User talk:TrueHeartSusie3

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)

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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

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]

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]

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:

• Any ideas on how to illustrate the section on her childhood? Images of her as a child, her mother, her guardian, or Monroe & Dougherty's wedding would be ideal for this section, but they are probably all copyrighted? I've tried to look for photos but have to confess it isn't really my forte. I've also tried to find good 1930s images on Commons of the places she lived in as a child: Hawthorne, Los Angeles, the orphanage... but with no luck.
• Childhood: the problem in writing this section has been that Spoto and Banner don't always agree, especially when it comes to the number of Monroe's foster families. For example, Spoto states that from Nov. '37 until Aug. '38, Monroe lived with her uncle's wife, and then moved to live with Ana Lower, her legal guardian's elderly aunt; Banner states that she only lived with her uncle's wife from Nov. '37 until the Los Angeles Flood of 1938 in February '38, and then lived briefly in two foster families before moving in with Lower. Spoto also says the uncle's wife lived in Compton, while Banner states that she lived in North Hollywood, and one of the families she briefly lived in before moving in with Lower lived in Compton...

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.

• Para on sexual abuse: should I or should I not list the biographers who claim it's a lie and those who think it is true?
• Monroe owned her own production company and chose the projects for it, but I don't think she was ever named producer in the credits of any of her films. Can she still be called a film producer?

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

Thanks for getting the books and the offer of help, would definitely be much appreciated :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

It's definitely interesting! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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]

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]

Perhaps the first one? Thank you! And yes, I did.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie[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]

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]

This is quite a fun one from Some Like It Hot: [4], or this [5] --Loeba (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[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:

• File:Marilyn Monroe Asphalt Jungle.jpg
• File:Marilyn Monroe Misfits.jpg
• File:Marilyn Monroe Seven Year Itch.jpg

We hope (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

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

• On the Death of Marilyn Monroe page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

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]

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]

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]

	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]

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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

I asked a few people to look at the peer review, hope it helps.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Do you have access to Newspapers.com?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

It was a pleasure to do so.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

Hello, TrueHeartSusie3. Marilyn Monroe, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 00:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

@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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

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]

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

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]

@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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

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]

@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)TrueHeartSusie3[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)TrueHeartSusie3[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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

He's either trolling or too hypocritical for words! Both lame, either way. --Loeba (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

@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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

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

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]

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]

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]

On 15 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marilyn Monroe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marilyn Monroe was featured on the cover and on the centerfold of the first issue of Playboy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marilyn Monroe. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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]

@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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

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:

• is Out (1972)|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/hammersmith-is-out-1972|work=Roger Ebert (originally published in the ''Chicago Sun-Times''|date=May 26, 1972|accessdate=November 7, 2015}}</
• of Elizabeth Taylor: The Icon and her Haute Couture, Evening Sale (III) |publisher=Christie's[date=December 14, 2011}}</ref> [[Valentino Garavani]] stated that Taylor was one of the first

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

Sure, I'll give it a read tonight! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Thanks for your time. Would you mind striking out/collapsing the addressed concerns? —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[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]

Sigh, I never knew "woman" is abusive in English Wikipedia. —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[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]

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]

"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]

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]

Glad to know that. This conversation is over. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[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]

@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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

@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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Sure. I understand that! —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

In that case, James Tod and his works cannot be considered RS I guess. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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: [email protected]sinarau (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

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]

Thanks for your comments; they were really helpful. Merry Christmas! -- Frankie _talk 19:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: No worries, and merry Christmas to you too! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

	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]

..And happy Christmas/Hyvää joulua! Hope you've had a lovely few days. --Loeba (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Congrats from me as well :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

	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]

	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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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]

@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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

@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]

No worries! That sounds like a wonderful idea! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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..!

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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

	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]

	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]

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Sure. Wouldn't want to desecrate your talk page any further with my grotesque lacking of writing skills. Informant16 9 April 2016

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]

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)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

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:

• 25, 1953|work=[[The New York Times]]|page=31|accessdate=29 November 2015}}</ref><ref>Alam, p. 8}}</ref>

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]

	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]

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]

Hahah, thank you! :) And thanks for replying to Checkingfax, I think you put it very well! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

You should both be celebrities! :-) Thanks, THS! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[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]

(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]

It does look good! The Chaplin archives in Bologna is also a place I'd like to visit. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 20