User talk:Ayomorocco
Welcome to Wikipedia
|
Greta Garbo
Your revision to this article is unacceptable. It reflects your point of view. Do you have a reliable source that says definitively "Garbo is considered one of the most glamorous movie stars the world has known." No, and you will not find one, as that reflects an opinion. It is peacockery and weaselly-worded and therefore cannot remain. Do you have a reliable source that states definitively that "She is Bisexual"? Without that, it can't remain. Besides that, since when do we capitalize a word that is not a proper name or noun? We don't. Please provide sources for all of that, and that a relationship between her and Mercedes De Acosta is included in the Paris biography. Also please provide rationale for removing the content regarding the relationship status between Garbo and De Acosta. Otherwise, stop reverting me, or it will be reported as vandalism and you may be blocked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, save for using caps, my revision is accurate. I do distinctly remember reading a book at the turn of the millenium in which Garbo alongside Dietrich and a couple of others were described as the most glamorous film stars in the history of film (amongst many other things). Unfortunately, I cannot remember the book right now, but when I do find it, I'll be back to revise that section. Regarding whether or not Mercedes de Acosta's friendship is in the Paris biography, IT ABSOLUTELY IS (anyone who has even thumbed through the book will know this fact, so I suggest you do the same instead of baselessly assuming that no such reference is made) and I am most definitely amending it to reflect this fact. Also, there are many books on the sexuality of Garbo There is "That Furious Lesbian: The Story of Mercedes de Acosta" by Robert Schanke, There is also "Loving Garbo: The Story of Greta Garbo, Cecil Beaton, and Mercedes de Acosta" by Hugo Vickers, and "The Girls" by Diana Mclellan, as well as a plethora of others). In addition to these, there is even in this same article, Louise Brooks wrote in her memoirs - while Garbo was very much alive - that she had an affair with Garbo. Add that to Alice B. Tolkas's letter to Anita Loos on Mercedes's relationship with both Garbo and Dietrich. Futhermore, how can you justify your question and reconcile your position when on the Wikipedia article for Mercedes de Acosta, it is clearly stated that she and Garbo had an affair. It certainly shows a lack of uniformity or consistency. I can say that what is actually pure speculation is what you have inserted or reverted to which says that her love for Garbo was one sided. While it is clear and documented that Garbo controlled the relationship, there is no record that Garbo divulged to anyone but Mercedes her feelings at the height of their affair. So it is nothing but plain conjecture that there was no reciprocal love. In conclusion, I'd like to ask that you do kindly stop reverting my updates especially if you lack the requisite knowledge on the subject-matter. --Ayomorocco (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Tallulah Bankhead
Your changes to the title of the section in this article are also unacceptable. Bankhead's sexuality is not alleged, the section states that status explicitly, so it is deceptive to call it "Alleged Bisexuality". Also, your use of capital letters for the section title is not according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which indicates that section headings use a capital for the first word only unless it is a proper noun or title of a work. Again, stop reverting me or it will be reported as vandalism and you may be blocked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
What is deceptive is your attempts to portray that it has been proved beyond a doubt that she was bisexual. Unlike Garbo who never confirmed or denied rumours on her sexuality, Tallulah Bankhead always maintained that she was not a lesbian nor liked women sexually. At the very best, there are a few mediums which have her admitting that she liked to try everything at least once and had experimented with women when she was young and denied doing so after then. It is undoubtedly the case that there have been rumours and tales about her sexual exploits with women which could frankly be true, but none had been confirmed or corroborated except the claim by Patsy Kelly which was made and published almost thirty years after Tallulah died. Thus, apparently where one of the parties denies the said action and there is no extraenous concrete evidence to prove it, the act remains alleged and cannot be treated as a hard fact. Therefore, unless you have a reliable sources which are not based on pure conjecture which proves her bisexuality in the face of her denial, I will advise you to take your own advice and stop reverting my changes.
--Ayomorocco (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Sourcing
This is how it is. Wikipedia policy and guidelines are that it is incumbent upon you to provide sourcing to back up changes you make to articles, whether or not you agree with what is already there. Until that time, I will continue to revert your edits. Don't change something and promise to come back later. You continue to add in the paragraph attributed to the Paris book that Garbo was involved with de Costa. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but until you cough up the citation, it will not remain in the paragraph. It is not my responsibility to go "thumb through the book" to try and verify what you claim, it is your responsibility to produce the citation that supports your change. Also, again, acquaint yourself with proper English rules and desist in adding an unsourced statement that improperly capitalizes words. As for the Bankhead article, there is a citation present for the statement "By the standards of the interwar years, Bankhead was quite openly bisexual" - until you produce a citation disputing that, the statement will stand as is. It is disengenuous of you, given Wikipedia policy, for you to claim I am asserting anything except the rules of sourcing. You provide the sources before you edit something, period. Otherwise, an article stands as is. Also, it is improper to copy my comments from your talk page to mine. Try to keep in mind that I know what I wrote. Again, it is incumbent upon you to produce references for what you change. Unless you do, it will be regarded as vandalism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ayomorocco,
Nice to know you are there and i just picked up a source to guide you on the Writer Saintmoses Eromosele,by clicking on [here],you"ll be more informed on the writer"s background and find reasons why the work you did on the Nigerian article had to be taken back to it"s more accurate revisions that you changed.Thanks-yours Netknowle message me! 08:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- Another note, when you made your first edit, you made a large number of other seemingly random changes, which seemed mostly detrimental. Did you accidentally revert to an earlier article state? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, I am not sure what you mean by "detrimental" about my edits. The article stated in one sentence that Lagos has over 10 million people, then in the very next sentence stated that it has 7.9 million people. I amended it to provide uniformity with the reliable sources that had been provided and other wikipedia articles that had references. How is this detrimental? Moreover, I clearly stated this in the summary. Next is the addition of "oil pollution" to the 'Environmental issues' sub-section because in the paragraph prior to that one, it clearly states that Nigeria "experiences serious oil spills" and there is a whole article on 'Conflict in the Niger Delta' which has various references. Again, I do not see how this is detrimental to the article on Nigeria. Finally, I had added that Nigeria is the third largest African economy "after South Africa and Egypt". Again, a link is there to the article on the 'List of African countries by GDP' which has a reference to the reliable source of the World Economic Outlook Database. Again I ask how this is detrimental to the article on Nigeria. Unless you are referring to something else, I do not know what you meant by your "detrimental" statement. As regards, your question, no I did not revert to an earlier article state. All the editing and changes I carried out (including editing the controversial entry on Saintmoses Eromosele in the Literature sub-section) were original edits carried out in line with Wikipedia's policies. --Ayomorocco (talk)
- Those edits weren't detrimental. I refer to this edit, where all sorts of random changes occurred, such as source formats being removed, random ref=name's being inserted, etc. I can't see how that could've happened without the article rolling back. It is those edits that I assume are the reason you were reverted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I am gobsmacked and don't know what happened there (might have been a glitch or something). I clicked the edit button, not the undo button and the only change I made in that edit was in the literature sub-section to do with Eromosele. I don't know where the other ones came about. Of course I have no objections to the whole mess being reverted to status quo (well all except the section on Eromosele which does not belong there and for which I have sent Netknowle a message on his discussion page). Thanks for pointing it out though. --Ayomorocco (talk)