Talk:Gaby Hoffmann/Archives/2013

Untitled

NEW CONTENT

Replaced stub article with complete new article. If anybody has any new information on Hoffmann's recent work, please could you add it. Kind regards. 7g7em7ini (6th August 2006).

Hoffmann is not Jewish

She isn't Jewish at all. [1] is not even vaguely a reliable source (as are most large unsourced lists of names). Adherents' list is even a copy of the old Wikipedia list of Jews. Sure, her name is "Hoffmann" and there's some idiot fansite out there that says she is Jewish, but no reliable sources say she is (and in fact, if you see her mother's entry, it correctly states that her mother comes from a Catholic family.) Mad Jack 05:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Most people, say 95%, with the surname Hoffmann, are Germans or of German descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Undo by For An Angel

Dear For An Angel - thank you for explaining the reasons why you undid the revisions by the anonymous user. However, I for one thought the revisions were appropriate and the anonymous user obviously put quite a lot of work and thought into what they did. I don't think its fair therefore for you to just unilaterally undo it all. What do other people think? Please contribute to the discussion. Please do not be offended by what I say. Its just an opinion and I really do think the new layout and additional material were very good. Thank you. Wheresthatpenguin 22.3.08

It didn't seem to me that the anonymous user put a lot of work or thought into what they did. As I tried to say in the edit summary of my first reversion, the first edit made by the IP here was not an update at all. In fact it was basically a reversion to an old version of the article from around a year ago, as you can see here (which "coincidentally" was also the last version you made to the article) the only difference being the defaultsort at the end. For example, why did the IP add a ref tag at the top with a date of March 2007? Or add infobox fields that have gone obsolete like, bgcolor, height & notable roles? The next 9 edits the IP made basically ended up being an addition of new information which I was happy to add back as you can see in my second edit. I don't think your version is better because the way it is organized seems arbitrary. For example, sections headings like "A Period of Consolidation (1996-2000)" doesn't appear encyclopedic. If you'll check out articles on other actors you'll notice that most of them are organized in a "Early life, Career, Personal life" way, or something very similar. I also noticed that you haven't been on Wikipedia in almost a year, so it's understandable if you didn't know this. But I'd still be happy to hear other people's thoughts the matter. Also if you look at the edit that cleaned up the sections here you'll notice that very little information was changed; it was just a clean up and organization of the content. For An Angel (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Was she not in Now and Then? Im pretty sure she was but it is not listed in her movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.66.34 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)