The below discussions are preserved as an archive of my talk page, because tak page blanking is frowned upon. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page by anyone other than me.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 19:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I notice you're a bit of an ITV fan! One thing to note is that we had a big argument about date formats in Wikipedia a couple of years ago, with the result being documented in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) -- the outcome is that for American subjects you use month-day-year format, for British and European subjects you use day-month-year, and for others you use whatever format the original author used, as long as the format is consistent throughout the article. In any case, as long as all dates are wikilinked the format doesn't matter, as which format the reader sees is defined for each user in their preferences page! -- Arwel 01:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. I was creating new articles for a couple of Steinman songs and they all turned out fine, except for one of them. You see, I was creating Good Girls Go To Heaven (And Bad Girls Go Everywhere), but after I created it, I noticed that the And in the title wasn't supposed to be there. Since I hadn't found out what the move link was for, I created a new one without the And in the title: Good Girls Go To Heaven (Bad Girls Go Everywhere). So, what I want you to do (provided that you know how, since I don't) is to delete the latter, and move the title from the first one with the And to this title: Good Girls Go To Heaven (Bad Girls Go Everywhere). That way, we can keep the history and the redirect link. Thanks in advance! EliasAlucard

Hello! Great to meet another Pandora's Box/Steinman fan! I've made that redirect. Both titles are useful to have on wikipedia anyway, ensuring people searching for whichever version gets to the article rather than a 'not found' page.

There are a couple of things I'd like your thoughts on:

• Does a new article need to be created for every song, even those songs which we deem significant? Remember, wikipedia has to be from a neutral point of view. While you and I might adore these (and I agree, GGG2H(BGGE) is a significant song on the album), does that mean that everyone's favourite song should have a seperate article?

There are 'significant' songs out there with their own pages, but these are much more famous than Pandora's Box (see Imagine).

What I propose is that a new article should not be created if it doesn't add any more information than another article. All of the information seems to be available on the Pandora's Box page.

• Be careful with the 'See also' section, which in many articles is redundant. You notice that I deleted that section on the Pandora's Box article. If you think the reader may be interested in those links, then integrate them within the text. I don't think Total Eclipse needs to be wikilinked from Pandora's Box: anyone wanting more information on Steinman's songs and style can follow his wikilink and get to all of his work.

The 'see also' Richard Wagner can be avoided by writing something like "Cover versions of this Wagnerian song has also been recorded by Japanese singer..." — this puts the Wagner link into context, explaining to the reader why a link to a German Opera composer is relevant to a 1980s rock group. The wikilink means people can go and find out more about Richard Wagner (achieving what you want the 'See also' section to do), but this time readers know why they are following it.

• I hope this helps. Good to work with you! Any questions, just give me a shout!

The JPS 14:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alright! I created the articles to these three songs mostly because I wanted to put them up in 1984/1989 singles, so people can find them easier and perhaps enjoy them. But it's good to get some advice and constructive criticism. Thanks a lot for that! I'll try not to create too many song articles in the future though and follow your guidance :) I'm not an expert on all the rules on Wikipedia, since there are so many. One question though: what does wikify means? I noticed that you wikified some Steinman articles?

EliasAlucard 15:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are sooooo many rules on wikipedia! I always find myself inadvertantly breaking them. 'Wikifying' an artcile usually means minor edits to conform to the style of wikipedia: this could be embolding the first use of the article's title in the article's body. Anything more controversial, I tend to specify ('rewrite' etc).

You might find the Jim Steinman section on my website interesting.

The JPS 15:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update Just found this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" The JPS 17:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have replaced the infobox I added with an HTML one like those used by some other radio station articles. Do you know of a WikiProject where the radio station infobox could be discussed? Perhaps we should start one. Tim Ivorson 23:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a discussion. I've never been aware of any controversy in the matter. The info box I placed onto talkSPORT is the only style of box I have seen in my (reasonably substantial) work/readings on radio articles. I simply changed them for the sake of consistency. That whole article needs a major upheaval anyway. The JPS 00:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, The JPS, for commenting on my user talk about my work on the Birmingham buildings. I have taken what you have said into consideration and have realised what you were trying to tell me. I must say I am still new to Wikipedia so that bit of advice was helpful. My work on Birmingham buildings is not finished and I named the artcile that name so that it would not be seen until it was finished however it seems it must have got to you. Well, I will finish it off and create a more... how should I put it... encyclopediaic (I think thats how you spell it) article. User:Erebus555

Manx (cat) comments reply[edit]

I hope my reply fits under your welcomed polite, constructive criticism category.

To The JPS, Peter Isotalo and Matt Crypto who commented about the picture I posted. It's a very sad day when a picture of one of the oldest living Manx breeders known, judging a perfect example of the Manx is not worthy of being posted in this encyclopedia to represent the breed, herself, the breeder and The Cat Fanciers' Association. She's notable enough to have bred and judged registered Manx cats for more than 40 years, bred more than 35 Grand Champion Manx, be shown on the television show "The Animal Planet", written and assisted writing the breed standard for The Cat Fanciers Association (which is the world's largest cat registy), provided articles for magazines and books on the breed ( I could go on and on on her accomplishments with the Manx) yet isn't worthy to be listed on this site, what standards are you going by here? If people truly do not know anything about this breed as has been stated, what basis do they then have to edit and monitor it's content as to what is acceptable and what is not accurate? Makes one wonder if they don't know what is truth and what is not. I would be more than happy to replace the picture in question ( I have better pictures of Barbara judging my Manx that are higher resolution and show more of the cat like you've suggested) however, I don't think this is about another picture. It's about not allowing registered breeders the chance to teach others the truth that any tailless cat can not be considered a Manx cat. I think you should also know, although I was asked to post a new picture it's already been replaced...guess who! Hint: not me! Are you now saying that I should go replace that picture with mine, where does this end? What's the sense of everyone offering their opinions if what they suggest is not given the chance to be followed through? Who's job is it to make sure what's being posted is accurate and to block or stop people from doing as they were not told to do anyway?

As to those who admit they don't know enough about this breed to know what is and isn't correct, now's your chance to learn if you truly wish to. To learn more about the Manx breed cat from someone who has also been a long time breeder for 25 years, has a BS Eng.Phy., MS Ed, is President of the American Manx Club, technical consultant to Karen Commings for Manx Cats: (Complete Pet Owners Manual), (Barons, 1999) and Joanne Mattern for The Manx Cat, (Capstone Press, 2003, as well as being highly respected by Manx breeders and considered an authority on this breed, get in touch with Sherman Ross. His email address is openly displayed on the American Manx Club site. (tahame@juno.com) I'm sure Sherman would be more than happy to speak to anyone about this breed, address their questions and put to rest the MTYH of Manx Syndrome and other genetic stories about this breed that are incorrect. I'm not concerned about letting people know the Manx breed has genetic limitations, I have warnings about it on my website as well. Reputable breeders would never try to hide, cover up or decieve potential owners from the facts. However, I am very passionate about people knowing the "term" Manx Syndrome is just that, a "term". It is what is used by some as a description for illnesses seen by some in the Manx breed cat. However, the illnesses that are covered by the "term" happen in other breeds of animals as well as humans such as spina bifida, incontinence and rectal prolaspe, they're not only seen in the Manx breed. Therefore, those who use it are misrepresenting the "term" and breed. Also, stating "inbreeding causes shortened tails", is not accurate. Sherman tells me if this were true every registered breed of cat would produce some foreshortened tails. When was the last time you saw a bobtailed Persian, Korat, Occicat, etc? Here's where I'll end my comments, I've given those reading this discussion page enough to think over for now, do get in touch with Sherman he's a wonderful human being, loves the Manx breed and is just as passionate about it as I am.

Karello 06:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The point is, Karello, that we all must keep a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I am not questioning her knowledge and expertise. However, there are many people in the world with knowledge and expertise. Although many of my colleagues have published academic work and are very well known and respected within their fields, they are not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. As much as an authority they are considered within their field, no one cares outside of it. That is what the rest of the internet is for.

I actually don't even care about Manx cats. Although wikipedia usually provides a good source for things I haven't even considered learning about, you and Elias build walls of texts that are very difficult to read. Consider using paragraphs. Taking a break away from your PC before you hit reply is also a useful tactic.

The JPS 07:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Manx cat dispute[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for trying to help Karello and Elias settle their dispute. I tried, but, as I stated in my first reply after Elias asked for my input, I'm not good at dispute resolution. Hopefully with your guidance this thing can come to a conclusion. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also want to show my respect to The JPS and you Lachatdelarue. I really didn't want this entire dispute to take this much time. Honestly, I didn't care about that article in the first place. I barely wrote anything on it. But when I see an article being (what I consider) raped like that, I can't just stand there idle and do nothing. Either way, JPS has clearly won my respect here. If I get the chance, I will vote for him as SysOp or something because I find him a good candidate. I just hope I didn't piss you guys off by wasting your time or anything :) Clearly, I consider my time wasted. Anyway, thanks again, much appreciated.

EliasAlucard|Talk 00:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments. Appreciated. The JPS 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read the hideous editing history and am trying to make the article clear about what does and doesn't happen. Much of the English uses poor grammar which I think contributes to confusing statements and obscured facts. I'm sure that my edits will be considered controversial by those with much emotion invested in the article, however, I am trying to make it neutral and factual. It needs help.Pschemp 21:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Verdict awaited[edit]

Thank you very much for the time spent addressing the issues on the Manx (cat) page. I would appreciate your and others "Verdict" to help settle the pending dispute on that page. Also, would like to know how to email you privately?

Karello 18:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

As one of my most trusted user son Wikipedia, I am wondering if you could tell me how to report some one for vandalism. This is because my user talk has just been vandalised with the comment "Wikipedia - We Suck ;-)" and an inappropiate image placed on there. Please tell me how to report and if I can't do it then the user name is on my talk page - (Erebus555 17:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I was curious about the origin of comments in response to the move to delete the John Lilburne Research Institute article, which I had a big hand in writing, but that is not my reason for dropping you a line. Looking at your User page I noted your lament about being forced to remove the music files off your web page.

Another controversial article I had a big hand in creating was IFPI being something that was tied to pirate radio (that I also contributed to heavily) and several other related articles (which is how Four Freedoms Federation came to be written because of its attachment to Don Pierson and Wonderful Radio London and several others including The World Tomorrow, British Broadcasting Company and so on.)

The reason I mention this to you is because of the ongoing international war declared by IFPI which gets a very one-sided coverage in the press. Behind IFPI was General Electric in the USA which set it up and forged the creation of the EMI cartel between the Wars. Take a look, others find it unfair to IFPI, but I can find no balancing articles elsewhere about this worldwide organisation and what its real agenda is. It represents the record companies and not the artists. Of course the Wikipedia anti-copyright stance is the opposite of the stance taken by IFPI ... which was the ultimate reason why you were told to remove your music files.

Having grown up with Luxembourg and Wonderful Radio London of 1964-1967 and having followed everything that happened after that from both sides of the Pond, I am a great believer in freedom of ideas ... which is why the Lilburne article came to be. MPLX/MH 06:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't get involved in many VfDs so I am not sure how votres are counted. I do recall that votes by brand-new or unregistered users are generally discounted. If that is so, would it be correct to say that the vote count for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella is currently 4-1 in favor of deleting? Do I need to explicitly vote for my vote to count? Thanks for your attendance to the case. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) Hi,

Normally, the admin closing the process will assess the quality of votes, rather than the status of the voter, or simply the number of votes.

• Votes with reasons (especially in relation to WP policy) are given more credence than those without. It is acceptable for later voters, however, to say “agree with x,” rather than repeat what has already been said.
• They will look at the legitimacy of the votes. All of the ‘keep’ votes on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella are from socks (probably one person voting through a different IP address). These socks are obvious because they do not conform to WP conventions, and three of them are practically identical (“I vote for keep…”), without user accounts. The timing of their votes also suggests that it is the same person. The sockpuppet could vote another twenty times; I would be very surprised if they would fool an admin.

I would insert the word delete in you original nomination just to be on the safe side. Hope this helps. The JPS 21:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -Willmcw 21:29, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for putting Beamish back - hadn't meant to drop it! Adrian Robson 19:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello. I see you added a lot of articles to the Film director category. When You add categories, could you please remember to order the surname too? e.g. Bay, Michael Cheers. The JPS 23:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Sure! Paulo Oliveira 08:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know that if a sub-category exists we should use it, but I didn't at the time. Thanks anyway. Paulo Oliveira 09:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject matter, but the Talk page makes it seem like this guy is pushing an agenda and a lot of his material is original research. RickK 20:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've brought it up on WP:ANI. RickK 21:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for helping us newbies out. I wrote an article on a book called "The Balance" by Oz Garcia. Yes I took the original content from Amazon's review but then I rewrote. Somehow the article was deleted and no one left me a note about why: ie. copyright violation, NPOV, etc. Yet I wrote an article on Max Brooks Zombie Survival Guide in the same fashion: amazon content then rewrite. Yet it survived until I removed the content in violation. Why was one article removed and not the other? Can you tell me who deleted my article on The Balance (Book)? Thanks. Brux 04:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm confused. You mean you can't tell me what happened to my article on The Balance.
The problem as I see it is that wiki has no mentoring system for new users. The system/rules/administrators allow people to play for 3 or 4 days then you slam them with all of these violations. I have marked Micheal D. for speed-delete, and I suspect that Personal Best and Gourmet Guides will get the same. Although in the case of the latter, GG has been around for over 30 years but I guess it will be voted upon as violating NPOV. My only request is for you fix On2 because that was where all of this got started. I was slammed there on copyright violation and now it has a Copyright flag on it's page.
By the way, as for copyright violations, I think wiki has to look at its rules. It was not okay for me to use On2's content to write a new article about the firm. But it was okay for me to take content from other web sites and update Mel Brooks, Anne Bancroft and Max Brooks. I could copy content from Amazon for Max Brooks' Zombie book but couldn't for Oz Garcia's The Balance. Brux 13:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You made the comment that Walmart is of more interest to people that something like Gourmet Guides. However, Gourmet Guides was a landmark in SFO in 1970's so it has local interest. That would fall into the same category as something like who were the mayor's of Dauphin Manitoba Canada --where I was born. But who is allowed to say what is interesting and what isn't and then make a comment on it. For example, my other article on Oz Garcia is probably of interest to a lot of people because he is a leading nutritional counselor in the area of anti-aging. However, I got slammed because I didn't know how to write the stuff that is considered relevant to Wiki as opposed to the stuff that is considered commercial. As to how I found you, I think you may have modified one of my articles since you didn't leave any notes in my talk section. Brux 16:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello The JPS,

in the article Teaching Assistant you added:

"The term Visiting Lecturer is also applied in the UK".

I think a visting lecturer isn't classified as a TA, but are fully qualified teachers themselves. Could you clarify this. --Commander Keane 14:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I suppose my difference in comprehension is due to regional and subject difference, I have just never encountered a TA qualified with a PhD - but now understand that they exist, hence Visitng Lecturer. --Commander Keane 15:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is The JPS aware of the Wideopen article and has he followed its links? -- RHaworth 10:04, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Hiya,

you recently voted to delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to consider Uncle G's proposal and make a vote at the new VfD - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Hi, I'm rather confused on your comment on my RFA. I only started one TFD, and recommended to the community that the 3 templates be combined. After the Tfd was closed, I followed the consensus and started removing the template and categorizing. I am not really sure what you mean otherwise. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 00:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, me again. Here is the link to the TFD holding cell. The directors templates are listed there for categorization. I was just doing maintenance. ∞Who?¿? 00:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where your concern stems, the actual discussion itself, was not "closed" with code. I skip directly to the holding cell, to see what maintenance needs to be performed. The directors templates were placed there 10:06, 18 July 2005, and the discussion should have been "closed" at that time. I have no bias towards the actual templates, and was merely performing required maintenance. I have since added a "Disputed" section in the holding cell, until the discussion is "closed". As the actual discussion was over on the 17th. If I had known it wasn't "closed", I would have not started maintenance. I replied to your comments on Tfd and on my RFA. Thank you for your understanding. ∞Who?¿? 01:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello. I would like to comment on this... I closed that TFD vote, simply because it had been listed for seven days. I'm the present cleaner-upper for TFD (for no particular reason other than having enough free time for it) and I close all discussions after seven days, which is the required period. So I would state that Who is acting in good faith here. As am I, but if you think something else should be done with the TFD I'd be happy to discuss it. Radiant_>|< 07:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Investigating further, I notice that I did list the templates under the 'deprecate' section, and put the discussion in the log folder, but I omitted removing the discussion from the TFD main page. My mistake, I've fixed it now. Radiant_>|< 07:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, I appologize for bothering you with this again, I assume you have just been busy, or otherwise. I know I sent quite a few messages up above concerning what you thought were bad faith and misguided removals of the template. I was just wondering if you have had a chance to take a look at what happened. I only ask because you did make specific comments about it, and I wanted a chance to hear from you after my responses. If you choose not to change your vote on my RFA, that is quite ok too, only ask that you consider ammending the reason for oppose. Thank you for your understanding. ∞Who?¿? 02:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted my relevant comments on your RFA. Have you seen Quentin Tarantino films [1]? I'm not going to nominate it, but I think it should be deleted for consistency. The JPS 15:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for striking those comments. I went ahead and nominated ((Quentin Tarantino films)), thanks for letting me know about it. That was a little incomplete anyways. Salut. ∞Who?¿? 18:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the heads up on ((Stanley Kubrick)), its gone now. Thanks again. ∞Who?¿? 22:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in this VfD last April, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella, which resulted in the article being deleted. Just recently the article was re-created by the subject and is up for deletion again, here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephan Kinsella 2, in case you wish to be involved again. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You accused user 80.7.118.138 of being insecure and telling him "You Need Help". Wikipedia has a strict No Personal Attacks rule. Even if he has said something bad about your university etc you should not retailate in that way. Cashandhoes 21:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swings and roundabouts considering the accusations he/she has levied. No apology whatsoever. The JPS 21:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the user used information from my personal website to construct a personal attack against me (2 August, 21:24, NTL Internet, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom). The user needs to grow up and sort themselves out. The JPS 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPS. I was just going through the images I've uploaded recently. I deleted the Penshaw Monument image as I uploaded in my naive days of Wikipedia when I disregarded copyright restrictions etc. Now that I'm the only admin at WP:PUI I'd be quite the hypocrit to keep unfree image I uploaded. I live in Sunderland anyway so I can take images of it sometime soon, but if you have some then it'd be great if you could uploaded them. Thanks Craigy (talk) 01:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC) P.S. Diva/Liquid has made me rather inebriated so please excuse any spelling and grammar mistakes :-)

Can you please direct me to the article that discusses the content policy for templates. I am confused about the Kubrick template being deleted. --Commander Keane 14:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I see you're one of the people who has been reverting the vandal who claims that a minor British soap opera actor does the voice for Mr Burns. The IP is doing a similar thing with (albeit a far less notable subject) Families - I've slapped a VFD on his{?} article Amanda Dickison, if you want to join in? The JPS 12:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I ditched in. I don't understand the vandal, but it's good that his edits get reverted by more people than just me. I guess it's either just someone trolling, a mentally handicapped person or a vandal-bot. —kooo 19:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hi JPS.

Regarding Edinburgh Fringe Festival I'm wondering if Guy Masterson is really worthy of two paragraphs in the article. The article is not very large, and the amount of space given to him would tend to indicate that he was very significant in the history of the Fringe. I'm not sure that is the case. He doesn't have an article in his own right. His only contribution has been to mix comedians and 'regular' actors in his plays. He's had a lot of success with it, but not really more than many other companies or directors.

DJ Clayworth 16:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my nomination. AlistairMcMillan 09:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your hidden comments in Families (TV series) have become somewhat excessive. Bear in mind that to most people, this comment will only be confusing. I'm afraid you are feeding the troll. It's no big deal, but I suggest you don't use comments in the article to communicate with another editor. Rl 11:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Your approach could work, especially for an odd case like this. I just wanted to let you know early that this is not a good habit to get into :-). Rl 12:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your vote on K1Bond007's RFA with a question, which you are not obligated to answer, but I appreciate it if you did. Andre (talk) 18:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

First off thanks for the vandalsim revert, this is from a person who operates on several similar ip's that has been harassing myself and several other users for the past several months, i pretty much shose to ingnore him as i see that nothing will be done to keep this usere from being distruptive.

As for your comments on the CFD, espically the "the consensus of the community" becomes, rather than an in-group, i totaly agree with. But being that this status-quo has been in place for a long amount of time and that "group" that basically has the ability to change policy is in support of this status quo, i doubt that they will be any meaningful change in the near future. I could go on further but being that you stated you rather not be involved,i'll spare you the detales.

I also noticed that you have a intrest in TV in the UK, i was wondering if you would not mind giving me your thoughts on a template that i have created for UK and ROI networks, i dont know if you intrest field includes this field. I am cosidering taking it live shortly in the articles, and it's based on the current table used on most of these pages. A gallery of how it would look can be found in my sand box at User:Boothy443/uk-roi tv net infobox. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a notice their, was not aware their was a project, but that seems to be the case with many projects. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

You write:

Please be aware of the importance of disambiguation. I have been trawling 50+ articles correcting links to Newcastle. It is sometimes very difficult to determine to which of the many Newcastles is being referred. Although the context of the article made it obvious, this DABing exercise was the motivation for my change on John Lewis Partnership. I have had to DAB the John Lewis Newcastle article too, so please be careful when making changes. This task is tiresome enough as it is without the same articles appearing back on the 'to do' list. The JPS 16:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for getting in the way of your dab exercise. However I think I must say in my own defense that this is a classic example of why it is not a good idea to mix dab changes with other changes. I spotted your reformatting changes, and assumed your primary motivation was to remove the link to the Bainbridge dab page, and rather objected to the way you had done this (ie. remove the link altogether, rather than make it into an unambiguous red link). In dealing with this, I completely failed to notice the dab on Newcastle you had done at the same time. Thanks for tidying up the John Lewis Newcastle link. -- Chris j wood 10:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you've been dabing Newcastle on some of the airline/airport articles - one thing to watch out for is some of the articles wikilink to the city, while others link to the airport! Not very consistent I know, but... I've edited some to keep it consistent within the article Wangi 09:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and take it under consderation. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know i am extremely relutanct in my changem, and i am still considering just pulling my vote. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notcied yur comment on User:Paulo Oliveira's talk page (here). I thought the piping in the category tags only reordered it in the artilcle, but it orders in on the category page too? I think this should be made clearer in the Category help section. --Commander Keane 11:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Well, he did present Have I Got News for You a couple of times, which would mean he's eligible for inclusion in Category:British television presenters. However, being a "panellist, not to mention an interviewee" does not qualify him for inclusion in the parent Category:British television (otherwise that category would be full of politicians, because they've been interviewed!). I'm trying to recategorise articles in this category into their relevant subcats (if you feel like helping ouit, I'll be more than happy...). If you still think that the presenters cat is inappropriate, Johnson will have to be removed from the hierarchy altogether. The JPS 11:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've reverted myself. Thanks for spelling it out for me. --fvw* 11:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, do we want to put all the guest presenters in the presenters cat? It does kind of dilute it with lots of people who aren't really presenters but just happen to have done something where they're really more of a guest but doing it in the formal style of a presenter. Still, I'll leave that up to you, you've obviously given this some thought. --fvw* 11:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hey I saw you removed a couple pictures from the Bo Derek site - wanted to know why - its a short article but I like having a current picture in the bio when appropriate, something that brings the reader up to today. -- Barrettmagic 15:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to take a break, but I didn't want to leave without thanking you for your kind comments. RFA voting is one thing I abstained from after I saw good candidates publicly humiliated over trifles. I figured I could contribute to a worthy cause in other areas where I wouldn't get upset, and so I did. Now my selfish behavior has come back to bite me. Your own work on RFAs is important, and I hope you keep making WP:RFA a less hostile place. I wish you all the best, and if you ever apply for adminship yourself, do let me know. Rl 09:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Hall[edit]

Hey. Don't know if you're an Admin or not, but I'd be more interested in where you think you get off editing my Annie Hall item. There has been some discussion, mainly concerning whether what I wrote constitutes 'original research' (don't think so but that's debatable), or ‘original thought’ (definitely not), and if so does that make it unsuitable for wikipedia. Well as I’ve said on the talk page for the article, I think it would be a shame to restrict wikipedia to dry factual articles only. It’s not like I’ve posted an edit to the Margaret Thatcher page calling her an evil, twisted, philistine old hag – that would be, for some, contentious. What I wrote was about a film, it’s not really an opinion piece, merely a light meandering on political references in the film, not controversial surely. Maybe I’ll have to move it, if it really isn’t suitable, maybe we need more debate, not over my article but more importantly over how strictly factual entries in wikipedia have to be.

But for you to edit the wording to suit your taste? What the f*** is that? You changed ‘This last line is cleverly woven back into the continuing narrative’ to ‘This last line is woven back into the continuing narrative.' Prefer that do you? Unbelievable nerve. And this from the guy who says on his wikipedia user page, “I'm neither an inclusionist or a deletionist.” Fixed that for you.

You also had the nerve to completely remove the last line of my article! What gives you the right to do this? If what I wrote is really inappropriate for wikipedia then ok, I’ll remove it. Or if there were factual errors, typos, etc. fine fix them. Or if you had something to add, something I’d missed, whatever. But you are NOT my editor. Unsigned comment by User:Johncarvill

LOL. How to completely miss the point of wikipedia! I'm not going to respond to such hostility (I read that you are also in the habit of sending hostile e-mails to other editors). I suggest you take time away from the article and get to know Wikipedia better with articles to which you are less emotionally attached. Once you hit the 'submit' button, it stops being your article. This is made explicitly clear at the bottom of edit pages: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."

Thank you for correcting my minor grammatical error. Improvement is the spirit of the wiki. Using such errors to prove points, however, is a rather weak weapon. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to calm down. The JPS 19:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL indeed. How to completely ignore the points raised in my comments above! Paticularly with regard to the difference between whether my article is suitable for wikipedia on grounds of 'original research', and why you think you have the right to tinker with what I wrote, arbitrarily removing sentences and so on. Yes of course I realise I can be edited, but you're not correcting mistakes, or adding to what I've written, you're playing a more editorial role. Didn't mean to use your grammatical error as a weapon, rather I was using it to question whether you are qualified to edit my writing.

I wasn't being hostile. You say, "I read that you are also in the habit of sending hostile e-mails to other editors." Where did you read this? Who were these 'editors'? This is not true. I think it would have been mannerly if you'd at least informed me of the edits you were making, or posted something on the Talk page.

--Johncarvill 21:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. You have already been pointed in the direction of the section on original research.
2. I have the right to edit your work because, on Wikipedia, everyone has the right to edit anyone's work. Everyone on wikipedia plays an editorial role, regardless of "real world" qualifications.
3. You had already been notified been notified on your talk page by another user that there were problems with your addition.
4. All of my edits and comments to you can be supported by wikipedia convention, guidelines, or policy.
5. I will try and discover which version of which user's talk page the comment about your hostile e-mail. Your messages to me have certainly been hostile. (e.g. "What the f*** is that?", challenging my credibility, etc)
6. The addition of the 'Clean up Tone' tag brings the article to the attention of other editors.
7. The word 'cleverly' is POV. It is your opinion that it is clever. It may be my opinion also, and we could have a vote and we could all agree that it is "clever". It is still POV. The same is true for "But what is interesting is the unusual..." Interesting to whom?
8. You have very little experience editing wikipedia. At the time of writing, Annie Hall is the only article you have edited in the main space (i.e. the rest have been talk and user pages). You have a total of 24 edits. I, on the other hand, have several months experience of this project, and have made nearly 4000 edits to 3007 separate articles.
9. The point you made in your last message about my grammar was paradoxical.
10. The paragraph beginning "As the old 1960s saying goes..." is not encyclopaedic. This is an encyclopaedia. It is not a repository for film criticism.
11. Perhaps some of your section could be kept with an extensive rewrite. It might be acceptable to write: "Peter Cowie writes that..." That would be reflecting knowledge, not shaping or creating it.
12. One blank line between paragraphs, not two.
13. "External links" - note lower case 'l'
14. Indeed, your additions should not be controversial. But hey still have to conform to the style implemented in the 700,000+ articles in the wiki.
15. There is no such thing as 'my' article, or 'your' article, etc. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."

I hope these answer your questions satisfactorily.

The JPS 21:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few of your points:

- You have already been pointed in the direction of the section on original research.

Your tone is very unpleasant, like I'm a disobedient schoolboy. How condescending. I know you're an academic of some sort but really!

- It might be acceptable to write: "Peter Cowie writes that..." ....

Have you read Cowie's book? It's quite old and out of print. I notice that you've now got his name right though. To be frank, I doubt you know very much about Woody Allen or Annie Hall. Your objections to my article seem entirely grounded in pedantry.

- All of my edits and comments to you can be supported by wikipedia convention, guidelines, or policy.

See above.

- everyone has the right to edit anyone's work

Yes yes, but your edits seem arbitrary to me, clipping a word here, a sentence there.

- The word 'cleverly' is POV. It is your opinion that it is clever.

Well, why not remove the whole article then?

- I will try and discover which version of which user's talk page the comment about your hostile e-mail.

I found the post from user 'Tothebarricades'. I was not hostile to him, I said please desist from removing my entire article without even letting me know. All the other posters on the Talk page have been courteous, but not you two.

- "External links" - note lower case 'l'

Where did I make this embarrassing gaffe? Thought you disdained using minor errors as weapons?

- You have very little experience editing wikipedia. I, on the other hand, have several months experience of this project, and have made nearly 4000 edits to 3007 separate articles.

Gee whiz. I know I'm impressed.

--Johncarvill 22:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I believe you are a troll. The JPS 22:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not a troll. I edited the Annie Hall entry on wikipedia, some felt my contribution wasn't in line with regulations, and that's a matter for debate, and as I've said it's not really my article that's important (to anyone other than me); rather it's the question of whether there should be room for this sort of thing on wikipedia.

But your tone is that of a haughty, humourless pedant, and now you refuse to respond to my points and call me a troll?

Take a step back from yourself and consider the pomposity in a line like: "I, on the other hand, have several months experience..."

I thought I'd written a valid and, hopefully, entertaining contribution to the Annie Hall page, the reason I felt able to do so being that I'm a long-time Woody fan and know a bit about the subject, so I thought others with a similar interest might like reading it. I didn't expect to be subjected to your abuse and condescension.

--Johncarvill 22:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believed you were/are troll because you violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You attempt to invoke a response from me by persistently questioning my qualifications/experience. My response to that query was met with a similar provocative response ("Gee whiz. I know I'm impressed."). You challenged my knowledge of Allen’s work (how long have you waited to paraphrase that quote?). You capitalised upon a minor grammatical error in a weak attempt to challenge my credibility. (Incidentally, the lower case ‘l’ in ‘External links’ is a wikipedia convention I was drawing your attention towards. I was explaining changes.) The JPS 23:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear from this exchange is that The JPS understands encyclopaedic writing, and the open nature and policies of Wikipedia, while Johncarvill does not. The rest is just piss and vinegar. TheMadBaron 09:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to arrive late; I've just got back from a few days away. It looks as though things are sorted out, but I'll keep an eye on the article in case there's another outbreak. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Got Your Back[edit]

I put Annie Hall on my watchlist. I'll try to help when I can. --Woohookitty 07:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed that you're at the University of Sunderland. I was short-listed for a job there some years ago (I came second...), and wondered how you're finding it. I quite liked the city from what I saw of it, and I've always had a weakness for the North-East anyway. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Milius Hello JPS. Why do you think that John Milius merely "contributed" to the USS Indianapolis scene? I always heard it wrote it. Wellreadone

Hello. There is an enormous amount of controversy about the authorship of Quint's monologue. Several people (including Spielberg, Sackler, and, significantly, Shaw) wrote drafts, and the final result is a combined effort. It is inaccurate and unfair to attribute authorship soley to Milius. Accounts vary between different sources, so it is certianly not up to us to make some sort of judgement about what happened thirty years ago in Martha's Vineyard. "Contributed" is a neutral, fair way of expressing his, erm, contribution. The JPS 16:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to vote on my RfA. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. CambridgeBayWeather 00:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you edited the article on Pascale Hutton. She was actually in a different movie called Chaos, which there is no article for.--Anonunit 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I had this all the way at the top. I wasn't sure if you wanted your most recent messages at the top, or the bottom.--Anonunit 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As you may see from the RD talk page, I reverted your removal of Lister. I did so not because I personally disagree (I am ambivalent), but because I felt it was consistent with precedent (see Ashley Burns and her AfD.) As I suggested at RD, I expect any stub to be AfD'ed as Burns was. Until then, Lister should stay, if for no other reason than to alert RD viewers when a stub is done, so that it might be nominated for deletion. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't want to come across as pedantic, but I'm wondering why you reverted the change I made to the article on Five? When I originally made the alteration (to the whole article), I added a comment and a link to an FAQ from Five[2], on its discussion page (4th from the top) [3]. This explains that the channel is referred to as "Five" in plain text (as opposed to bid tv, price-drop tv, talkSPORT, etc). RTL Group also refers to it as "Five" [4]. If this is not the case, then can you please provide some evidence? Thanks. RobWill80 04:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw all my previous comments regarding this user, on grounds of apology. M3Plus 10:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JPS, thank you for supporting my RfA - I will do my best as an admin to help the reality of Wikipedia live up to the dream! BD2412 T 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough subject. The project does not have any strict guidelines (one of the reasons I haven't actually joined) and the only real solution to the problem is to create Category:London West End musicals. Urinetown, for example is in both Category:Broadway musicals and Category:Off Broadway because it appeared both off and on Broadway. — warpedmirror (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been involved in reverting some of this vandal's edits, so I thought I'd let you know that I've created a section at Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts for the "Vegan vandal".-gadfium 19:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But who put it up for deletion and why it was added for reasons, To help keep things organised the person mentioned created those things which are under his category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewFenton (talk • contribs)

I looked threw his history and noticed yes he is recieving vandalism, I will help by checking his article every little while and yes i will probably join the Wikipedia:WikiProject_British_TV_shows--MatthewFenton 13:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And thanks for correcting the format. I'm still new and still learning. --Athena2006 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined WikiProject Films. Thanks for the info. --Athena2006 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussions are preserved as an archive of my talk page, because tak page blanking is frowned upon. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page by anyone other than me.