Talk:Nancy Botwin

message: This is really terribly written. It uses a million "she"s and "he"s that begin to get confusing very quickly. At one point it says that Nancy marries Esteban and then a few paragraphs later says that Esteban proposes to Nancy. It seriously needs a rewrite. DaddyTwoFoot (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Character history

message: Ok, we're starting over, and we're starting here... get me usable links to the Parker interviews about playing Botwin- we might as well let Mr. Drunk Gestapo do it, since they think only what they do is valid. I have some of her video interviews on youtube and at least three magazine interview transcripts. Then again, knowing Wikipedia, a video of Mary-Louise parker talking about playing her is not an admissable source for her opinions on the character...Plusher 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  I got a Godwin before I even said anything to you.  You sure pull out the Nazi comparisons fast, don't you?  If you are so contemptuous of Wikipedia and its rules, why contribute?  -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parker Interviews

message: 1. I need a credible picture of Nancy for the "Appearance"
2. How do I quote the show itself as a source?
3. Are there any credible fansites I can list as a source to further support this? Showtime's site gave me loads of support with interviews and their show wiki, but I'm not sure this is secure enough.
4. Can someone who's a better writer clean this up for me?
5. Someone who's good at quoting interviews please put up Parker's views on her...
6. Why did it make the B in "Botwin" lowercase? Can I fix that?
Plusher (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of 1, 2 is accomplished with Template:cite episode.  The answer to 3 is a qualified no:  Fansites are not usable.  Showtime's official statements such as plot summaries, or interviews with the characters are OK, but any wiki is right out, even if it's an official wiki.  On 4, I'm not that fantastic at writing, but I've been trying.  5 and 6 are already taken care of by not me.  IMO the most important things to be done on this article right now are strengthen the lead, remove opinionated and/or irrelevant statements, and cite the major episodes where these facts are drawn from.-₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why the hostility?  Flinging insults is no way to get things done.  If you don't like the picture, why don't you upload your own before removing it from the article?  also, there's no reason to remove the infobox, which is standard on pretty much every fictional character's page.  If you're going to revert my changes, at least provide equivalent documentation.  I did put up show episodes as references.  That's common practice, since with many shows there is little else that satisfies WP:V.  You claim that I deleted real sources.  Looking at the last revision before I started editing, , the two links I removed were:http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/home.do and Weeds Wiki.Both of these point to the same place, the official website.  Since it's not clear what the website is meant to provide reference for, and since it appeared to be mostly a marketing thing, I removed it as a source.  It would be fine in an 'external links' section, but as is it isn't a source.  I'd appreciate if in the future you worked cooperatively.  I'm not out to get you or ruin your article.  -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To be done

message: This article is WAY too long.  20KB without a single citation?  Putting the official site and some wiki at the bottom does not suffice.  I'm going to do some heavy-duty pruning.  --Hemisemidemiquaver 08:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  Even if I were actually drunk, if my edits are verifiable, I don't need to be taken seriously.  The two links were 1) the official site, which can be considered a reliable source, but only if one links to an actual page stating facts (front pages for shows change constantly and contain almost no info) and 2) the weeds wiki, which fails WP:V, since anyone can change it.  Anyways, it's bad form to include citations at the bottom without saying what they're referencing.  Use the <ref> tag and the cite templates for that.  --Hemisemidemiquaver 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'd like to respond to your statement that the two links host most of the non-blog links.  Wikipedia is very clear on what content can be included, and the links that were there did not meet the cut.  If there's not a WP:V source for something that's not obvious, it has to be left out of the article.  This leaves out a ton of probably ok information, but it's necessary to create the high quality reference work Wikipedia aims to be.  I'm not asking you do do any work in abtaining references.  I'll do my best to substantiate claims where I can, but this article still needs major trimming, and if you'd like to save anything, please cite it or mark it with the fact template.  True, there's not really much good info on the web outside of official showtime material, but fortunately, you can use the episodes themselves as citations.  See the article for examples.  -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please be civil.  Trying to fix an article that's "bad" by wikipedia standards does not make me a crybaby.  I uploaded a picture and it was immediately removed from the article.  I think that any picture is better than none.  -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long