Talk:Marjorie Cameron

message: Is here- Talk:Marjorie_Cameron/Temp.  Feel free to help. :) Sticky Parkin 12:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tempory page for creating a non-copyvio version

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  -- — CactusWriter | needles 22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Earlier this year there was another Wiki article about Marjorie Cameron, a large one, and that seems to have disappeared to be replaced with this article. I had some edits on the first one, and it had much more information than the present article. Does anyone know what happened to it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleister Wilson (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where Did Former Article Go? 

message: Dear Le Prof,
I'm very heartened by your comments and those of Jimmy Wales on this matter and, as I've said previously, I hope that a fair and reasonable balance can be struck here, whereby biographical info can be sourced without sharing so many of the most intimate revelations/spoilers/details from the book, which are currently being given away in such an excessive and unnecessary manner. 
Thank you for your positive input. 
Regards, S Kansa 88.145.18.67 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you completely ignore the advice I gave you above? You could have at the very least explained why you rejected it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the impression that it is not the quality of the article that is SK's primary concern, but the fact that it contains 'spoilers' of all the sizzling gypsies he's dug up; as if his monograph were merely a potboiler. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe that a distinction should be drawn here between the concern raised by Mr Kansa on the one hand, and the concern raised by Jimmy Wales and Le Prof on the other. The latter two are concerned that we are over-using a single source, which they believe might be in contravention of Wikipedia policies (although I respectfully disagree with them on that one). Mr Kansa however seems to be concerned with the idea that information that is only available in his book and not in other publications is being included here in the Wikipedia article, and that this might in turn impact on the sales of his volume. Jimmy and Le Prof are concerned about the quality of the Wikipedia article; Mr Kansa about the financial success of his work. No Wikipedia editors are actually endorsing his view that certain information cited from his book should be removed from the article lest it impact his sales. There are two different concerns here, and I think we need to be cautious about not conflating them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

text: "besides my missive to Mr Wales, all my points have been shared openly here". Don't forget the email that you sent to legal@wikimedia.org via OTRS! (This isn't a criticism, merely an observation...) Personally I don't think that you should need to open a Wikipedia account, but it would be good if you could sign off each comment that you post with your name, so that it is clear that you are the one speaking. Otherwise some confusion might ensue. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

text: The prose edit that you have recommended has now been changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive citations from Wormwood Star

message: If anyone can find Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons this may throw more light on the relationship between these three, who appear to have lived together.
This is also stated Distraught at this betrayal, Parsons now took up with Marjorie Cameron, an artist and actress who shared lodgings with the up-and-coming actors Dennis Hopper and Dean Stockwell.  in Frieze: Contemporary Art and Culture - Volumes 65-68, page 61.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cameron, Stockwell, Hopper

message: The lead and infobox say June 24, but the  section says July 24 and is cited to offline sources, which I cannot verify, and I can't seem to find a reliable source via Google. Can someone please reconcile this discrepancy? Thanks. —howcheng  {chat} 16:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One year later and nobody has been able to take care of this. The article was even TFA this year, too, and still nobody noticed. Pinging ... —howcheng  {chat} 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pinging me, I must have missed this first time. I've checked the sources; it's July. I've changed this in the article. Well spotted, Howcheng! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably  who noticed first. Thanks for fixing it! —howcheng  {chat} 05:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death