Talk:Thurston Howell III

message: I have re-added the my contribution after deletion by Mr. Vernon.
It certainly seems notable for followers of Thurston Howell III, that he lives on.  I realize that my contributions have been put on the notice board and have looking for resolution there.  Wikipietime (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Howell continues to be cited in the GOP 2012 presidential campaign by popular media channels.  I would like the advise of experienced editors on how this might be added to the article.  I have a unresolved issue with an editor who I feel may exhibit cultural biases that has waylay-ed previous attempt for reasons that are not exactly clear to me.  Wikipietime (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  My advice is to review NPOV, OR, notability, etc. Mr. Vernon is an experienced editor.Sandcherry (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The characterization about Romney being equated to the fictional Howell (in this case, by a NY Times commentator) was added to this article along with a cite by two editors on September 18th.  The continuing characterization by Maddow equating Romney with Howell is similar so it has been restored to the article along with cites. Shearonink (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the Romney mention into the article.  I have an unresolved issue with what I feel is a vindictive bias being waged against my contributions by Mr. Vernon.  I have taken a few months for resolution to take place and have heard nothing.  Apparently, Mr. Vernon trolls for what he feels is negative mentions of Mitt Romney and then performs a take down.  Having to fight for inclusion of worthy material to Wikipedia is pitiful.  The Backus/Howell/Romney issue is the epitome of this.  Mr. Vernon has sought to limit and suppress the inclusion of what will surely be a case for future study as to the politics of Wikipedia editor's abusive powers. The discussion of comparing Romney's mannerism in presentation to those of Howell is highly worthy topic of character development. For evidence of this, watch the stunning Romney performance in Colorado on November 3 2011 and the similarity of gesturing to Howell is powerfully evident.  Also, a most interesting fact; Cleveland, Ohio has been a very important city for Romney's election campaign, coincidentally being the birthplace of Jim Backus; beckoning the imagination as to Backus's continued existentialism existence thru Mitt Romney via Thurston Howell.  --Wikipietime (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations of Thurston Howell III in modern pop culture 

message: Mitt Romney has in the opinion of many been able to further Backus's talented portrayal of Thurston Howell III as the archetypical capitalistic villain capable of undulating affection. Romney's 2012 GOP acceptance speech demonstrated several characteristic eye blinking sequences that were most reminiscent of Backus's Howell mannerisms.  In the speech segment when Romney referred to Putin and the lack of backbone of President Obama, a characteristic eye fluttering and look of dismay by Romney was a poor rendition of the talented Backus's Mr. Howell.  Wikipietime (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The talk page is also not a place for POV or OR. Sandcherry (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Granted; But it is a place for discussion for accurately creating an article and not laying the groundwork for revisionist history. Romney has received extensive coaching in presentation styling and mannerism.  Focus groups and psychological methodology by Madison Avenue marketing have striven to sculpt a candidate with maximum appeal to the public.  If you would like to enhance this discussion for possible inclusion; please, do so.  If not, please ignore this section of talk. A full examination of the "eye fluttering" attribute of Howell and Romney is planned.  This trait was previously confined to females exhibiting a sexual prowness to would be suitors but has been further adapted as a tool of capitalist enticement.  Franklin Graham has been reported to have initiated the characteristics.    --Wikipietime (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incredible, the suppression of ideas and thought.  What happened to America? Those, as myself, who cherish the art of Backus's acting skill, seek an in depth analysis as to the nature of his appeal through Howell.  This is a talk page section with the intention of exploring this appeal as embodied through current pop figures.  If a select group of editors, who I allege, have biases desire to stifle this process.  I challenge you.  Clearly state your case.  I am prepared to challenge this form of suppression and intimidation.  David Brooks' article states; "Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. ...."   and titles the article Thurston Howell Romney, plus receives over 1000 comments; and this is not worthy of Talk?  Laughable.   --Wikipietime (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitt Romney channeling 

message: What a mess.  To wit:
: - Shearonink used "hab" (closed discussion) in violation of Wiki policy as he/she is an involved editor
: - Citations include a NY Times article with Thurston Howell Romney in the title, but no direct comparison between Romney and Howell other than both are wealthy and a Rachel Maddow program.  If Rachael Maddow is an unbiased source, than Ann Coulter could also be considered unbiased.  Not.
: - Wikipietime is using the talk page as a forum for some reason
Perhaps a more rational approach to this issue will prevail after Tuesday. Until then...  Sandcherry (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison to Mitt Romney is retained along with the notable references - New York Times and Time magazine.  Sandcherry (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More Rational Approach and it is after Tuesday and your Bias is showing.  Popular culture, fictional characters, caricatures of political figures are cultural and cite-able. Please do not vandalize my contributions or be a sore loser. Look at the page views for Thurston Howell III and see the facts.  Persons of interest reference the article upon mention in the media.  --Wikipietime (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipietime, you have already been given a last warning regarding violating WP:PA.  Also, you do not seem to grasp or care about WP:NPOV.  Using biased sources like Rachael Maddow to advance an agenda and using talk pages as a soap box are not acceptable.  If you find WP:PA and WP:NPOV too onerous, please consider contributing elsewhere.     Sandcherry (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alleged experienced editors are exerting intimidation and improper deletion of my contributions to the article. For the record, an understanding of popular cultural icons and relations to political figures has been well established.  It would be much appreciated if any disturbed editor, not in agreement, with my contributions; make an entry in this section as to what the problem is.  --Wikipietime (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Your reversion of the deletion is fine IMHO.  However, your additional citation is off-topic relative to Mitt Romney and therefore removed.Sandcherry (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations of Thurston Howell III in modern pop culture - Part 2 

message: Where did they go Wikipietime (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  There were plenty conversations 

message: Came to the page on Thurston Howell III following a reference to him elsewhere, being British I've never seen Gilligan's Island, though I have heard of it. Also, possibly because of being British, I am not familiar with the term used in the first line of the Portrayal section, 'Croesus'. I had to look it up. Is it possible that it's more common in US English? Perhaps a better English word could be found so all speakers can better understand the meaning? I don't feel best placed to make the edit having never watched, and not having a sound grasp of the intended meaning. Anyone care to take a punt at this? Blueskyredkite (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Sandcherry (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocabulary used under 'Portrayal'