User talk:Jameszerukjr
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Peg Entwistle
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia.
I see you've been adding a lot of information to Peg Entwistle and have been met with some opposition. I would be willing to help you with this article, as there is obviously some very useful information being added. I think the main reason your additions has been removed have been because the general tone of the article has not been conforming to our existing policies and guidelines. In my opinion, it wouldn't take very much to adapt it into what is considered a "conventional" layout (if you ever see the term "wikify" that's what it means). I would be happy to help. I don't have a lot of time over the next day or so but I will do some work on it. You're welcome to leave a message on my talk page if you would like to discuss this. It would be great to see the article expanded as much as possible as her story is an interesting one. Regards Rossrs (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
ps. I've taken the liberty of adding the following, which links to quite a few pages that may be in helpful in terms of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Hope this helps. Rossrs (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
|
|
- I've done a bit of clean up work on the page, formatting the references offered, and tagged numerous places that need a citation. It's got some good basic material. One thing you might keep in mind is that the article is about Peg Entwistle and some of the material that delves into other actors may not be appropriate. I removed a little bit of it. Try to keep in mind that we don't refer to a person in a biography by the first name, only the surname or full name. Also, you might check into WP:Weasel and WP:Peacock regarding vague references to "some" and adjectives that are unsupported by citations (like esteemed, acclaimed, etc.). Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I see Wildhartlivie has made a start on this, which is great, and her edits/advice are spot on. I've had a look at your website, and it's brilliant. As you've probably gathered the tone and presentation here follows a different format/style and yet the basic information would be much the same. A lot of the things that need to be cited, can be done quite easily. All it requires is the name of the publication etc. If you have a look at Judy Garland#Notes and references number 75 (one of many) you will see the format. If you can just give the information relating to the publications I'll format it for you.
- Images : WP allows for the fair use of a small number of images, correctly attributed, when necessary. Do you have any images at all, that you know for a fact and can prove are free of copyright? If not, that's still OK. WP does not specifically allow for licenced images where you've paid for the right to use them, although they are still covered by the fair use doctine. It's important to fill in the image description page correctly. A couple of examples you could look at :
- 1. Image:Warner Baxter.jpg - Warner Baxter - a general publicity shot with a generic rationale. A free image for him has not yet been located, but as soon as one is found, this image should be deleted because all it shows is what he looked like. If, in the future, that purpose is served by a free image, this one becomes superfluous and fails to meet our fair use criteria, so out it goes. I think you could use a similar format for the Peg image you uploaded - Image:Cropgif wiki.gif but if you can justify it more strongly (see example 2 below), I would recommend you do so. WP is strict on the use of unfree images of living people, but tends to be more lenient in allowing unfree images of deceased people, simply because there is a finite number of such images - you can't just wait for one of them to turn up at a film festival and snap a picture of them. By the way, I always prefer using a descriptive name for the image such as "Peg Entwistle in The Peg Entwistle Show" so that when the image appears in a list, it's easier to identify what it is.
- 2. Image:LaurenceOlivierVivienLeighinTitusAndronicus1957.jpg - Vivien Leigh. Note that the fair use rationale makes specific reference to why this image serves a unique purpose. The Baxter photo shows just what he looks like and doesn't aim to do anything more, the Leigh image is intended to serve a broader purpose. I would suggest looking at the Entwistle images in a similar manner, and justify what they depict and ensure that they are used as more than mere decoration. If you need help with anything, of course let me know. Rossrs (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I do have a question about the references you are adding. Do you happen to have the article titles for these citations, and if present, the author? That would be of great help with the referencing. Thanks again for your contributions. 05:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildhartlivie (talk • contribs)
- I think it's shaping up nicely. I've made a few edits, and I think my edit summaries explain what I've done and why, but there's one thing I wanted to mention. I removed the sentence about The Mad Hopes which started off commenting on what has been incorrectly noted elsewhere. I think it's best to assume that people reading Entwistle's article here have not been tainted by misinformation elsewhere, even if that's not the case. I would suggest that it's stronger to simply state the fact and let it speak for itself, and not set yourself the impossible task of disputing every possible falsehood that has been written. I know you've read a lot of nonsense about Entwistle, so I understand that you feel strongly about correcting that misinformation, but for anyone who hasn't seen that other information, it could be a little confusing. I always take the attitude on any article I care about or significantly contribute to, that it should be the definitive article. If other sites want to write stuff that just isn't true - well, let them. Rossrs (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Some tips
- When you're making a link to another article in Wikipedia, you will use the double brackets, like [[Peg Entwistle]], which will give you the linked Peg Entwistle.
- When you're adding a website address, you will use single brackets, like [http://www.google.com], which will just give you a number link (example: [1]). If you add wording after the end of the URL, your original link will look like this: [http://www.google.com Google.com] when you enter it, and like this: Google.com when the page is saved. Hopefully that will help! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Today
I'm the midst of finding some intercession in this. If you would go to this page to get your personal email etc. removed from the page history. I'm working on getting the page semi-protected. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's okay, I sent the request. They posted your email address in the article, which needs to be removed from the history of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, a request for page protection is what is needed here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I've put it in, as well as leaving a note on the adminstrator's noticeboard for vandalism. If you'll look at the page history of the Entwistle page, you'll see that there are at least two edits that are no longer there: one with the summary of "giving unto Caesar" and another one similar. It's being dealt with right now. So the oversight protection request has already been completed. It's one thing to commit vandalism, it's another to carry a fight to another website and disclose personal information. You have a right to privacy, which had been violated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No Personal Attacks
The ad hominem comments you made here: [2] are unacceptable. Please restrict your comments to content rather than contributors. Repeating such abuse, particularly of good-faith editors, may result in a block. CIreland (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification
Just to be clear on a few points:
- It was me who placed protection on the page in order to prevent the outside disruption that you alluded to.
- User:EraserGirl is a long time, good faith, contributor on articles related to the history of film and seems extremely unlikely to be connected to the outside disruption.
- There are no "higher levels in the administration". I am administrator but that gives me no special rights to make decisions on content; certainly, with respect to content, I have no more rights than yourself. This is true all the way up to User:Jimbo Wales himself.
- The convention is that newer sections on user talk pages go at the bottom of the page.
CIreland (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Entwistle
First I want to clarify that EraserGirl is not likely to be connected to the other issues that occurred yesterday. She's been an editor for a long time here, and I've worked with her on other articles. She isn't prone to engaging in tenditious editing. I believe her efforts on the page were in good faith, and we are supposed to assume good faith. There is an issue that she brought up that I hadn't noticed, in that all of the links that were given to your website linked to the agreement page, which isn't according to Wikipedia policy. When one makes a contribution to Wikipedia, one releases the work to Creative Common license, so the conflict arises when a link takes you to an agreement page such as that. She didn't remove the actual citations, but she did cite them to the original work, which is proper. I broached this on the article talk page, suggesting that the original work citation can be combined with the link to the appropriate page on your site that contains the actual scan of the work you are citing.
I do understand your upset, but please take a moment to read her comments on the article talk page about her changes, such as the explanation regarding the birth date, etc. and explanations regarding data collection. She makes some valid points, and the talk page should be used to discuss and hammer out differences over the changes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm am really sorry that you feel you need to quit Wikipedia. You should know that there are really no levels of editors, only ones who have been here longer than others. Administrators have a certain level of duties, but there isn't really a ranking on the scale of senority or authority. I had hoped that a work toward compromise on how the page would be presented could be undertaken, as there are some things EraserGirl changed with which I agree, and some that I do not. The timing is fairly crappy, but it is probably more due to the article coming to notice due to the vandalism from yesterday. I can't accept that the last edits were in collaboration with anyone from Everything2.com, and I think that they weren't nearly as interested in removing your work as they were in simply upsetting you. Having said that, I would say yes, you probably should have been approached. She did post a brief note on the talk page about her concerns early this morning, although it seems to me that it certainly could have waited until enough time had passed for a discussion to occur. I can certainly appreciate how one would feel picked on following all of this, and why one would be angry and upset. I will probably try and integrate the version you had with what is there now, following policy, on a page in my userspace, and submit that version when I'm done. Again, I'm am sorry you feel you need to withdraw, and I do thank you for the contributions you've made. On a side note, have you tried embedding something on the images on your site to discourage people from taking them? You know, something like Getty Photos does, I can't recall the terminology for it? Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't know anything about any other editors, vandals or other websites. I have been a writer and researcher for 25 years. What I read was filled with vanity: "I am so smart look at all my research." What I should have been reading was the story of a short tragic life, instead it was a historiography. I took out nothing that was about Entwistle herself. If you have so much more information about her stagecraft, then it should have been IN there to begin with and would still be there. You are a crew chief, I am a writer. I don't tell you how to maintain planes. Your facts and research were fine, but THAT's not what makes a good biographical article, accuracy, interest and readability. No one is impugning your research and despite all your screaming swearing and paranoia, you know that. You aren't a writer. No one expects any contributor to WP to research, write and edit every article they work on. I research and write pieces, then others come along and tweak them, and together we make them better. And if there is deadwood in the article that by removal improves the piece, then so be it. The article was practically unreadable before, filled with nonsense you had to cut through to find the actual STORY. If yhou have more data about her performances I suggest you insert it, as the lack of it was what caused the Ibsen confusion. there was a BROADWAY section, I assumed the performances mentioned IN IT were on Broadway - create another section for Theater Guild and OFF Broadway performances. EraserGirl (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- First I have to say that while I understand that you are quite upset, you really need to calm down, since nothing on Wikipedia is ever gone, it exists in the history of any page by restoring that point in the article. I'm not interested in taking sides on this issue, I'm somewhat trying to mediate in a way. Having said that, you really can't launch your own attacks in response, whether it is on my talk page or any other. That will stop anyone interested in resolving the issue from moving forward. Be that as it may, I don't believe that the changes EraserGirl made were done with malice against you or anyone else. As I said, a Wikipedia tenet is to assume good faith. Yes, it would have been better to ask you, but that didn't happen, so there's nothing that can rectify that except to move forward. While I'm willing to work on this, I am not willing to entertain attacks on others in the process. I am convinced it is a lousy coincidence, as I said above, perhaps instigated by the fact that the profile of the page was raised due to the vandalism by others. Such incidents raise awareness of articles that people didn't know existed before and I've seen lots of revisions occur on pages when something similar happens. I don't need convinced about the IBDB, as I noted on the article talk page, there are omissions aplenty on there for shows that I know for a fact were Broadway productions that I have attended. You need to decide if you want to work on this, but in a manner reflecting good faith. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Wow!
- James, it's a bank holiday weekend where I am (Australia), and I've just resumed Wikipedia-ing and saw your message to me. I appear to have (whew!) missed quite a weekend (not that I'm complaining), and it seems that there is now nothing for me to do (except thank the heavens), and to acknowledge your message and say "hi". So - hi .... nice to hear from you, as always, and .... sorry, I can't think what to say to you..... keep up the good work? ;-) Rossrs (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's all good, James. It was a rough day and I'm just glad it has settled down. I do think that the advice EraserGirl gave you, about poking around and doing some editing on other pages might give you a better feel for what is here. I don't want to see you depart, you have things to offer Wikipedia, and all things, in the end, are for the greater good of the project! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] a few ideas
take them or leave them. 1. you should play around on WP. find a few things you can tweak that AREN'T Peg Entwistle. You are in danged of being considered a SAP - Single Purpose Account. Fiddle around elsewhere, correct a few things other people wrote. You will get a better feel for the place, and see how community editing works. I hated it when I started. Like you I became possessive. Editing other articles, helped me to get over it. You should see MY rants.
2. I still think you should add more about her stage work. I don't think adding plays, roles and dates would endanger your book. They are facts, facts aren't copyrightable anyway. Save all the critical reviews and descriptions for yourself. 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. Was she? 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.
3. I don't think you are in danger of losing your book to someone else. If you read a LOT of bios, you will see that they are filled with color, texture, opinion, trivia,...and all the stuff I cut out of the WP article. Seriously if EVERYTHING you have was on that page, you don't have enough for a book yet anyway. I bet you have lots of critical reviews, and descriptive material that would look out of place here, but give a well rounded portrait elsewhere.
4. Think of the WP article as a jumping off place to your book, like a trailer for a film. Here it is all bare bones, black and white, facts, figures, who, what, where, when, etc.. and your book will be full length in living color with sights, smells and sounds. Sorry if I am obtuse, I think visually.
Anyway, if I can help, give a shout. I am sorry I freaked you out. But I think Peg deserves an article which is all about her and nothing else. Seriously even the desk Sgt's name? ;) EraserGirl (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] IDEAS REPLY
1. I will do that! Thanks for the tip!
2. I do agree people should be informed about her other plays. I am chewing on it. The thing here is that I have worked very hard to trace these tours. For example regarding just one play:
I had to sit in front of a microfiche machine and do a literal day-by-day scan of virtually every page of the 1929 NYT just to find out that she opened with William Gillette's "Farewell Tour" of "Sherlock Holmes" in Springfield, Mass. The IBDB has her only opening in NYC and doing 45 performances until it closed to move on to another city.
When I first started researching her movements, I believed she did just the above-mentioned 45. The research I did on Gillette told me that this "Farewell Tour" changed cast members with each new venue...thus, I surmised she never went with him. Then, based on an ambigous sentence in a letter she wrote to her Aunt Jane (furnished to me by her brother, Milton), I suspected I was given bad info and began the microfiche search. I found a tiny paragraph mentioning the cast and that this troupe would accompany Gillette to Springfield for the tour's debut.
More archive searches and I found Mass newspapers showing her with him (great reviews, as usual for her). On a hunch, I began searching the Hartford papers, and there she is again, and then I found her going on to more cities with Gillette. I was the only person to take it to that level. Her family never knew, either...no one knew. If I hadn't been so passionate about this it is likely that no one would ever have discovered that she did more away from Broadway than on Broadway! Her movements in just this one play cost me hundreds of hours and dollars to trace.
I want very much to tell the world about this and the other productions, however, I also very much wish to save it for the book because I do want people to know that I discovered it. I guess it's an ego thing, Eraser. (May I call you, "Eraser?")
As to the suicide--If you think the above seems complicated, you ain't seen nothin'! You are in the ball park about some things. Depression was certainly a factor. I believe she also had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). While she was only 2 when her mother died, and likely didn't remember this, she was 13 when her step-mom died slowly and bed-ridden. She was very, very close to Lauretta. Less tha a year later her father is crushed under the car. His spine broken and shoved partly into his brain. He lived for some weeks in a private hospital, head to toe in a body cast. He died less than a week before Christmas. She accompanied her uncle and the body on a train to Ohio. (This from telegrams furnished to me by Milton.)
Some Christmas for a young girl, eh?
She was abused, beaten and God knows what else by that SOB, Robert Keith. In letters to Jane, it is clear she was very much in love with him. Later, (from other letters I have) many other things begin to happen. She was devastated to no end when she discovered she was wife #3 and now, by law, a step-mom. (btw, except for her brothers, she hated kids!)
There are other factors involving family problems which I can not get into now, but trust me on this...RKO had NOTHING to do with her suicide. It's a red herring.
She was broke and could not find work. BTW, all who say she was looking for film roles after the RKO debacle are not accurate. She was looking for stage work here (I'm in Los Angeles). I assume most suicides have one central under-lying cause (In the victim's mind). Peg has several surrounding one. It's for the book and will not go on the site. Hope Anderson, with whom I work as her "Peg" consultant for the soon-coming documentary, "Under the Hollywood Sign," will touch a bit on my findings, and a few of her own, however, it requires an entire book to set up and at least a whole chapter to explain. I promise that once (if) you read the book, you will have much less confusion.
3. Yes, you're correct about bios, but let me assure you, I not only have enough for a good-sized, definitive book, I have too much!! This was only possible because of the family and their remarkable habit of saving almost everything concerning the Entwistle/Ross family back to the mid-1800's! I have dozens and dozens of photos never seen outside the family. I have letters from Peg to the family and from them to her. Many more documents and wonderful anecdotes handed down from elder to child. I have pics of Peg as a child (adorable!!) and in plays. I have the saddest pic of her taken just a few days before her death.
Her family's work in the stage and Silent Era is amazing, and this will be covered in detail. Example: Her Uncle and Father performed for King George V at the Coronation! Her uncle and aunt were dear friends and co-workers with many pioneers of the Silents, and Jane Ross had a remarkable bay horse named Don Caesar that followed about town (Santa Monica) like a dog. There is so, so, soooo much I have. But it is for the book, and I have shared just a few small things for the documentary. (I should add Hope Anderson also works very close with the Entwistle family.)
4. I do think of WP as a "jumping-off place for the book, and I also do not think you said, "jumping-off place" with malice, given the, uh, nature of it all ;>)
I love the word "obtuse," I'll have to look it up...:).
Thanks for all the suggestions, and I will call on you for help, I'm sure. I don't know where you live, but in a month or so, after the premiere of "Under the Hollywood Sign," here at Paramount, Hope Anderson is taking the film overseas to show at some festivals. I'll keep you all posted with the hope you will give it a look...btw, Hope Anderson's trailer and a preview can be found on YouTube. They are linked from the bottom of my home page, or you could just keyword "Peg Entwistle" or "The Hollywood Sign Girl." Hope's user name is "Underthesign1."
Well, that's it for now...oh, nope, can't do the Watermark thing, I'm not happy with it, I tried and didn't like the look. My image enhancement guy, Ron Erb, has embedded each image with an invisable identifier, but I'm not concerned....the best pics are yet to come. Jameszerukjr (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Watermarks
If you are worried about folks pilfering images and scans from your website, why not put watermarks on them. The document scans are just images, so a watermark somewhere on it will identify its origin. If you don't have an Adobe prgm like Photoshop etc.. you can download GIMP which is an Open Source Imaging software which works just as well. IF you images are 72pix and watermarked no one is likely to lift them for another purpose. EraserGirl (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
