User talk:Weareallone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Questions of authenticity of claimed Marilyn Monroe worn William Travilla costumes arises -- 'lost' collection exhibit ultimately stopped
I just wanted to post some links to the biggest controversy in terms of the William Travilla 'lost' collection of claimed Marilyn Monroe worn costumes. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2567587.ece The exhibition was canceled by the hosting Hilton Hotel group after the first stop and showing in early October, 2007, in Brighton, United Kingdom. Here is a link to the website which claimed all of the seven dresses were worn by Marilyn Monroe. http://www.travillacollection.com/ After some research and comparison to the real costumes, the difference was obvious and also visible. http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/21512/-Fake-claim-over-Monroe-show After being featured in England's HELLO! magazine, modeled by Peaches Geldof, 19, Bob Geldof's daughter, for which the tabloid paid 7,000 British Pounds to the Travilla team, the hoax was getting very obvious, since the people behind the Travilla project were repeating their method with other newspapers as well. http://www.southyorkshiretimes.co.uk/news/Lucy-steps-out-in-Monroe39s.3364714.jp Bill Sarris, the former partner of William Travilla (who died in 1990), Andrew Hansford, the person in charge for this project in England, and others would sent a Cease & Desist to collector Mark Bellinghaus, (who was very successful in stopping the biggest exhibition fraud in recorded history), Jennifer J. Dickinson and author Ernest Cunningham, who despite the Travilla team threat did not stop to warn the public about this costume memorabilia fraud. http://www.pr-inside.com/marilyn-monroe-lost-william-travilla-costume-r234197.htm Collector Mark Bellinghaus does own a real and authentic William Travilla made costume which was worn by Marilyn Monroe. http://www.pr-inside.com/marilyn-monroe-lost-collection-stopped-r242619.htm This exhibition fraud which was committed with the name of Marilyn Monroe was the second one within two years. A Marilyn Monroe exhibition which was on display for seven months in Long Beach, CA, from 2005 to 2006, was ultimately canceled after a class action lawsuit was filed by Ernest Cunningham and Emily Sadjady, on May 26, 2006. The 'lost' Travilla collection has not moved forward and to other venues, since this project was canceled by the appointed host, the Hilton Hotel Corporation. http://www.pr-inside.com/marilyn-monroe-lost-collection-stopped-r242619.htm 76.170.67.99 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Any recommendations how to work this chapter into the Mark Bellinghaus page?
Thanks for your help. I will see how I can add in the links. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You're so welcome, and I keep on finding more and more international links, I just added a CBS news link in regards of the lawsuit. Very interesting case indeed. Weareallone (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] recent edit debunkers
-
- hello, did you mean friends or fiends? on your recent edit? Aussiewikilady (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Bellinghuas has come up short of disproving June DiMaggio. A review of articles on xxx.xxxxxxxx.com will show that Mr. Bellinghaus failed to do his homework and simply was acting out to disprove her claims so that his collection would retain value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.241.148 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
For the future, please do not leave any unsigned comments on my talk page. Thank you. And regarding your comment in regards of June DiMaggio let me tell you that it seems that the debunker Bellinghaus got her where he wanted her to be. http://www.laweekly.com/news/features/immortal-mayhem/15364/?page=5 She tried to distance herself from a project which she supported just one year earlier all over the Internet. If you read this article http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_3717809 you can simple say that she was caught and got away with it, but who would put an old woman her age into jail? Also, this is not the place to pitch your website and pitch sodas, books, umbrellas, exhibitions or other products. Weareallone (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Addition of Mark Bellinghaus to various lists
You have recently added Mark Bellinghaus to List of photographers, List of poets, and List of authors by name: B. In the case of the first two articles, these are lists of people notable for that activity, so I have reverted your edits. I'm leaving the latter edit since that list appears to be a free-for-all mass of red links anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppetry case?
Are you genuinely filing a sockpuppetry case that I am User:mafhoney or did you just place tags on pages because you're upset about the case I started? If it's the latter, please remove them immediately. If it's the former, I assure you I have absolutely no interest in Mark Bellinghaus outside of articles on WP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Just remember that your own editing has left a very questionable trace. You are attacking other editors, together with the same person, now who is here the 'sockpuppeteer'?
Weareallone (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't watching your talk page, so I didn't see edit this until now. "Questionable trace"? "Attacking other editors"? What "same person"? Same person as whom? What are you talking about? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jeanne Carmen
I agree, the article's present state goes overboard in trying to prove that Carmen was Marilyn's friend. The whole page is about her life, not about whether or not she was friends with Monroe. I tagged it awhile back because it is in desperate need of editing. Instead of editing it myself, I tagged it to give the person who added all that stuff the chance to change it, but it doesn't look as if they're going to do that. If Carmen's son is in fact editing the page, that would be a huge COI and all his edits are subject to review. You're welcome to start editing what you think should be removed. The tags are there so no one would really be out of line is trimming that section. I've been putting it off myself because I really don't feel like battling with someone who is set on proving something that is fairly insignificant. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you need any help, let me know. Also, if you feel the person adding all this info is in fact Carmen's son, you should contact an administrator. I'm guessing the user that is Carmen's son is User:ProfessorTut? He seems to be the person adding the info about that whole ordeal. The whole Marilyn & Carmen section is very questionable in my opinion and, although it is sourced, it's not really encyclopedic. I had another editor read over it and she also agreed that there was way too much unneeded info and the section smacked of POV.
'unneeded info' is the kindest term I have ever read about a bunch of lies, hallucinations, slanderous claims about the Hollywood elite, idiotic and not sense making statements (like LA Weekly writer Steven Mikulen realized that Carmen mentioned pills that were not even on the market, when Carmen and her son claimed that she took those pills with Monroe and other celebrities. She acted super vulgar and loud in Mikulen's interview and it shows a lot of the other side of Carmen. It is getting really verbal when Carmen is fighting with her competition, another woman who claims to have been Marilyn Monroe's friend. http://www.laweekly.com/news/features/immortal-mayhem/15364/?page=6 Weareallone (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link. Interesting info indeed. I find it interesting that Carmen's biography was written by her son and her son described it as a “an artistic interpretation” of his mother's life. This revelation does cast doubt on Carmen's claims and the fact that is was self-published leaves me wondering why no legit publishing house would publish it. To be perfectly blunt, after finally reading the questionable section (I have a tendency to scan instead of reading), quite a few passages need to be removed. Most of it has little to do with Carmen as a person or what makes her notable (ie not her acting or trick-shot ventures). My only real knowledge of Carmen was an E! True Hollywood Story I saw on her eons ago and caught again on YouTube just a few weeks ago. I got the feeling she "peppered" her stories but I try to keep my personal feelings out of editing so I didn't question what was added until I realized how long the section got. In the content of an encyclopedia, we really shouldn't dwell on those questionable stories. My biggest problem with the section has to do with wording and the fact that it is all basically hearsay and/or claims by Carmen and a few other people who were on the peripheral. I'll go ahead and edit out what I think needs to go and leave a note on the talk page. If you see anything else that you feel is questionable, let me know. I have a feeling it's going to be a battle, but that section is way out of control. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, to leave personal feelings is important, only then you can realize that Carmen waited until Frank Sinatra's death until she made up all those absurd stories about him. His family must have suffered hearing anything of that trash. Nonsense and dirty claims, that seem to worked for Carmen, since she had no career. But in my opinion she should be listed instead of Wikipedia, in the Guinness Book of records, as one of the biggest liars, ever. I read too much about this woman and I heard a lot, I am not a good editor in that case. The entire story of Scarlett Johansson and Christina Aguilera, those claims were made up for years, up until shortly before her death. Can you imagine any of them both trying to be Jeanne Carmen? I can't imagine that for a second. The press really simply brushed off those celebrity claims after her death. The obituaries had none of her outrageous and with fantasy seasoned claims. Dirty and crazy fantasies as well. http://www.marilynfan.org/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1199315856&archive=&start_from=&ucat=& Weareallone (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Since the section has been tagged long enough and I really didn't feel like going through all that rubbish trying to sort out what should stay, I've removed the entire section. It's a bold move, but like I said, I didn't feel like sorting out what should stay because most of it (in my opinion) doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I highly doubt anyone will have a huge problem with it as only one other person really edits that page besides myself. However, if there is a problem, would you mind weighing in if I need you to? Pinkadelica (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Linking
Hello, you might like to take a look at WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, which give style guidance on linking in articles. In general, only words that are relevant to the context should be linked, to give the reader guidance on terms that might need explaining. So, terms like 'history', 'adequate' and 'native' would not be linked under normal circumstances. Linking is very useful in Wikipedia, but too much of it is a bad thing. With regards, — BillC talk 08:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for your advice. I found some items under the Barbie section (and other pages) which I felt could be linked. But I understand what you are saying and will act upon in the future. But I think that the English translation of a Victor Hugo master piece for example should be linked the first time it appears in an article. Such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame. With regards, Weareallone (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ANI about WP:COI in your recent edits
Please see here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Marking edits as minor
When you are "saving' your edits, please write a description of your edit in the "Edit summary" box, but do not mark the edit as "minor." Minor edits would include correction of spelling, grammar or typographical errors.[1] If you are replying to a comment, or adding content to an article, then you are making a major edit. I recognise that you are a newer editor, so may not be aware of this point. I am not suggesting you're trying to hide that you have made a major edit to an article, but marking a significant edit as "minor" can give the appearance of trying to obfuscate the material being added. I hope you'll take this as a good faith suggestion that will help to build bridges with other editors. Best, Risker (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you and I so appreciate your information and having said this, you might now understand why I would be unable to write a new article on or about anything. And yes, I definitely take your suggestions as good faith suggestions, just when I saw your completed edited version I could not agree. I already changed several pieces, cut it down drastically and changed the description for the Hello! magazine which you complained about in your first comments. Not that I am a religious fanatic, but: "The one who claims to be free of guilt should throw the first stone." I am so far from being perfect yet some editors on this wonderful site truly act as if they were and as if they never make mistakes. I love to walk bridges to other editors, that is why I chose my Wiki name. I believe that we all can, we all should help each other and not attack each other. Unfortunately my time is cut short and I cannot study the rules of Wikipidia in details like you might have done already. Remember that I added also the gossip link for Peaches Geldof's dating business. And I feel that the scandal she is attached to unwillingly is of more importance than who she is dating at this very moment. I am trying to do what I can, but I am just human, too. "Je suis simplement humain" -- Weareallone (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Monroe Photograph
Thank you for correcting my misspelling and reviewing the situation. I know some user act very strangely on wiki and accuse people of different things for unclear reasons. it is probably because some of them think that it's their personal website or something like that. Now I was trying to upload a new image but it did not allow me to do so. It said that "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups Autoconfirmed users, Sysops.". I am indeed not and administrator nor is my account older than four days but the thing is that I could upload files few hours ago and I cant do it now. Just wondering if it is possible for some people like Delicious Carbuncle and others to block you that way or something like that. It is interesting indeed.--Ecneislop (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw that and that is why I said 'Welcome' to you. I am far from being knowledgeable in the editing section. Admitting this is the first step to receive help from others. I work too much to get into the Wikipedia addiction, but as you see below, there are also friendly Wiki members who at first seem contra and then shift and become helpful. I am not sure if some people like Delicious Carbuncle can block you from uploading anything. Possibly so, if you could not do it again. My feeling is that Delicious Carbuncle thought that you were me and that is why you are blocked, but that is just my assumption and theory. If Delicious Carbuncle does follow my edits again that obviously, I will file a report for Wiki Stalking. I did not upload your image I just corrected your spelling. My personal comment to Delicious Carbuncle, and I mean that in a deeply positive way: 'Get A Life!' And you please don't get intimidated just because some self proclaimed Wikipedia Police inpector turned stalker us scaring you off. The beauty of Wikipedia is in my opinion the interactive action, the information and the educational aspect. This is the future and this is where the books will be left behind. There was an article last week in the New York Times on this topic. Just hang in there. --Weareallone (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome - Some useful links in this template below
Thank you! --Weareallone (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC) [edit] Warning about uncivilityYour comments about me here and here are both accusatory and uncivil. Of course I am keeping an eye on your edits and those of the accounts involved in this sockpuppetry case. There's nothing mysterious or sinister about that. The case is not yet closed, so be careful about claiming it was "false". There is nothing malevolent in my reporting an obviously invalid copyright claim, and no call for you to question my motives. Stop making comments and accusations about me or I will report your uncivil behaviour. This is your last warning. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Responding to personal attacks[edit] Initial options Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding. While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia. If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. Although templates have been used at times for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation is often better received. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior. Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack. Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported on the administrators' noticeboard. [edit] Recurring attacks Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease should be resolved through the dispute resolution process. Especially when personal attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content, informal mediation and third-party opinions are often the best ways to resolve the conflict. Similarly, Wikiquette alerts offers a "streamlined" source of outside opinion. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required. This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that the attacker is willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack each other (or they would have been defined as attackers) because they want and expect strong discourse. Repetitive attacks are hard to deal with and there is no clear cut answer to block users or internet addresses because of the dynamics of the Internet. While one recurring attack may have been disarmed, that same individual is back to disrupt debate with another user ID and/or IP. [edit] Removal of text Shortcut: WP:RPA There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate.[1] Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited. Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate. Stop Wikistalking me now! --Weareallone (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC) [edit] Wikiquette AlertYou have not removed the offensive comments, and I assume from your cutandpaste of WP:NPA, and your repeat accusation of wikistalking, that you do not intend to do so. I have asked for help here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC) I have repeatedly asked you in a very mannered way to leave me alone and not to CYBERSTALK / WHIKISTALK here. You admitted in your postings that you are 'keeping an eye on me' and that is enough and needs to stand for other people to see. You are not an administrator, or are you? You have been fighting more than you are doing positive things here on Wikipedia. Now I have received many suggestions who you really are and some emails claim that you are an unsuccessful 45 year old singer who wants to be Marilyn Monroe. However I do not care, the time zone you are in is clearly different than from the USA. Your edits are late nights early mornings and that might point to Australia, New Zealand, Asia. I am not removing any postings just because you want me to. If someone makes uncivil remarks and attacks it is you. You claimed that I was a sock and meat puppet, you harass others and you have been claimed by another member that you are making racist remarks. So I am asking you in again a very kind way to leave me alone who or whatever you are. I do not have your time on my hand, because some people have to work hard for a living. And again, I assume good faith. I could have escalated this case a long time ago, but if you want to report me, go right ahead. You act like a detective and you give yourself more credit than your short time here on Wiki really allows. I am not giving you any suggestion what to do, because I am too new here. But your attacks and your ugly comments really are scaring people off of this wonderful site that is about information. So again, you can watch what I edit in the future, fine, but leave me alone and fight with others, as you obviously do 24/7. You fooled me once before, not anymore, I personally prefer oranges over 'berries' anyhow. --Weareallone (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And I will report you for your harassment and your cyberstalking if you ever come back and leave your threats and hateful postings. Your sockpuppet claim was just dismissed. Please refrain from further postings PB! I do not buy into your intimidations. --Weareallone (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
|
