User talk:EraserGirl/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, EraserGirl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tyrenius (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Guide to referencing

Click on "show" to open contents.

Using references (citations)

I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started.

Good references

A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, and authorised web sites. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another wikipedia article.

Inserting a reference

The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section (unless it already exists). This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:

==Notes and references==

The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):

Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.

Test it out

Open the edit box for this page, copy the following text (inserting your own text where indicated), paste it at the bottom of the page and save the page:

==Reference test==

This is the text which you are going to verify with a reference.<ref>Reference details go here</ref>

==Notes and references==

(End of text to copy and paste.)

It should appear like this:

Reference test

This is the text which you are going to verify with a reference.^[1]

Notes and references

^ Reference details go here

Information to include

You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For an online newspaper source, it might look like this:

<ref>Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]].</ref>

When uploaded, it appears as:

Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, 2005-10-27. Retrieved on 2005-10-27.

Note the single square brackets around the URL and the article title. The format is:

[http://URL "Title of article"]

Make sure there is a space between the URL and the Title. This code results in the URL being hidden and the title showing as a link. Use double apostrophes for the article title (it is quoted text), and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). Double square brackets round the name of the paper create an internal link (a wikilink) to the relevant wikipedia article. Apostrophes must go outside the brackets.

The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings to display the date in the format the user wishes.

References not online

You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case leave out the information which is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this:

<ref>Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]].</ref>

When uploaded, it appears as:

Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, 2005-10-27.

Here is an example for a book:

<ref>Charmley, John (2006). ''The Princess and the Politicians'', p.60. Penguin Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0140289712.</ref>

When uploaded, it appears as:

Charmley, John (2006). The Princess and the Politicians. Penguin Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0140289712.

Make sure you put two single quote marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark.

Date format

These formats are all acceptable for dates:

[[2005-10-27]]

[[27 January]] [[2007]]

[[January 27]], [[2007]]

Citation templates

You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference

Same ref used twice or more

The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:

<ref name=smith>Details of ref here</ref>

The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:

You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them.

You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.

Alternative system

The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section. A refinement is to put the full details of the references in their own section headed "References", while the notes which apply to them appear in a separate section headed "Notes". The notes can be inserted in the main article text in an abbreviated form as seen in Harriet Arbuthnot or in a full form as in Brown Dog affair.

Further information

More information can be found at:

I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know.

Tyrenius (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

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

A few features that you might find helpful:

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

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

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

Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peg Entwistle contributions

Why is it that you are allowed to remove virtually all my edits and contributions, but I am not allowed undo your removals? I'm just wondering why all of the sudden the Entwistle page is not good enough when it was fine for about a year. How do we resolve this? I worked very hard on that page and received many, many e-mails thanking me for the research. 32.47% of the visits to wwwthehollywoodsigngirl.com are from the link on the Entwistle Wiki page. This tells me that people are coming to Wiki and trusting the source. They are interest in Peg Entwistle and what the page looks like now is almost unrecognisable. I know what's going on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameszerukjr (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peg Entwistle

What is wrong with you? Are you a friend of the vandals from Everything2.com? The Peg Entwistle page was fine...it was fine for months. My research is exact and extensive. My edits and contributions are of the same style, detail and character of many other Wiki bios of stars. All was well until I wrote a rebuttal to the character attack of Peg Entwistle on another site. Your removal and re-writing is without a doubt a carry over from the vandalisim of 25 April! You people are sick....really, really sick.

I'm taking this issue to the highest levels of Wikipedia administration. I will continue to undo all you and friends have stooped to doing. Jameszerukjr (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

And a slice for you!

FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] June Mathis

The sources under the "References" section need to be cited. For instance, two books are used. Citations from those books need to be placed behind the content they reference so it can verified. I don't have those books or I'd do it myself. If you need any additional help, please let me know. Pinkadelica 04:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...it seems whomever added the "References" section meant for that to be some sort of Further Reading section or something. The "Notes" section has the exact references listed, only more detailed. Odd. Since two books are used, page numbers are needed for those citations. I'll go ahead and find some different references for the article and format the citations properly. You're right though, the article relies on only a few references way too much. I just had this issue over at the Rudolph Valentino article so, I can find some references pertaining to Mathis fairly easily. Pinkadelica 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have this issue everywhere. If you saw my user page you saw my hit list. mathis is on it but she's not near the top. The problem is that most of these women are so obscure that TWO references is considered a lot. And if one of those is an autobiography you are sunk before you start because women lie. At least she has the Valentino connection - there will be mentions of her elsewhere. I thought I could help with the formatting, but if I look at the text I will want to rewrite the entire article with my references. Right now I am working on Marguerite Harrison, a spy, else I would stop and do June. Try Google Books for more inline citations, and here are some references in the Women Screenwriters bibliography. EraserGirl (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Durn good rewrite. All you need to do is apply this to other articles you're interested in advancing, and you can't go wrong. BTW, you currently have two others waiting at Assessments. I promised you I would not interfere, but I have to say that neither appear to have what it takes just yet to go up a grade. However, as I say, I'll not interfere, and hopefully another assessor will come along and feel differently to me. Thanks and good luck with it all. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am sticking my neck out for advice, so go ahead and give me specifics. I have a fair amount of OCD and I can't stand them being 'unfinished'. I will say this, that everything interesting about Dorothy Hale happened after she died, so there will never be a long involved article about her. I just thought that there is to be had was presented properly and interestingly. I think it's better than a start. EraserGirl (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bots

You can report bot problems to WP:AN/I. Ty 14:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks, we got that bot turned off pretty quickly. EraserGirl (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fay Kanin

Hi. Obviously, no-one else is going to do this one, so I've had a long hard look. The referencing has been sorted out, the article has good length and depth, and so B it is. Sorry about Dorothy, but more needed I think. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy

Just read your comment above re: Dorothy Hale. It is my unsureness about its completeness which makes me refrain from going for an uprate. "If in doubt, do nothing". You really need to get another opinion on this one. You could try User talk:Wildhartlivie or perhaps User talk:John Carter to see if either would give it the once over. Good luck. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will wait a teeny bit, I just bought a 1938 Life magazine that purports to have an image of Dorothy. Maybe the caption will lead me somewhere. EraserGirl (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anna May Wong

You deserve a chocolate chip cookie!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC).

Thank you, but really all i did was kibbitz from the sidelines. I did none of the heavy lifting. But I thank you anyway! EraserGirl (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Fire Lover Joseph Wambaugh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fire Lover Joseph Wambaugh.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

fixed...bots.....

[edit] Footnotes/bibliography

Hi. As far as I know, there are no hard and fast rules regarding the mix or ratio in relation to the two above sections. Personally, I prefer to use only References sections, to keep it simple. Featured Article editors (which I do not profess to currently be, or have any ambition to become) may have different views, and it may benefit a highly-rated article to include both of these. Very good job, by the way. An image, and a bit more of substance in the prose, and John Leonard Orr may soon become a B. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Peg Entwhistle

Reply on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peg Enwistle

I know the page needs a big rewrite, but I was waiting until he had finished offering up his information, since it isn't so much that the page is a fansite as it is a page being authored in anticipation of a biography in cooperation with Enwistle's family, and is based fairly strongly in actual research. The site has photoscans of each article or document that was referenced. Actually, if the page contains a scan of an actual source, then it's acceptable to use that as a source, along with the original citation. I didn't realize he had gone through and put all the hollywoodsigngirl links to the agreement page.

His work is hard for me to interpret as original research, since he's not actually doing the interpretation on the Wikipage, so it makes it just a tad different than the kind of research you're doing to write screenwriter pages. He just put it on a webpage. However, I agree the writing is a bit over the top. The edit conflict that occurred on the page yesterday wasn't arguments over content, it was actually an attempt from a pair of anonymous editors to disrupt the page in a tenditious and disruptive manner. There are some edits that were stricken from sight by the WP oversight people due to the disclosure of personal information about the contributor from the hollywoodsigngirl page, so you can't really see what all was going on. It's deceptive to just look at what is now available and know the issues, which had nothing to actually do with content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hollywood Sign Girl

My website is not a "Fan Site!" It is a database and is still in its early stages...sorry it doesn't meet your expectations, Eraser, but where is one to go to visit actual documents proving vital facts about Peg Entwistle? All of the sudden I'm a leper? What the hell is wrong with you you people? This is insane! Coming into this thing I told any who would listen at Wiki that I was a rookie, and yet my work was fine for about a year. I DID ALL THAT WAS ASKED OF ME HERE...ALL OF IT!!!!

I NEVER, EVER, REBUFFED SUGGESTIONS BY SENIOR EDITORS! I ALWAYS DID WHAT I WAS TOLD.

Yes I linked many times to my site because MY SITE IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD THAT HAS MOST OF THE SOURCES I'M CITING! DUH!?!

NOW HEAR THIS....I WAS NOT USING WIKI AS A STEPPING-OFF POINT TO MY SITE!

Peg Entwistle's Wiki page was joke before I got here...A JOKE! It read like The Weekly World News!!! All lies, no sources--unless you consider "find a death.com" and "find a grave.com" a source!

I came here with truth, I came here with facts that were found nowhere else, I have letters, photos, documents, tons of stuff, not to mention Peg Entwistle's brother.

HELLO!? HER BROTHER MILTON WHO WAS IN HER ROOM WHEN RKO CALLED, THE BROTHER WHO SHE KISSED GOODBYE BEFORE SHE KILLED HERSELF! THE BROTHER AND THE REST OF THE FAMILY WHO WANT ME...ME TO WRITE HER STORY...NOT FILM EXPERTS LIKE ERASER...NOT FOOLS FROM EVERYTHING2.COM, NOT ANYONE ELSE BUT ME!!

And yet, James Zeruk Jr and his Peg Entwistle expertise and family connection is not as Peg-Entwistle-smart as Eraser, who seems to know best what the public should know and not know.

You guys ever wonder why the public thinks Wiki is a joke, why Jay Leno pokes fun at this site?

You're fooling the others, Eraser, you and the other "Administrator you teamed-up with today, but you are not fooling me...not bit.

I will no doubt want to include you and the other Wiki cowards into the chapter of the book discussing the evil treatment Peg Entwistle's family has had to endure over the years. Eraser and the others are no better than the liars Kenneth Anger and David Wallace whose books only sell because they are filled with evil attacks of character.

Block me from this site...I don't give a goddamn anymore, understand? I'm done with you all, I just can't hang with so many people who know so much more about Peg Entwistle than her family biographer...personal attacks? No, Eraser...self-defense. Go to hell. James Zeruk Jr Jameszerukjr (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THERE IS NO "H" IN PEG ENTWISTLE'S LAST NAME

Um, gee, here is some more "badly written prose." THERE IS NO EFFEN "H" IN ENTWISTLE'S LAST NAME! But you should know that as you are such an expert! YOU DID THAT ON PURPOSE, DIDN'T YOU! HA! VERY FUNNY. So, how is the joker at Everything2.com doing? Bite me, Eraser, you self-righteous, pompous know-it-all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameszerukjr (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entwistle in The Wild Duck

Entwistle's performance in "The Wild Duck" is not listed in the IBDB because the play was in Boston at the Jewett Repertory! What kind of ignorance presuppose that Peg Entwistle only acted in New York?

This is why you should have spoken to me before you took it upon yourself to remove most of my work. I have Boston Herald and Boston Tribune articles reviewing the Ibsen Play. I have playbills and photos from the play, I have a letter from director Blanche Yurka to Peg's Aunt and Uncle talking about Peg in The Wild Duck.

Bette Davis mentions seeing Peg Entwistle in the play in 3 documentaries and 4 books!

What is wrong with you? I have Peg Entwistle in over 30 more plays around the country, Nione of them are mentioned in the IBDB BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ON BROADWAY! DUH!

I never thought I would actually meet anyone more arrogant than me...yet here we are.

You also know nothing about the history of the Jewett Repertory, Peg's years there, or her scope of work around the country while as a representative of the Theatre Guild in a tour designed by Bernard Shaw....do you? Yet, here you are removing all my hard work and treating my verifiable research as nothing more than something I created.

I HAVE THE NEWSPAPERS, PLAYBILLS SHOWING CAST MEMBERS INCLUDING PEG ENTWISTLE, I HAVE PHOTOS TAKEN DURING THE PLAYS, LETTERS, ITEM AFTER ITEM I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN HAPPY TO SHOW YOU.

AGAIN...PEG ENTWISTLE STARRED IN PLAYS AWAY FROM BROADWAY. AGAIN, ERASERGIRL, THE IBDB ONLY LISTS BROADWAY SHOWS...YOU WON'T EVEN FIND "OFF BROADWAY" SHOW IN THE IBDB.

YOU PEOPLE ARE SOMETHING ELSE...BUT YOU WON'T APOLOGISE...I'VE PROVED YOU ARE IGNORANT ABOUT PEG ENTWISTLE AND HER CAREER, YET YOU WILL CONTINUE TO MISPELL HER NAME AND EXIBIT CONTEMPT PRIOR TO INVESTIGATION. HOW DO YOU SLEEP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameszerukjr (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you include the plays and the dates are part of the article? what would be the stage version of a "filmography"?EraserGirl (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enwistle

As I told the other guy, I won't entertain attacks on my talk page to me or about others any more than I would a face to face. Both of you need to calm down, please and take a step back and away from this before both end up being given a time out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I am sorry I didn't realize you interpreted what I said as an attack, I was trying to tell him I WASN'T attacking him. he was getting very wound up and I am trying my best to diffuse him. How do I prove a negative? EraserGirl (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all good, I was concerned with how it seemed to be spiralling out of control and felt like everything needed to stop for the moment. There are points on boths sides that I agreed with and I'm just glad it seems to be over. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peg Entwistle

Paranoia? I'm not a writer? Actually, I am a writer, just not one who meets your standards. Eve Golden, who wrote Jean Harlow's definitive biography has been editing my manuscript. She is writing the preface to Entwistle's book. She is a best-selling author and she says I'm a very good writer. My real writing isn't reflected in Wiki or my website because I didn't think I needed to aim for a Pulitzer or your approval.

Having said that, why is it you would not talk to me about all this before you chopped up my work? In addition, why am I at fault because you, as a researcher for 25 years, didn't know that the IBDB only lists shows which open and close on Broadway? By the way, the term "Off Broadway" does not mean plays away from New York. It describes productions within a certain geographic area near Broadway.

All this drama is tiresome. The fact remains, I was wrong for my reaction, but you were wrong for taking it upon yourself to undo the major portion of my work without first discussing the matter with me. Believe me, I'm not above correction and I want to learn.

I would have worked with you as I have with others here.

I'm sorry for losing my temper, but as I said before...my work was fine and no one complained about it until you did. Why were we all wrong and you are so right?

As to "if" I have so much stuff about Peg Entwistle's career why didn't I put it on Wiki? I put on Wiki and my site what I feel is important for now. There was nothing when I got here. It looked like a tabloid page.

As to, "Look at me, I'm so smart," or whatever that comment is you made about me. It is none of that! My arrogance is me saying, "Look at the real Peg Entwistle! Look at what has been missed and ignored!" This isn't about me. It's about setting the record straight. I'm sorry you think I'm not very good at it. Her brother and the rest of her family think I'm doing just fine.

One last word on this...you insulted me with that "Look at me..." line. The same can be said about your words to me, and others here regarding me ... "Look at me, I've been a writer and researcher for 25 years, I'm smarter than that guy!"

You don't see that, do you? Jameszerukjr (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Zeruk Jr Apology

I am deeply sorry to you and the others for my over-reaction. I just started wailing away without reading all the TALK and DISCUSSION pages. I just finshed reading them, now that I can see clearly. You made me chuckle when you told me to "calm the hell down," and called me a "dope." No, really, it sort of brought me down to earth about it all. You're funny when you're angry. I'm just foolish when I'm angry. I'm not very good at a lot of things, but I like to think that when it comes to Peg Entwistle, my heart is in the right place.

I started tossing in all kinds of information and got carried away. I lost track of what goes where and what is or isn't important to the article. I do the same thing on my site. Thankfully, Eve Golden is editing my mss, else I would never get a press to turn the first page. You're right...less is more. Eve told me that, as well.

The main reason I haven't included all of Entwistle's stage appearances is because I wanted to save them for the book...you know, like an exclusive. This is why I also haven't added more photos, letters, and other information to my site. I'm actually fearful that if I add all I have, someone will use it all and write their own book. It is all my "ace in the hole," if you will. But that is not the subject here, really.

I was way out of line, and I'm sorry.

I am not yet entirely familiar with how Wiki works. This is my fault.

I hope you will accept my apology. Jameszerukjr (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No sweat

It was so out of proportion, I never took any of it seriously. I still think you should add MUCH more about her stage work. I don't think adding plays, roles and dates would endanger your book. You needn't add all the critical reviews but you really need to give people a lot better view of her stagelife. I come away from what you wrote totally confused...here is a woman who was just starting out and kills herself after 1 negative thing happens to her? that's unreasonable. She must have been prone to depression beforehand. If people could read that she had been such a success perhaps becoming so upset at not mastering a new medium could be understood. from what's on the page at the moment, i would take her suicide to be a gross overreaction. Think of the article as a distillation of what's will be in your book, a teaser, a trailer...get it? EraserGirl (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography

The list is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography tables. If you take a look at the top of my user page, you can see where I hide my quick links, in the little symbols next to the directions to my talk page. I dunno, I like them better tucked away up there. The first asterisk takes you to my page with the stuff I use most when I'm working on articles. Of course, you don't have to use any of it!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy Hale

I think it's well on its way to B status. I see a few places where a source still needs to be added, and I've a feeling they are probably in the material you have, since you knew what to add. I'll tag the places where I think references are needed. I'd also remove the {see image} note since the image is next to the sentence. If you'll add those, I'll reassess it. I don't think I should reassess the Peg Enwistle article because I was involved in the editing and issues about it. That would be a conflict of interest and I don't want that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One point I see is that the lead says she was born in 1905, and the next section says that in "1919, at at the age of 16" - which isn't congruent. There are a couple references to "stunning beauty" that, while likely true, is a bit POV without a source that speaks of it. Is there anything on the IBDB about her? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the quote from Noguchi that says she's beautiful and i have another one somewhere from Luce that likens her to Liza Taylor. I will clarify. The 1905 was leftover from Creamy3 but the 1903 is from the NYT Obit, I bet will go with it. And the IBDB would be useless in this case, she never played Broadway 8) She really wasn't very talented. Thanks for the heads up.EraserGirl (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As for Peg Entwistle, I am also not interested in causing another row, I did what I wanted. It is readable as it is. If he wants a better grade, he needs to beef up her performances. otherwise she's still an unknown who over reacted. EraserGirl (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

User talk:EraserGirl/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] Guide to referencing

[edit] WP:FILMS Welcome

[edit] Peg Entwistle contributions

[edit] Peg Entwistle

[edit] Thanks

[edit] June Mathis

[edit] Bots

[edit] Fay Kanin

[edit] Dorothy

[edit] Anna May Wong

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Fire Lover Joseph Wambaugh.jpg

[edit] Footnotes/bibliography

[edit] Re: Peg Entwhistle

[edit] Peg Enwistle

[edit] The Hollywood Sign Girl

[edit] THERE IS NO "H" IN PEG ENTWISTLE'S LAST NAME

[edit] Entwistle in The Wild Duck

[edit] Enwistle

[edit] Peg Entwistle

[edit] James Zeruk Jr Apology

[edit] No sweat

[edit] Filmography

[edit] WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter

[edit] Dorothy Hale

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search