliable if it is known for reporting wrong information, plagiarises other sources or relies on content from amateur or unreliable sources. Kindly check MM and see if your comments have been addressed, strike them if they have been. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monroe[edit]

Dear Suzie, I am not in the business of adding 'factoids' or edit warring. I am a long time editor of Wikipedia and I respect its conventions. I added these paras in order to support this part of the article. That Marilyn herself directly influenced a major magazine to use an established photojournalist known for a particular style of reportage - candid , available light photography - to promote her at this particular moment in her career, for quite clear reasons (in references I supply) is entirely relevant to this article. Please reconsider less reactively. Thank you,James

James McArdle www.mcardle-carrington.com

Mobile: 0411 275 289 Email: jamesmcardle@me.comsinarau (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jamesmcardle: Ok, that's good to know, I'm sorry if I ruffled some feathers! But with all due respect, this fact is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. Monroe was photographed by dozens of famous photographers (Eisenstaedt, Cartier-Bresson, Erwitt, Avedon, Beaton...) and was noted for her interest in and knowledge about photography; in fact, most photographers found her to be one of the best subjects they'd ever worked with, which was in stark contrast to the reputation she had in the film industry. Furthermore, none of the main biographies of Monroe mention the Red Book shoot. I'm not saying it's not an interesting fact, but it's just not notable enough to be included. There's an article called Marilyn Monroe in popular culture which has a section about the photographers she worked with, perhaps it would fit better there? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

PR[edit]

Hello TrueHeartSusie! I recently saw your review in an FAC which is about an Indian actress, and it was quite good. Would you mind reviewing this peer review for me? I would like to take it to FAC if I receive positive feedback from reviewers. -- Frankie talk 19:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Merry Christmas BTW!Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments; they were really helpful. Merry Christmas! -- Frankie talk 19:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FrB.TG: No worries, and merry Christmas to you too! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
Congratulations on bringing Marilyn Monroe to Featured Article status! A really excellent wiki-achievement that you should be very proud of =) Loeba (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

..And happy Christmas/Hyvää joulua! Hope you've had a lovely few days. --Loeba (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Flaming Joel-wiki celebrates events in our collective consciousness as highlighted by the Übermuse Billy Joel in his great song We Didn't Start the Fire...TrueHeartSusie3 wins one for her work on Marilyn Monroe and bringing it to FA standard. Well done! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Loeba:, @Casliber: – Thank you so much for these & for all the help! Merry Christmas as well, if you celebrate it! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Congrats from me as well :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, just noticed!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats, as I just noticed as well. Great job! Kierzek (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Again, thanks for the PR comments, quite helpful. However, this is for achieving an FA with Marilyn Monroe. Congratulations and happy new year! -- Frankie talk 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Writer's Barnstar
Wow! Truly a great accomplishment! Taking MM to FA! Great going, TrueHeartSusie!  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Two years ago ...
Charlie Chaplin
... you were recipient
no. 758 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today we enjoy Marilyn Monroe, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three years now, and Marylin mentioned as a model in a recent RfC ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... four years now, and still a model! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Gills' image of Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Dear TrueHeartSusie3., it's a real pity that you removed this image from the article... As it's about MM, why not having an image which is only showing her? Let me propose the following: Let's show Gill's portrait of MM in the legacy-part and the other one in the context of MM and society. Gill's painting shows MM as she was reflected in (pop-) art, while the actual image is more related to society and barely related to arts. Best regards,NORPpA (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NORPpA: My reasoning for the switch was that the 'Legacy' section is about MM's impact in culture... and she is arguably one of the most important cultural icons of the 20th century. I feel that the current image conveys this better in that it juxtaposes her with two other legends from different fields. The Gill image is part of a series on 50s/60s film stars, and just shows her face; it doesn't convey the same sense of MM being important outside film history. In an ideal situation, the image illustrating this section would be a Warhol, but alas that's not possible at this time. As for moving the current image to the section about her image, that wouldn't really work as that section is about her star image in the 1950s rather than the posthumous interpretations of that star image. Hope this clears things up :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3: If you look at the article about James Gill, you will find an image of MM from 1962 which was bought by the MoMA even before they bought one from Andy Warhol. The one which I chose is a modern interpretation and you will find it it most of the foreign Wikipedia articles about MM (eg. the ones in French and German). Ok but up to you, maybe you can put it somewhere else. I thought my idea of having both images in the article was not so bad...NORPpA (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could include it in Marilyn Monroe in popular culture? Unfortunately we cannot include all suitable images in an article. I wouldn't oppose the 1962 MM painting being included, but are you sure it can be used since it carries a pretty visible copyright mark? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]


@TrueHeartSusie3: Hi TrueHeartSusie3., yes you're right, it would also be a good idea to add it to Marilyn Monroe in popular culture. Sorry I loaded Pink Marilyn before reading your answer (I didn't notice that you wrote to me). The 1962 MM can definitely be used and I will try to get an image without the copyright mark. Just tell me what you think is better... For the moment I entered the portrait as a pop art-related interpretation because it fits really well. If you prefer the 1962 MM instead we can exchange bith images. Kind regards, NORPpA (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interview for the Wikimedia blog?[edit]

Hi Susie and Loeba,

I'm Ed Erhart, although you might know me better as The ed17 when I'm volunteering. I'm writing this in my role as an editorial associate with the Wikimedia Foundation.

I'm interested in doing an examination of the work that goes into writing a FA for the Wikimedia Blog—in this case, on Charlie Chaplin. I have a small suspicion that people in the real world have no idea how much work FA writers put in (a statement that could probably apply to the WMF too :-) ), and I think it would be intriguing to illuminate that.

With this in mind:

  1. What got you interested in Charlie Chaplin and that period of film history? What caused you to work on his article?
  2. What makes the Chaplin significant in world and/or North American history? Why does he still garner so much interest even today?
  3. Can you describe how writing a big-picture article (ie a large biography like Chaplin) differs from daughter articles (ie the individual films)?
  4. What sort of special research have you done to complete these articles? Do you feel like you could write an academic work on Chaplin yourselves now?
  5. What else do you think I should write about? Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I got pinged. Sounds good, it's nice that you've picked the Chaplin article to focus on! I'd be happy to help, but will wait for THS to chip in...especially since it's her talk page --Loeba (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a wonderful idea, I'd definitely be interested in doing this! To answer your questions (sorry if I'm a bit too verbose! Feel free to correct typos as well):
1.) I've been into film since my early teens, and became interested in Chaplin's work after I saw a clip from one of his silent comedies on television. Like many people, I'd previously ignored silent films as too difficult and boring, even naïve. So I was positively surprised when I realised how modern Chaplin's films still feel, and started watching more silents from other genres as well. It's true that silents differ from sound films in many ways, but that's part of the attraction; I think watching silent films made me for the first time truly aware of the possibilities of film as a medium of expression. The first decades of film history are also fascinating because film was such a new medium at the time, everything we take granted about films was just being invented through trial and error.
I think quite soon after I'd started watching Chaplin's films I read his Wikipedia article, which wasn't in very good shape. I noticed Loeba's message on the talk page asking for people to collaborate with her in improving it and decided to join WP to help her. I was attracted to the idea of editing Wikipedia because I enjoy researching and writing informative articles, and because I think that Wikipedia plays a very important role in current society. If you Google almost any topic, a WP article usually pops up first – I don't think I'm wrong if I say that WP is one of the most important (online) sources of information these days, even though people are well aware of the possibility of it being inaccurate. This is why I'm in general motivated to spend a lot of time on improving articles – because they do have a real impact on how we perceive different topics.
2.) Chaplin is historically important for several reasons! He was one of the first superstars of film — we now take for granted that film stars are a central part of our culture, and are famous all over the world, but this was something quite new at the time. Chaplin was also a pioneer as a filmmaker: he had a very strong vision of what he wanted to do with his films, seeing them as more than just cheap entertainment, and was pretty fearless in experimenting. He was one of the first to popularize feature-length comedy films, and was also a pioneer in making himself and his most famous film character into a recognizable brand. He was one of the founders of United Artists, thus being able to remain independent during the studio era. I think he also came to symbolize the early twentieth century in general, as he personifies the American Dream — a poor immigrant who becomes a millionaire by sheer talent and perseverance.
As for why he is still so popular – that's a very good question. I don't think it's purely because of his superstar status during his lifetime, as many big stars of the silent era have become names known only by the relatively small group of people interested in silent film. I think it's probably a combination of things. Since his big breakthrough in the 1910s, Chaplin never returned to obscurity, even when he became subject to public hate. Furthermore, because he was perceived as an artist already during his lifetime, he has always attracted more interest in comparison to those film stars who were simply seen as entertainers or studio products. Chaplin was also very smart about preserving his films, ensuring that they can be seen by people almost a century after they were made. Most importantly though, I think Chaplin's films are simultaneously very accessible and profound. Although they naturally reflect the time they were made in, their themes are timeless and the character of the Little Tramp is still very relatable – especially in these times of economic recession. They're simply very good films!
3.) I'm not a very prolific editor, and prefer to work on long biographical articles, so I can't really compare the two. However, I can describe the process of researching and writing a long article like Chaplin's... it was a lot of work, I think we worked for a year or so. I don't think either Loeba or I would've even contemplated undertaking it alone. With someone like Chaplin, there are so many sources that just reading through those takes a lot of time. Then there's the issue of deciding what should go in the article when there are so many interesting things to write about. Once the first version is up, some serious editing needs to be done for the article to not be too long and exhausting for the casual reader — this is perhaps the longest and trickiest part of the process. The most frustrating part is the endless edit warring and talk page 'discussing' with editors who have strong and inflexible personal opinions on the subject without actually having done that much (academic) research.
4.) We mostly used books and journal articles for the research. The article cites around 50 sources, but I think we probably read a lot more. As for pursuing academic research, I'm not sure I would feel confident enough to do that as it tends to involve much more archival research, but the work I did for the article raised some questions which I think should be explored further by film historians. I think it could be interesting to analyze Chaplin's films and career with focus on gender history, as I don't think that's been done before.
5.) Firstly, I think it could important to discuss how Wikipedia could attract more editors, especially to articles on more niche topics like the silent era. Many silent film fans want to do their part in preserving the history of this era: there are several very active online forums and many dedicate a lot of time to running their own websites and blogs on silent film. How could we attract these people to Wikipedia? I think Wikipedia could be a wonderful platform for providing people access to film history! Editing long articles like Chaplin's gets exhausting if you're doing it alone, so we need more people to collaborate. Secondly, I think it's important to continue the discussion on Wikipedia and inclusion. If Wikipedia wants to truly set itself apart from traditional encyclopedias, then it needs to strive to represent global knowledge/viewpoints as opposed to just Western. I think many editors feel offended by the media's pointing out that most editors are white and male because they feel this criticism is directed towards their work, which is not true. I can definitely understand why editors might be easily offended – after all, the majority of us are spending our free time and money on this project with the sincere wish of making information more accessible. But people also need to understand that systemic bias is very real – Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's TED talk The Danger of a Single Story explains this very well. How can we better ensure that Wikipedia doesn't just reflect the experience and worldview of one group of people? I think this is something that should be taken more into account in the FA process as well.
These were just my preliminary ideas, feel free to ask more questions! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Thanks, Susie! I'm hoping to start writing this soon, but I'd also like to hear Loeba's thoughts as well. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course! I think Loeba did at least about 70% of the work by the way, so you might want to place more weight on her answers :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Psssh, no way, equal weight for us both. @The ed17: Where shall I write my answers? Just put them here? --Loeba (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Loeba:, yes please! And my apologies for the delay, I have been swamped with job-related work plus the leadup/fallout from this. :-) This interview may take a little bit to be posted, but I'm committed to getting it published—and if you're okay with waiting a little longer, how about on the anniversary of Chaplin's birthday? Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries! That sounds like a wonderful idea! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Sorry guys, I haven't logged in for ages and forgot about this - until I saw a Chaplin book in a shop today and thought "Ohhh yeah". I will try and write my answers tomorrow! --Loeba (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay I'm finally doing this! Sorry again, wikipedia really hasn't been on my mind lately. I also wrote quite a lot, I hope you can structure something decent from both our answers..!

Answers from Loeba

What got you interested in Charlie Chaplin and that period of film history? What caused you to work on his article? I'll be honest that I didn't have any interest in him growing up. I remember seeing a Chaplin short when I was a kid, but didn't care for it; I think most of my early life I assumed he was silly and annoying! I was closed-minded to any films made before, say, the 1970s. But in my early 20s I started to get really interested in cinema, and realised there's was loads of talent and charm in the early stuff. I've always been deeply interested in 20th century history, so I also embraced classic films as a way to "go back in time". This is still part of the reason I love watching old stuff. Anyway: when this was brewing (probably 2010) I caught Richard Attenborough's Chaplin biopic was on TV. It's not a great film, but it traces his fascinating life and demonstrates his charm. It was enough to spark my interest: I loved his Dickensian childhood, how lefty and political he was, how completely and passionately he controlled his work...The first feature of his I watched was The Kid (the first silent I ever watched, in fact) and I was surprised how much I loved it. I watched more, and loved them as well. I decided to order his autobiography, which is such a great read. By then I had caught the Wikipedia bug, and I decided Chaplin would make a great project and I'd genuinely be interested to research his life and write about it. I first proposed overhauling the article in November 2011, making a plea for collaborators, but didn't actually start until April 2012. I think I'd written two or three sections when TrueHeartSusie got in touch to say she'd like to help. So that's how it began!

What makes the Chaplin significant in world and/or North American history? Why does he still garner so much interest even today? I think because he's genuinely so good. Obviously he was such a huge star in his lifetime, and for such a long time, that he inevitably became a part of cultural history. That was always going to happen, especially with the distinctive Tramp look that makes for a great image. But I don't think that would be enough to still generate enthusiasm if he wasn't brilliantly entertaining. I showed The Circus (film) to my mum and sister - my mum was born in 1950 but couldn't remember fully seeing one of his films before - and they loved it! They didn't expect to, but it's so funny and easy to watch. I remember my mum making a Facebook status with something like "Just watched The Circus, and now understand why Chaplin is so popular." The films are great, simple as that, and hold up perfectly. Add that to his very interesting life story: the "rags to riches" tale, the unprecedented level of popularity followed by the dramatic rejection, the politics, the controversial womanising...He was a complicated man, and there's plenty there to maintain interest. Film buffs are particularly interested in the level of control he had over productions; that's very rare in the industry.

Can you describe how writing a big-picture article (ie a large biography like Chaplin) differs from daughter articles (ie the individual films)? Like THS I can't comment on how it compares to working on film articles, since I've never done that. I'll use this question to talk about writing an FA on a core article. In short: it's hard work! With these major figures there's always loads to talk about, and so much literature out there, that the articles are inevitably very long (even when you consciously try and be succinct, and chose things to leave out). You don't want to deprive readers of key/juicy information! Alongside the life story, there's also "analytical" sections to write (artistry, legacy) if you want to be comprehensive. These are quite tricky and require loads of research.

You're aware of how many people will be reading the article, so there's real pressure to produce high-quality stuff. I'd also decided from the start that I'd like to get the article to FA, which meant paying close attention that everything is referenced (literally every detail, no matter how obviously true it is, FAC expects to be sourced; even if it means citing 3 sources for one sentence), always written entirely in my own words, following the MOS, mentioning numerous sources. On a personal level, writing actually doesn't come naturally to me, so I work pretty damn slowly. Add all these factors together, and it takes a long time. Then once you're "finished" you still need to go through the whole thing to trim excess detail (I cut about 1000 words from Chaplin), copy edit, make sure the sources are perfectly formatted. Even once all this is done you still need to go through several reviews before getting FA status, and make changes based on those, which adds on more time. Thank god THS was able to work on it as well - we split the sections between us - otherwise it just wouldn't have happened. Some people seem able to write huge FAs on their own, which I find crazy and admirable, but I think I'd still be finishing Chaplin now! I'll tell you one thing: it's essential to have a passionate interest in the subject if you're going to take on an article like this.

What sort of special research have you done to complete these articles? Do you feel like you could write an academic work on Chaplin yourselves now? Looking at my shelves, I seem to own eight Chaplin books. I think I read about five of these cover-to-cover, and I'd basically keep notes in my phone as I read. The others I read bits of, and there were also other film books I have that I made use of. I used Google Books to read chapters and get information from multiple other sources. We knew that for an FA on a figure like Chaplin they'd expect extensive research, so we consciously sought out as much stuff as possible. Then there's the images, which is an area many people don't consider. I think these are really important, so (for my previous FA) I spent a long time learning about US copyright law (yep, seriously) so that I could include good ones (FAC looks very closely at copyright). On that article and Chaplin I'd spend time seeking out good images (high quality, but also demonstrating something interesting about his life), and checking that they're out of copyright (searching in the renewal records). It's surprisingly time consuming, and I added all but about 3 of the images on the article. They really make a difference though, so to me it's worth it.

Could I write an essay on Chaplin? Well, I'm no academic, and I'm not really interested in thinking about film that way, but I'd probably have the knowledge to...I hardly every come across a Chaplin fact that I don't know. I literally feel like I know almost everything about him there is to know, heh. I've seen all his features (several times) and about half his shorts, so I have good understanding of his filmmaking as well. This doesn't mean I could write a decent essay on him though: that's a specific skill. Who knows until I try...which I won't.

What else do you think I should write about? I've managed to cover the process pretty thoroughly, I think we're good!

I'll ping both your accounts so you can find this @The ed17 and Ed Erhart (WMF): Thanks again for approaching us. It would be lovely to have the blog out on his birthday, but no worries if not - take all the time you need. Let me know when it's done. Cheers! --Loeba (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Lives of a Bengal Lancer[edit]

An epic Hollywood adventure film from 1935 starring Gary Cooper. I'm trying to get this article to FA-status. Would be nice if you would take a look and perhaps do some copyediting or leave some suggestions on the talk page, that is, if you currently have the time. Let me know. Regards, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 13:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Jonas Vinther:, unfortunately I'm so busy with things in my 'real' life at the moment that I don't think that I can commit to a FA review. Best of luck though, I'm sure you won't have any issue getting the FA status! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Marilyn divorced from Joe in 55 or 54 ?[edit]

Hello Susie, I saw in the Marilyn Monroe infobox that she married Joe DiMaggio in 54 and divorced in 55, but don't they divorced October 27, 1954 ? Please have a look at this article --> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/marilyn-free-love-caught-cold-joe-article-1.2009811 Thanks. --Danielvis08 (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monroe filed for divorce in October 1954, but the divorce wasn't finalized until a year later. Hope this clears things up! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
All my congratulations for your wonderful Wikipedia contributions in general and your input towards film in particular. All my very best wishes for "une bonne continuité" (continued excellent progress). with appreciation, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For all your recent reduction to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. It was well-needed. Keep up the good work! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I appreciate your edits on the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis article, one which I ruined with every word I typed, according to some of the other editors on here. You did a great job condensing that atrocious text that I branded onto the page. As that Barnstar said, it was a much needed improvement over the trashy and horrendous quality of my entries, almost disgusting to even think about. I see you've also improved on some other articles as well and for those I thank you again. I dread to think how horrible I would have made those pages. My entries on there might have ruined the entire site. Where did you develop these superb skills in writing? I should have gone to your schools. Maybe I could have learned a thing or two about writing and knowing what's notable and what is not, as opposed to the limited skills I have, according to the Wikipedia census. Informant16 8 April 2016

Informant16, no one said any such thing(s) to or about you. Give it a rest and drop the stick, please. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. They didn't say it, they wrote it. Who knew working for nothing was supposed to be rewarding? Informant16 9 April 2016
I'm going to kindly ask you two to take this discussion somewhere else. Please continue it in your respective talk pages instead. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Sure. Wouldn't want to desecrate your talk page any further with my grotesque lacking of writing skills. Informant16 9 April 2016

Recent removals of content and reversion[edit]

At the Jacqueline Kennedy article, you recently removed valid content and replaced content that was POV and said in wiki-voice. Diff here. You need to walk that revert back and discuss same on the talk page per the WP:BRD cycle. Reminder: it's BRD, BRRD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Winkelvi, how was what I added POV, can you explain? Jack Bouvier's problems are well-established and seem to be discussed in every biography, even in the NYT obituary, I'm therefore really struggling to see how the facts that Bouvier was an alcoholic, had extramarital affairs and never recovered financially from the 1929 crash are POV? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
I've started a discussion on the situation at the article talk page. Please discuss there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Teamwork Barnstar
For your excellent work on Charlie Chaplin. The interview we did with you and Loeba is now published on the blog! :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feeling like a Wikipedia celebrity now THS?! Haha. I love what you said about Chaplin's popularity, you nailed it :) --Loeba (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hahah, thank you! :) And thanks for replying to Checkingfax, I think you put it very well! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
You should both be celebrities! :-) Thanks, THS! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, thank you! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

By the way, did you notice that the Chaplin museum has finally opened? There's a nice video here, though it may not play outside of Britain. It looks amaazing, I seriously think I need to take a minibreak to Switzerland...Tickets aren't even that expensive (£17). --Loeba (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of you gain more recognition because of that published interview. The museum definitely sounds like an interesting visit, to say the least. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does look good! The Chaplin archives in Bologna is also a place I'd like to visit. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Audrey[edit]

GA or FA? Great to see somebody finally taking it on. Glad you're still editing too, Loeba hasn't been around much in recent months.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That remains to be seen, today's edits were very spontaneous :D How's the Cary Grant project going? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Me and Doc have come up to his stardom beginning (1937 films). I'm also working on Richard Burton. What's your opinion of the content so far? I would appreciate it if you did an informal peer review before I nominate it for GA as you have worked on Liz and would know about Burton too. Best of luck on Hepburn if you're planning on GA or FA. Speaking of Liz, how's it going with her article?  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be happy to help! Though I'm not sure how much I know about Burton, but of course I can comment on the parts which are also about Liz. How far have you gotten so far? Until 1968? The one thing I can say immediately is that you need to make the paragraphs shorter, it's easier to take in that way :) Unfortunately I haven't had time to properly read the article yet, and I'll be away from Wikipedia next week, but I'll get to it after that! As for Liz, I think I'm done with the article for the moment. Very tempted to continue on Audrey, but I'm not sure if that'll happen. On the other hand, the article does have a pretty good 'skeleton' already, it just needs more analysis and sources... I know that I'll definitely be trying to get MM for TFA for 1 June (her birthday) though! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Been too busy with WP:Atdrag to continue with Grant, should have more time next month for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you Welsh, by the way? Will be looking forward to Grant :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Yep, Doc is. Diolch yn fawr, TrueHeartSusie3 (Thank you very much. A small attempt in Welsh). I've gotten up until Cleopatra (not including). Will resume later today. His article is quite a big undertaking and he has done some famous stage and radio roles. So, that's probably the reason why the paragraphs are long. I'll see where to make them short once I've completed the expansion.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 1, 2016[edit]

Hi Susie, I'll start trimming this one tomorrow. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Dank:, happy to hear about the article being featured on the front page! Would this thing I've been working on in my sandbox work as TFA description? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Hi Susie, just letting you know that I didn't get that ping ... grrr, the ping feature is still broken. (It almost always works if you use just one edit, and it's signed and just one or two lines. When you made the second edit, that may have broken it.) Hope you like the TFA text. Enjoy your TFA day. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries & thank you! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Hi Andrew, thank you for your message and comments; Laurel and Hardy are definitely among my favourites as well! As for your issue with the blurb. While Monroe's first job was at an air craft factory, I'm not sure I'd call it the beginning of her career. The impression I've gotten from the biographies I've read is that Monroe began working at the factory because she needed something to do while her husband was overseas, and because in general women were encouraged to participate in the war effort; it wasn't something she was looking to do longterm, and she would've returned to being a housewife once the men came back from war. Modeling was something Monroe pursued as a legitimate career (against her husband's wishes), and it was through modeling that she landed her first film contract. During the early years of her acting career, she was essentially a model/actor, working in both fields at the same time. So in other words, while Monroe's first job was indeed in an air craft factory, her career began with modeling. To further explain the difference; if you were writing about a CEO whose first job was frying burgers at McDonalds while completing their undergrad — you wouldn't write "They began their career as a restaurant worker at McDonalds."; you'd write "They began their career [insert first job directly linked to why this person is well-known, e.g. in the marketing dept for Brand X]".
I could've written "While working in an aircraft factory, Monroe was spotted by a photographer taking pictures for Yank, and began a career in pin-up modeling." or something like that, but here I was limited by the word count for the blurb, which necessitated (extreme) simplification — basically, I had to tell who Monroe was and why she is important in only one paragraph. Hope this clears things up! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Oh, and furthermore, note that Monroe wasn't actually featured in Yank, despite David Conover liking her. So to my best knowledge, she never did any "Rosie the Riveter" type of modeling in any publication. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. About Yank, I looked at the picture (right) which seemed to have been used by them. Are you saying that it wasn't? Andrew D. (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of her photos from that session were used. They must've been released later, once Monroe became famous. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Congrats on yesterday's TFA, hope the damage inflicted by random idiots wasn't too great. Yes, I've resumed with Cary Grant now. Did you also intend getting ET to GA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool, congratulations!! Isn't it weird to imagine her still alive now at 90...I think she'd be regarded very differently, to be honest. --Loeba (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you both, @Dr. Blofeld: and @Loeba:! Surprisingly there were very few random idiots, and just one bout of vandalism! I'm not undertaking any new projects at the moment, just doing tweaks here and there whenever the inspiration strikes me. I'm keeping tabs on the progress on Grant though! Also, regarding Light show — if you and others are thinking of going to ANI requesting a full ban or similar, let me know. I've been on the verge of going to ANI regarding his behaviour (not just the way in which he tries to hinder other people's work in any way he can, but the occasional plagiarism as well) before. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Congratulations on your work![edit]

File:Marilyn 01 HaviArt-ipad-template.jpg
An artwork of Monroe by Havi Schanz.

"I restore myself when I'm alone.
A career is born in public —
talent in privacy."
—— As quoted in Ms. magazine (August 1972) p. 40

"I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate on your work for Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin, I appreciate your hard work and commitment, cheers. ^.^ " -- User:LoveFromBJM (talk)

Thank you for the kind words (and the lovely image & quote) @LoveFromBJM:! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3:, you're welcome. Anyway I have read your biography at your userpage, saw that you are from Northern Europe and am interested to know which country are you from? User:LoveFromBJM (talk)

Natalie Wood[edit]

Planning on Natalie Wood next. It's a case of either quitting or ignoring the idiots!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you or Loeba find anything more on Hannah Chaplin?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good luck with Wood! To be honest, I'm not sure Hannah Chaplin needs an article of her own; wasn't it already deleted at one point? Furthermore, the current article seems to contain false information, I'm pretty sure her music hall career was limited to a couple of minor appearances as a chorus girl or something. Let's focus on the real stars ;) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
I don't agree, Ipigott has done a really good job writing the article and has shown that she's a notable entry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She's only notable as Chaplin's mother though, so I don't think the article meets WP notability guidelines. I don't really care if we have an article on her, but my advice would be to be very cautious with the sources. For example, the Barry & Chaplin book seems to take Chaplin's autobiography and public recollections as the truth, when the reality is that there's little corroborating evidence and often contradictory evidence for the claims he makes. For example, the dramatic episode at Aldershot where she lost her voice and Chaplin went on stage to replace her... apparently there's absolutely no evidence that this happened, or that a Lily Harley/Hannah Chaplin performed that night, or at any point during Chaplin's lifetime.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

I haven't edited the article. Perhaps Ipigott is the one you're looking for?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A world without Chaplin[edit]

While writing on him, have you ever pondered on a world without the great artist? Who do you think would not have made their mark in the film industry if Chaplin wasn't around? To me, the first few people who crop up are Cary Grant, Woody Allen, Marlon Brando, Jerry Lewis and, of course, Mr. Bean.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for not replying for such a long time, @Ssven2:!! Hmm, I tend to think that if Chaplin hadn't lived, then someone else would probably have brought about the same innovations in cinema. But yes, his impact was great and I doubt there are many performers or film directors who aren't in some ways indebted to him. It's incredible watching some other silent films which haven't aged so well and comparing them to Chaplin – how fresh and relevant his silents still seem! Same with Murnau's films, I think. How's the Burton article, btw? Do you want feedback yet or is it still a work-in-progress? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie#Reply[reply]
Still a work-in-progress, yep. I'm planning to take it slowly (like how Loeba is doing it with Wong Kar-wai).  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. You have new messages at We hope's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Re; Marilyn Monroe photos[edit]

I see we also got the Asphalt Jungle photo from that magazine too. The entire magazine is out of copyright, so anything you see there in the way of photos can be used. Just copy the file information from here and change the link for the photo (source) to the page the photo is on in the magazine.

I see the Marilyn-Arthur Miller marriage photo is here on page 22-the same page where the Actors Studio and some childhood pics are. This is a better and larger photo of the marriage one in the magazine. You can use it as the uploaded photo. It's a larger, better quality one than the magazine has--it's also identical to the one you were interested in here. Just ask if you need anything else ;-) We hope (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much, @We hope:! Could you check whether a magazine called Film Bulletin is still under copyright? Because if not, I think I hit a goldmine when it comes to Bus Stop publicity stills! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Also, what about Screenland?-Susie
All of the magazines are supposed to be in the PD, but I check them to be sure because we've run into some films & trailers which had no copyright marks there or on YouTube but when viewed at places like TCM, the notice was there. ;-) For Film Bulletin:
  • A search at copyright.gov for the title Film Bulletin turned up no information. There's no evidence of renewal for this magazine.
larger copy of third photo down. We hope (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
larger copy of second photo down. We hope (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
larger copy of fourth photo down. We hope (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you tell me what issue of Screenland, I'll look that up too. ;-) We hope (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!! I think it was a March 1955 issue? Do you think we could use a color version of the fourth photo, e.g. a cropped version of this? Now if we could only find photo from either the 1962 Golden Globe ceremony or from the set of Something's Got to Give, the article would be pretty near perfect when it comes to images! I think I went through every issue of Modern Screen and Screenland today, but no luck. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
A check at copyright.gov turned up no renewals for Screenland-only newer registrations for products not related to books or magazines. I've never changed B&W to color or vice-versa except in cases when I was working with a lobby card and it was originally done with no copyright marks. Not sure if there might be some issues since the lobby card we're now talking about has a copyright notice.
When the colorization process began with older B&W films it allowed the studios to seek new copyrights because it was a substantial change. I remember working with some 1930s Three Stooges films; Columbia allowed the original B&W films to enter the PD, but slapped brand new copyrights on the colorized versions. So anything taken from those films--the originals-- is in the PD but anything taken from the colorized films is very much under copyright. We hope (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bus Stop is a Technicolor film though, would that make a difference? I guess some of the publications featuring stills from the film just didn't have the funds to print in color, hence b/w. Not that it necessary matters, the images you found are wonderful anyway!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie?Reply[reply]
See if you like this: File:Marilyn Monroe aboard Air Force Jet to Korea 1954.jpg We hope (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ooh, I definitely like it! Once again, thank you so much! Some more questions (tracking photos is getting addictive):
Let me work with this later because I'll need to round up some additional proof that this is from the year stated.
  • Since Modern Screen is no longer copyrighted, does that mean that its covers are also PD? Because a version of this would be wonderful as an infobox photo. The problem is that the cover is missing from the Internet Archive, although the first page does show that Monroe was on the cover, and an eBay listing for the issue shows that the contents match.
OK-since the cover's missing from the Archive copy, the description of the cover photo should work for showing publisher and date. When the magazine is out of copyright, everything in it is also unless it was marked as copyrighted. The cover photo would need to have a copyright notice printed with it for that to be a possibility. There has been some commotion about some Yousuf Karsh photos that were used on magazines. In some, the photos were marked with a Karsh copyright, and those may not be in the PD because it would depend on whether the Karsh photo copyright was renewed.
I'm thinking of using just the same photo without the text; should I upload both a copy of the cover and then the 'bare' photo?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
  • I take it you have access to Newspapers.com? Could you check for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner around June 7–July 1, 1962, as according to this clipping they featured a photo from the set of Something's Got to Give.
Let me check this as I have both Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive. Need to see if they have the Herald Examiner as part of their papers. We hope (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) I browsed the Marilyn Monroe's Wikicommons category a few months ago and have found that there's actually a picture of Marilyn Monroe when she did shoots for calendar photos by the ocean in the 1940s (according to the description given) placed in the Marilyn Monroe in art category, this is the picture, I noticed you're searching images from her modeling career and this might help. It was actually uploaded by We Hope back in 2013. The picture doesn't state the photographer and the date captured, I did search the image on google, and this is the result, some same pictures appeared in the search result but I couldn't find the information indicating the photographer or the date captured, there's a series of Monroe's modelling-by-the-beach pictures which was also captured by Andre de Dienes in 1945 and by the time she still has her natural hair colour, I wonder maybe it might come from the same source? And if is, is it copyrighted? User:LoveFromBJM (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2016

At least two other postcards of her were published by Tichnor Brosof Boston. They have no copyright marks on them or mention of photographer and were published before 1964, as the company's address on the back has a zone number on it; Zip Codes began replacing zone numbers in 1963. I saw one photo at the Google link that was taken by this photographer. It was purchased by Family Circle magazine. The issue and cover are under copyright because the magazine's publisher was dilligent about renewing their back issues. We hope (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a book which includes all of the collaborations between De Dienes and Monroe, and I don't think that postcard image is one of them. I've been considering using it, but it's definitely a 1946 image, and since I like to have the images featured chronologically, it just doesn't fit. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Hi Susie, I see you've been having trouble with LS! Are you sure the new photo in the infobox is better quality? Her position looks a bit awkward and the background a little blurry, I thought the other one was a better image, more classic looking, but up to you!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, I can't decide whether he's trolling or whether he actually means the things he says? I think the next time he shows up, it's ANI time. I'm puzzled about his upload ban though – I thought he was still banned? As for the infobox photo – I chose it not because it's better in terms of quality (it's less grainy / yellow tinted but it definitely could be of better resolution) but because I think it's more versatile. At first I thought we definitely should have an image where Monroe is posing as a sex symbol or playing the 'dumb blonde', but then I realised that a lot of people still find it difficult to understand that she was actually acting when playing Lorelei Lee etc. When we chose the infobox image for Chaplin, we went with an image of him as himself, not in the role of the Little Tramp, because the article is on him, not just on him in that role. So I thought – why am I not following this same idea with Monroe? I think the current image is more versatile because it shows Monroe both as a sex symbol (she's wearing a tight sweater and has a classic Monroe hairdo), but her facial expression is different, more mature and intelligent; her clothes and the setting are also more casual than Hollywood glam . I think having an infobox image that doesn't stress the dumb blonde role too much allows the readers to better grasp the idea that it was just one of her roles, albeit the most famous one. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Seeing his edit patterns of late, I'd say trolling constitutes most of it. He's looking to spark a reaction from people by saying a section is loaded with trivia. Having experienced this sort of thing on the Kubrick and Grant articles, remain positive, I know just how irritating it can be, curbs enthusiasm for contributing here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! :) None of them are making particularly bright comments on the talk page, so I doubt they'll keep it up for long. Except maybe for Winkelvi, who has issues every time something negative about someone's personal life is mentioned. I don't think he is trolling, but he fails to understand other people's perspectives, perhaps because of his autism. I'm going to start overhauling Frida Kahlo next, I hope LS doesn't turn up there, he doesn't seem to have an interest in artists. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Something's Gotta Give[edit]

Will be working on Laff next. Found some photos from Something's Gotta Give. We hope (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A search for renewal at copyright.gov turned up no listings using the newspaper's title. There's no evidence of continuing copyright for the newspaper. Copyright not renewed


A search for renewal at copyright.gov turned up no listings using the newspaper's title. There's no evidence of continuing copyright for the newspaper. Copyright not renewed

You're a star! Thank you so much! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Laff[edit]

File:Marilyn1962.PNG This is now in the PD if you have use for it. Also can get some photos of the scenes surrounding the death if you want or need them--her bedroom and so on. These were in old newspapers. We hope (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! @We hope: one more question – is Photoplay copyrighted? I gave up on finding a clear version of the Modern Screen cover, but think that this image, featured on the cover of Dec. 1953 issue, could work.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Let me try to find some proof that this is the December 1953 issue and then I'll take a look. I don't believe it was renewed, but we need to be able to prove somehow that this is their issue from December 1953. We hope (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frida Kahlo[edit]

I am sorry to see you have run into "resistance" in your efforts to improve this article and in your desire to bring it up to GA. I can only think that regular editors therein are suffering from a touch of WP:OWN. I commented on the talk page since you had mentioned my name therein when discussing updating the citation method used. Good luck in carrying forward on that article and obtaining consensus. I am sure some of them will come around on matters; at least I hope so. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Yeah, I'm baffled, I never imagined such a hassle would develop over this issue! One would think they'd be happy to see someone finally dedicating time to overhauling the article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

WIkipedia:Peer review/Andha Naal/archive1[edit]

Kailash29792 has aimed to make it an FA. Feel free to leave comments and do let me or him know if you intend to do so by pinging either of us. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Golden Hollywood contest[edit]

I don't know if you, Loeba and Bede735 and others would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest.Even if you might not participate I need some names signed to show support for it. The idea would be a daily prize like a DVD, or book etc for whoever produces the most content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I probably won't have time to participate, but I definitely support this! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frida Kahlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angel of Death. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question[edit]

Hey Susie! I've got a quick question for you, if you have a moment. Can you email me at eerhart@wikimedia.org? Thank you :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, email sent! Sorry for not being able to do it earlier! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis[edit]

Hello - an edit you made on this page had a serious factual error: Helen Thomas was not Jacqueline's press secretary. I do not know how that error could have happened, and I did not notice it before - someone corrected it now. I don't have the source book you used for your edits - can you please go over them and confirm with other reliable sources that any other material you entered is factually correct. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On second look - it may not have been your edit that introduced the error. Sorry - let me check further on this. Tvoz/talk 20:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it does appear that this edit of yours is where the incorrect information on her press secretary was added. (If you got it from an earlier edit, please point me to it.) So, I would appreciate it if you could go over the factual additions you made from that source, to be sure they are correct. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 20:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, first of all, sorry for introducing the error, it was a complete mistake! I'm not an expert on Kennedy Onassis at all, I just assisted in copy-editing the article and in the course of doing that read a couple of interesting articles and added information from them where it seemed like there were too obvious gaps in the article. I'll try to find time to go over the article again, but I'm not sure when that will be unfortunately (work + caring for a sick relative at the moment), as I'm currently struggling to find time for Wikipedia and to even finish my own ongoing projects here. I doubt there are other errors though as I did not add that much "easily mistakable" material (e.g. dates, names). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
I didn't think it was anything other than an honest mistake - just was an odd one. If you do find the source article that made that erroneous statement, maybe you can just check if you got anything else from it along those lines. I think the reason it wasn't caught earlier is that Helen Thomas is a well-known journalist and without thinking about it, it doesn't stick out. I should have known better! Glad someone caught it all these months later. Thanks Tvoz/talk 00:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference errors on 19 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas to all![edit]

We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2017!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best wishes to you and yours![edit]

Hello TrueHeartSusie3: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Pauciloquence (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings)) to send this message

Monroe photo[edit]

There are a lot of larger copies of the current lead photo available. What about choosing one of them and sending it to the WP photo lab for some sharpening, etc?

Tineye

106 hits at TinEye

These are just a few of the larger copies--take a look through what TinEye brought up and find one you think would be good for the WP photo lab to give a try re: cleaning, sharpening. We hope (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amber Heard[edit]

No, you were right — I hadn't noticed that someone had stuck a date in that the cites there did not support. Thank you for going back in and correcting it. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Your eyes needed at Monroe[edit]

Guess who is back and really making a lot of changes? I'm afraid some of them may not be in agreement with what the references from the books say; I see no changes in citations from him. You have the books available to check to see if what's been changed still agrees with your refs, so thought I'd let you know. We hope (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
User: We hope, do you happen to know anything about copyright on paintings? I'm working on Frida Kahlo's article and the problem is that since she's been dead for less than 100 years, I think most of her paintings are considered non-PD. What should I do in a situation like this? It would be bizarre to have an article on an artist without somehow featuring their major works. Should I include external links to images of the paintings like in for example Cindy Sherman? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
You're going to be limited in the non-free images that can be used, but can use some if they're the subject of critical commentary (article discussion re: certain painting-style, background/history of how it was created, etc.). You can use ref links to others, sure. Sorry, but the non-free content rules are pretty tough. Having a look at the articles for other contemporary artists, the images used in them and how they're used might help. ;) We hope (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frida Kahlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modigliani. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frida Kahlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page What the Water Gave Me. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea how so much could be not right with a FA, but....[edit]

Have a look to see if these changes are in keeping with your refs. We hope (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for the notice, I'm keeping an eye on it :) Currently wondering whether I should take Light show to ANI or not for the nationality campaign and his general disruptive editing on CC, which has continued since 2012. Never been involved in any ANI business so a bit wary of it... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
They're now asking you to move it from ANI to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I will comment, so waiting for a possible move there. We hope (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you move it, just make sure to give notice that it's at AN so it can't be said he didn't know where to find the complaint. We hope (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've moved it and notified Light show :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Take it back to ANI if you want but leave the archive alone.' Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toddst1 & NeilN:I apologize, I was not aware that it was forbidden to edit the archive; I thought that since the discussion was never closed it would be ok. As no resolution was reached in the discussion before, should I copy-paste it to AN again instead? I've never been involved in any AN business so I am not aware as to what the correct procedure is. I first began the discussion at ANI, but was told to take it to AN, which I did. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Or would starting a new discussion and linking back to the old be a better idea?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Hi TrueHeartSusie3. If really you wish to continue the discussion, I will move the section out of the archive and to WP:AN. --NeilN talk to me 20:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes please. Light show's disruptive editing has been going on the whole time I've been an editor and shows no signs of stopping. Is there a way to ask admins to give their opinion on the case and to reach a resolution? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
I've moved the section. One way to focus the discussion is to propose specific sanctions (along with justification). Example: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_ban_In_ictu_oculi_from_moving_articles_without_going_through_RM --NeilN talk to me 20:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Obvious WP:IDHT[edit]

This guy doesn't know or care when to quit, does he? Another ANI thread is probably warranted if you've got enough evidence of blatant disruption since the last time he was brought up there (you know more about him and his bad habits than I do). Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think another TBan is needed to go with his collection. He's Tbanned at Peter Sellers, at Stanley Kubrick and from uploading images here at WP. It seems like he started hanging out at Chaplin and creating issues after he couldn't do it at the Sellers article. Everyone connected with the Chaplin article has been dealing with this crap for a long, long time; Susie has also been dealing with it a long, long time when he gets it into his head to troll the Monroe article. All of this is about having his own way to the disregard of everyone else and making them miserable because he didn't get it. This is a blatant misuse of RfC; it wasn't created to serve the whims of an editor.We hope (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He definitely should be TBanned, and there's ample evidence to test to it. In fact, he should be banned from WP, he keeps plagiarizing, introducing false information and generally refuses to see that he could be in the wrong ever. Perhaps he has a personality disorder or something? His behaviour is so unbelievable. However, I was so disappointed with the last ANI—I thought it was a way to get admin attention to a problem, but that did not happen, even though he keeps on creating so many useless debates and extra work for so many editors and admins. If it's possible to create a new ANI discussion with other editors, then I might do that, but not alone. It takes a lot of effort to create one and since the last one lead nowhere, I have to say that I don't have the time. I've also no idea what Light show has otherwise been up to recently, I frankly try to avoid even thinking about him as I'm so tired of fighting with him. Sorry if I sound a bit bitter :D But he takes the fun out of WP. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
If you or someone else wants to go to AN or ANI, count me in, as I've seen his disruption for all too long. You wouldn't see me cry if he was shown the door here either. We hope (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started a new thread at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:IDHT behavior from Light show. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, that was quick! I have to say, I'm very pleased with the results!! :) It'll be so much easier to just focus on editing now (though I'm waiting for sockpuppets to turn up ;) ). Thank you @SNUGGUMS: for starting the discussion! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
My pleasure, Susie :). This was long overdue. 18:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

La Liz[edit]

Let me take a look. I see some already which really have no PD proof. I need to check the copyright status for the one from The Last Time I Saw Paris. Am also seeing that the articles for her parents have no photo; the one from the Stork Club could be cropped for their photos and then added to their respective articles.

The box photo has been nominated for deletion at Commons multiple times. I personally am not convinced, but consensus there has said it's PD every time it's been nominated. There's also the thought of viewing various film trailers and getting screenshots of any without copyright notices; this is what we had to do for the Rod Steiger article. A good thing there were quite a few free trailers as it was hard to get PD photos otherwise. Will post the questionable ones here. Glad to hear you're giving this another shot! :) We hope (talk) 11:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will check on The Last Time I Saw Paris. We hope (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting story about the 1954 film. MGM mistakenly listed and registered it for the year 1944; you can see it here in the opening credits. When the film premiered, its copyright was already 10 years old. Because of the 1944 error, the film's copyright was scheduled to be renewed in 1972 and not in 1982 as would have been the case with 1954 original registrations. No one at MGM caught the error and renewed the film in 1972, so it went into the public domain due to non-renewal. We hope (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, sorry for taking so long to get back to you! First of all, thank you once again. I had a look at Modern Screen and Film Bulletin and found two versions of what I think is the A Place in the Sun still, here and here, though the latter one looks like it's drawn to me. I was also wondering whether it would be possible to use a full version of this photo if I were to find it (which I haven't so far)? As for childhood photos, I found this. What do you think?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

OK-All of those would be able to be used once I do a check for renewal on the magazines. (Most have been donated to the Internet Archive by the US Copyright Office; were originals submitted for copyright applications. We just need to "formally" look them up.) All of the pages of the older magazines weren't printed in glossy stock; they tended to save that for color photos and covers back then, unless we're thinking of Life, Look, Saturday Evening Post and the like. Because of this, the quality of the image you're getting from them can vary a lot, just as when using newspaper printed photos.
Once you've been able to prove that a photo is in the public domain, all copies of it are also PD. If you remember we had a lot of Marilyn Monroe photos which we were able to find better quality copies of and used them instead. Let me start by looking for renewals on these magazines and posting the results for you. I can then try taking a look for better copies too. ;) We hope (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I'm actually pretty sure these magazines should not be copyrighted, I think I used photos from at least Modern Screen and Film Bulletin in the MM article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Renewal searches

It's all good, so clip away! :-) We hope (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now the other one[edit]

is ripping up Monroe (again). Think you'll need to make sure the text changes agree with the refs. We hope (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Minor Coincidence[edit]

TrueHeartSusie, bearing in mind that I'm writing you for the first time even though I share your main interest, have read most of the articles to which you have so patiently contributed, and consider Chaplin a genius as well – there should probably be one or two clichés in this opening paragraph, either expressing my admiration for your work or my gratitude for your tirelessness. However, I'll allow myself the freedom to skip each of them, so as to sound less maudlin and more practical.

Now, few days ago (based on the date, in fact, it seems much more than few days ago; but things move too fast to keep track anyway), while reading the personal life section of the article about Elizabeth Taylor, I came across an information about a certain Jason Winters, allegedly her last fiancée (fortunately, I guess, not Wikipedia's Jason Winters – which, by the way, is an article that needs to be either seriously edited/reformatted or deleted straight away!). I quickly went over the references but, even though they seemed reliable (since I hadn't heard of such an information before), I bookmarked one of them so that I don't forget to check the information more carefully in the future and return to the article once again if necessary to edit it.

Well, after reading through few relevant texts, I returned to the Elizabeth Taylor's article few minutes ago to edit the part on Jason Winters (I too came across the Vanity Fair article and Taylor's tweet refuting a possible engagement) only to notice that you have altogether deleted it. Since I didn't really have an idea in which direction to edit the short paragraph, yours maybe the better (if not the only) solution. However, since I spent some time researching, I happened upon few interesting facts/speculations which may grant Winters some kind of a mention in the article. Since, during the last years of her life, he is mentioned in all kinds of contexts beside her name: as her gay manager (the Vanity Fair article among many others), her partner (at least as late as 2013), probable inheritor to the bulk of her fortune (here, here or even here; but, see here as well) - or at least just her Jean Hersholt (here) – and even her murderer (good gracious lord!). Now, I didn't have time to research this thoroughly, but Luna and Stein are mentioned in Taylor's article, and there's a whole article about Larry Fortensky. So, before doing any more research, I thought I might ask you for an opinion. What do you think? Should Winters be included in Taylor's article in some other form (manager, inheritor...)? (So as not to let my research go to waste, I even thought about sketching a short Wikipedia article about Winters for a moment (since I saw that he was a businessman, etc. etc.), but I neither have the time for something like that at the present moment nor do I believe that he deserves a separate Wikipedia article).

On a completely unrelated matter (or, as you say, for no useful reason): have you ever watched The Innocents? I see that The Others is among your all-time favourites, and The Innocents is similarly inspired by The Turn of the Screw. But, it is one of my all-time favourites and I think it surpasses The Others (though The Others is both creepy and brilliant as well). (By the way, the Slugs mention on your user page is listed under the year of the novel and links to a disambiguation page: it should link here; and yes - it's hilariously bad: from the premise to the execution).

Sorry about the long message. Didn't intend to at all. However, since the length totally subverts my attempt at being practical, at least now I can use this ending paragraph to thank you, both as a user and a contributor, for your dedication to the Wikipedia project. I'm an administrator at the Macedonian Wikipedia, but recently started contributing almost exclusively here, mostly to fill a gaping hole about East European writers and films, but, due to the evil grip of procrastination (and, to quote you, the rabbit holes around here), I usually end up doing something different altogether.

Like spending few hours/days checking/removing/updating an obsolete reference. But, you already know the feeling... --Виктор Јованоски (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Susie, I guess this may be an outdated issue, but I completely forgot about it (I was moving and didn't have too much time for Wikipedia in the meantime). Anyway, since you haven't replied back, I suppose you didn't have time either, or maybe you think that the issue is of little or no relevance. If you can - and when you can - just write a brief message (linked here or at my profile page). I have few bookmarks that I want either used or deleted. Also - once again if and when you can - tell me if you think an inclusion of Rod Steiger in Taylor's article makes sense. Not to go into details, the situation is more or less the same as the one with Winters.
(If you don't have time for research/answering etc., write that too: I'll move the discussion to Taylor's article; maybe I should have put it there in the first place, but it was from there that I got the impression that you are one of the most active and detail-oriented contributors to the article and that's exactly what I needed, so I decided to write here first.)
Sorry for bothering you once again. --Виктор Јованоски (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deleted the bit about Jason Winters as it was gossip and not at all correct. Sure, he was a close friend, employee and companion to Taylor in her last years, but that's not notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. If we start including such relationships, the article will become massive and filled with trivia. Remember, an encyclopedia article is not meant to include all possible information on a subject, but the main facts.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas to all![edit]

We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you![edit]

Happy Thai Pongal, Makar Sankranti, Lohri and Bihu to you!

May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monroe[edit]

Please have a look at the Monroe article when you have time; there is a difference of opinion of language (verbiage, grammar). Kierzek (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PR for Fawad Khan[edit]

Hi, I've recently requested a PR for the article Fawad Khan (see here). It'd be an honour for me if you consider reviewing it. Thanks. Amirk94391 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice on article writing[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you are the contributor to some actors/actresses FAs i.e. Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin. I want to have your advice on finding sources for articles, as sources available for Classic era figures are mostly books, which I believe are not easy to retrieve. As I'm planning to work on some articles, may I know how did you manage to find information from book sources? Thanks so much, HĐ (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm lucky in the sense that I live in a city with an amazing public library system, I found most of my material through it. Wikipedia has a grant system through which you can buy books on Amazon though, I've never used it myself but it could be an option? Google Books also allows you to preview some chapters, which sometimes helps but of course isn't very useful when you're trying to rewrite an entire article.
When it comes to popular culture figures, you need to be very discerning what book sources to use though. For example in the case of Monroe, there are so, so many rubbish 'biographies'. Go with biographies published by major publishing houses or universities, and if the book jacket uses hyperbole or claims to 'reveal' anything, be very careful. If they use the word 'conspiracy' or don't use footnotes, don't even go near it. Google the author and see what else they have written, read reviews of the book (e.g. Kirkus, London Review of Books, New York Times...), and see what other biographers say on the author. Anyway, good luck and don't hesitate to be in touch if you have any other questions! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Love Happy[edit]

The article of Love Happy and Monroe's filmography displays the date as 1949, so I don't think showing it as 1950 in other sections is correct. Sebastian James (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't use other Wiki pages as authoritary. The film's general release was in 1950.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
What I'm saying is the filmography says 1949 but other sections say 1950, choose one and use it. Otherwise it is faulty. Sebastian James (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tone[edit]

No need for the tone in this edit summary. You appear not to be in full view if the facts. I reverted (for the second time) someone adding unsourced information. I hadn't realised there were intervening edits, one of which, was the edit you made. CassiantoTalk 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cassianto: I'm very confused here? I thought I reverted Anthony22's edit? The tone was definitely not intended for you, but for him. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
As I was the last to revert before your edit, it looked like your edit summary was aimed at me, especially as it was me who accidentally reintroduced Anthony22's woeful attempt at an improvement.My intention was to revert Randy Kryn, who appeared to be in a tag-team with Anthony22. The confusion lies, I think, with the revert to my last version, before Randy Kryn became involved, which although reverting back to my version, also reintroduced a load of bad edits inbetween. I should've been a bit more aware. Apologies. CassiantoTalk 20:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cassianto: No worries, no harm done! :)TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Template:POTD/2019-07-06[edit]

Hi, I noticed you contribute often to Frida Kahlo. I invite you to contribute to writing the blurb for a photo of her that is due to appear on the Main Page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marilyn Monroe edit[edit]

Although it shouldn't make a difference in your reversal of the edit at death of Marilyn Monroe, but wanted to mention that the paragraph removed was a class assignment in Wikipedia writing. Maybe you can consider posting your analysis of what was wrong with it on the student editor's talk page. I knew it was a class assignment, and was watching for when it would appear, and was interested in that the student wasn't doing an entire rewrite as much as putting something new on the page to improve it. If the student goes to the article's talk page, or if you consider writing something on their page and they respond, I'll probably join in with my (semi-)constructive comments. Thanks, and smooth sailing! Randy Kryn (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, that's a good idea, I'll try to find time to do that! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the editor won't ever look again (or maybe they will) but they seem to have ended up doing well in the course assignment. So maybe I'm just being too kind in suggesting a comment. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reviewer isn't saying anything too controversial though; yes, the bit does kind of fit in that section, and no, the student definitely did not misrepresent what the source says. The problem is more the tone and the vagueness, and lack of any analysis/criticism (also I would not be surprised if some of the content was picked straight from the cover blurb). But to be honest, what can we expect from an assignment that revolves on Wikipedia? I'm surprised universities in the US are doing things like this. I'd get this being done in high school maybe, but that an academic institution is running classes like this... I don't quite get why. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Stewart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Brown and Robert Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher Nolan[edit]

Hello there, Big fan of your style of writing and contributions to Wikipedia, especially your work on Chaplin's biography. I solicited some help from Blofeld and Loeba a few years ago, both helping me with a copyedit of Nolan's biography, and taking it to GA. It should have been taken to FA by now, but I've been less active of late.

I'm posting this in hope of recruiting you for a quick copy edit. I completely understand if you don't have time or interest in this.

Best regards, Sammyjankis88 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
Thank you!! I'd be happy to help, but it may have to wait until at least next week. If it's ok to you, I'll start a sandbox where I copyedit and comment on the article first. I'll post you the link to it once I get time to do it :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Thank you for the positive response! Any help will be greatly appreciated, so please take a crack at it whenever it suits you. I'm in no rush as I'm currently working on getting his filmography article to FA, and then will try to write a lead for the "Cinematic style of Christopher Nolan"-article, eventually getting that to GA. I think the main article is pretty strong contentwise, but it could definitely need a copy-edit and some fresh eyes. Again, any assistance or advice from an editor like yourself is treasured. All the best, Sammyjankis88 (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sammyjankis88:, I've left some comments and done some initial c/e, you can see it here; feel free to make edits there! Overall the article is in pretty good shape, but there are some gaps, and I think some of the sources may have to be reviewed.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3:, Thanks for your feedback! I've started to work on some edits, and I'll implement the changes in the article bit by bit. Feel free to re-write or edit my stuff, I see from your other work that you're stronger than me language-wise. No vanity, all I care about is the quality of the text. :) Sammyjankis88 (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

You deserve a kitten for your kindness in helping out a random editor. I hope this kitten will give you some warm and fuzzy feelings during this holiday season, merry christmas! Sammyjankis88 (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Stewart[edit]

Hi again, I noticed that you haven't been super active on Wikipedia recently and I hope things are going well. Are you still interested in helping finish up the James Stewart article? We were working on finishing the legacy section. I can understand if you are burned out by it so just let me know. I gave an editor who expressed interest doing a GA review about a month ago the greenlight to do so if he's still interested. Thanks for all your help, you're awesome! :) Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I was just thinking today about this! No don't worry, I'm definitely not thinking of leaving the project, but have just been busy :) I'll try to finish editing Legacy this weekend? Then we'd pretty much only have the Acting section and the lead.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Someone is reverting your edits on Jimmy Stewart, with some other odd edits, in case you did not see it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amber Heard's abuse of Johhny Depp.[edit]

You should consider spending your time more wisely and spend less of it protecting domestic abusers.

You keep deleting any references to the fact that Amber has abused Depp, and your agenda is painfully obvious. Please refrain from protecting abusers in the future.

OnsceneBoos (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Seriously, the way you are white knighting Amber Heard is truly disgusting. You keep deleting all references to Amber being the abuser and leave all the ones alleging Depp is the abuser, despite audio recordings being out where Amber admits to being the abuser.

I can only imagine how you would react if the situation was reversed.

OnsceneBoos (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're accusing me of protecting abusers by leaving nasty, borderline threatening comments on my talk page? Interesting. If you cannot play according to the rules and refrain from personal attacks, I have no other possibility than to take this to ANI.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Under no circumstances have I threatened you. I am simply telling you to stop protecting sexual predators and domestic abusers. But since the perpetrator is a woman you seem to be incapable of seeing how wrong your behavior is. If you see what I have written as threats, then I suggest you seek professional help as life is already difficult enough.

OnsceneBoos (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey he wasn't threatening you in any way. All he did was call out your blatant sexism and asked to keep it accurate. This is just sorry behavior — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.114.16 (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a reality check here, is any men's rights movement or Johnny Depp fandom silliness at play? You accuse others of bias but do IP editor and OnsceneBoos have a bias here? I have a hard time understanding the sudden interest in this. Please use the article talk page rather than reverting other editors repeatedly. Make your points there and we will see about balancing the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My bias is fairly simple, I want women who abuse men to be held as accountable as men who abuse women are. Not holding women accountable for their actions removes their agency. I find the insinuation of "men's rights" hilarious, as this has nothing to do with men's rights. It is about human rights and dignity. The sudden interest in the subject comes from the leaked audio which shows Amber as the abuser, not Depp. Yet people refuse to have the information on Amber's page updated. I can only hope no one would protect a man in a similar manner. OnsceneBoos (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amber Heard[edit]

Hi there. Earlier today, you undid an edit by another user that was similar (but not the same). I was lead to make the edit by the discussion at WP:BLPN, which I reviewed and which contains an emerging consensus in favour of including the fact. You have now undid my edit. You are not entitled to keep blocking edits to the article and I have accordingly undid your revert. Please continue discussing this matter with all the involved users at the BLPN thread. AGK ■ 19:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AGK, There is no emerging consensus. There's one MRA fly-by, you and the first editor who added the extremely biased/gossipy content today. No one else is agreeing for the inclusion. Do not revert my revert until actual consensus has been reached, instead please engage in discussion. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TrueHeartSusie3 reported by User:AGK (Result: ). Thank you. AGK ■ 19:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EvergreenFir, I am under the impression that the custom in WP is not to add new content if the content is under discussion on talk page (or BLP/N). Hence the revert. What else should I do in this situation where an editor refuses to participate in a discussion but instead forces an edit, twice? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
Furthermore, how are AGK's edits not edit warring but mine are? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
That is generally the custom, but there's no emergency or deadline. Just wait for someone else to remove it or leave it be until discussion is finished. The material is not, by itself, violating any policies. With BLPs, an appeal for withholding edits until consensus is made would be approrpiate, but there's no real harm should that edit remain published for a bit. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AGK hasn't spent the past few days reverting edits on that page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you for the speedy response. My experience unfortunately has been that admins are way too busy to pay attention. Some of the content, e.g. that added by OnSceneBoos, IMHO has been problematic in itself, hence the many reverts. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
OnSceneBoos' edits were borderline at best, and I agree with your reverts of them overall. That "furthering her career" part was violating BLP in my opinion. OnSceneBoos' bigger problem is their personal attacks and other incivility for which I have given them an "only warning". If that sort of thing happens in the future (the personal attacks), WP:ANI would be an appropriate place to report that user. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but how is "In early 2020 audio records were released that showed that it was in fact Amber who had physically abused Depp" barely borderline? This is blatant adding of own opinion. The tapes, even if one were to take them as evidence of abuse perpetrated by Heard, do not in any way absolve Depp from the claims made against him. Furthermore, the sources he used were very shoddy. I was close to starting an ANI, but just don't have the time at the moment. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]
The "in fact" was crossing the line. 100%. And IB Times is questionable, yes. For those, I agree with you. For today's edits, best to stop for now. I've added the page to my watchlist and will be sure to read the edits' text a bit more closely. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3Reply[reply]

House of Taylor[edit]

I've created 700 Nimes Road, but cannot think how to incorporate it into Taylor's article. The photographs are stunning and elegiac. Thanks for all your great work on her biography! No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death of Marilyn Monroe[edit]

Hello: please have a look at recent changes. I believe revisions are needed, but I know you have the RS books. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See latest therein. Kierzek (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marilyn Monroe regarding Playboy[edit]

I strongly disagree with your removal of the section that I added regarding Playboy's acquisition of her pictures. While you can make the argument that additional sources would have been better, that does not mean the section was inaccurate. There are multiple sources that I could easily have added. Nowhere in that passage did I imply that pinup work was something she would not have done. That was your interpretation, not what was written. And it has nothing to do with what actually occurred. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/09/28/marilyn-monroe-helped-launch-hugh-hefners-career-but-they-never-even-met/ , https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hugh-hefner-pay-to-be-buried-next-to-marilyn-monroe/, page 83 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Marilyn_Her_Life_in_Her_Own_Words/H3IpUvGxg_YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=hefner%20marilyn%20monroe%20plaYBOY , https://www.businessinsider.com/how-marilyn-monroe-appeared-nude-in-first-issue-of-playboy-2017-9#:~:text=Hefner%20launched%20Playboy%27s%20first%20issue,of%20her%20in%20the%20magazine.&text=But%20Monroe%20never%20actually%20signed%20an%20agreement%20to%20be%20in%20Playboy.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marilyn known as MM[edit]

Hi TrueHeartSusie3. I respect your work at MM's article so I want your opinion. I added her name to the disambig page MM because during her lifetime and since her death I've seen a number of publications that referred to her as "MM". My edit was reverted because her article "doesn't support the initials". I have considered adding it to her article (with a citation, such as [6]), possibly in the infobox ("other names"), or elsewhere if you have any suggestion. I wanted to see what you think about it. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks[edit]

... for your comments at FAC and for these corrections. I'm working on some other Finnish scientist articles (eg. Teuvo Ahti, Runar Collander, Fredrik Elfving and several in development) and frequently have to translate Finnish source material, so I hope you don't mind if I add you to my mental list of helpful resources! Esculenta (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amber Heard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have disagreed with you at these two AFDs, but I feel compelled to add[edit]

I commend you for your impressive FA work and stewardship on high-visibility Marilyn Monroe. That pagespace is spare yet comprehensive, well-referenced but well written, five+ years after promotion. It demonstrates both a broad knowledge of sources and a wikipedian's willingness to work with others to make this encyclopedia a place to be trusted when looking for information on the subject of Norma Jean Baker. I personally admire and respect the effort. I'm only saying this because somebody should have, and it didn't seem appropriate there. BusterD (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Double sig :)[edit]

Is the repetition of your username in your sig intentional? What does it mean? It makes me think that you've returned to sign something a second time... – SJ + 20:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,User:Sj, it's not intentional? Honestly not even aware of this :D I sign by clicking the four tildes and then write my sig once? Wait, have I been doing this wrong for years, do I not need to write anything after the tildes? *facepalm* Thanks for pointing this out! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*grin* my pleasure. Satisfying to let sig-magic to do all the work! I believe "just the name" and "just the timestamp" are three and five tildes, respectively... – SJ + 20:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Johnny Depp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Justice.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monroe[edit]

Is this:

That important? I think it would be better to take it off, it steals too much space. Or a crop could be the solution? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TheBellaTwins1445, yes it is. I appreciate that you are doing this in good faith, but please understand that each image has been thoroughly vetted during the FA process. The Actor's studio is an important part of Monroe's bio. If you disagree with the images, you need to discuss this on the article's talk page instead of just re-doing everything. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add: A crop is probably fine.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey I started a discussion for what you said, here - [7], if you have the chance to discuss and invite some people to do the same, it would be very much appreciated, greetings, await for feedback. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marilyn Monroe at WP:URFA/2020[edit]

You are invited to WP:URFA/2020, a working group reviewing featured articles promoted between 2004 and 2015. An article that you nominated for FA status, Marilyn Monroe, has been marked as "Satisfactory" by two editors, meaning that they believe the article meets the featured article criteria. Can you check the article and determine if the article meets the FA criteria? If it does, please mark it as "Satisfactory" on WP:URFA/2020B. If you have concerns about the article, we hope that you will fix it up or post your concerns on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please go to the URFA/2020 talk page or ping me. Thanks for your help and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usage of quotes[edit]

TrueHeartSusie3, I am writing to you with concern regarding your [8] usage of quotes in Depp v. Heard. For example, you wrote that: Kipper ... testified that a nurse who was working for Kipper had witnessed Depp with "bloody knuckles after hitting a wall in frustration or anger", that he "kicked in a trailer door on a movie set" when unhappy with a director. From reading the quotes, it sounds like this was Kipper's exact words, however, from reading the reference, this was description given by the source (Edward Helmore of The Guardian). There was no indication that this was Helmore's description. There are other examples, you wrote that Baruch "became emotional" without attributing it to Sky's Gemma Peplow, and you wrote that Dembrowski "struggled" without attributing to AP's Ben Finley or Helmore again. I would suggest that to avoid this, we simply avoid using direct quotes unless it was the witness' direct words. starship.paint (exalt) 12:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and I've just noticed something else which leaves me with even greater concern. You wrote that [9] Kipper stated that Depp had on several occasions tried to end treatment as he "was concerned he’d never feel normal without his drugs". That's not what the source said. The quote came first, even before attempts to end treatment. The specific reason for ending treatment was “He didn’t think he could do it.” starship.paint (exalt) 12:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

source - Dr David Kipper, Depp’s addiction specialist, testified that he had planned to detox the actor several years ago from dependencies on alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepines and cocaine over two weeks on Depp’s island in the Bahamas. “He was concerned he’d never feel normal without his drugs,” Kipper said.

In August 2014, Kipper visited Depp on the island to begin the process. The actor reported that he was uncomfortable, and repeatedly tried to fire his doctor and to back out of treatment. “He didn’t want to proceed,” Kipper said. “He didn’t think he could do it.”

starship.paint (exalt) 12:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just to check - is the problem with the quotes that you think it gives the impression that those are exact words the witness said, instead of being quotes from the journalist who wrote the source? That’s a fair point that I did not think of, given that quoting journalists is standard practice here. Paraphrasing instead of directly quoting the text from now on! However, I’m not sure I understand your point regarding Dr. Kipper’s words? Those are his exact words regarding the matter. I admit I have not had the time to watch his depo, but from the source it seems it is his comment regarding the entire situation, not a specific part of it. Can you point me to where this is stated? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TrueHeartSusie3, on the quotes, it is alright to quote a journalist, as long as we attribute the quote by actually mentioning the journalist, so that the reader knows who the quote is from. That wasn't done here. On Kipper, I believe this 55:10 is the point that he discussed Depp's fears that he he’d never feel normal without his drugs, this was a general comment by Kipper, and he didn't mention any attempted firings. The part where Kipper discusses the attempted firings is a bit later, 65:40, where he does mention Depp didn’t think he could do it. The problem is that you directly attributed the attempted firing to he’d never feel normal without his drugs when Kipper himself, and our sources, did not do that. starship.paint (exalt) 14:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TrueHeartSusie3, I've removed a bunch of "admitted" from the trial article. Some of them were originally added by me, some I'm pretty sure were added by you (since you are the #1 content adder), though I haven't checked. Seems to me it's POV as it implies wrongdoing (e.g. 'admit fault', 'admit a mistake'), unless the sources use an equivalent word. I've changed them to more neutral words if the source also used neutral words. starship.paint (exalt) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Starship.paint:, good call, I agree with you and will be more cautious in the future. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnny Depp[edit]

Hi, you seem to be a major contributor to Depp's article and have done a great work so far, as I can see. I have two eBooks on Depp (one from Greenwood Publishing and the other from Rutgers University Press), and was thinking to use them here for a potential GA and later FA. After all the hell this iconic actor has recently endured, he at least deserves a decent article on Wikipedia. What are your thoughts on a future collaboration after his lawsuit with Heard cools down a little? FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FrB.TG:, I most likely have a pretty different take on Depp and his activities in the last couple of years, but I’d still be happy to help! I originally focused on the aspects that discussed Heard in Depp’s article, but then ended up adding lots of career-related material as well. I used to be a huge fan in the 2000s, so I used to follow Depp’s career then and have seen most of his films 1984-c.2006. In other words, I believe I can definitely help you! Not necessarily in being the ’main’ editor but definitely by copyediting and providing feedback/research help. I think I may even have already used the Rutgers book in the article? Anyways, keep me posted! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Amber Heard[edit]

Hi - don't think we've ever talked directly before, but I wanted to thank you for your work on keeping the Amber Heard article as neutral as possible. I know it's difficult given that the trial is a... very newsworthy event right now, to say the least, but you have been diligent at keeping the perspective as neutral and fair as possible, and standing your ground on making sure that the information that makes it into the article is relevant, timely, and properly sourced. And for what it's worth, I appreciate that a lot. Take care! Afddiary (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I echo Afddiary's words. Thinnyshivers (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thinnyshivers: and @Afddiary:, thank you, it means a lot! Can’t wait for this trial to be over :D TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Depp v. Heard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deadline and Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depp settlement payment schedule[edit]

Hi Suzie, could you please point to a reference to the 12 month payment schedule that you mentioned?

Also I've raised a discussion on Coverage of the settlement of the Depp-Heard divorce at Talk:Amber Heard.

Thanks

GregKaye 11:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GregKaye: Hi, this info you seem to have already found, but in general I highly recommend journalist Nick Wallis’ website, where he has gathered all the official docs that are public in the UK case, incl. witness statements, evidence, transcripts, judgment + appeal. Can be found at: https://www.nickwallis.com/depp-trial
For the US case, the Fairfax County Court website is less informative as it seems a lot less stuff is automatically made public than in the UK, but see e.g. https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/high-profile-cases
I’ve followed this case closely since Heard first filed for divorce and TRO in May 2016 (damn it’s been long!), so if you have questions, I’ll be happy to discuss further, although bear in mind I’m not always the quickest to answer back. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Suzie, always happy to engage in discussions.[10] GregKaye 15:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GregKaye:, the articles aside, I’d genuinely like to learn your point of view as to what happened in this case. I’ve seen tons of social media posts from people skeptical of Heard, but because they are usually brief posts, they tend to focus on just one piece of evidence or one alleged incident. The whole narrative would be great to understand, and how everything fits into it. I’m not being snarky or sarcastic, I genuinely mean this. Also, if there are any talk page lurkers who have an answer to this, feel free to leave a message! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The articles aside, I'd genuinely like to know your rationale for presenting "trueheart" as part of your wikipedia handle. You have continually pushed for to make excuses for Heard's behaviour inclusive of her lack of payment of promised monies that she had received and have even insisted on two references of Depp's abuse in an article about Heard. You claim you weren't responsible for the addition of one "problematic source",[11] when you clearly were. [12] Wikipedia needs better. GregKaye 13:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GregKaye: Again, wasn’t referring to the articles. What I meant with the source is that it was used for ACLU references in the trial’s article, copied it from there, didn’t originally introduce it. I have not tried to ’push’ for anything other than balanced, neutral, BLP-rule following reporting of the facts. And I’d still be genuinely interested to hear more about Depp’s side, how everything fits together to show that Depp was abused by Heard and that she created a hoax? Can you point me to a source? Perhaps I just have not been presented with the right facts? As for my handle here, as I say in my profile, it comes from a silent film and I chose it mainly because I needed to create an account to be able to work on the Chaplin article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suzie, you have continually edited to preserve repeat references to accusations against Depp in the Heard article while both removing content that's against those accusations and adding content to justify Heard's point of view. You had added the problematic Birmingham Alabama radiostation source which was the topic raised in discussion,[13] and do things such as attempting to remove references to violence in Heard's past or even to her former relationships. The salient points regarding the money are that Heard pledged to donate the money to the charities in 2016, she had that money within the year of January 2017, she failed to donate it. An ACLU use of a potentially fallback piece of little referred to paperwork for safeguarding against overt abuse has, at most, tertiary relevance. GregKaye 07:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GregKaye:, you’re moving the goalposts. I did not introduce that article to the Depp v Heard article, where I copied it from. The radio station states their info comes from NPR, but I do agree that better sources exist, hence why I replaced it. I assume you are referring to when you scrubbed all mention of the reason for Depp losing the libel trial against NGN from the lead. If we don’t mention it, it’s very unclear what the trial was about and why he lost; and he lost overwhelmingly due to evidence, not due to a technicality. The judgment was vetted by two further judges and found to be sound. As for ACLU, it’s only Depp’s side who are problematizing Heard not having completed her donations. ACLU has been clear that they expected the money in installments over a ten-year period (and I’ve understood that this is generally the practice with large donations) and that in 2019 they learned that Heard was having financial difficulties. Heard further testified about how much she has earned from DCEU, The Stand and the indie film she just finished, as well as that she has had to spend more than $6 million by May 2022 in legal costs. I do agree that Heard definitely should have been more up front about this once Depp’s team began accusing her of not paying, and also her PR team should understand that most of the public does not understand how transferring large sums goes, whether they are part of a divorce settlement or a charity donation. But let’s assume that Heard had no intention of donating the money (she was entitled to keep it as it was her divorce settlement; also, if she’s a golddigger, why not go for the full 30+ million she was entitled to by CA law?). It still doesn’t help in countering her claims that Depp was abusive, because it’s not just her word against his - she has photos, contemporary text messages and emails, medical records and therapist records, and several witnesses to her having injuries and Depp being aggressive towards her and severely drug-addicted. Even many of Depp’s own witnesses are saying they saw Heard with bruises and cuts. So what I am asking is, if you think that Heard is a mentally ill hoaxer, what is the narrative? How does all the evidence she has presented fit in it? How does the narrative explain the UK judgment? This is what I would like to genuinely learn. But I understand you do not want to discuss this, which is fine. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suzie, you are moving the goalposts. You are responsible for your additions to an article and for the descriptions (if you make any) that you apply to them. If you have seen similar abuse of content elsewhere, you would do well to address that too. My edit (relating to just one of the issues I mentioned) simply avoided your gratuitous repetition of allegations against Depp in the same paragraph of the lead of an article about Heard.
I'm glad you agree that Heard should have been more up front about not having completed her donations once Depp’s team began accusing her of not paying. As for understands of how transferring large sums goes, sure, if money needs to be raised then it's certainly understandable that payments may be stretched over time. If the money is in hand then it can be paid. How and where is there a justification for anything else? Even when Depp was in a situation where he needed to raise the money, Heard expressed demand that money should be paid immediately and not drawn out over years. How is that not the more relevantly applied standard.
I'm more than happy to discuss points of view as to what happened in this case but that may be best left to another thread. Here we're discussing fair and balanced presentation of included article content. GregKaye 11:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I’ll bite - this entire thread was about the case in general, not about content before you started talking about it. I have no idea why you keep going on about already resolved issues. Happy to talk - let me know where since you’re not wanting to do it in my Talk page, where I invited you to share your views out of genuinely wanting to understand. Surely you do have an idea of what happened, in your opinion? Surely you have taken in the big picture of this case, read the judgments, transcripts, evidence lists, given how closely you’ve been editing the article ? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Identifying the target[edit]

Regarding your edit here I can say, yes a lot of my viewing of the trial was with the commentary of the wonderful Emily D. Baker on her youtube channel[14] which I'd recommend to anyone. She has also done some great work on #freebritney related legalities and I don't see any signs she has MRA type traits.

As far as my activism goes it has mainly been in ecology with Camp for climate action but my arrests were in anti-capitalist protest and, bizarrely, twice as a suspected Islamic terrorist while caravanning in Europe. No MRA interest anywhere.

My first psychological concerns for Amber Heard were that she might go the same way as Caroline Flack and I spent much time on social media combatting people promoting anti-Amber memes. I go by my own name without embellishment, I put my "cards on the table" and what you see is what you get. I'd ask you to please reconsider any view you might have of us being monsters. Otherwise, that's all I can give you to work with.

On the Depp v. Heard talk page I had described going through (an elsewhere initiated) "living hell of accusation". It's up to editors including TheTimesAreAChanging Gtoffoletto and yourself, the extent you'd chose to perpetuate an accusatory style of approach. edited GregKaye 07:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greg it's very simple: you clearly already have strong views on this subject and (as you stated before) personal experiences which are skewing your editing. Everything else in your life is irrelevant. Who you are is irrelevant. Several editors have pointed this out to you but you act like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 11:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry if you feel like we are attacking you. I assure you we are not. We are trying to help you out and I think you need to step back and distance yourself from those content disputes to hear what we are saying. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 11:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gtoffoletto, There is nothing skewed in my editing which has nothing to compare with your one way traffic.[15]. I came here in an attempt to make peace. Suzie targeted four editors. Try not to personalise. GregKaye 12:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GregKaye: I'm sorry. But the fact you think that diff "proves something" really is an indication you should not be editing that page. You tagged me in this conversation (I have no idea why) so not sure why you think I'm the one "personalising this". I've tried giving you some advice multiple times. You ignore all of it and refuse to get the the point. I'm done. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  talk 14:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

60 years of Marilyn's death[edit]

Thank you for all of your hard work on promoting the article! Miss you and Loeba! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More