Middle Brighton railway station

Welcome!

Referencing

{{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB.

---

Re: I'm sorry!

No problem at all. I happened to look at the page history and saw that you'd been working on it, but figured you had finished because it was about 15 minutes since your last edit. When I got a edit conflict note I realized you were still working on it and skaddadled off to the Serial killer article. Ugh, trying to find sources for all that uncited info is a real pain in the arse. The beautiful bibliography is useless without page numbers! How goes your editing? --*momoricks* (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to the Wuornos article look good. I'm going to expand the Victims section and find sources about her legal adoption by Arlene Pralle so I can add that back in. As I'm sure you saw on the talk page, the original info was uncited and ridiculously inflammatory/POV. *sigh* Oh, and I read the note on the Zodiac page...ack. Have fun with Andrei! ;) --*momoricks* (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the murders section. The article is starting to look really good. Have a great weekend! --*momoricks* (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

Yes. However, some comments aside, I'm rather hopeful that he can be logically argued to be a more productive than disruptive influence. From the link you gave to this (which I like to hope is a genuine thought); from outright removal of (possibly) spuriously-sourced comments, to asking for sources. That's progress... I hope. :o)

Basically, I think there's hope, even though the memory you evoke was not a pleasant one (and, frankly, somewhat bemusing at the time). If you are aware of the pre-history to that, though, or even if you read between the lines of the BLP-points raised, it becomes clear that "A.K.A.S" did have initial cause for serious complaint against Wikipedia. Not against us, nor against many of the people that ire is being (mis)directed at, but certainly cause for very serious complaint. I absolutely disagree with many of the methods by which he seems to be addressing those complaints, and certainly feel that more constructive contributions would go a long way to helping heal the harm, rather than simply fighting fire with fire. I tried to point that out here, and hope that some of those thoughts reached home.

Ultimately, attempting to "unmask," ban, block or otherwise hinder him at the moment is, clearly, going to bring about precisely the situation you mention all over again. If possible, I would like to avoid that. If on this occasion we can all calmly and rationally have a meeting of the minds (and, again, I hope this is possible), then I think there will be a massive positive reached from a pretty nasty negative. I prefer to hope that careful handling, rational discussion, a lot of crossed fingers and some understanding will be a help; while I would pretty much guarantee that any submission/referal/complaint of puppetry (or similar) will swiftly degenerate back into an identical situation, and we'll all be worse off.

I would advise caution. I would prefer everyone to 'let it go' (a little, at least) for the time being, and just think positive thoughts..! I don't want this to escalate further, and I don't think it has to, so...

If this makes any sense (or even if it doesn't!), please comment further. :o) And thanks for mentioning it. ntnon (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, and as I say: 'fingers crossed'. The threats and stalking are totally beyond the pale, I agree. But there's some mitigation (some) to be had from the deeper history of the issues. Conflict of Interest is also an issue, but not one that's particularly high on my agenda - unless it's overly self-serving, un-'notable' or misinformation. And frankly, I can think of few people better to start certain articles than those involved... so long as they maintain a proper degree of attachment and non-bias.

I broadly agree with your old school approach, but there are two obvious flaws: second chances (although the multiple number of second chances some people seem to get with simple things like 'good faith' - there's somebody heading through the Archie Comics articles at the moment randomly erasing details without a thought, comment or edit summary, who seems to just be allowed to continue! That is more of a problem; at least here we have engagement... not always entirely civil, and sometimes downright nasty, but still. There's a dialog.) or the chance to turn over a new leaf, and trying to do what's best, or right. In this, fairly sensitive, case, it would not do anyone much good to go for a puppet-branding and banning, and would likely do ill. That is, I realise, not a million miles from tacit scare tactics, but it's also hand-in-hand with kid gloves and red tape, both of which have some history to them..!

Luck will be helpful. Politeness will be a must, and I may change my hopes shortly, but in the meantime... optimism isn't an inherently bad thing, is it..?! :o) ntnon (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Manson articles

Thanks for the alert re the sock puppet.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinton/Palin

Yep, that would've actually been insulting! Pinkadelica (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Myspace

People really aren't pulling your leg. Validated Myspace sites can be used as being statements from the people that own them. It's subject to the normal problems of primary sourcing: you can't take primary sources as being truth, you can only take them as truly reflecting the statements of the source (i.e., if Lindsay Lohan claimed she was the Queen of Senegal on her Myspace, an article could say "Lohan says she is the Queen of Senegal", not "Lohan is the Queen of Senegal").

As for validating the page, look at http://www.lindsaylohanmusic.com/. It redirects to the Myspace page in question. A whois on that site shows that it is owned and maintained by Motown Records, Lohan's record label. Validates all the way through. Kww (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

The September 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. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas

As seen on the Kirk Douglas discussion page: Notability is difficult for me to discern. I have a feeling that it is like art. You know it when you know it. I added the notability phrase to publicly announce why I was adding it. I felt since it was the lead idea expressed in the new york times review of the piece, that was enough for me to consider it notable. One the source of the review. Two the fact it was written 25 years after release. Three I forget what three was for. I am not advocating for a return for the notability phrase. I am just satisfied, the entire edit was not deleted. I had this great picture and felt it needed to be discussed, and did not want to get into a is it notable or non notable debate. cheers I am still new in content creation. I am much more a nit picking tidbitter to existing article.

ps

I could not easily tell what was wrong

with the references. if you would share with me,

I will adjust my citation methods.

--K3vin (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I agree with the notability issue, I just am so notabilanoid, it seems every article I work on has a notability template put on it. So I tend to stress things that may fit in the notability guidelines. In this case it was a stretch, in that the review went on to say how poor the production was :-) anyway, thanks again for your helpful guidance. --K3vin (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Our killer pet project

The Wuornos article is getting close to being a GA; however, I've reached the land of confusion with the Serial killer article. While I was trying to improve the Motives section, the sources kept mentioning that most serial killers exhibit numerous motives, which makes it difficult to give examples for each category. Would you mind looking at it? Perhaps we should just give basic descriptions of the four categories and leave it at that. On a different note, I was thinking about going through all the articles and performing citation cleanup/archiving. Are you cool with that? Thanks, --*momoricks* (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I was able to find an example of a mission killer (the Unabomber) from the preview of Serial Murder, but the other examples were of non-notable people or not included in the preview. I'll try to track down a hard copy. I'll also take a look at the list of related articles. --*momoricks* (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Manson tags

Thanks for the message re the fact tags. On the article's discussion page, as you've probably noticed by now, I've presented my reaction to the points raised. We'll see what happens.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The Sock Who Debated Himself. — At the moment, my recommendations re the fact-tagged items are as follows:

1 — The tags in paragraph two's first sentence (re "Helter Skelter") should come out. The sentence is a summary, introductory statement whose claims are presented and documented in detail elsewhere in the article; it doesn't need a footnote or footnotes of its own. (Not sure what the Wikipedia procedure is re documentation of this sort of introductory remark. Choosing a particular footnote in support of the summary statement would be difficult. Three or four footnotes would probably be necessary.)

2 — The article's opening sentence should be changed to this:

Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is an American criminal who led what became known as "the Manson Family," a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s.

3 — The DeCarlo-based remarks about girls at Brunner's place should be changed to the following:

After moving in with her, according to a second-hand account, he overcame her resistance to his bringing other women in to live with them; and before long, they were sharing Brunner's residence with eighteen other women.

Of course, Antivert might respond with information that would make me change or withdraw those recommendations. I suppose a waiting period for his or her response is in order, but you would know better than I.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your lucid reply. Maybe you've seen that Antivert has suggested I make the changes mentioned in my talk-page comments. I'm going to enter the revised sentences I presented above.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Taylor & OR

I'm asking you 'cause you know about these things. Sorry, cheesy 80s song cliches aside, do you think it's time the uncited/OR section of the Robert Taylor article should be 86'ed already? It's been uncited for a loooong time (tagged since Feb '08 by me, but there for much longer) and I doubt the anonymous editor who added it in good faith will return to cite it. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I can do that. Let me go see Bob and I'll get started. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you want me to fix what's wrong (some of those will take awhile) or just tag 'em and strike 'em out? Pinkadelica (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm letting you know now that Béla Lugosi is a mess and should be dumped. It has loads of unsourced content, speculation, trivia, pop culture references, etc. You can take a look (I'm still going to finish up some sourcing and then I'll tag it) and then remove it. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Article review

You can strike Julia Stiles off the list or make a note of it since I skipped to the "S" section. I did a checklink, removed the unclear wording, removed all the unsourced content, and sourced the bits that warranted inclusion. I now know way too much about Julia Stiles. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is! I'm guessing someone didn't know how to cite references and put them there and then someone came along and created citations and didn't bother taking them down. That's my guess anyway. They probably can be removed since they're already in the article as far as I can tell. I didn't do a through check as I was going into Julia Stiles overload. By the way, your last question...what the hell? Dumb it down for me....I'm high as a kite on Tylenol severe allergy meds and I'm slow on the uptake. Well, slower than usual. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew that's what you were asking! Here I was chiding myself for thinking that. She's not that I know of. There was some stuff that she "reportedly" dated this dude and some other guy, but I didn't find any thing concrete. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You can cross off Johnny Weissmuller. It still needs additional references (I'll add some later), but other than that, it's good to go. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wowza...that's quite a farm. Thanks for the input. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Russell Crowe

Please see Talk:Russell Crowe regarding South Park episode discussion. Thanks. HagenUK (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hello again Wildhartlivie. My apologies for the delay in getting back to you. To answer your first question I wound up working on the Dillinger page after veiwing the 1973 Warren Oates film on cable TV the other night. I know that it has its inaccuracies but I like it anyway. One of the reasons being the fact that Oates and Ben Johnson get the lead roles after years of marvelous supporting performances (they were even brothers once in The Wild Bunch!) Next, thanks for the links to other ongoing projects. As a wikignome I am always looking for other areas to work on and I will be happy to help where I can if, and when, I get the time. Things are a little hectic off-wiki right now so it may be a bit before I can do much. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Would like your advice

Wild, I need advice. May we discuss it here? Then, after a short discussion, I would like you to delete whatever we have determined. Thanks. Hag2 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Inslaw is being rewritten by someone who professes to be Wm Hamilton, the owner of Inslaw Inc. (see the differences 1); however a good number of his editorial changes seem awkward both in writing, and in known reported factual information. On the other hand, before I pass him off as a vandal, I would like another opinion, yours. You are far more experienced in this sort of thing than I. Give me until tonight to write up my concerns in a lengthy diatribe with crosslinking to various exhibits. I'll try to workout the details this afternoon. I elected to use your talkpage for our conversation so that I did not tip the person off yet to my concerns if he happens to be watching my talkpage. If you want to begin deleting immediately after reading this, that is good by me too. Please look sometime this evening for my further remarks, and thanks. Hag2 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

On Oct. 9, I noticed that 71.178.226.81 had begun editing Inslaw.

At first his edits seemed constructive, more in-depth detail than the existing material. For example, he went into greater depth about the controversy between Inslaw and DOJ by adding information regarding The Copyright Act of 1976.

Although his new information was written sadly, I overlooked his writing, and paid little attention to anything further.

By the next day however, I had begun to reconsider my decision to overlook his writing, and elected to reword his copyright-addition slightly so that it would read more easily.

At the same time, I began reading further down the article, and noticed other, poorly written, new additions, full of "inside explanation", and wondered who, where, why and what was 71.178.... So I performed a WHOIS on the IP and discovered that the IP was listed to a "pool-71-178-226-81.washdc.fios.verizon.net", or more specifically: Reston, Va..

A few more clicks of the WHOIS told me that whomever 71.178... was, he was someone who may have had greater knowledge about which he was writing than I.

However at this point I soon discovered that 71.178... and I had a slight disagreement over the total number of U.S. Attorneys Offices which received the Enhanced PROMIS as part of a pilot program in April 1983. So I marked his "input" with a "dubious-talkpage-clarify" inline-citation and hoped to see some factual referencing for his position.

After waiting three hours, I entered 71's own talkpage (which did not exist at the time) and started it for him with a query. (notice the time of my query 12:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)). He answered me directly with "There are fully-litigated findings of fact..." (unsigned); I replied with "Okay....", several hours later. (Prior to our exhange, I had grown concerned about his additions (and especially his phrasing) so I noted his worst on the article's Talkpage (begin at #2), and directed his attention there.)

In the meantime, I overlooked whatever was going on within Inslaw.

But then suddenly this morning at 08:55, 12 October 2008 I noticed that 71 had initiated a new userpage for "76.18.82.93"; he wrote: "I do not know who you are but you asked who I (William Hamilton) am." The remark caught my attention because he was addressing some unknown party with "...you asked who I..." which was not me. His entire paragraph however was in response to my query at 71's page the previous day. This meant that 71 and 76 were either working together or were the same person.

When I ran a WHOIS on 76 though, the result returned an IP in Mt Laurel, NJ.

(No big deal yet, I said to myself, Hamilton could live in NJ and work in VA, and fly back and forth for the holiday.)

It was his "list of contributions by 76" which then caught my eye, as well as the time of their beginning (i.e. 04:24, 28 May 2007). His contributions did not seem to be the sort of contributions which an owner of Inslaw would contribute e.g. "Reptilian humanoid", "Mohamed Atta", "American Airlines Flight 11"...?

So I went back to Inslaw and took a good, hard look at everything added by "71 (76)".

At this point I noticed glaring differences between version-9-October (primarily me), and version-12-October (him) (see 2). By far the most significant of all was the additional information provided by "71 (76)" about the Three Panel Review Board of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. 71's new material was unsupported by reference citations and could be entirely wrong; moreover I had seen this kind of claim about "Inslaw winning the judgment" written in the Danny Casolaro conclusion (which I had eventually removed).

Thus, I confronted 71 with the facts...at his last known location i.e. 76's talkpage.

I am currently waiting for a response.

In the meantime, I have discovered that 76 first entered Inslaw on 13 September 2007 with a peculiar post: "Anyone have a wiki page for this William Hamilton. Was he mentioned as the founder before my edit?..."

Everything seems to suggest to me that "71 (76)" is a vandal.

What do you think? Hag2 (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Luciano

Okay, working on Lucky Luciano now ... anything to avoid articles about fiction! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to hand this back to you for some sourcing. The first two sections have no refs. I've skimmed The Five Families, and the other ref available online, and all the relevant external links, and I see nothing to support anything in the first two paragraphs. Do you have any idea where we could source this information from? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Little Girl Lost

Yeah, I'll give it a go. Let me finish up this stupid television show article I stupidly got into cleaning up and I'll fix it. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 03:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Martinez quote and reference on Charles Whitman Page

The quote references his own book - it is a Vanity Press, paid and distributed by him - NOR should apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)