[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Jayne Mansfield/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jack Parr incident

[edit]

I am not sure if this happened on the Jack Parr episode mentioned here, but I distinctly remember an episode, probably around 1964-65, where Mansfield was on Parr's show. As the camera panned in on her, a siggly line superimposed on the screen. Soon it was apparent this was a simple animation of a submarinte - the line being the waves on the surface. The sub raised a periscope, focused in on the cleavage, then the "commander" popped out of the hatch and gave a big wink. All the while Parr and the others on screen seemed quite unaware of what was going on. I suspect a prank by the boys in the control room, or perhaps it was from the local TV station. Wschart (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Does This Mean

[edit]

"Although was unwilling to appear in the play, she received the Theatre World Award of 1956 for her performance in the Broadway production of George Axelrod's comedy Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?." If she was unwilling to appear in the play, how could she recieve an award for her performance?

I'm thinking maybe she was RELUCTANT but ultimately DID appear??? Or maybe she was unwilling to appear in a play and then won the award for ANOTHER play! (??) I haven't gotten to that part of the article, to be honest. But I agree that this article could use some revision.--Plavalagunanbanshee (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish descent

[edit]

I believe Jayne was of Cornish descent. http://www.cornwallgb.com/cornwall_england_mansfield.html http://www.jaynemansfield.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=144 I do know that Pen Argyl was a Cornish slate working settlement. Bodrugan (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are these reliable sources, and why does it matter? Ronald Reagan was of Irish descent, but it didn't seem to have much influence on his life. I think this is of limited relevance here. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. This information probably would be helpful in an article on "People of Cornish descent" or something, but not much useful here. Wikipedia isn't a compendium of every scrap of information available on earth. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She was very proud of her Cornish roots, there was a newspaper article about it a few years ago, but I can't seem to find it online. Her great-great-aunt returned to Cornwall for a visit in 1928, so the family kept up strong links with Cornwall. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CORNISH/2002-12/1038827115 Bodrugan (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bodrugan seems to be a pseudo-nationalist with an obscurantist political agenda (a somewhat laughable one at that). The source he uses, simply claims that Jayne's paternal ancestors were from "England" (which Cornwall is part of in any case).[1] Her surname Palmer (surname) is an ethnic English surname.
Mansfield's four grandparents were Elmer E Palmer (ethnically English), Alice J Jackson (ethnically English), Thomas H Palmer (ethnically English) and Beatrice M Jeffery (ethnically English). There only seems to be evidence of Jeffery having any connection to Cornwall, England, but Jeffery is an ethnic Anglo-Norman, not Cornish name. In addition to this Jayne had one great-grandparent Amanda Kuster who was ethnically Germany. Seems to be trolling or an attempt at cultural theft by this pseudo-nationalist to hide Mansfield's English background. - 90.221.144.212 (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, please stop your personal attacks ("Bodrugan seems to be a pseudo-nationalist with an obscurantist political agenda"). Secondly, if it is sourced that one of her ancestors is Cornish, then "Cornish descent" is acceptable, regardless of what you consider an "ethnic Anglo-Norman" name. Wikipedia is guided by reliable sources, not your personal interpretation of the ethnicity of a name. Cresix (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable source to claim that she is of ethnically Cornish descent. Bodrugan's profile identifies himself as a personal with an Anglophobic quasi-nationalist agenda. It is not "my opinion" that Jeffery is an Anglo-Norman surname it is verifiable fact. - 90.221.144.212 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source is reliable. And yes, it is your interpretation about the ethnicity of a name. I'm sure you can find a source that "Cohen" is a Jewish name, but that doesn't make everyone with the name Cohen ethnically Jewish. Cresix (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source provided shows that her paternal great-grandfather Thomas Palmer was "Birth: ABT 1832 in England".[2] The other source a personal site is not a reliable source because it presents absolutely no evidence/proof for the claim entered into the article by Bodrugan that her paternal ancestors immigrated from Cornwall, nor that she is ethnically Cornish.
As for the rest of your opinion, Cohen is an ethnically Jewish name. Mansfield's grandpatents-Palmer, Jackson and Jeffery-are ethnically English names deriving from the English language of English people in England. Ethnically Cornish surnames (what few there are) derive from an entire different language system, Brythonic; examples, Trevelyan, Trelawny, Nanckivell. - 05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.144.212 (talk)
Wikipedia does not determine someone's ethnic background based on their name, whether it's Cohen, Mansfield, or Smith. It is determined by reliable sourcing. Read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. My last name is considered French, but none of my ancestors are from France. But with your distorted method for assigning "facts" about ancestry, if I had a Wikipedia article you would add the category "People of French ancestry"; to hell with the facts. Cresix (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Cornish surnames are not "Ethnically Cornish" as you put it, but this does not mean that they are not Cornish (Many Welsh, Scottish, Irish etc. have this as well). I did not claim anywhere in the article that Cornwall is not in England (my personal view is that it is not, but that is neither here nor there for this article). The fact still remains that the Cornish are not English, as the great historian A. L. Rowse explaines in his 1969 book "The Cornish in America". I'm not "Anglophobic", my father is English. To be honest it would seem that this anonymous user is the Troll.Bodrugan (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A POV-pushing troll indeed. I had no interest in this Cornish issue until 90.221.144.212 made it quite obvious that he was largely a single-purpose account dedicated to edit-warring to remove material related to Cornish descent. I finally got him blocked for a couple of days. I urge anyone interested in the integrity of Wikipedia to watch his edits after his block expires. Cresix (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this user has also added this to her daughter's article, Mariska Hargitay once before and it was reverted. He's now readded it. Like someone said the first source is from a personal site and the other one really doesn't say anything about Cornwall. —Mike Allen 18:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because it didn't have any sources. I re-entered it with the sources. The Mariska Hargitay article had categories ascribed to it that were not backed up within the text of the article. Bodrugan (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a reference that the Palmers were Cornish:"Researching MATTHEWS HAY ROUNSEVELL KELLOW PALMER (Padstow/St.Teath/Tintagel) , MARSHALL (Tintagel/St. Teath/Lesnewth/St.Gennys), JEFFRAY/ JEFFERY (Penzance) WILLS (Camborne/ Padstow); And other Cornish emigrants,primarily slaters, to the Slate Belt of Northampton Co., Pennsylvania, USA" http://newsfeed.rootsweb.com/th/read/CORNISH-GEN/2008-10/1224529696 Most of the slaters who went to Pen Argil were Cornish, while the Welsh went to Bangor. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CORNISH/2008-02/1203741155 Bodrugan (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a lot is happening here. User:Bodrugan believes JM is of cornish descent, which she could be or could not be. Raymond Strait, Martha Saxton or May Mann - the three more famous biographers of JM doesn't mention anything that may indicate that. Does any biographer do? If yes, please, cite that. User:Cresix believes rootsweb or Cornwall, Great Britain, A Celtic Nation are reliable sources, unless they are removed from the article. In reality, rootsweb doesn't even say she's Cornish, and the Celtic Nation page looks pretty dubious, without a publisher or anything cited. User:Nightscream believes she is of Cornish descent, and has no German ancestry, and keeps removing the information that she is of German descent without any comment of anything. Unfortunately, though, a number of her biographies mention that ancestry, and that information is so far challenged only by the lobby to make her Cornish.
My strong recommendations are - please, include information that are verifiable, and include a reliable source when you put a controversial information in (reliable according to Wikipedia policies, not personal preference). Also, please, state your reason if you want to remove an accepted information, better if you state reason first and keep it there for some time before your concern is addressed. And, please, discuss. Don't revert and post, and boil it down to an edit war. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bodrugan, the newly furnished links lead to two e-mails that doesn't mention JM at all. What are they supposed to mean? Are you sure these doesn't count as synthesis, like adding 1 and 1 to make 3? Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It quite clearly states that the Palmer's of Pen Argyl were from Cornwall. Her Jeffery ancestors were Cornish, that is reflected in the source used in the article. Bodrugan (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's called WP:SYNTHESIS. —Mike Allen 08:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Aditya Kabir's recent edit summary, "Cresix and Nightscream, please, discuss on the discussion page, no need to form a tagteam", and the comment above, "User:Nightscream believes she is of Cornish descent, and has no German ancestry," I do not have any interest in forming a "tag team", nor any belief in her having Cornish ancestry or German ancestry, or any type of ancestry. I merely did two things, and two things alone:

1. I removed the mention of her German ancestry because the source cited for that passage makes no mention of it, and I made this explicitly clear in my edit summary, in which I stated, "Failed verification. The cited source does not mention this.", in contrast to Aditya Kabir's assertion that I made this edit "without any comment of anything".

2. I added the proper citation info for the source that is in the article. This does not connote any endorsement on my part as to the reliability of that source, or any personal belief as to her being Cornish. That is a discussion I will leave to you folks here, in which I am not interested in participating. If you decide it does not meet WP:IRS, then you can remove it, without any argument from me. My only interest in it was identifying it properly so that it looks correct in the Ref section, at least for as long as it's here.

I only came to this article because I had done some work on Mariska Hargitay's article, and someone added to that article that Mariska is of German descent, without citing a source. I looked through this article to see if there was a source for that regarding her mother, figuring that I could just cut and paste it into her daughter's article, but I found none, so to be consistent, I removed that assertion from this article too. If "a number of her biographies mention that ancestry", then you should have no problem citing them. If you can produce that citation for both this article and her daughter's then I have no problem with it, since I don't have a personal opinion on either of their ancestries one way or the other. My interest in making sure that the WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CS policies are properly upheld, which has nothing to do with being part of a "lobby". Nightscream (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. One of the better known biographies cited now. Peace. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source: http://www.cornwallgb.com/cornwall_england_mansfield.html . Your calling it "dubious" doesn't mean that it is. Cresix (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes it a reliable source? How do we know where they get their information? There is no about us page on that website. —Mike Allen 16:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very shabby website that doesn't even name its publisher is highly dubious. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published" (WP:IRS). How is it more reliable than a widely quoted biography of JM? You seem to have replaced the book-cite and the information supported by the book-cite with this dubious piece of information supported by this website. Whatever quality of reference you or I may have, I believe Wikipedia comes before both of us, as long we are here. Anyways, I believe I should wait for a reply first. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot more has happened already. User:Cresix has claimed and asked that http://www.cornwallgb.com/cornwall_england_mansfield.html is a reliable source. Provide unequivocal evidence to the contrary instead of reverting. He also asked to Cite the policy that specifically states that the source cited is unreliable. Not your opinion; the policy. So I'm quoting some policy here.
  • WP:SOURCES says: "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability." The website doesn't have a writer of a publisher or even a decent paragraph. The policy also says: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." And, the website doesn't seem to exist in respected mainstream publications.
  • WP:NOTRELIABLE says: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." Even a quick look at the website shows that its singular purpose is to promote a Cornish agenda, almost none of its views widely acknowledged, and there is no evidence of any reputation, on the site or off it.
Please, respond, before this heads towards a wheel war. Waiting for a response. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, let me insist again that you tone down your hyperbole. There is no indication of a wheel war, and making useless comments about is irrelevant and inflammatory. There is no time limit here, even if you think you can impose one. Editors here are unpaid contributers, just like you. We respond when we can. Now, as to the reliability of the sourced, your comment "the website doesn't seem to exist in respected mainstream publications" is a matter of interpretation, your interpretation. This is as mainstream as the majority of sources cited on Wikipedia. No, it's not a peer reviewed academic journal, but this isn't exactly an academic topic either; it's a bio. "Even a quick look at the website shows that its singular purpose is to promote a Cornish agenda, almost none of its views widely acknowledged, and there is no evidence of any reputation, on the site or off it.": Again, this is largely your opinions. Single purpose? Lots of good websites focus on a specific topic. I'm posting a request regarding this source at RS noticeboard later today (I'm not sure when, so please don't order me to do it immediately). Feel free to comment after I post it. Cresix (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has already posted it there; very good. Now, Aditya Kabir, based on your history of hyperbole about tagteaming and wheel warring, as well as your insistence that editors "respond", I implore you (if necessary, I demand) to wait a reasonable period of time for others to comment before changing the article. A few hours is not a reasonable period of time. I'm fine with whatever the conclusion there might be. As I've stated, I really have very little interest in this Cornish issue. I simply wanted others to have a chance to express opinions without one or two editors running roughshod over the consensus process. Cresix (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy that you agreed to accept a consensus. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I never didn't agree to accept a consensus, nor did I impy that. In fact, I expressed that I had only a peripheral interest in this issue before you even jumped into this discussion. Cresix (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source in discussion reliable? It has replaced a widely quoted book source (see history) and the information supported by that source. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Kabir, as with any editor, you have every right to post an RfC. But in your usual manner, this is overkill. I think WP:RS/N is on its way to developing a consensus. This RfC is merely useless duplication. But so be it, if that's the way you want it. Cresix (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cresix, please, don't get upset. It's good to assume good. It's not about behaviors here. Not yours, and not mine. And, please, stop making repeated personal attacks. I believe it can be expected from some one who already has demonstrated significant sensitivity about personal attacks. Let's rather wait for the community to speak, if you don't mind. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not upset, not assuming bad, and not making personal attacks. YOU are telling ME to not make personal attacks??? You might want to review your own edit history, including edit summaries, over the past 24 hours. I'm just stating my opinion that this is a pointless RfC that does nothing more than duplicate an issue already well under discussion as WP:RS/N. Surely you don't consider expressing an opinion as "tag teaming" or "wheel warring", or do you? But as I said, you have every right to post it anyway. Cresix (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cresix, yes this is a biographical article. All the more reason why there should be credible and reliable sources to back up everything in the article. What if you had a biographical article here and anonymous editors were adding information that was questionable. I think you need to reevaluate on what sites you call "reliable". Why hasn't this been published in any journals? —Mike Allen 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. No disagreement from me. In fact, I think there's enough opinions to go ahead and declare a consensus that the source is not reliable. All I ever wanted to accomplish here is a consensus instead of two or three editors' opinions. It might save everyone some trouble to close this unnecessary RfC with the consensus of "not reliable." Cresix (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping in from Reliable sources noticeboard. Cornwallgb.com is a self-published website and does not meet our guideline as a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Cresix. May I reinstate the book source and information supported by that source, and remove this source and information supported by this source now? Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is cornwallgb.com a self published website but it also purports to represent "Cornwall University", an educational establishment that does not exist in reality (see University of Exeter). If the website's identity is an obvious fabrication then it is reasonable to suspect that any content on the website could also be similarly fabricated. As it is the only apparent location for a claim that Mansfield had a Cornish ancestry the suggestion itself must remain suspect.
As none of the recognised published biographies of Mansfield mention any direct or traceable Cornish link our article must not be edited to include any such claim until or when reliable and substantiated verification can be provided. Furthermore, no other wikipedia biographies should be altered to include Cornish ancestry on the basis of claims by the highly questionable Cornwallgb.com website. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the discussion here, here, here and here, it seems to be safe to assume that a consensus has been reached. And, the article has been reinstated third parties. That closes the discussion. I am removing the RfC. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found one in the end, a travel writer who stopped off in Pen Argyl and was shown her grave by the local Cornish society. He then met relatives of hers who vouched for her Cornish ancestry on their side of the family. Bodrugan (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there Bodrugan. Reliable and verifiable sources means something published on the internet or in a book by reputable sources. "He said, they said, she said" is pure heresay and does not meet wikipedia's criteria of verifiability. Keep searching, I am sure will turn up something oneday - how about searching the Pen Argyl birth records online? I have no personal axe to grind here, I am of Cornish ancestry myself (Illogen parish - 5 generations ago) but wikipedia has strict guidelines on what can be added to a biography. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 15:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is published in a book by a reputable source, Alan M. Kent. The author, as he says in the book, met with members of her family. What exactly is wrong with that? Bodrugan (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]

This looks like a good comprehensive and authentic source. Anna Nicole Smith as JM's legacy here. Will get back with more. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB has more on her TV work. Plus the Project may be useful to align it to the likes of the featured article on Judy Garland and Bette Davis. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anton LaVey

[edit]

It seems to be a false urban legend that she had a relationship with Anton LaVey of the Church of Satan.[3] I propose the claim be removed from the personal life section. "LEGEND: Jayne Mansfield, Hollywood sex symbol and actress, was a card-carrying Satanist and had an affair with ASL.

REALITY: Publicity agent Tony Kent, an associate of Ed Webber, arranged the meeting between Mansfield and ASL as a publicity stunt. ASL was smitten with the actress. Mansfield, who made no secret of her many affairs, denied knowing ASL intimately, and no associate of hers has ever confirmed any supposed romance with ASL. In a 1967 interview she said, "He had fallen in love with me and wanted to join my life with his. It was a laugh." According to ASL's publicist Edward Webber, Mansfield would ridicule her Satanic suitor by calling from her Los Angeles home and seductively teasing him while her friends listened in on the conversation. ASL's public claims that he had an affair with Mansfield began only after Mansfield's death in an automobile accident, which he also claimed was the result of a curse he had placed on her lover Sam Brody.

SOURCES: Edward Webber (interview by Aquino 6/2/91); interview with Mansfield quoted in Jayne Mansfield by May Mann, Pocket Books, 1974. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.144.212 (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Blond is an adjective; blonde is a noun. She had blond hair so she was a blonde. See first paragraph. NameThatWorks (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INCORRECT REDIRECT

[edit]

Why is this page re-directed from Sam Brody? Was there an article about Sam Brody that was deleted when the redirect was done?Cleshne (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decapitation "Urban Legend"

[edit]

The standard English interpretation of "avulsion of cranium" would in fact be decapitation. I suppose an argument could be made that the "head" includes structures other than the "cranium" but the report cited doesn't mention other structures except for the brain also being avulsed. Based on this it is apparent that this "Urban Legend" is in fact a fact. Psychicattorney (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing questions

[edit]

Can I edit Jayne Mansfield's early life article and death article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Jayne Mansfield wikipedia death article page I added a few information to certain sentences like On June 29 at approximately 2:25 a.m., on U.S.Highway 90 east of the Rigolets Bridge outside of (The New Orleans), the car crashed into the rear of a tractor-trailer that had slowed because of a truck spraying mosquito fogger.The automobile struck the rear of the trailer and went under it (sheering off the top of the car). Riding in the front seat, (the 3 adults including Mansfield) in the front seat were killed instantly. (Mansfield's 3 children in the rear seats survived with only) minor injuries.< (Photos from the death scene made the front newspaper pages everywhere). Rumors that Mansfield was decapitated (are highly untrue, although she did suffer massive head injuries). (The rumor started when the police and reporters found her blonde wig on the dashboard of the automobile and just took off with that believing it was Mansfield's head.) It is believed this was either a blonde wig Mansfield was wearing or was her actual hair and scalp. I put parentheses around the edits I changed and new edits I added to the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC) {Help= Why did my edits get deleted AGAIN? please tell me why thanks} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) 00:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were several errors in your edit:
  • there is no Wikipedia article called The New Orleans, there is New Orleans.
  • if you want to refer to Miss Mansfield's injuries, the shearing/sheering was misspelled.
  • "and just took off with that believing it was Mansfield's head" - non-encyclopedic text.
  • "Photos from the death scene made the newspaper front pages everywhere." - what is your source for this statement?
  • stating that "Rumors that Mansfield was decapitated are highly untrue" is redundant. A statement should be verifiably true and that statement should then be referenced from reliable sources. --Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jayne Mansfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 23:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
✓ Done. Re-sequenced in chronological order. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check, please. I have made some changes to the lede. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
✓ Done. Removed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Removed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Info added. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite the kitchen table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly reworked. I hope all the issues are addressed now, including some that I noticed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-1950s
Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late 1950s
✓ Done. Corrected info. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kiss Them for Me was a box office disappointment and would prove to be Mansfield's final starring role in a mainstream Hollywood studio film." and "The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw was a success; it was her last mainstream successful film." are very similar statements. Are they both correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Corrected info. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stage work
Synergistic style now. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the comment does not help me understand your progress on this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓. Throughout the text it now reads .", ,", and "?. Done in consultation with MOS:LQ. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have got this right now. If this goes to WP:FAC we will find out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Along with the rest of the article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, apart from linking Rock Hunter. The two links are so far apart that one hardly can remember it was linked earlier. Also, didn't understand the second point. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recordings
✓ Done. All available wikibios linked. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Wikilinked. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Still working on names of critics. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Television
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All issues are addressable. Can I have a few days time to work on them? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still working through the article. I am not nearly done. You can see my comments are by section. You should be able to tell how far along I am. Feel free to start addressing concerns. Respond beneath each individual concern. I will strike as they are resolved once I have finished going through the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
✓ Done. Ref added. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First marriage
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second marriage
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Re-sequenced in chronological order. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you convert to millions of dollars ($X.X million in 2012 dollars) instead of to dollars.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Converted to millions of dollars. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few more days for the text is all I require. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Removed and notified. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to the images might take slightly more time, as these images were uploaded, discussed ad valideted by other editors. Alternatively, do you think I can take them to some forum and have them checked? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only the second one needs a review. Try Wikipedia:Non-free content review or Wikipedia:Copyright problems.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. But, are you sure you need that for published works of art? Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great editorial work. You may want to try to move a few images over to the left for variety while keeping in mind the accessibility rules about not doing so directly under level three headers or higher. Other than that, I am quite satisfied. I am going to PASS this article now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added photo In The Fat Spy 1966.jpg photo to the Jayne Mansfield article --Ilovechoclate 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) I changed the main photo to the Jayne Mansfield artice and some of the other ones on the one secntion of the article 1960's I added a photo to that and deleted a photo. --Ilovechoclate 01:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) [reply]

Mansfield's children

[edit]

Jayne Mansfield had five children: Jayne Marie Mansfield, Miklos Hargitay Jr, Mariska Hargitay, Zoltan Hargitay and Antonio "Tony" Cimber (or Antonio Ottaviano/ Cimber). They should all be listed in the appropriate personal-life sections. Tony Cimber's name has been deleted from the article and then reverted back several times recently. Please leave the name in the article, Cimber is Mansfield's youngest child and this fact is verified from the following reliable sources:

If there are some over-riding reasons why this person's name should not be listed in his mother's article along with his siblings, please post them here. Shearonink (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Ilovechoclate 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)== Image Questions! ==

I want to add and change some photos on the Jayne Mansfield aritcle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I change a image on the Jayne Mansfield article on the section 1960's the image is: B movie Too Hot to Handle 1960 Original Movie Poster --Ilovechoclate 00:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) [reply]

I changed a image on the Jayne Mansfield article in the section (Legacy) the name of the image is: The daughter of Jayne Mansfield (Mariska Hargitay).jpg --Ilovechoclate 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs)

And like most of your recent edits, I removed it. Please read a little something about image licensing before adding another image to Wikipedia. The appropriate links are on the upload page. Dismas|(talk) 01:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN I DID ADD A LICENSE TO THE IMAGE! When I uploaded it on the browse image page at the bottom there was a license icon and when you clicked it, it would show you a variety number of licenses to pick for that image you uploaded and I picked (CC) for it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 February 2012‎

First, there's no need to YELL. Please don't. Second, the copy of the image here on Wikipedia (link) does not have a license at all. Third, the copy of the image that you also uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (link) does have a license but it says that you yourself took the photo. I very much doubt that you took the photo. If you did, you can officially send an email to Wikimedia to prove it. As always, the burden of proof is on you. Dismas|(talk) 02:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am sorry from yelling I am not mad at you because you're a very nice user or anyone else it is just that I am trying to do everything right to add the iamges to wikipedia and no matter what I do they get deleted :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new image to the Jayne Mansfield article in the section 1960's The Fat Spy VHS Movie Cover.jpg --Ilovechoclate 02:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) I added a new image again to the Jayne Mansfield article Jayne Manfield In Primitive Love 1964.jpg I changed the photo of the article and I also added it as a thumb photo as well in the section 1960's. --Ilovechoclate 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I deleted my old image on the Jayne Mansfield and added the same photo but in different quality to the Jayne Mansfield article Blonde Movie Actress Jayne Mansfield In Primitive Love.jpeg --Ilovechoclate 19:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs) [reply]

File:The Fat Spy VHS Movie Cover.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:The Fat Spy VHS Movie Cover.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The Fat Spy VHS Movie Cover.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jayne Manfield In Primitive Love 1964.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Jayne Manfield In Primitive Love 1964.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jayne Manfield In Primitive Love 1964.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New images

[edit]

I added and changed a image to the Jayne Mansfield article name of image I added: 1964, film, and Jayne Mansfield.jpg caption:in the B movie and low budget comedy film L'Amore Primitivo 1964 --Ilovechoclate 19:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

...and again, as you have done repeatedly and consistently, violated the copyright of the owner of the work, for which reason, as well as the inferior quality of the image, your change was again reverted. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way did I! thought I did EVERYTHING RIGHT! that the other users were doing to their information of their images YOU SEE!:

{{Information 

|Description    =Cropped screenshot of Jayne Mansfield from the trailer for the film L'Amore Primitivo
|Source         = L'Amore Primitivo trailer
|Date           = 1964
|Author         = Trailer screeshot 
|Permission     = Licencing information: [4] {{PD-US-no notice]
|other_versions =

}}

and for the licence I put: (as in{{subst:personality rights}}). What in there could have I done wrong and I have not done this to my images repeatedly because this was my first time I added those 2 template at the top I just wrote to the information article in the permission section of my image! JUST LIKE THE OTHER USERS HAVE BEEN DOING! --Ilovechoclate 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are walking down the street with your camera. or at some event, and you see a celebrity and snap a picture of them, then the picture is your work; you own the copyright to it and can grant others the right to use it (subject in some instances to the subject's privacy rights, but we're not discussing those right now). If you come up with an original tune, write some words for it and record yourself singing it, the recording is your work; you own the copyright to it and can grant others the right to use it. If you write a novel and get it printed, the book is your work; you own the copyright to it and can grant others the right to use it.
If you buy a book at the bookstore, or borrow it somewhere and personally, all by yourself, make photocopies of the entire book, that is not your work; the copyright still belongs to the book's author and you cannot grant others the right to use it, because that right is not yours to grant. If you rip a song from a CD and personally, all by yourself, make an MP3 file from it, that is not your work; the copyright still belongs to the song's author or the artist on the recording and you cannot grant others the right to use it, because that right is not yours to grant. Similarly, if you personally, all by yourself, use a camera or software to produce a still image from a screenshot of a movie, or copy or download a picture of a poster advertising a movie, that is not your work; the copyright still belongs to the producers of the movie and you cannot grant others the right to use it, because that right is not yours to grant. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take any example that I can find of an image that you've uploaded that hasn't been deleted yet to try to explain this to you.
  • Image 1 - Tony Randall screenshot - Under licensing, you claim that you own the image. You don't! It is a screenshot of a film. The producers of the film own the rights to any screenshot from one of their films. So, that image is either in the public domain (if the film is old enough) or it can only be used under a fair use rationale (see WP:FAIRUSE for the details on that). I can almost guarantee that it is NOT licensed under Creative Commons. And it has a big red box that says that its source information isn't supplied.
  • Image 2 - Fat Spy (box cover?) - You haven't supplied any information at all! No source. No license. Nothing.
  • Image 3 - The Hollywood Walk of Fame star - Again, no info at all. Did you take this photo? Or did you get it off the Internet somewhere? If you got it off the Internet somewhere, then the person who took the photo owns it and you can't use it unless you get their permission.
  • Image 4 - Fair use image of Mansfield - There is no fair use rationale for why we should have this image. It's owned and we're claiming a fair use but haven't explained what fair use it is being used under. And due to the fact that we're not using it at all, it has to be deleted. We can't just keep unused fair use images around in case someone someday needs to use them. Again, see WP:FAIRUSE.
  • Image 5 - VHS box cover - See Image 4. Again, no fair use rationale.
  • Image 6 - Mariska Hargitay - Again, no license, no copyright info, nothing about who owns this photo or if it was released under a suitable license.
Does that help? Have you read any of the several policy pages that you've been referred to? Dismas|(talk) 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I have been reading the image articles on wikipedia and yeah I am not talking about those images I was still practicing on how to upload images at that time when I uploaded those images which was like what a week or 2 ago? what do you not understand by that? I am not trying to be mean or whatever but you did not answser my question or statement and someone deleted that one image I previously uploaded AGAIN WHAT I SAID YESTERDAY WHEN I DID EVERYTHING THE OTHER USERS WERE DOING TO THEIR INFORMATION ON THEIR IMAGES AND THIS TIME I DID IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE IMAGES I PREVIOUSLY UPLOADED BECAUSE I DID WHAT THE OTHER USERS HAVE BEEN DOING TO THEIR IMAGES! and the name of the image was: 1964, film, and Jayne Mansfield.jpg I am talking about that one image I previously uploaded just yesterday! why Did that get deleted? my question or statement I should say was: In what way did I! thought I did EVERYTHING RIGHT! that the other users were doing to their information of their images YOU SEE!: AGAIN! may you please answer my question and statment please! thanks and thanks for the extra help! and sorry if I am causing you all trouble but LET ME SAY AGAIN! I am NEW to wikipedia and I am still trying to learn how everything works that is not so hard to understand is it? and if I knew the magic word on how to do things right on wikipedia I would try to help make wikipedia better and improve the site and articles. --Ilovechoclate 18:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is easy. Listen carefully. Do accordingly. Understood? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not upload pictures that does not belong to you only. Is that difficult? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The simple way to avoid images being deleted is to just upload your own photos. Don't upload stuff that doesn't belong to you if you don't understand copyright policy. And per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, don't just state that you should be able to upload it because similar stuff is there. It doesn't work like that. Sorry but they were the facts, please listen to other editors. If you are new, please read up on the rules, then everyone is happy. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 13:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the help your the best! But I do not get it how are other users uploading images that are not their own work? like this one: Jayne Mansfield.jpg

Description Cropped screenshot of Jayne Mansfield from the trailer for the film Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? Date 1957 Source Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? trailer Author Trailer screenshot Permission Reusing this file This film trailer was published with a copyright notice, and its copyright on the trailer was not renewed. This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. Unless its author has been dead for the required period, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation. This is was the same type of image I uploaded: film, and Jayne Mansfield.jpg but then it got deleted and I have a question if I uploaded a screenshot or something else that is not my own work (like the other users are doing) and if I put it under a fair use rationale license like user (Dismas said) would it be free for me and others users to put on articles? Ilovechoclate 22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

But you are still NOT signing your signature in a way that wiki recognises ... you are typing it in by hand. Just finish your message with four tildes (~~~~) and wiki will insert your signature for you. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I DID look at the end of my message to the administrators do you see it? (Ilovechoclate 22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)) --Ilovechoclate 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC

Some users upload copyrighted material if they can use it in a way which benefits the article (if they discuss the material), or if there's no uncopyrighted replacement - this is called fair use and is allowed on Wikipedia. However it's a process surrounded by lots of important rules so I suggest you get to grips with the website first before uploading such images. Thank you. Remember to input four tildes like this ~~~~ after every message you post on talk pages. Thanks --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}} I really like your signature effect with the star and thanks! so you're saying if I ask to upload the image on this "Talk Page" of the article it will be free for me and ther users like your self to use? thanksIlovechoclate 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No fair use image is free for re-use. You have to satisfy the 10 items at WP:NFCC to use a non free image on a page, and you must do that for every page in WP that the image is used. Should the image not be used in any article it will be automatically deleted.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help :) ! I read that article just like you said for me to do and I printed it out but I have a question may I add few images to the Jayne Mansfield article if you and the other administrators do not mind if its ok I wanted to add this one image: (Jayne Mansfield picture 1964.jpg) I read all of those 10 rules just like you told me on the WP:NFCC article after that I added a image and I mite add a few later on of course if it is alright with you and the other administrators approval but if I screwed up on one of those 10 rules on the WP:NFCC article may you please tell me which rule number I screwed up on and I will try to go back and fix that rule I messed up on thanks :) I tried my best to satisfy all 10 rules but if you happen to look at the Jayne Mansfield picture 1964.jpg and if you see any thing wrong with that image like one of those rules on the WP:NFCC aticle may you please tell me which rule it was and I will try my best to make that rule satisfied like you said thanks and thanks for your help <3 --Ilovechoclate 02:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ilovechoclate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs)

Yes, when an image is deleted for any reason, the admin should post the reason on your talk page, and if they haven't (which is rare), the time of deletion and the reason why will show up on your watchlist (as long as you're watching the image, usually automatically). Thanks for your comment about my signature! I like it too ;) --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 17:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield's 4th child Mariska Hargitay.

[edit]

I added some new information to the Jayne Mansfield article in the section "Legacy" the information was: Her fame lives on through her best movies, teleivision show appearences, and in the carrer of her 4th child out of 5 Mariska Hargitay best known for her popular role as Olivia Benson on the popular NBC NYC crime show: Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and I added a new image as well (my own work): Mariska Hargitay in 2011.jpg so the users and readers of this article will get a good understanding of what I am talking about and if any administrators or users want to write me back for any problems please do :) Ilovechoclate 03:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs)

I added another image to the Jayne Mansfield article (my own work) in the section "Legacy" the name of it is: Jayne Mansfield's Hollywood Walk Of Fame Star.jpg Ilovechoclate 03:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs)

may I at least add some information to the Jayne Mansfield article not add images just information to the article if it is right just certain sections in the article? thanks I just want to make the articles have more detail and may you please write me back thanks again :) Ilovechoclate 18:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have a photo of Mansfield's star, I see no reason not to include it. A lot of articles have images of those stars. It's just that you can't merely upload images from your computer; it's actually kind of complicated. As for her daughter, I wouldn't bother. By my count, Mariska Hargitay is mentioned in three different places in the article, with one mentioning her role on SVU. CityOfSilver 23:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both ok I added the one of Jayne Mansfield's star since the first one I uploaded I think got deleted I added it to the section legacy I named it The Jayne Mansfield Hollywood Walk Of Fame Star.jpg thank you and if there is anything wrong with the image please let me know :)Ilovechoclate (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to add information but your grammar is so poor most of the time that it would probably be best to put the information here on the talk page, with appropriate sources, and someone else can put it in the article. Dismas|(talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that, as you've been told, the easiest way to get a star photo uploaded here is to take a picture of the star yourself. CityOfSilver 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you both are nice yeah I understand when I first started and when I tried to edit the Jayne Mansfield article and I accidently put (The New Orleans) no such thing and yeah I know why it got removed too because there is no page called The New Orleans just New Orleans and thanks I will try to add some information to the article this time like you said with GOOD grammar and see how it turns out thanks you both for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs)

That post isn't really all that encouraging. There isn't a single period in the whole thing. Dismas|(talk) 00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean just now when I as talking to you and the other administrator or the old information I added to the Jayne Mansfield article and may you please tell me what happend to my signature I typed in 4 tildes at the end of that message the key is beside the "1" key and you have to hit shift to add 4 tildes and than I did that and than I saved the message to the "Talk Page"?Ilovechoclate 01:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with the information I just added now to the Jayne Mansfield article? (In the early hours of June 29, 1967 Mansfield died in an automobile accident at age 34 with their driver Ronnie Harrison and boyfriend Sam Brody on U.S. Route 90 30 miles outside of New Orleans heading west.) May you please tell what the mistake is and I will try to go back and fix that mistake I made just saying if I did thanks for the help againIlovechoclate 01:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Ilovechoclate 01:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Ilovechoclate 01:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovechoclate (talk • contribs)

First let me say that I'm surprised the lede didn't contain anything about her death. It doesn't need an in-depth explanation, but one sentence is fine by me. The phrase you added is a little too much information; I would stop right after "age 34." The year, 1967, needs to be followed by a comma.
As for your other concerns, I honestly don't know where to start because there are a lot of concerns and you keep changing your comments. It's better form to just add a new comment rather than change old ones.
I don't know anything about why four tildes didn't work as a signature. You can just copy this text ~~~~ and paste it whenever you want to sign something and it should work.
Dismas and I are not administrators. I can't speak for him, but I personally am just a random editor who wandered here from recent changes.
And as for grammar, Dismas's concern appears to primarily be an issue with run-on sentences. Your post that started "Thank you" was about three or four different things but it was only one sentence joined with several uses of "and." CityOfSilver 01:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my information get deleted? Ilovechoclate (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh hello?

Please, you are just wasting a lot of time of a lot many editors. You can't follow simple instructions and you can't write English. A lot many editors have tried to help you. But, you can't be helped. Please, come back to Wikipedia when you are ready. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok first of all what the hell do you mean I can not sign right? because the other editors said I was signing right! and wow you did not need to be rude about it when you said DUH! you're just wasting your time writing all of those mean comments instead of doing something worth your time like give help to people! its not like when you first started wikipedia you did a few things wrong OK? get it through your head I am still trying to learn and read some of the wikipedia instruction articles. Please do not talk to me unless if you got something nice to say! and ok if I am in every editor's way than I will quit I found another site to work on that has editors that give me a lot of help but anyways bye! :/Ilovechoclate (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Also I do not get the part when you said I do not write in English because I do! If not what language am I writing in do you mean my grammar is wrong or what? Really I mite not be able to follow simple instructions (on accident) but you can't answer simple questions because your answer does not answer my question. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT I AM DOING WRONG SO I CAN FIX THE PROBLEM! YOU NEVER TOLD ME WHAT I DID WRONG ON THE ARTICLE! is that so hard to answer and if you can not give me COMPLETE answers than do not talk to me. THAT RIGHT THERE IS JUST WASTING YOU TIME! well bye and read a article on how to be nice to people who are trying to learn and have learning disabilities.Ilovechoclate (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are using English words but are not using correct grammar. You have said that you can use correct grammar but while doing so, you don't use correct grammar. You've also been given many simple instructions that you keep going against. For instance, we've asked you to stop deleting past comments that you've made and just keep adding to the end of a discussion. But you deleted comments just yesterday or the day before. And this is not counting the several times that you were told not to upload photos that you didn't own and yet you went and did it again and again. Dismas|(talk) 02:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Community alert Ilovechocolate has taken the drive to upload copy-vio images to the commons, as well as other pages like Dean Martin and Clint Eastwood. This is user is not going to stop unless stopped by force. I have posted to AN/I. Please, check. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well I quit and I am not repeatingly adding images to the Dean Martin article or Clint Eastwood artcile I just only added their Hollywood stars once that is it THAT I TOOKED MY SELF WITH MY OWN CAMERA! SO YEAH THAT IS MY OWN WORK AND I DEMAND WHOEVER DELETED IT TO PUT BACK ON THERE! LIKE YALL REPEATEDLY TOLD ME IF YOU WERE WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND SAW A MOVIE STAR AND YOU SNAPSHOT A IMAGE OF HER THAT WOULD BE YOUR OWN WORK SINCE YOU OBTAINED IT YOURSELF SAMETHING IF YOU WERE AT A EVENT ABOUT THE MOVIE STAR WHATEVER! BUT IT IF WAS A SNAPSHOT OF A MOVIE IT WOULD NOT BE MY OWN WORKD BECAUSE I NEVER TOOK THE IMAGE OF THE SNAPSHOT OR OTAINED MY SELF OF THE MOVIE OR MOVIE COVER. I GIVE UP I AM NOT SUCH A NICE PERSON WHEN IT COMES TO LIES! like you said I kept on adding images to the Clint Eastwood and Dean Martin]] article which is untrue because let me say again I only add their Hollywood Walk Of Fame stars that is it then it got deleted I am through with wikipedia when no one wants to except me for adding more detail to artciles and images to article on wikipedia or for me to help out making the articles more inspiring and I added new information to the Jayne Mansfield article like 4 weeks ago and yet again it got deleted so bye and thanks Dismas for your help I am not adding information to articles just repoding to your message Aditya if I did not repond it would be rude don't you think? So do not worry about me trying to add information and images to wikipedia because I quit on that just respondingIlovechoclate (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poster vs. Movie Scene

[edit]

What makes the movie poster (which is free) an unacceptable replacement for the movie scene (which may not be free)? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of concerns about free-ness of the poster. I have posted the concern at Commons. The current FU image has ample critical commentary and rationale. But the poster, if not proven free, has none of that. Otherwise it's perfectly alright to replace an FU image with free image. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the agreement has been reached, and appropriate action taken. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First marriage

[edit]

I remember this article used to say she was married in January 1950 to Paul, not May. If the latter is correct, they had a shotgun wedding as the couple had their first child in November 1950. On Jayne Marie Mansfield's article, it offers support for the former stating she was born after her parents "secretly" married. Which one is correct? ★Dasani★ 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 6, 1950 should be the date, though other dates are also stated by various books and reports. But, most books, including Jayne Mansfield: a bio-bibliography by Jocelyn Faris and Jayne Mansfield and the American fifties by Martha Saxton, give May 6 as the date. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, Mansfield was already pregnant when she got married. I was confused because I noticed it said January before. ★Dasani★ 18:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All the sources agree that she was pregnant before marriage. Some say it was a date rape, but most say Paul Mansfield was the father. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that book (I went to go look it up) says she was married first to him in secret and it was in January. For some unknown reason, neither one wanted to say a word. What happened is that she got pregnant right in the middle, then had to host a second marriage that was public. Anyway, the marriage didn't last. Changing the article again. ★Dasani★ 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added back. ★Dasani★ 00:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What book was that? I hope it's not one of those fanboy books that dish out so much misinformation about JM. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was listed on this page before, that's how I knew about it. It's been cited before. I seriously question how truthful those other two are, because I took a peek at the Faris book and her writing is incorrect on several points:
  • Mansfield's father was younger than her mother by one year. Therefore, he was 29 when he died. Not 30, as the book says.
  • Mansfield did not go to college in 1951. She was in Georgia with Paul and their daughter. Even this article says she didn't go to UCLA until 1954, a good 3 years later.
  • I am doubtful that she "copied" Kim Novak. They came of fame about the same time, and pink is popular among women.
  • Probably more, I didn't bother looking further. ★Dasani★ 17:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All this will need particular attention, and will need to be checked individually, if there are concerns and if contrary evidences against stated information are compelling. But, for this particular information the policy clearly requires a citation. Quoting any information on the basis of "that book (I went to go look it up) says..." and then backing it up with "I think it was listed on this page before, that's how I knew about it. It's been cited before" are not compliant with existing policy and guidelines.
If you find the Faris source unreliable, you can post a discussion at the appropriate forum. This discussion however is about JM's marriage in January. To me, at the moment, it looks like yet another story about her pre-marital pregnancy. There are many: (1) it was a date rape; (2) it was Paul; (3) it was a secret marriage... and so on. Even in the grave, and for so long, JM continues to generate controversies. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a citation, if you had bothered looking. It's after the second line. ★Dasani★ 20:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of first marriage

[edit]

Los Angeles Times (October 24, 1956; March 16, 1957), The Boston Globe (March 16, 1957) offers May 6, 1950 as the marriage date without mentioning an earlier marriage. That date is quoted along with mentions of Fort Worth, Texas as the marriage place by Jocelyn Faris (Jayne Mansfield: a bio-bibliography), Amherst College Professor Martha Saxton (Jayne Mansfield and the American fifties), James Robert Parish (The Hollywood Book of Breakups), May Mann (Jayne Mansfield: a biography), St. James encyclopedia of popular culture, and a number of other books without mention of a prior marriage. Raymond Strait, while an important resource, mentions May 10, 1950 as the date of a "public" wedding while mentioning January 28, 1950 as the date for a "secret" marriage at Fort Worth, Texas. No other book or contemporary newspaper has been found to quote the January date, though some books do mentions a "secret" wedding without elaborating further. The May 6 date is also doubtful, as May 10 is the most quoted date. Fort Worth is mentioned as the place for the May wedding by most sources, including those cited here. What was the date of the first marriage then? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea, and both Paul (is he still alive?) and Jayne never really elaborated on their marriage besides they fact that Jayne had given birth to a daughter and moved to Hollywood with him. Even most of the professional, trustworthy sources just cite they were both married and had their first child in 1950, smartly avoiding the chore of citing dates. One interesting fact I found is that she graduated HS in June, and she says she wore the same dress to marry Paul that she did to graduate HS. That doesn't help much, since even if they really did marry in May it would of been right before she graduated. ★Dasani★ 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about stating things as they are on the article- "There is no definitive date available for her first marriage. Some sources claim that Paul and Jayne got publicly married on May 10, 1950 in Fort Worth, Texas.<ref> Other sources claim it to be May 6 in the same year but in another location.<ref> There are mentions of an earlier secret wedding on January 28 in the same year in Fort Worth.<ref>" - or something like it? That would reduce the chances of error or confusion, and take the element of WP:OR away. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've seen some more GA and FA articles doing that. You can try to add a line like that. ★Dasani★ 16:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I looked up the marriage certificate. If they secretly married, there would be two. This just goes to prove that you are probably right. The only one I could find was from May 1950. I am not sure where the May 10 date came from, the certificate read May 6. The site notes that we should use the search with caution, many records were destroyed or lost, but I don't think it was that long ago (usually applies to stuff in 1910s and before). Also, we forgot to include an important detail (straying from this topic): since her mother remarried, Palmer became a Peers before she became Mansfield. How come we didn't include that in this article? ★Dasani★ 05:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strait has a problematic reputation as a biographer, though he was JM's secretary. The information he provides often conflicts with widely accepted facts, not to mention his commentary and anecdotes that are not supported by any other record. As for the peerage, go ahead and put it in, may be right along the information about Vera's remarriage. The article also needs Herbert William's birth and death year along Vera's. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her mother's remarriage would not automatically change Jayne's name. Was she adopted by Peers or were other steps taken to legally change her name? Did she use Peers as a surname? Fat&Happy (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to start a new topic to address F&H. ★Dasani★ 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German

[edit]

This article states that her paternal grandparents were direct German immigrants, therefore her father is full German. Mansfield would be half English and half German. Should we change the article? ★Dasani★ 00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have salvaged that part from older versions. See if you want to add something. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F&H: Peers

[edit]

I wouldn't know, if you can do some more research you'd probably find something on it. But I noticed something must of been wrong because when I searched for marriage certificates under "Vera Jayne Palmer", none showed up. By searching Paul's name, I was able to find a Paul J. Mansfield married to Vera Jayne Peers in Dallas. She was already 17 in May 1950, so therefore I'm sure something happened years back and she adopted her stepfather's name. At first, I thought that was the wrong person, but I remembered Jayne's mother married Harry Peers. ★Dasani★ 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm surprised no one caught this. All of the women I knew who remarried, their husbands changed both their and their kids names to the male's. Although she was already married when she got famous, but still. Only one site notes that she might of been a Peers due to her stepfather, which she was... ★Dasani★ 16:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I was 17 by the time my mother remarried, so that's a somewhat different case, but no way was my name going to be changed to that jerk's. OTOH, Obama seems to have retained his original name despite his mother's second marriage when he was young, but apparently used Soetoro as a "name of convenience" while they were all living together, which may have been more common than a legal name change. The name she used on the marriage certificate, while a primary source, seems rather convincing though. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure she really changed hers. See this. Her HS documents and yearbook would show that, but it seems hard to find a reliable source. ★Dasani★ 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given what we do have for sources and what we don't, could we simply elide the situation a bit by saying something like "In 1939, Vera Palmer married sales engineer Harry Peers and the family moved to Dallas, Texas, where Jayne [used/adopted/was known by] the name Vera Jayne Peers." Fat&Happy (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the text suggested by F&H, quoting the schoolbook as the reference. Is there a link available for the marriage certificate? Another problem - I see some sites quoting Peers as Lawrence Peers or Lawrence "Tex" Peers, not Harry Peers. Any idea about that? Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The marriage certificate was on a subscription-only site, or else I would of tried to include a link. His name was Harry Lawrence; he may of used his middle name, which is common. ★Dasani★ 07:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the link from a sub-only site. It helps other readers and editors who are subscribed to the same site. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The certificates and Paul's bday

[edit]

Right here. I don't know why there is such a long URL. Also, it is curious to note that I am not sure who put that Paul was 22 the year they married. This would make him born in 1928. Not to be stalkerish, but I am doing research for the article. I have searched the phone books and the Intelius thing, and it appears he was born in 1930. The only birth certificate of anybody even close to that age was born in 1930. Neither of them spoke publicly about that but if it were indeed true, I would not be surprised. That would explain why there was not as much controversy over their ages, why he would still be in college, and why he graduated HS in 1947 (possible but a bit late, he would be 19 upon grad with a 1928 birthyear). Here is his birth record, which cites 1930. ★Dasani★ 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give the benefit of the doubt, I am pretty sure that is him, unless he moved from out of state. ★Dasani★ 02:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Paul and Jayne when they married used to be a part of this article in some older version or other, but it's not more there. Where does it say now that Paul was 22 at the time? In fact looking at the article again I found a few things missing - (1) Paul and Jayne's age at the time of their marriage; (2) Jayne's age at the time Jayne Marie was born; (3) circumstances of Jayne Marie's birth; and (4) relevant facts about the marriage in the "early life" section. Also I think "there has been some confusion as to what date Jayne and Paul married" is a wrong statement. What does it mean when it says "there have been"? Is there any confusion or not? Was there a significant confusion that cleared up? And, even more importantly, it's not a "confusion" at all, just conflicting facts where "one" writer stands against "all" the other writers, including many who are way more reputed as writers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could change it to 'there is', but since we have legal documents I don't think that's really conflicting anymore. ★Dasani★ 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could not determine what month and day they really married, therefore the ages would of been wrong anyway.
  • I don't see this in most articles, the kid's birthday is enough.
  • What circumstances?
  • Isn't putting it in the personal life enough? ★Dasani★ 20:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like this the prudent way would be to quote the ages credible sources agree upon (17 and 22, most likely). Wikipedia discourages original research. The age at birth of the fist child isn't important for most article, as not too many people with an encyclopedia entry would have a child born so early in life, and that conceived out of a wedlock. Without the marriage put in perspective the chronology of early life is hardly comprehensive. Every information should be presented in its context. Wikipedia discourages random information. In fact, strengthening the early life section with a proper chronological order is more needed than finding out sensational discrepancies using far-out sources. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted) This is considered a special case, if you didn't put that in her early life it wouldn't read properly. If that's what the books say, I guess you're just going to have to readd it. The gripe we had was that even the books couldn't seem to agree, like I said before, so how were we supposed to put something? Is one source considered more reliable than another?
Unfortunately, I don't think it's as big a deal as you're making it out to be. There are a lot of people who have kids before 20, or 18, or whatever. It's common even today. ★Dasani★ 19:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted) I see it's already been readded, basically the same as before but with different wording. Also, you should probably add the thing about the certificates. Many celebrity bios cite the certificates. It's not uncommon. ★Dasani★ 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Made a few changes. Check. Much more needs to be done. This still doesn't read good. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't cite the certificate. I don't have access to it. You can do that though. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the discussion below and a check here, the certificate may not be eligible for a citation. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we just remove the certificate? I'm not watching this page, so I didn't know you responded some time back. BTW, the way you rewrote the sentence is now very awkward. It's not just any certificate posted on Ancestry.com. There should be only one. ★Dasani★ 22:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we can't verify the reliability of the certificate. All we can ascertain at the moment is that a marriage certificate has been posted at Archives.com, which states a certain date. I believe that's all we can state as a "fact" before further verification. One way of that could be establishing credibility of the website. As you have see, I have failed to establish that conclusively. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I'm just going to go and remove it. ★Dasani★ 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expected to have it saved *sad face*. One request still - will you collaborate to get this article to an FA status? Right at this moment, you and I are probably the only two editors interested in it. Most of the past editors for this one has left Wikipedia or are busy with other stuff. I have been asking around, but not much help has arrived. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, when it remained, you rewrote the line very choppily. Even afterwards, you questioned the validity of the certificate and now you want it back? I don't want to sound mean, but which one is it? I've already said that compared to other articles (which are written the same way), this one is basically inferior. I guess the only difference is that they are on much more recent celebrities. Additionally, they use .pdfs for their certificates. Well anyway, I wrote to User:Miniapolis and s/he is the only one willing. ★Dasani★ 00:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No no no no... I didn't want removed. I just wanted state the facts as they were - an unverifiable marriage certification, but still a source that supports the January wedding. I found it problematic to present as "the marriage certificate", and still find it so. I'd remove it only if we fail to state facts as they are. And, you don't sound mean at all. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

[edit]

Twice now Rootsweb (worldconnect.rootsweb.com) was removed as a citation. Ideally, if you find the source lacking you can tag it with Template:Refimprove, or if you find it seriously lacking you can post to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get a consensus on its unreliability. For, refimprove, consider that it has been already supported by a bookcite - Raymond Strait, Here They Are Jayne Mansfield, p. 10, SP Books, 1992, ISBN 978-1-56171-146-8. For general objection against the source, you need a consensus to ban it's use in Wikipedia. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious from your comments that you don't even know what Rootsweb is. As a website, it has many different components, some of which are reliable. The user-contributed family trees (WorldConnect) are not, and WP has, in fact, a policy of rejecting self-published sources, such as the user-contributed family trees at Rootsweb Worldconnect. This is not a matter of my personal opinion; it's a matter of following WP guidelines. 75.6.11.45 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bosom vs. Bosoms

[edit]

This one is for Tom Morris, whose WP ID I do not know. He has just written online about editing this article. If you changed 'bosom was' to 'bosoms were', be ashamed. The word refers to the whole chest and one or both breasts thereupon; only two people may have a plural number of bosoms. Liam Proven (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Languages

[edit]

The early life section of this article cites that Mansfield spoke five different languages. What were they? ★Dasani★ 22:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The major sources - Saxton, Faris, Mann and Straight - are mute about that. Checking out still. Can you ask the same question on the peer review page? Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently BBC Radio also reports the five language without detailing, but LA Times couldn't find any detail at all. Looks like another of her claims. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that she did indeed know how to speak German. She learned it in HS. But if it can't be verified what she spoke, does it really belong in the article? ★Dasani★

It does. Big time. Almost all her bios, offline and online showcases this zealously, including the most mainstream news outlets and top JM experts, detailed or not. BTW, she definitely spoke Italian and German, as well as English. Martha Saxton is clear on that. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess then it is quite notable. I just find it strange because most articles that state a person knows how to speak other language(s) specify that. For example, "Mansfield is fluent in ___ and ___ and has studied ___, ___, and ___." But if we don't know what they are... ★Dasani★ 04:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right at the moment we have three verified - English, German, and Italian - and a few more mentioned - Greek, French, Italian, Spanish - all from unreliable sources. Though covering the fact as much the mainstream and experts do should be enough, I'm still working on it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found all five. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tabloid

[edit]

"She met Paul at a party on Christmas Eve of 1949, in Fort Worth, Texas." - this particular information was removed three times or more already, which makes it an edit war. Twice the edit summary was the same - Not a tabloid and Not a tabloid.

The article mentions her first meetings with all three of her husbands. Raymond Strait clearly mentions it (Here They Are Jayne Mansfield, 1992, page 50). What makes the instance of meeting Paul tabloid material? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't matter how they met. I've fixed articles with more modern celebrities including the same information. Editors basically threw it out saying it doesn't mean anything here, that stuff belongs in magazines. ★Dasani★ 00:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. But, this is so subjective that I'll expect a bigger consensus for that. In other instances similar action was taken is hardly and argument (also check: WP:WAX). A couple of years back a lot many editors were against popular culture and trivia, but now the popular culture and trivia project has GAs and FAs among its articles, and the the template that warned against trivia was deleted. Even consenus can change. I propose that we put it back and wait for a bigger discussion, which should happen when we put it up as FAC. Removing is easy, adding is not. But, if there's an objective reason for the removal, this may not be necessary. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're reading a bit too deeply into my removal. BTW, that WP policy has absolutely nothing to do with this. That is a greater issue. I'm not denying that this article is notable enough to exist, just several simple facts in it. From what I remember, they were not against popular culture and trivia. They were against the way people wrote it. More often than not, the culture and trivia added was messy, biased, or written poorly. Some elements were kept, others were not. I remember there was the same issue with the children and their birthdays. On most GAs and FAs in the political department, they simply cite the children's birthyear. But one editor complained that the full birthdate was very common, and besides that most celebrities have mentioned it by selling photos and articles of their children. This is a gray area. ★Dasani★ 00:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. For a celebrity who was more famous for the publicity and personal life, I found it relevant to keep the beginnings and ends of each of her marriage. And, I did found that "not tabloid" reasoning very confusing. Well, if you don't mind, I'm going to put it back and see what happens. I don't really think it was messy, biased or something in that line. BTW, a large part of Wikipedia was very much against trivia a couple of years back. I was part of the struggle to make the community see that it belonged fine. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I meant that the trivia in those articles you mentioned before fit those criteria. The fact remains that very established editors and admins have indeed snipped out such flaws from articles before. It isn't a game of comparison. Finally, I don't know how you will be able to prove that she is famous for her personal life. What celebrity isn't? Marriages, children, breakups. Some stuff needs to be trimmed. ★Dasani★ 06:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and basically there wasn't much left to say afterwards. A couple editors came by and figured that if such established editors had them cut, there was no arguing with it. The fact that she met these people also doesn't make her notable at all. If anything, it would be the opposite. How come Paul doesn't have an article? ★Dasani★ 06:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I truly don't know what you are talking about. I was talking about her marriages - from beginning to end in brief. What's wrong with that? The copy? Then let me fix it before you take a staunch stand against something. And that would require putting that bit of information back. And, it has got nothing to do with a tabloid. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...what copy? It's not my fault that you don't even understand or remember what we were referring to. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with the article nor what I mentioned, so there we go for now. ★Dasani★ 20:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think I'll need to get more people in here to comment, and follow the consensus. Not one person's stubborn streak. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jayne and Matt.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Jayne and Matt.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jayne and Matt.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion needed

[edit]

"She met Paul at a party on Christmas Eve of 1949, in Fort Worth, Texas." - this particular information was removed three times or more already, which makes it an edit war. Twice the edit summary was the same - Not a tabloid and Not a tabloid. The article mentions her first meetings with all three of her husbands. Raymond Strait clearly mentions it (Here They Are Jayne Mansfield, 1992, page 50). The discussion makes no sense.

As for the first tidbit about the Christmas party, I rephrased and readded it, with a tone that is more encyclopedic. I do not believe the trivia about the waiter belongs in the other marriage, though. Cheers, C(u)w(t)C(c) 11:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I can live without the waiter bit *wink*. Thanks. (BTW, that part was a bit tabloidish anyways) Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime :) C(u)w(t)C(c) 16:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Notes" section

[edit]

Since the article is well-sourced and the "Notes" section seems to be mainly trivia, I'm going to incorporate it (as much as possible) into the article. Miniapolis (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, since the notes themselves have citations I'm going to leave them as is. Miniapolis (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording confusion

[edit]

"She inherited more than $90,000.00 from her Elmer ($724,983 in 2012 dollars) and more that $36,000.00 from her maternal grandmother Alice Jane Palmer in 1958 ($289,993 in 2012 dollars."

I'm trying to interpret the meaning of this. Does anyone have any idea who "her Elmer" is supposed to be? Her father or grandfather? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal grandfather. My bad. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information

[edit]

... striked out the part covered. Much happy. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also needed

[edit]
  • Zoltan molsted by lion
  • Mickey's first wife's alimony
  • JM's animals:
    • Chihuahuas
      • Chihuahuas in Las Vegas
      • Matt Cimber smuggling Chihuahua
      • Coats made with Chihuahua skin
    • Death of Galena the Chihuhua
    • Dogs that died in the accident (check - original)
    • Pincess the pink Siamese cat
    • Sam the monkey
    • Walking ocelots, leopards and lions in Hollywood Boulevard
  • Divoon the word
(inserted) A better fit for Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supermarket openings
  • Booze
    • Brawling in a Stockholm nightclub
  • Enrico Bomba/
  • Style and fashion
  • Childhood
    • Shirley Temple
  • Fox and pregnacy
  • Wedding dress (check this, and this) - the ring
A bit late, but the Museum of Death on Hollywood Boulevard actually features two of her real (or they were) dogs literally lifted from the accident and shelved. I would say this is definitely notable. That's how I learned about her, actually, since she hasn't been famous for some decades now. She was also famed for being a huge animal lover, though I'm not sure the exact number of pets or names of them she ever had. ★Dasani★ 06:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have a plan to have serious content on her pets. See the list of stuff right under the sub-head "Also needed". Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hangover and Joan of Arc (see: here) - her early career
  • Mr. California? (considering this)
  • Posthumous releases

...still searching and researching. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consolidating the citation of St. James Encyclopedia
  • Harvrefing of the Parish book
  • Harveffing of Hope Jordan book
  • Producer and Year for all films
  • Add dates (at least years) to the first marriage section (when did Paul file for divorce?)
  • Champagne Complex and Rabbit Habit can be become articles (check: [5])

...and, other technicalities. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

  • a bit on Rita Marlowe, her role in Rock Hunter that won her a Theater World Award for the Broadway version and a Golden Globe for the Hollywood version
  • characters that portrayed a nightclub performer - only Too Hot to Handle remains

...may be other characters too. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use...

...and other wiki-links. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be {{external media}} can be used. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

[edit]

Can you cite a source for the following?

After The Girl Can't Help It was released, Fox bought Mansfield out of her Broadway contract for $100,000 and shut the production of Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? down after 444 performances.

Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't find a citation for this, we might as well sack it. I've looked around but don't find support for such a claim. ★Dasani★ 06:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref found and added. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

File:Jayne Mansfield 1956.jpg looks very much like a WP:COPYVIO image, posted with a mistaken copyright tag. Let's not use it, especially not as the lead image. Besides, it's good to have a video of an actor famous for her movies. It's good to have a free video that serves the purpose. If you disagree, please, post your reason. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from its copyvio situation that Jayne Mansfield 1956.jpg image of her is just dreadful; the aspect ratio is all wrong and her face is squashed up sideways. I suggest it is not used even if the image proves to be available. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "Girl Can't Help It" image is not ideal, I think the reason the ratio is all wrong is that it is from one of those squished/Technicolor trailers so popular in that general era. I do wish WP or Commons had a sharply-delineated PD/publicity-photo of her for the Infobox, take a look at what's available on Commons, there really isn't much that isn't a fuzzy screen-capture, the clear photos like the Sophia Loren dinner-table photo (hosted on WP) are already in use elsewhere in the article. The only one I could find on Commons that isn't already in use is this 1957 publicity photo, maybe it could be cropped to only show Miss Mansfield? Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations: technical check

[edit]

Error check using the cite button:

{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=3}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|pp=74}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Strait|1992|p=94}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=24}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=6}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=10}} Multiple references contain the same content
Abbe A. Debolt and James S. Baugess, ''Encyclopedia of the Sixties: A Decade of Culture and Counterculture'', page 391, ABC-CLIO, 2011, ISBN 978-1-4408-0102-0 Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=135}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{harvnb|Mann|1974|p=112}} Multiple references contain the same content
{{Harvnb|Strait|1992|p=11}} Multiple references contain the same content
JaynePaul Multiple references are using the same name

For example, this citation is named three times:

<ref name=summary>{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=3}}</ref>
<ref name=JaynePaul>{{harvnb|Faris|1994|p=3}}</ref> (defined twice)

The simplest fix is to use {{sfn}} and don't use a name, so we would change the above to: {{sfn|Faris|1994|p=3}}, which would result in the same output

Other issues:

  • Some citations use Citation Style 1 templates, others are hand crafted
  • Citation titles are mixed between title and sentence case
  • Some dates are in YYYY-MM-DD format, others in MMM DD, YYYY
  • References section is usually placed after Citations section
  • Guessing "Quite wedding" is mispelled
  • Some citations have access dates, others don't; not required, but should be consistent
  • Shortened footnotes and Footnotes systems are mixed— not a problem if this is desired (I don't like the appearance)
  • Don't use state abbreviations

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the top part. Thanks. "Quiet wedding" spelling has been fixed too. I have two questions here - (1) doesn't "sfn" and "harvref" serve the same purpose? (2) how do I make shortrefs for websites and newspapers? For converting handcrafted citations I guess I'll need more help (how about WP:CLEAN?). About the looks, can you elaborate a bit more? I personally have never worked on so many citations and so much complexity. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now only one error:
farisclub Multiple references are using the same name
{{sfn}} is essentially {{harvnb}} wrapped in <ref>...</ref>— they actually use the same core template. Regardless, you have that issue mostly fixed.
For the hand-crafted citations, you will just have to go through and update them. Most are missing elements. For example, I converted:
[http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/monroe01.html "Heroes and Icons: Marilyn Monroe"], ''Time''; Retrieved: September 21, 2007.
To:
{{cite journal |last=Rudnick |first=Paul |title=Heroes and Icons: Marilyn Monroe |work=Time |date=June 14, 1999 |url=http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/monroe01.html}}
As you can see, the original citation was missing the author and date. I fixed a couple to illustrate what needs to be done. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 08:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you install User:PleaseStand/References segregator, then you can segregate all of the references in an editing box for easier cleanup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran Citationbot - it found and fixed a few minor problems. Roger (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A ref named farisclub is defined twice and invoked twice. They are both referring to Farris 1994, but one definition is for p 24 and the other is for p 7–8. I have no idea which pages go to which invoked ref. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted out the mixed up refs. Faris pp. 7-8 is now faris02. The other one (p. 24) is still farisclub. Thanks for noticing. BTW, can you help formatting the dates? I believe yyyy-mm-dd is the recommended format. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Been cleaning up the dates. Per WP:MOSNUM, publication dates use the same format as the article; access dates (which are not required) and archive dates use either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My ignorance showed up, I guess. What's your take on the article? How far is it from an FAC? Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

[edit]
Citations still need work— I have only been converting and formatting the references, but all of them need to be checked for reliability.
  • Duplicated ref named "straitearly"
Fixed.
  • References: Luijters is unused
It is carried over from earlier versions. Should I remove it?
  • There are several instances where there are more than three citations for a single statement (ex: "sabotaging their marriage"). This is really overkill.
That sentence has three different pieces of sourced information. I can split the sentence and redistribute the refs. Should I?
  • A lot of the formatted currency values are odd, especially in the Second marriage and Estate sections: bits are missing, superfluous .00
Fixed to some degree.
More fixed. I added a parameter to round most of the values.
  • Music career: Why the discography infoboxes? These belong in the discography article. And the numbers don't match.
Working on the music section. Numbers will match soon. I see that these infoboxes also apply to musician articles.
  • The quote boxes seem stuffed in. They are merely recitations of lines from here works. A quote box should be some original quip or quote by Mansfield.
I found them to be relevant to her life at the time, as the Herrick quote is quoted by mainstream media as a curious piece of premonition and the Shakespeare quote as a curious piece of admission. I can remove them though. What about the lyrics quote?
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have updates above and questions too, both inserted. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are pretty well cleaned up. I tagged some dead links and some that need more info [full citation needed]. I will check again in a few days. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error

[edit]

The page7-8 ref plus the Bosley Crowther/NYTimes ref that follows it are both in error, neither one contains the cited information backing up "The couple became a popular publicity and performing team, starting with a bit part in "Rock Hunter", especially the "starting with a bit part in "Rock Hunter"". What is the sentence referring to? The movie of "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter", a stage production?...neither assertion would seem to be supportable, Mansfield was the star of the movie and the Bway play and neither ref says anything about Mansfield and Hargitay appearing as a couple in a possible stage production. Text has therefore been adjusted and refs deleted. Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to notice. The original lines read: "The couple became a popular publicity and performing team, starting with a bit part in Rock Hunter." Crowther wrote about the bit-part where Hargitay plays Mansfield's boyfriend (her first performance with Hargitay), while Faris covered the publicity they generated together, along with their joint performances (in most of them Mansfield was the star and Hargitay the side show). The sentence is referring to the film. I have restored the bit-part thing in a separate sentence, keeping your edit intact. Please, check. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured it was an issue with serial edits removing the original sense but couldn't figure out what that original sense was. Your present version looks fine to me. Shearonink (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Laurel

[edit]

"Mansfield won a Golden Laurel in 1959 for Top Female Musical Performance in The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw..."

Golden Laurel links to [Producers Guild of America#Producers of the Year Awards]], which were created in 1990. The reference has a link to http://books.google.com.au/books?id=zMSROkev7ksC which has no preview, thus is a useless link. IMDb shows that Mansfield was nominated for a Laurel Award, but came in 5th.[6]

Looks like this was actually one of the Laurel Awards, but I don't see where the golden comes from.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pondering over this particular piece of information a long time now. So far I have seen no reliable source talking about it. Now that you have found similar unreliability of the information, I believe we should make it disappear. Removing it altogether. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the other instances. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observations on copyedit

[edit]
  • "Mansfield became a major Broadway star in 1955, a major Hollywood star in 1956, the darling of the movie community in 1957" isn't really captured in "Mansfield made her Broadway debut in 1955, but her film career began in 1956". The original sentence, acquired from Jocelyn Faris, is about her meteoric rise through stardom (no pun intended). Stardom is an encyclopedic matter, and should not be avoided without a reason.
You should note that although the sources are available for usage, you have to be careful. Most of the time, the original text must be rewritten to work into context. Also, taking it word for word is considered plagiarism. I'm not sure what kind of book or style of writing Faris has, but I've noted that this article writes in a very extravagant tone. It's probably the sources that portray Mansfield that way.
Agreed. But: (1) Changing the meaning doesn't serve any purpose; (2) Plagiarism wouldn't apply here (check Plagiarism, Norms, and the Limits of Theft Law). You are, of course, free to edit the line. Just keep the meaning intact.
Rewriting the lines to be something else and rewriting them for clarity are not the same thing. ★Dasani★ 03:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason to remove Hargitay's identity (i.e. "actor-bodybuilder"). For and encyclopedia, information should have priority over prose, though the prose also needs to be as brilliant as possible.
Did I remove it? Oops. I don't think that was me. Anyway, feel free to restore it.
  • Are you sure "began to collapse" (a not too encyclopedic expression, I guess) is captured successfully by "worsened"? The former has a tone of finality, which seems to be a more appropriate tone.
I wasn't sure if that was the right word, but the former seems far worse. If you want to look at it that way, so many terms used in this article aren't encyclopedic or appropriate at all.
Agreed again. I'm not too fond of the unencyclopedic words myself (peacocks and weasels). A lot of peacocks and weasels harm article quality real bad. But, I would also try to keep the meaning intact as far as possible. It would be a great help if you could identify those words and make them better. For starters, how about replacing "worsened" with "seriously deteriorated" or something like that?

As for "Can this be retitled? They are more relationships than personal life..." – I would say there needs to be more rationale than "her personal life is full of relationships and little else". It's alright to have a life full of relationships. Finally, I seriously can't see the point of taking a staunch stand against – "They met on the set of ___" – and similar stuff. The information is well within the policies, guidelines, traditions and spirit of Wikipedia. The article will not be "very incomplete without", as you put it, but it sure makes it "more comprehensive". Besides, you have already found that a lot many articles, even GAs and FAs, do keep it. For Albert Einstein these information may be irrelevant, but for Jayne Mansfield they are relevant fine. Let's not forget the context, ever. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I specifically reverted it by saying, "Never mind, the paragraphs also mention her children." if you bothered looking. I've already clearly explained to you I was concerned because several administrators said it was garbage. You have very little understanding for some reason which hurts because you seem like a hard worker. ★Dasani★ 05:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen "several administrators" saying "it was garbage" anywhere, and therefore I didn't get your subtle hint. When did that happen? Can you post a diff or something? I don't have "very little understanding" for "any reason", no dear. I think I know more about the policies and guidelines than you do. Don't try to look down on me just because you can't articulate your argument. That's really rude. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you read too deeply into things. This was part of the original "argument". I just dropped a note that yes, in several other articles that did the same thing (citing the meeting details for personal life, rewording), administrators came by and said that such additions would be better off kept out of the article. For some reason, you still weren't convinced and said you'd need a larger consensus (which never came about). If you want to get technical, you may think you do, but you aren't an admin either. ★Dasani★ 17:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, you are not reading at all. "Administrators came by and said that such additions would be better off kept out of the article" - when? where? Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want help or not? I could very well dump this erroneous article. I'm in no way obligated to help you or the site. Check out the Mariah Carey, Ayumi Hamasaki, and Britney Spears articles. Granted they're existing in a society bit more modern than this one did, but I remember previous versions of the pages were cleaned up. BTW, "worsened" and "deteriorated" are synonyms so I'm not sure it'd even make much of a difference. ★Dasani★ 03:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, calling me "dear" sounds too offputting for our maturity level. This isn't a school. Go on ruining the article, then. You don't even know how to write proper English, no one's "looking down on you" for anything. I could very well just leave, and I am. Good luck with that. ★Dasani★ 03:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help (and yes, I requested for help, not bad attitude). With or without you this is going to be an FA. But you exceeding show of incivility needs some attention, I believe. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it wasn't meant to be an argument. We were having a discussion. I became annoyed that you weren't following and you continued to question several of the edits. Finally, there is nothing to thank for. Most of the edits were reverted, actually. 02:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Argument (noun): A coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion (Definition by Merriam-Webster); A reason or a set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory (Definition by Oxford English Dictionary).
My dear is an expression used to show fondness (best captured by "Elementary, my dear Watson" from the stories of Sherlock Holmes) and/or reverence (best captured by "After you, my dear Alphonse — no, after you, my dear Gaston" from the comic strip Happy Hooligan). It is very common in English around the world and have been used throughout history.
For someone who keeps attacking another editor on grounds of superior command of English and a better understanding of language, you seem to have pretty little English in you. I was really misled by you boasting. Please, get an education before you start yelling at others.
Your honesty is pretty questionable too. You keep repeating that an unknown number of "administrators" have said that a certain type of information is "garbage". But, after repeated requests you have failed to provide any evidence of that. Learn carefully that the Wikipedia is not built on imaginary "arguments".
It is good that you have decided to keep out of Wikipedia for the time. Cool down, learn to behave, educate yourself about Wikipedia ways and the English language... and come back. Otherwise you will continue to operate more as an annoyance and less as an asset. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are trying to say here. Maybe you were raised on a different variety of it. In conversations I engage in, it has always been seen as very derogatory unless it were a case of family or something similar. It is generally, otherwise, not thrown into daily wording except for cases of sarcasm or mocking. You were the one who needed help with the article, and I'm not sorry to say that neither of your sentences make sense. Even other editors in your peer reviews mentioned that.
Like I said before. I wasn't "repeating" this. I had to clarify it, because you had such poor understanding. Maybe it's not bad English, it could be the fact that you weren't able to follow me (which happens in every language, not just English). The tabloid thing was also covered in Jessica Simpson's article. ★Dasani★ 03:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also surprised to hear that you were actually bothered by my comments. Me saying "not my problem that you forgot" is not an insult, it's also commonly used in English language. This mess of some days could easily have been avoided if you clarified that you were so confused rather than continually asking me over and over about the admins and their removals. Were you being good and diplomatic there? No, you weren't. Additionally, regarding the context, me assuming you being sarcastic is perfectly appropriate. Uniquely, I have never received such responses on all of my time on Wikipedia (though the reverse is probably true, too). In any case, since you were affected, and since you questioned both my edits and my comments... I'm not going to write any more. Waste of time. ★Dasani★ 03:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me asking, why do you use parenthesis in this article? I've reread it several times and it seems awkward with parenthesis scattered far more often than I'd expect. ★Dasani★ 05:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use any parentheses to begin with. Some of those are part of the {{Inflation}} template, and can't be removed. Some others are work of other editors. A couple of them are by me too (where I couldn't find any other solution). If you want to remove the parentheses and incorporate the information more fluently into the body text, please do so (as far as possible, the templates can't be helped though). I'll be glad to help you there. In fact, you'll find that the article has loads of very long sentences, and very awkward semi-colons. I believe those would need some management too. Please, let me know where I can lend a hand.
Note: Due to some screw-up or other, only half of my original post was posted. My agreement didn't show up, but my disagreement did. That obviously looked somewhat hostile. But, in fact, I agree to you on more points than not. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update. As you have gone from bad to worse with your behavior, I posted the situation to draw community attention. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff to do

[edit]

Integrate the wonderful stuff in:

The whole deal about her animals:

  • Chihuahuas (check: this and this
    • Chihuahuas in Las Vegas
    • Matt Cimber smuggling Chihuahua
    • Coats made with Chihuahua skin
    • Death of Galena the Chihuhua
  • Dogs that died in the accident (check - original)
  • Pincess the pink Siamese cat
  • Sam the monkey
  • Walking ocelots, leopards and lions in Hollywood Boulevard

All her films (25 of them), including:

  • Producer and Year for all films
  • Posthumous releases
  • A bit on Rita Marlowe, her role in Rock Hunter that won her a Theater World Award for the Broadway version and a Golden Globe for the Hollywood version

New articles/stubs:

  • Mr. California? (considering this)
  • Champagne Complex and Rabbit Habit can be become articles (check: [7])

And, a few technical details:

Create stubs for: Stanley Warner Theatre, Rabbit Habit, Champagne Complex, Talk it up, AAU Mr. California, Jayne Mansfield's Wild, Wild World, Daniela Federici, Sky Nellor, Raymond Strait, Jocelyn Faris, Frank Feruccio

...already looks like some work. :-) Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latest peer review has stuff to be addressed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jayne_Mansfield/Archive_2&oldid=1142440357"