Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

No Copying from Press Releases!

This sounds like something off a press release or official site - possible copyright violation?

A press release should not be a copyright violation -- it's public information.
(IANALB) A press release has copyright protection unless its author (or usually the author's employer) specifically places it in the public domain. The fact that it is (whether explicitly or implicitly) intended for use, paraphrased or verbatim, by the journalistic press, does not change that. A journalist could, perhaps, with a good intellectual-property lawyer, claim that industry practice and the distribution list of a relesase demonstrated an intent to convey permission to republish in the journalist's paper or magazine, but even so it would be a big stretch from there to claiming the underlying copyright had been voided.
Material whose use is authorized in specific conditions, other than by executing a GFDL, may not be included in GFDL works. And arguments that something entered public domain other than by explicit law or copyright-holder act are wildly irresponsible until OKed by a good intellectual-property lawyer.
--Jerzy(t) 16:55, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)
Yes, but a press release is (a) inherently POV, and (b) pretty dumb-sounding. Perhaps the sort of thing we'd like to quote, but definitely not the sort of thing we'd like to incorporate wholesale. grendel|khan 09:37, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

How Many Articles

This article reads like a TWIN of the Mary-Kate Olsen article --Ed Poor

Oughtn't they to be combined into a single article like the Wright brothers, Auguste and Louis Lumiere, and other such well-known sibling pairs rarely referred to separately? --
i agree The Olsen Twins is a better idea
I don't know...they are separate people...
I won't be convinced of THAT until I see them apart JUST ONCE. ~Resister
One of them had her "boney" back headlined alone on the cover of a tabloid last month; are we there yet? --Jerzy(t) 16:55, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

Misc

Didn't they do a DtV series called the Trenchcoat Twins at one point?

Actually, the "Trenchcoat Twins" was one of the lines used for Adventures of Mary-Kate and Ashley.

Look and feel? 'Sophisticated & classic' and 'Sport'? What are we, in grade two? Anyone object if I remove most of that pointless and shallow table? --Yamla 20:59, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

That would be great. I started that table with just a couple of physical distinctions (ok, I had nothing better to do at the time and so I took the easy way: contributing with something that demands as little thinking as possible), but then I guess the hardcore fans went overboard and stuffed it with all sorts of pointless "data" (and I use this term loosely). I didn't revert it though, since I was lacking the patience for a potential revert war with whoever it was that did that, but by all means do clean up that table. Regards, Redux 00:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, should we add info about the countdown until they're legal? It's in about 10 days ^-^ ~Resister 1:09, 3 Jun, 2004 (UTC)

Car crash

This must be garbled:

Mary-Kate Olsen and her bodyguard were involved in a non serious car accident six days later, on May 21, when her car's brakes failed her at a jammed Los Angeles freeway, and he could not stop in time to avoid crashing into her car. No one was injured in the accident.

Two cars, her brakes failed her (i.e., she was at the wheel), causing him to hit her? If that's what happened, it's worth saying enough more to keep it from looking like a slip of the pen. --Jerzy(t) 16:55, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

The car crash (as well as the SNL appearance) are pointless anyways. We can't include every minor detail of an actor's life on every actor page (I can't believe I'm starting an edit war about the Olsen Twins...honestly, if someone can dispute this, I really don't care to argue it further...) --Resister 18:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree. --Dovin 04:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree. A car crash is ALWAYS an important part of a person's biography, specially when it was spread all over the news!.

Antonio Twins Girl Toy Martin

I agree and disagree. While the car acciodent is not relevant, the Saturday Night Live appearance is relevant to the twins' acting career.—Mr. Grinch 19:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anorexia

An IP notes:

Note: In June 2004, rumors have be going around that one of the olsen twins was anorexic.

We don't do rumors, and what the tabloid-press publishes are often not even authentic rumors.
Reverting.
--Jerzy(t) 04:02, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

However, they are eerily thin, and a google search for "olsen thinspiration" reveals that they're revered by the pro-ana crowd. Whether or not they have eating disorders, they are icons within the eating-disordered community, and this should be reflected in the article. However, since I have a deep, deep loathing of the Olsen Twins, my contributions will likely reek of this bias. If someone else wants to do the work for me (not only am I biased, I'm lazy!), it'd be nice. Else, I'll be taking a sword to the page. Because damn, could it ever use one. grendel|khan 09:41, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
The "Who is who" section has been deleted. It belongs on a fan site, not in the encyclopedia. grendel|khan 19:55, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
That would be your opinion. Before you delete entire sections of an article, it is policy to start a discussion (again, discuss first). The features in the table are objective, not "fan stuff", since they list physical distinctions (and a chronologic one). The table had been stuffed with typical fan exaggeration, but Yamla cleaned it up, leaving only the objective comparisons. In an article about twins that few people can tell apart, most will find objective distinctions useful. As long as it's not listing "favorite food" and "preferred beverage", it's well within encyclopedic parameters. To disagree is your prerrogative, but that does not mean that the section should be deleted. I will restore the table as it existed after Yamla's cleanup. See his comment and you'll notice that he and I agreed on what constitutes exaggeration in that table, but getting rid of the whole thing just because you don't like it is an exaggeration as well. Regards, Redux 01:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is not a rummor that Ashley Olsen was suffering from anorexia in 2004, this was made pbulic knowledge and she has since recieved treatment.

Please cite. From a reputable source. --Yamla 13:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

New York Minute

The film New York Minute was released to critical and commercial failure and ultimately became a box office bomb.

Why isn't this on the list at the linked page ? I'd suggest either adding it to the list, or editing the last 7 words ...
--Generica 04:41, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Two articles

See also #Propose merge Again below.

This absolutely should be broken up into two articles, it's actually offensive.

Come on now, they aren't siamese [conjoined] twins. They are 18 now and are two separate people with separate medical conditions, it's offensive to have only one entry for both of them. The Olsen Twins page can be a blurb that describes their stardom and media empire as twins with references to the individual pages for Mary-Kate and Ashley (so really there should be three+ pages, not one or two).

Highly do-able. The Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen pages are there, with people linking to them as individual entities, its just that they are redirects. I'm still a bit unsure if there are enough differences to warrant two separate pages yet. Anyone else have an opinion? -- Generica 23:58, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, neither sister has starred in anything alone. Not to be too harsh, but if they're such distinct individuals, you'd think they might occasionally be cast on their own merits rather than because they have a twin sister... When there's something to say about one that can't also be said about the other, that's the time for separate articles. The drug addiction is the only thing I can think of that's true for one and not the other. - Nunh-huh 00:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ashley is appearing on the cover of Bazaar by herself this month. Additionally, they each are their own person, with their own personal lives. Mary-Kate is transferring back to California, while Ashley is staying in New York. Ashley wants to produce, while Mary-Kate wants to leave the film industry. Although they have usually been co-stars, they are in no way able to be described by the same article.
(this comment was added by User:134.69.101.241 on 19:33, 7 July 2005)
There are a number of joint articles for separate people who are almost always spoken of in the same breath; other cases include married couples, such as Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and Michael Hendricks and René Leboeuf. - Montréalais 17:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Their official website is www.mary-kateandashley.com, so why cant the article be Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. If there was an article for each sister, over half of each, maybe 3/4, will be identical. I completely disagree with The Olsen Twins being the actual title too, since they absolutly hate being called that, lol. --AlexTheMartian 02:17, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Too much money

Hi. I don't really know that much about them, but I seriously doubt that they make 200 million (or 160 million, as it said before) a year. If I'm not mistaken, each one of them is "worth" 250 million, but that's the combined amount that they have earned throughout their careers (which is basically as long as they are old), not their yearly income. If they made 200 million a year, their personal fortunes would be much, much larger by now, isn't it? Besides, who makes 200 million in a year? Maybe Bill Gates, but still I don't believe he gets that much money in his savings account at the end of every year (it's mostly bonds from Microsoft). It's not about guessing some new figure though, so unless someone can come up with an accurate figure, based on some non-imaginary source, I'll remove that passage altogether (maybe replace it with something like: "(...) has become a very profitable industry, with their likeness (...)", or something else?). Regards, Redux 01:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it is pretty peculiar that this article now makes no mention of how rich they are, given that seems to be the main point of interest surrounding them. Pcb21| Pete 12:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do the twins have those collagen injections on their lips?

I've never seen this spoken about before, but to me they look like they have had collagen injections. Any confirmations?

There are several errors in this article

There are several errors in this article and I will list them. I would like to see changes immediately.

1. They started their careers in television at the age of nine months not three months. That is general knowledge if you are a Mary-Kate and Ashley fan. It is on all their TV specials.

2. When they hosted Saturday Night Live not only Ashley Olsen yelled to Mary-Kate. It was also Mary-Kate Olsen and Amy Poehler. If you actually watched that episode of SNL you would know.

3. Ashley stands five feet three inches (1.60 meters) and Mary-Kate stand five feet two inches (1.57 meters). Check Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen at the Internet Movie Database if you don't believe I am correct.

That wasn't so much an error as the fact that most people grow during their lives. I updated it from that source the other day. Moreover, have we any evidence that neither has grown another inch since IMDb was updated? -- Smjg 10:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
IMDB is not always an entirely credible source. Mary-Kate is 5'1" and Ashley is 5'2". My source is the 10,000 little girls who are obsessed with them and so know... read a live journal forum if you really need a source.
{this comment was added by User:134.69.101.241 on 19:29, 7 July 2005)
The only way I can see this having any relevance is if these 10,000 little girls follow the two around and regularly take measurements. -- Smjg 09:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

4. Ashley is older by two minutes not three. Check Mary-Kate Olsen at the Internet Movie Database if you don't beleive I am correct.

"She is younger than Ashley by about 2 minutes". True, that at least suggests that the difference is between 1½ and 2½ minutes, but still. Moreover, AIUI IMDb relies on user contributions rather like Wikipedia does. So can either be deemed a more reliable source than the other? -- Smjg 10:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5.The made for tv movie section of the filmography is incorrect. They have made five made for tv movies. The Challenge, Switching Goals, How the West Was Fun, Double, Double, Toil and Trouble, and To Grandmother's House We Go. The rest listed were video releases. Check Mary-Kate Olsen or Ashley Olsen at the Internet Movie Database if you don't believe I am correct.

6. Ashley Olsen filed a lawsuit against the National Enquirer on February 14 not February 16. Check Ashley Olsen at the Internet Movie Database if you don't believe I am correct.

I listed reliable sources for all of the errors. I would like to discuss it with someone. = 9:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great, well now that you have FINALLY stopped making unattributed changes to the article, as you or someone very much like you has been doing for quite some time, perhaps we can DISCUSS these changes. With the exception of your fifth point, you have not cited any of these revisions. While there is a good chance that you are right, I would really like to see some independent confirmation of these points before we change the page. In any case, of course, we can't change the page right now, it is protected from editing. --Yamla 01:20, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
I made two corrections to the article. The age they began work and the age difference after looking them up at the imDb. Since it is protected I thought I'd be open about it. This link is Broken 01:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quoted from the article:

Because the producers did not want viewers to know that Michelle was Asplayed by twins, the sisters were originally credited as "Mary Kate Ashley Olsen", but later credited as separate people.

Emphasis mine. Shouldn't "Asplayed" be "played?" Can anyone with edit access correct this?

I'm sorry, I almost died laughing while reading the 1st comment above with the 6 suggested changes. Anyone THAT anal about the olsen twins needs to take a walk around their moms basement and remember to breathe. On a constructive note, how does the imdb information possibly count as verfiable in any fashion? I looked up Ashley Olsen (yes I know its 11:30 pst on a thursday night...) and a large portion of her info. is contributed by anonymous sources. I hardly consider that worthy of the strong fashion the above presented the initial edits J Shultz 06:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Propose merge again

See also #Two articles above. See also #WHO CARES?????? below.

I re-propose that they have seperate articles. I understand that there will be some duplicate content, and that other couples have singla pages. The difference between a couple and a sibling, is most likely the couple will be together for life, whereas siblings grow apart or pass on. These two have already began starting seperate careers, there will still be joint performances, so we maintain the joint page with less content. At some point this joint article will grow to be very large. I have setup proposed pages for each. Please take the time to look (they are rough drafts): User:Who/Ashley, User:Who/Mary-Kate, & User:Who/Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. <> Who 02:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Pages moved to User:Who subpages. <>Who?¿? 23:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe this is warranted for the time being. Neither of the twins have done [separatelly] anything worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As said before in this discussion, their encyclopedic data is virtually the same and does not merit separate articles. It's not that they are siblings, it's that everything that they have done that is worthy of note they have done together — and most importantly, because they were together (they are, afterall, the "Olsen twins", and, by their own admission, this is their main asset). Wikipedia has the virtue of always being updated. If and when the two have each done individual, encyclopedic deeds, we may separate the articles. But as it stands right now, I'm in complete agreement with what was said before in this discussion (for keeping one single article). Regards, Redux 03:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree keeping them as one article for now seems reasonable. If it grows too dificult to maintain this way, then we can split them off. This link is Broken 16:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also aren't you proposing a split not a merge? This link is Broken
Agree completely with Redux. Noel (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

To the user at 216.76.221.9 (216.76.0.0/255.255.240.0 or thereabouts), STOP VANDALISING THE PAGE. You are not to make changes to someone else's comments on this talk page. You continually go in and vandalise Redux's comments. This is unacceptable. We are happy to discuss the changes you feel should be made on the main page, especially as it seems strongly possible that the changes are valid. But you MUST STOP vandalising this page in order to be taken seriously. You must also stop making unattributed changes to the main page (i.e. discuss these changes here, which you have finally started to do). We have told you this time and time again. Enough. It is time to behave like an adult. --Yamla 14:13, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Comments by other users, besides myself, have been vandalized on this talk page. In the case of this particular comment of mine, you (the user at 216.76.221.9) appear to be trying to "fix" the values expressed in it. Understand that this is not the main article. What is written here does not need to be accurate; it is open to subjectivism; and it does (or at least it can) reflect the personal opinion of whoever wrote the comment. Said personal opinions are not open for peer review, that is why you (or anybody else) are not to edit them. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here: I am assuming that you keep editing that particular comment because you may be under the impression that those figures, if wrong, need to be corrected (specifically, you seem to be trying to match them with the figures stated in the article). That is not the case. I was speculating on numbers in order to refute a clearly exaggerated statement that had been inserted in the main article. As I have said, that's my personal opinion, and it does not need to match what is stated in the present version of the article . In short: article ≠ talk page. I hope this has been clarified once and for all. Regards, Redux 19:30, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Twice so far today, a user at 216.76.219.165 has blanked this discussion page. I hope this was accidental and not a deliberate attack, as this user has already been warned not to change or delete other people's comments on here. However, I am finding it harder and harder to continue assuming this user is acting in good faith. I'm recording the accidental-blanking/attacks here for the record. --Yamla 16:38, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
Well, the user is at it again, this time from 216.76.219.177. It may be time to ask for help over and above a simple protection, as this user is particularly stubborn. What more can be done to stop a single person deliberately deleting all comments on a talk page while allowing other people to continue? --Yamla 19:36, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Temp page

Redux suggested that we make a temp version of the article so that the anon and others will be able to correct any perceived factual errors while the article remains protected. This way thoughtless edit wars will be useless because the main page will not change. Then when we agree on a version the temp page will replace the main page and the main article will be unprotected. I have/will set this article up at Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Scratchpad (temp was taken). In addition, I encourage the anon to get a user account so that it will be easier to talk with him/her, I yet again warn him/her not to change other user's comments and to sign his/her comments by using 4 tildes (~). This link is Broken 16:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

filmography layout

I was considering adding all of their filmography and splitting it. Although some of the links will be red. I also abbrv. the longer titles, to fit better. Its up on the Scratchpad page. Any thoughts on keeping it or changing it? <>Who?¿? 21:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the abbreviated titles become somewhat confusing, unless one already knows to a certain extent their filmography. I, for one, didn't quite get all of the abbreviations. I could see that if the titles are written in full some will be too long for the list to be split as Who has done. I would suggest that the titles are written without any abbreviations though, and that we might try to split the list by categorizing as "theatrical", "made for tv" (as it was before), and, maybe an extra category, "direct to video". Since the longer titles are probably all in the same category (made for tv or direct to video — I wouldn't know which), we could list this one first or last and the other two categories could go side by side. I don't think that'd be too important though, if the list is too long, the system will generate a menu (if not, we can do it ourselves). It all comes down to the layout and the "readability" of the article. Regards, Redux 17:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yea, actually the abbrv. titles were even confusing for me, and I did them. Just trying to think of a way to fit all of an actors work w/o making the page very long. Redux makes some good suggestions that could help with this, if anyone wants to give it a shot. <>Who?¿? 19:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are still several errors

Hi. I don't care if this page gets protected again. The bottom line is that I am right. I listed all the errors and then I listed sources for my corrections. I still see several errors in this article and it is annoying as hell to see them when you know you are right. Sorry, I am going to change them. Please don't change them back. I'm just doing this so the article will be more accurate. Bye Bye. 3:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. However, we do welcome any attributed corrections you can make to this article. It seems that the majority of your changes are attributable and the rest are likely correct. Please do refrain from changing other people's comments on this discussion page, though. It is quite okay for someone else to make an inaccurate comment here. If you wish to correct them, please add your own comment. Also, I would encourage you to sign up for an account here.
Any changes that you think are likely to be disputed, or which are reverted, should be cited or discussed on here, even if you know you are right. Thanks. --Yamla 20:33, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Circularity

Near the bottom of the artilce there's a link to The Adventures of Mary-Kate and Ashley. This links to a redirect page that sends you straight back to this article. Not good, people!. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

An unfortunate residue of the constant vandalism this article has been subject to, no doubt. The article is protected right now, and it needs to stay so, for the greater good. Maybe an Admin could remove the circular link though. Regards, Redux 13:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Done. I only dropped by because of the protection debate. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Protection template

I see no evidence of vandalism on the article. It's a content dispute. I've changed the template. Please sort out your differences and stop calling one another vandal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't quite understand what is going on here: several users (but mainly Yamla and myself) have been spending our time to prevent an anon that has constantly deleted material, made unattributed changes and consistently refused to discuss said changes. Nobody here has persecuted this anon or anybody else, we repeatedly asked him to discuss his opinions, name his sources for the changes he wanted to make and asked him not to delete material and replace it with external links. We were ignored completely. Deleting material from articles is vandalism, unless you give a valid reason for doing it; changing details in the article with no apparent reason or source but one's own will is vandalism. If someone simply ignores requests to, at the very least, provide an edit summary with some explaining of what he's doing, and continues to go back at it when the community has clearly explained what needs to be done and asked him to talk, we can only assume that it's vandalism, which that person has so far not bothered to contest.
This is absolutely not "calling one another 'vandal'", this is several members of the community trying to keep an article from being "manhandled" by one intransigent person. Regards, Redux 22:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you describe above is a classic content dispute. There are some behavioral problems on both side.

This article needs some editing, so I'm releasing protection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you are actually comparing the work that has been done by the users to keep the article encyclopedic with the actions of an anon that deletes material and ignores repeated requests to talk before performing actions, who doesn't provide edit summaries and, when finally left with no choice but to talk, gave ultimatums about "expecting immediate changes" because he/she says so? Is that what you're saying?? Otherwise, you and I are not talking about the same article. I'll tell you what, I've been trying to do my best to keep this article from going to hell, when I reached out for some help from the community, I found surprinsigly little understanding and ubelievable injustice, such as Tony's comparison above. So I'll do what he and others seem to want and leave the article at the mercy of this and other anons. Let's see how this article is going to be looking like in a while. And it doesn't have to be a long one too. Redux 02:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you haven't got it right. Undoubtedly there has been some bad behavior. However there is no vandalism of the article on either side that I can see. If you're having a bad time with this article, probably it's best to move on and edit a different one. It's bad when editors think that their edits are the only thing keeping a Wikipedia article from "going to hell". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you have not seen vandalism on this article, you are not looking hard enough. The article's history page is revealing enough of all the troubles that took place here, and our repeated efforts to reason with the anon. As I said, let's let him have his way. He'll delete material because he doesn't like it and replace it with external links, something that, as far as I know, is considered vandalism anywhere on Wikipedia, especially when other users try to reason with the person and are solemny ignored (unless one provides proof that the material is a copyright vio, off topic or just plain wrong, but then one would have to actually communicate with others, something the anon doesn't deem necessary). My edits, and those of Yamla and more recently Who, along with sparse interventions from many other users have indeed kept this article from going to hell. If it had not been for us, the article would now have countless links to fandom sites and state such things as They are, like, so cool!, not to mention reporting gossip and legend as if they were encyclopedic facts. All of this is because the objects of this article happen to be a huge pop icon, with legions of fans that aren't old enough to know who Bono Vox is (no offense to younger people, but usually behavior such as this anon's come from some younger people). But by all means, let us all move on, I'm sure the article will become, like, soo fabulous. Redux 03:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleting material isn't normally vandalism. Editors remove whole sections from articles all the time. In particular, the behavior you describe cannot be vandalism if as in this case the material is replaced by a link to an authoritative external site like imdb. I'm not convinced that the proprietorial attitude and behavior of you, Yamla and Who are good for this article. Give other editors a chance and stop treating good faith edits as vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They remove material simply because they feel like it, or do they give a valid reason? I'm betting the second option is the case. If I were to go to some article and obliterate a couple of paragraphs without saying a word, when people ask me why I did that, what were my reasons for deleting the material, should I say "it's all good, just ask Tony"? And if I were to ignore their requests for an explanation, and, as they reinstate the material, if I were to keep going back and deleting it over and over, without ever bothering to say a word, you think they'd say but he must be doing it in good faith? That's what happened here, but somehow we are the oppressors keeping the good anons from contributing? We never told him he couldn't edit, that would have been preposterous, all we asked was that he backed his changes, since he was changing details (I'm not even touching the repeated unjustified deletion here), and as I have said, the objects of this article are known for the amount of junk, unsubstantiated gossip and pure legend about them that circulates the internet. Apart from his edits and a few other along these lines, we have removed such things as an entire paragraph about one of the girls' childhood "lucky blanket". Every time we removed such things, we explained why it was being done, if anyone had wanted to discuss it, we'd gladly have engaged in a conversation here on this talk page, as we are doing now. Notice that, in the case of the people who added that kind of stuff, no one here called them "vandals". The vandals in this article are this anon, for his reiterated attitude and behavior (even uses a rotating IP address, so that it's impossible to communicate with him directly or actually track his actions, it took us a while to realize that it was the same person that kept deleting material and so on), and occasional anons that have inserted insults, swear words and similars in the article. We actually have here a "compromise section", the "Trivia", that contains stuff that would never be featured in a serious encyclopedia, but that we've kept since they weren't all "Teen Beat" and, more importantly, could be verified in serious, accountable sources (as opposed to websites that might be named Kimberly's Olsen Twins Shrine — I just made up this name for the sake of argument, any correspondence with an existing website will have been a coincidence). I did not verify all the entries there myself, but I'm trusting the work of others, although I could not guarantee that there isn't imaginary, or exaggerated stuff in there. Sorry Tony, but you appear to have a wrong idea of what has been going on in this article. Redux 04:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just adding some comments here. My reference to vandalism above is in regards to this page, the talk page, rather than the article page. It is my understanding that someone should not change what someone else said on the talk page, especially while leaving it signed by that other person. As to the article itself, I am quite happy for other people, any other people, to make factual changes to the article, to tidy up the article, or to remove sections of the article. As the facts can be hard to determine (the twins' heights, for example, are given differently on different sites), I do request that any changes be cited. Otherwise, I think it reasonable that long-standing information in this article be given the benefit of the doubt. The anonymous user was refusing to discuss the changes until we got the page protected and only then did the user offer any citations. And that's fine, some people don't understand how Wikipedia works. But then the user continued changing other people's comments on the talk page after being asked not to, etc. etc. My feeling (feeling, not fact) is that the user has no intention of working with others to clean up or tidy up the article but is just demanding changes be made, and if you don't agree with this user's beliefs about the twins' trivia, that's your problem. It is frustrating, and I am not sure what approach will work to keep this article anything close to encyclopedic. Reverting unattributed changes did not work. Attempting to discuss the changes did not work. Setting up a test article did not work. Protecting the page keeps the alterations to a minimum but is not a good long-term solution. To be clear, nobody is saying this article should not be changed. I may well have made many factual mistakes, for example. --Yamla 16:45, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Well said. Tony has suggested that we move on and quit trying to own the article. I don't know if my latest comments have changed his perception about what had been happening here. But as I said, maybe we should grant his wish and refrain from maintaining the article, at least for a while, and just watch as the article turns into a fandom/link index page. Then somebody else will be adding cleanup tags and do exactly what we've been doing here, which is [trying] to keep the article minimally encyclopedic. Regards, Redux 16:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, blanking out the entire talk page, as the anonymous user has done today, is vandalism by any reasonable definition. Now I have a better understanding of what Redux has been facing, even if I don't always agree with his style. *Dan* 16:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Dan. This anon has been given the benefit of the doubt, we tried being nice, we tried being harsh. As Yamla said, nothing seems to work. Keeping this specific article encyclopedic was already constant work (to avoid misunderstandings: this does not mean that the article was being vandalized before, we were just trying to keep the "encyclopedic standard", keeping gossip, nonsense and fandom stuff out), but since this guy arrived it's become nearly unworkable. The anon has shown time and again that good faith is the last thing on his mind. Regards, Redux 18:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Collection of alternate versions

Alternate versions of an article should not be in the main article space (the only time /Temp pages are in the article space is for copyright violations, in which case they are the only real version of the article available). If people want to develop other versions to consider as alternatives, they belong either in user space or the talk namespace.

There seems to be quite a hodgepodge of versions in-progress here. I've moved them all to suitable subpages of this talk page, as follows:

I don't know what you all plan to do with these, but unless you're ready to replace the current article and associated redirects, they don't belong in the article space. Meanwhile, any discussion about any of these versions can be done here, on this page. --Michael Snow 22:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Those can be deleted. I wasn't even aware, up until a while back, that there was a "Temp" page. It's probably an old setup that is no longer applicable. The same with the two "twin-specific" pages. The only exception would be the Scratchpad. We had set it up so that we could still work on the article during the time it remains protected. The anon we've been trying to talk to has shown no interest in working with us there, which was one of the main reasons for setting it up, but Who has made valid suggestions for changes in the filmography section, and he has used the Scratchpad to post it. Since the Scrathpath is a copy of the present article (except for a few small changes that have been made after its creation), maybe we could keep it for the duration of the protection. The other three should, indeed, go. Regards, Redux 22:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't see a need to delete them necessarily; as long as they don't look like they're part of the current encyclopedia, they're not doing much harm. The twin-specific ones could actually be quite useful in case it's determined that separate pages are more appropriate. --Michael Snow 22:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. When I checked the pages it all came back to me. Those other three pages were setup by Who, as part of his suggestion to break the article in two (or rather, three). There's been a discussion on the topic, which is actually still open, but since it seems that we're not splitting the article for the time being (as per said discussion), I do believe they could be deleted. If we were to delete them, however, I'd like to get Who's input before going ahead with it, out of curtesy. Regards, Redux 22:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As stated above, I proposed splitting them, as that consensus seemed to imply keep as one, I moved my pages to a sub of my User page. I would have done so earlier, I just didnt realize it was a problem. Thanks. <>Who?¿? 23:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You can delete the temp pages and redirects, as I will edit the talk pages to point to the locations. To delete Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Temp, Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Temp, Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Mary-Kate, Mary-Kate Olsen/Temp, Ashley Olsen/Temp, Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen/Ashley. Or if you prefer, I can put speedy on the pages, and request removal. - <>Who?¿? 23:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I've deleted and delinked all the redirects. That should keep things a little cleaner. --Michael Snow 23:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The filmography is incorrect

Go to imdb.com and you'll see what I mean. Several of their movies that are listed in the made-for-tv section are actually video realeses please stop changing it back. Beleive me I am correct and I just want to make this article more accurate. Oh, and another thing, I think once we have this problem resolved we should, deled this discussion page completely and start fresh, it already longer then desired and most of the problems they talk about in this discussion are resolved anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.76.219.199 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 Jun 2005

Blanking the Talk: page

We don't blank Talk: pages, although we do archive them when they get too long. Do not blank them - that is completely unacceptable, and will get you blocked from editing. Noel (talk) 20:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, User:Tony Sidaway has quite clearly expressed that it is okay for the anonymous user to blank this page, that it is clearly not vandalism. Most of us don't agree, but Tony's an admin. --Yamla 21:08, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
Can you provide a pointer to where Tony said that? Noel (talk) 21:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looking back, it appears that Tony is only talking directly about the article, not the talk page. He was ABSOLUTELY CLEAR in stating that there was "no evidence of vandalism on the article", however. Later, "no vandalism of the article on either side that I can see" and "Deleting material isn't normally vandalism". Rereading in context, it is possible that Tony was directing the last quote toward the article page only; he CERTAINLY was directing his other comments toward the article page and not the talk page. I must have misread it. As I noted above, I find it hard to believe the anon user is acting in good faith when he or she changes what other people have said here, blanks this page, and refuses to discuss the changes made to the article page until very very recently. I was dismayed when Tony reverted the protection and then we spent the following time fending off blankings from the anon user. That said, the talk page was never protected and so maybe we'd have been doing that anyway. Also, I'm grumpy and should probably not post when grumpy. --Yamla 22:59, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I agree with Yamla 100%. The comments from Tony that he was referring to can be found right here in this talk page, under the header "Protection template". Indeed, he was referring only to the article there, especially since when he wrote there the daily blanking of the talk page had not yet started. As I said in my comments in that section, I believe that his assessment of what has been going on here was incorrect. He asked us to "stop calling each other 'vandal'", for one. To avoid repetitiveness, I ask whoever may be interested to read my comments in the aforementioned header (some are a little long, sorry). I believe they should provide a better understanding of what has been going on here. I will reiterate, also in agreement with Yamla's words above: we cannot, at this point, assume good faith on the part of this anon. I cannot accept that his blanking of this talk page was misguided but in good faith when we have explained, time and again, that other people's comments are not to be touched. Back then, he was "just" changing words in those comments, but no one in their right mind can conclude that it is not ok to alter words but it [would] be ok to completely blank the page. Not to mention that it was reverted, with comments that is was vandalism, that this cannot be done, etc., and he just kept doing it again and again (until he got blocked). I also believe that it's important to make clear a particularity of this article that is at the root of most problems: the article is about the Olsen twins! We may not be fans here, but we are all perfectly aware of a certain type of following that they attract. Yamla and I have been busy exaclty trying to keep the fandom influence out of the article. The reverts were always followed (at least back when we thought that the anon could be in good faith) by explanations about not deleting material and naming sources for some detail changes. We cannot have legend, gossip and similars guide the contents of the article. We only asked for information, we were always open for discussion in this talk page. And believe me, this person only started talking when, first we blocked the article and, second, when he was himself blocked (which I believe is what motivated this latest comment from him — in the first one, when the article was blocked, he gave us an ultimatum). If there's something that has not happened here, it's an edit war. Incidentally, have you noticed how many different users have reverted edits from this anon so far? Regards, Redux 02:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) P.S.: sorry for the long post, again.

Noel has blocked the entire range of IPs utilized by the anon for vandalism (repeatedly blanking this talk page after being warned not to). The ban expires June 26 at 12:43 UTC. Let us hope he gets the message this time. Regards, Redux 23:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good to hear. Maybe things will settle down around here now. Either the anon user will take off or will stop the vandalism. Hey, we can all be optimistic once a month, can't we? --Yamla 00:41, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Seems like the ban didn't do much good. He blanked the talk page again. That'll teach me for expecting the best of people. --Yamla 02:00, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

The entire new range used by the anon to blank the talk page during his ban has been blocked as well. This one expires July 4 at 13:35 UTC. If the anon introduces new IPs to continue to blank this talk page, we will block them as well, until he runs out of IPs. The article itself has been protected again. To the anon blanking the talk page: discontinue at once. If you want to contribute, start doing it in a civilized manner or don't bother. You will not get your way if you continue to behave as you have thus far. Redux 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the ban expired and the anonymous user is back, blanking the pages. At this point, I'm considering whether it is worth reporting the user to his or her ISP. Vandalism is normally sufficient grounds to have a user's account revoked. Certainly, nothing we do on wikipedia seems to have any effect. --Yamla July 5, 2005 16:59 (UTC)

I just handed the /24 that did the latest blank a 100-day block. I'll do the same to the other two blocks this person has used (216.76.221.0/24 and 216.76.219.0/24) if they do it from there, too. Noel (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Ooops, I missed this recent edit. The 216.76.219.0/24 range has now been blocked for 100 days as well. Noel (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually I made a whole list of them on the vandalism report page here. If anyone wants a detailed history. <>Who?¿? 07:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The 400's

Did the anon make any claims that the 400 figure was untrue, not widespread enough, etc? That would be a first, and I saw no evidence for it (as usual, no edit summary, no comment on the talk page, which he now blanks daily, etc.). He simply altered the text, got reverted (not by me at first, incidentally) and, as usual, just went ahead and redid again. I was, however, the one who wrote that passage (one of my few direct contributions). I collected that thing during that laughable frenzy brought about by the twins' turning 18 a while ago. It was a piece from People's magazine, if memory serves me well. The story stated that "less than 400 hundred know (...)", apparently reflecting one of those "insider info". I, however, inserted the disclaimer, so to speak, that it was a popular allegation amidst fans but had no scientific confirmation, so that the article wouldn't affirm peremptorily that "less than 400 people can tell them apart". It's not essential to the understanding of the board, but I thought it was an interesting touch, since it does seem to circulate that suprisingly few people can tell them apart. That much appears to be an empirical truth. Using the magazine's article, I was able to provide a figure, even if without definitive scientific confirmation behind it (duely acknowledged as such). We are after all dealing with the Olsen twins. There will not be a prestigious research accounting for how many people can tell them apart — a story from a renown magazine is the best one can do. I feel that we can use this, as long as we make it clear that this is not "sanctioned by the FDA" or anything ;), which I believe I did. In closing, I must say that, in light of all that has happened here, the anon's deleting of the passage is no indication that it may be indeed wrong, or not widespread enough, but rather that he didn't feel like having that in the article. Regards, Redux 06:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that People magazine was joking and wasn't actually serious. Of course more than 400 people can tell them apart. There is no way to conduct such a survey with any reasonable level of certainty (people could lie and then guess). If you want to readd and clarify that it is silly or joking then that seems fine. Assume best intent by the annon. I personally disliked that section because it sounded untrue and silly. This link is Broken 21:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course I realize all these things about this number. I've been thinking back to this a bit, since it was brought up. Perhaps I should elaborate on something I mentioned (you'll have to excuse me if I can't remember everything at once, that's almost an year ago and the subject isn't that...relevant, let's put it this way): As I said, the magazine was giving an "insider info", I meant that it was informing of something that's widespread in the fandom. As I [just] recall, I gathered that from the context, so even though the magazine stated "400 hundred know", given the context I wrote a popular allegation among fans, thus making it perfectly clear that it was indeed a common perception among those who are part of the twins' fandom. To be further in the safe side, I also spelled out what would be obvious, by saying albeit without reliable scientific confirmation — naturally that would go without saying, since, as you said it, this could never be accuratelly or trustworthily calculated, but I thought I'd leave no room for any doubts. Now, if the anon means to claim (presumably) that the magazine was in fact wrong and the fan world does not consider that "less than 400 people can tell them apart" (which I personally think is an intentional hyperbole to indicate that not many people can tell them apart — can't write that in though, since it's my view and I have no source to confirm that the "400" is indeed regarded by the fans as such, and not as a direct allegation), I'm afraid we'd have to require some sort of source/reference/indication. He will not provide that, so I don't see why we should eliminate the passage I reseached (if you can call it that) a year ago in a legitimate source (at least at first, this would not preclude that the magazine could be wrong, but we'd need some sort of confirmation of that) on his "say" so. I can't revert the passage back myself though, the article is protected again (through the anon's own fault, btw). Regards, Redux 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WHO CARES??????

See also #Propose merge again above.

Dudes, you all need to get a life. Quite obviosley, they only get one article, because you always here about "MaryKate and Ashley" never Just MaryKate or Just Ashley. note, the only time they have ever appeared not together was in Full House which is the only thing they were ever in that is any good. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 12:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well evidentally, someone must, otherwise they wouldn't have read the talk page and responded. :) It's ok, we appreciate your opinion on that matter. They are heading towards different careers, and will eventually have to have seperate articles. It's not necessarily for "us", it's an encylopedia, its for the benefit of knowledge. <>Who?¿? 12:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No, they wont get seperate careers, they'll be stuck to each other forever. They have been branded "maryKate and Ashley" by the fans, and will never get away from it. It's their own dumb fault for making all those ridiculous movies. Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 12:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Page blanking

Well, as you can all see, the Talk: page is back, complete with history, after the recent round of edit wars over blanking it. It's about 54K long, so it's not necessary to archive yet, and this way new editors (who are joining us all the time, in a steady stream) can easily see the past discussions which resulted in the page being the way it is. Noel (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree on two articles

This should be two seprate articles. They are two individual people. They have different lives and histories and shouldn't be converted into one article. --~~~~ --Tom Baker Fan (t) 00:52, 2005 Aug 6 (EST)

There are some other sets of twins, like Tia and Tamera Mowry, who are also in a combined article. It's a pretty natural thing to do as long as the two of them have done most of their notable activity together rather than separately; less so if one or both of them has done things without their twin that are worthy of being written up here. *Dan* 13:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Please refer to the pertinet sections above for the ongoing discussion about this. So far, support has primarily gone to maintaining the present one-article-for-the-two status. Regards, Redux 21:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm for doing as the de.wikipedia has, and making separate articles for both actresses and then a combined one for work they've done together. I feel that having them both pushed into the same article suggests they're clones of one another. If they weren't twins but still regularly worked together you wouldn't see them fit into a single article, but as it is the title suggests that there differences between them are so minute that both can be contained within a single article. Having a shared article for their careers makes sense to me, since they work together and regarded together so frequently, but actual personal bios should be moved into separate articles so as to symbolically acknowledge that they are in fact two different individuals. Sarge Baldy 21:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)