This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). Westerns: Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Biography task force.

Why the heck does Pati Behrs redirect to John Derek. She was a person in her own right, not an alias for Derek. Nicmart (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about her. Do you wish to start an article? YellowAries2010 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Derek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110904051049/http://movies.nytimes.com:80/person/87526/John-Derek to http://movies.nytimes.com/person/87526/John-Derek

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed improvement- I was attempting to change "an unregenerate killer" to "an unrepentant killer". I'd estimate that I've heard the word "unregenerate" twice in my life at most. It's an obscure word. Typically, wiki articles (outside of really technical stuff) are written at or below newspaper level in my experience browsing, and last I heard newspapers shoot for about an 8th grade reading level. There's nothing inherently wrong with using a "fancy" word per se, but the word is a poor choic ein the context- unregenerate has a religious/spiritual context, like referring to souls and whatnot. Unrepentant is less profound, and merely addresses the level of remorse of the person. Yes, they are synonyms, but unrepentant is the better word in this context.

Alas! My change was reverted in the blink of an eye, being deemed "major" by someone. I admit I am not schooled in Wiki-ways, but if changing one word is major, aren't all changes major? As I look at the talk page guidelines mentioned at the top (I don't think I've posted on the talk page before) I see the instructions "Please do not bite the newcomers". I feel bitten, frankly. I researched my edit to make sure I wasn't in error, and I gave a (slightly shorter) justification when I made it, and for it to be so quickly reverted is demeaning. Since I see that newcomers to Wikipedia editing are told to "be bold", I'm going to change it back to the better word once more, in hopes that it will be kept. But if not, so be it. I won't participate in an "edit war." Further, since I am new to all this, I have no clue where else I could have put the above personal appeal (which I edited more than once in the effort to abide by the guidelines to not be sarcastic and not so lengthy). Hopefully I did OK, and forgive me if not... hoping good sense will prevail...

2604:2D80:5504:F100:60FA:1322:2334:525E (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]