User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Belovedfreak. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Another Anglesey church

Wonderful, thanks. That's my 15th GA, so a quick trip to WP:TRIPLE is now called for! Thanks again. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic, well done! --Beloved Freak 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Blackpool shrine

Thought you might like to know that Shrine of Our Lady of Lourdes, Blackpool will be on the main page as a DYK on the 21st between 1pm and 7pm — see Template:Did you know/Queue. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good job with that—thanks for letting me know! Pity I haven't got a picture for it yet, but it'll be nice to see it get a mention on the main page!--Beloved Freak 20:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Phil Taylor (copyright)

I saw you left a copyright notice on Phil Taylor's page, well it's been there for a while and it says the article could be deleted within a week, please try and prevent this article from being deleted. Mr.Kennedy1 (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to find out what's happening.--Beloved Freak 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OR claim

Could you point to which section of OR says that a community-chosen list with a community-chosen number of entries is OR? In what I've read of OR, I haven't been able to find the specific section that says creating lists like that is OR. You can put that on my talk page. Thanks, Purple backpack89 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Americans; it's best to keep the discussion in one place.--Beloved Freak 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hey BF, I mean by the B for Beloved and the F for freak, listen, I would love your advice on something... 30 Rock related, no not review, but telling me if the following makes sense:

"Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) comes across a 'Future Husband' contact in her phonebook, and immediately comes to the realization it must be a man she met at Dr. Kaplan's (James Rebhorn) dental office while under the influence of anesthetic in the previous episode. After being encouraged to meet the man, Liz calls the number, pretends to be one of Kaplan's receptionist, and convinces him to come and see Kaplan. At the dentist's office, she looks around, but does not recognize anyone there, prompting her to call the man and figure out who he is. The man (Michael Sheen) answers his phone, she sees him, and immediately she hangs up. He calls her back and Liz comes up as 'Future Wife' in his phone. The two go on a date to discuss this, and she learns that the man's name is Wesley. On their date, though, the two fail to hit it off. Later, at the 30 Rock studios, Liz is shocked to find out that Wesley retrieved NBC page Kenneth Parcell's (Jack McBrayer) wallet, after Kenneth threw it out a window earlier. As a result of this coincidence, Liz and Wesley decide to give their relationship another try."

I'm like having doubts with this, and finally convinced myself to ask for a second opinion regarding this, and you're good at catching my mistakes, as you've done in the past, and would appreciate it. :) Only if you have time and stuff. P.S. I've added your talkpage to my watchlist. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'm just in the middle of something, but will have a look at it shortly. :) --Beloved Freak 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah do your stuff first, then if you got the time tell me what you think. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey TB, (Ok, maybe not...!) I think it's pretty good, and it makes sense, but if anything, I think you could cut it down a little. Looking through, some words aren't totally necessary, and I think it would be a bit clearer if you simplified it a little. The first thing that confused me was "phonebook", when I thought for a second you meant an actual phonebook (if anyone actually still has those...). I think you could just say "in her cellphone", I think your readers will all be aware of cellphones being able to store contacts, but some might jump to the wrong conclusion like me. Another thing I wondered about was: when she first called him was she on her cellphone? If so, wouldn't she come up as "future wife" then? Or did she call from the office phone or something? Also, presumably, she comes up as "future wife" when she calls him, not just when he calls her?

Personally, I would try to cut it down like this:

Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) comes across a contact in her cellphone under 'Future Husband', and realizes that it must be a man she met at her dentist's office while under anesthetic in the previous episode. She calls the number, pretends to be the dentist's receptionist, and asks the man to come back to see the dentist. She returns to the dentist's office, but does not recognize anyone there, so she calls the number again. As the man (Michael Sheen) answers, she sees him and hangs up. Liz's number is listed in his cellphone under 'Future Wife'. He calls her back and they arrange a date; she learns that his name is Wesley. On their date, the two fail to hit it off. Later, at the 30 Rock studios, Liz discovers that Wesley was the person who retrieved NBC page Kenneth Parcell's (Jack McBrayer) wallet, after Kenneth threw it out of a window earlier. Because of this coincidence, Liz and Wesley decide to give their relationship another try.

That would still need a bit of tweaking, but do you see the bits I've cut out? I don't think any meaning is lost (unless I've inadvertently missed the point somewhere!) I'm not sure about getting rid of the dentist's name though. Although I don't think it's relevant to the plot, there's now a lot of repetition of "dentist", so you might want to keep that. Perhaps the last sentence would be better as "go on another date" since they don't really seem to have a relationship as such yet. See what you think. --Beloved Freak 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tuberculosis? Is that what you really think of me? lol. Hey, I'll take anything that your throw at me. Damn, all I've read to summarize this plot is "phone book"; "Liz sees a contact labeled 'Future Husband' in her phonebook from her phone". Glad you spotted that, cause I'm gonna fix this. To answer your question, Liz called him from her office phone. I think the plot would have been killed if she called him from her iPhone. Yeah, I notice what you took out, and roll with it. When they see each other at 30 Rock and believe it's meant to be for the two, the two decide to go on another date, so I'll change "decide to give their relationship another try" to "go on another date". OMG, you've been so helpful that I'm glad that you helped me out. :) Is there anything I can do for you? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah good... glad to help! Nothing you can do for me right now thanks, consider it on the house! --Beloved Freak 08:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing "Dealbreakers Talk Show", I appreciate it. To answer your questions, the bit summarizing the whole "Dealbreakers" thing, with you removing it, is fine, I guess, I just wanted that the non-30 Rock reader understand this is how it came to be and stuff. Second, the "fictional" thing, IDK, I've been told to say that there's a show within the show, you know. I guess I got too carried away with adding the word to the plot, but I guess I should stop doing that and instead add the word in the lead instead of the plot. Hope I've "addressed" your questions, if not I'll add more. ;) Yeah, whenever you need something let me know and let me see what I can do. :P -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know it's hard sometimes finding a balance between putting too much info not directly relevant, and not putting enough to provide context. It's a fine line I think, so seriously if you're not sure about some of what I removed, please do put it back. Perhaps on ones you're doing in the future, if you're looking to add a little more context, try adding a bit at the beginning, perhaps in the plot, just to let readers understand who does what. I was going to add a bit on this one, but came unstuck when looking for what Jack's job is - his job title seems a little strange! So maybe just try and describe the workplace/company situation, what 30 Rock actually is (ie. where it is; I didn't realise at first, even though I have visited it) and what the main characters do that are going to be mentioned in the plot. As for what you can do for me, think of it as the Godfather doing you favours - I'll call them in eventually! :) (I'm hoping to have a couple of articles up at GA soon in TV & music, so if you'd like to review them keep an eye out!)--Beloved Freak 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'll just leave it as it is. If someone does bring something up, then I guess I'll restore it. See, I was gonna that info. to the beginning of the plot, see "Into the Crevasse" to what I mean, but I've never done that so I left it in the production section. Oh, you mean that Jack is Vice President of East Coast Television and Microwave Oven Programming for General Electric? Yeah, it's weird, but it's hilarious. Basically he's Liz's boss cause he is Vice President of East Coast Television. Okay, Godfather, you want me to kiss your ring and do my duties? lol. Yeah, if you anything up at GAN I'll take a look at it. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess how much background you want to give also depends on how much the episode in question follows on from info in previous episodes. Anyway, I'll let you know when I require you! :) --Beloved Freak 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right it depends on how much background should be given out. Yeah, hit me up if something comes up. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the reply to the article I put up for review. It was just what I was looking for. Once tidied up I definitely think it has the opportunity to be GA status. I agree with all your comments about what can be improved and what is at fault. I will look to make additions within the next few days and was wondering if you would be willing within the next week or so to have a brief check over what has been altered. Thanks very much again for the reply Monkeymanman (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and yes I'll take another look when you're ready.--Beloved Freak 21:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have made most of the edits to the Article, and left you a reply here. Thanks again for the help. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look.--Beloved Freak 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. Thats no problem, like i have said on the review page it is by no means finished yet. Just whenever you have time to spare would be great. I am going to try and expand all book refs in the next 2 weeks anyway. Thanks again. Monkeymanman (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about being a bit of a nuisance about this article : ) but I was wondering if you thought it would be worth splitting his work into Film career (pretty much leave it as it is with a different heading) and stage career (move all work from the stage under that heading which would remove some short paragraphs and they could be expanded). I was just wondering if you thought it would be worth it, and if it would improve the article. I think it would and would like a second opinion. Thanks again Monkeymanman (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not being a nuisance at all. I'm not sure whether that would be a good idea or not, to be honest. I've just looked over a few FA and GA actor articles, and the ones I looked at all seemed to be more chronological, mixing film work in with stage work. That's not to say your idea couldn't work though. It's hard to say without seeing it. It's worth trying it anyway, because you can always change it back if it's not an improvement. Or if you don't want to make such radical change without being sure, try the other version in your sandbox. If no one else comments on the peer review (which is quite likely, they often only get one lot of comments), you could also ask for opinions at the Actors wikiproject, especially if you had an example to show them, with the film work & stage work separated. Sorry not to have a stronger opinion, but just give it a go and see what it's like! --Beloved Freak 18:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice, this is an initial idea of what it could look like with stage career separated from film career, here. I am not too sure if this is an improvement or not. Other article like here have split stage and film really well, albeit with much of it using recent information, and plenty of up to date online sources. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually think that looks ok. I think it could work because he is mostly known for his film career, so it makes sense to separate them. It obviously worked ok for the Ethan Hawke article too. I'd go for it. If there are major objections down the line, or if you change your mind, the other version will still be in the history.--Beloved Freak 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeh I agree. A stage section on its own gathers together some redundant sentences throughout the article. Do you know if there a quick way of replacing the article with what’s in the sandbox? Or do the changes have to be made manually? I don’t mind doing that but just wondered if there was a quick way you knew of. Thanks Monkeymanman (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there were multiple edits in your sandbox history, I would suggest asking an administrator to merge it into the article, as they can perform a merger of the two histories. However, your sandbox consists of one edit (apart from the image bot), so there would be no point, as far as I can tell. I would just copy and paste the new version in. The article has a few thousand visitors each day, and 164 people have it on their watchlist, so I would also probably drop a note at the talkpage stating the change you're going to make so that anyone can complain if they want to, and then if no one's said anything in 24 hours or so, make the change. it's up to you though, you could just make the change and revert/discuss if people start kicking up a fuss.--Beloved Freak 14:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I might just copy and paste the article for ease. Just out of interest how do you know how many people visit the article and have it on their watchlist? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

On the article page, in the left-hand column, under "Statistics", you can see traffic stats, number of watchers and number of people who have edited the article the most. On the traffic stats page, you can view different months too. They're not 100% reliable, so if you see a sudden dip, something technological probably went wrong. It's interesting though when you see a sudden rise for one day, that may result from him being mentioned in the media, or a film or documentary being shown on tv or something.--Beloved Freak 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i really was not aware of that lol. I made the edit to the article and think it looks pretty sweet. Once i get the page numbers from that biography then i think it should be ready for a nomination. After a third party proof read. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Glad to have been of use. Good luck with getting it to GA.--Beloved Freak 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists of war book films, et al

I'm curious if you would help me out some more on this whole tangled mess of lists. I've tried making improvements on those pages, but Varlaam refuses to let any edit I make stay intact. There is no ownership issue noticeboard, so I can't take things there. Any ideas on how to move ahead with this? He continues to insist that those lists are his and that any changes need to be cleared through him first. That's just not acceptable on Wikipedia. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, yeah... I would love to help. There are big problems with those lists. Trying to sort them out was one of the most stressful things I've done on Wikipedia, and in the end I just walked away and took the articles off my watchlist. I found Varlaam very difficult to communicate with, not least because he didn't always want to participate in discussions at all. I also felt that he was getting very annoyed with me, and I didn't want to end up driving someone away who does seem to make constructive contributions elsewhere. However, these lists are still a problem. There are huge ownership issues, original research used in the footnotes (I don't know if he's still linking to his own reviews at imdb, but that was a problem), possible issues with the scope of these lists (I'm not sure that they're all notable lists) and his insistence on using his own particular style that isn't consistent with standards (eg. "classics never filmed", "bulletins"). I think nothing is really getting done because people just get frustrated trying to make changes. The fact that he's still reverting you leads me to think that just trying to engage him in discussion isn't going to work. We got some others interested before at Talk:List of films based on military books (peacetime), but that was just over one article. I don't know, do you think maybe an RFC? Perhaps we could draw up a list of the main problems, invite Varlaam to comment, and perhaps start an RFC? It seems a bit drastic, but he doesn't seem to take notice of two or three editors disagreeing with him. Also, we could ask members of the film project and perhaps military history to get involved. What do you think?--Beloved Freak 09:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, and I definitely agree with you on the frustration issue. I really would like to engage him in productive discussion, but he seems to have a dismissive attitude toward everyone here (as if being a reviewer at IMDB makes him somehow better than anyone here. Shall we start a subpage somewhere to begin formulating an RfC or discussion? I agree that people from the film and milhist projects would be useful to involve. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to start a subpage somewhere, I'm happy to contribute. I was thinking though, that some of the stuff is very much against existing policy/guidelines so shouldn't really require an RFC. Really, we should just be able to make the changes, and revert him if he reverts. However, sometimes the line between disruptive editing and a content dispute is a little blurry, in which case we do need to build consensus. I have started making some changes, which he hasn't reverted yet. I think maybe we need a list of the problems somewhere, and we can work out which are blatant policy violations (eg. using Wikipedia as a RS, using user added IMDb reviews as a RS), and which we need to build consensus on (eg. the scope/notability of the lists, the new styles that he seems to want to make standard). --Beloved Freak 16:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, he's digging his heels in: [1], [2]. --Beloved Freak 09:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not surprising. I've created this page to help deal with this. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. i'll take a look and add my thoughts hopefully a bit later on this evening.--Beloved Freak 16:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Shrine

Did you see the item about the Shrine on BBC Northwest News last night? A nice coincidence! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Typical! I'll see if I can find it on the website.--Beloved Freak 16:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother; it didn't say much and lasted about 20 seconds.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Funny timing though!--Beloved Freak 18:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Soft Talk

Is there some reason you linked Every. Single. Name. on this article? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one school of thought is that it's useful to retain red links to encourage article creation. Other people only like to link names that already have articles. It's not set in stone. Generally, I try and do a little research to see how likely it is that they will have articles in the future, and link accordingly, but I'd not got around to that there. I agree it probably looks better now, but not something worth sweating over I would have thought. (By which I refer to you edit summary on the article, which seemed ever so slightly stressed out!) --Beloved Freak 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Angel Sarah McLachlan.ogg

Hi. I've experienced what you probably came across when uploading a new version of a file. It is necessary to clear your browser's cache after uploading a new version. It's become habit for me now; it's just something that just has to be done. See you around! Dawnseeker2000 01:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your suggestion. I couldn't work out what was going wrong because I uploaded new versions of three others at roughly the same time, and they worked. However, on reloading my browser just now, it works! So, thanks. I will remember that in future! --Beloved Freak 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to say thank you

So I'll just say ta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selector99 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome—'bout time someone welcomed you!--Beloved Freak 20:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Eventually

I knew this was comin', but I don't care at least I knew. :) Okay, I think we have a winner. The X Files one scared me. Do you mind if I attend to it tomorrow? I'm working on something right now and want to finish it. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no problem... Yeah tomorrow or whenever, there's no hurry! --Beloved Freak 20:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, cool. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome for it, just doing my job as a reviewer, and cause you helped me out last week, so. Oh the GAN tag, yeah I guess I've accustomed myself into adding it... for you... it's no problem, really. ;) Any other favor, besides The X-Files one you have up, just let me know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, then I'll await that message... won't take you long to write it... I know you... No, I don't... Wait... To be continued. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter

The July 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Holy Bible

Thanks Beloved F. I've started trying to address some of the stuff. As I've commented, a little cautious about the idea of chronological order, which I'm not sure is the right way to go. Please be patient - I am expecting it to take several days (probably into next week) to go through the initial comments and get some improvements made.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your message on my talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Beloved F. Just to let you know that the page should now be stable. One of the things that has happened is, in looking to improve the sourcing I have come across new info and incorporated that into the article. So sorry that the article is now a little different from when I nominated the article. It's the first time I have done a GA nomination, so I'll learn this lesson for the future.

Assuming you are happy to look at the article again, there are a couple of general points.

I haven't been able to find negative reviews. Instead I've tried to balance instead using the fact that sales have been noted by some as disappointing and the record doesn't appear to have charted in major record-buying countries other than the UK.

I still have some citing problems. The notes are still not entirely consistent (my lack of expertise in working with citation templates, but I'll work to get this right). There are still some things that originally came from fansites (put there either by me or previous editors) and consequently don't have page refs. My view on balance is that the article would be made worse rather than better if this material were removed, and I would observe that *most* GA articles for albums I have looked at have similar material, such as reviews, sourced without page numbers. What's your view on this?

The paragraph about sound clips on the album I think is worth having, but problematic to source. Most of the info comes from fansites, although some (not all) of it could be sourced elsewhere. Most of the references could be sourced to the origin of the clip (eg provide transmission details for Caraline's Story). This would sort of allow verifiability - people could check on YouTube or theoretically in an archive of TV documentaries (there are such things, such as at the BFI on the South Bank). However, is this genuine verifiability? Again, it would be a shame to lose information of interest just to pass GA, but what's your view on this?

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Glad you feel you've come to a point of stability - I was beginning to wonder! I'm actually pretty tired now, so not up for any editing that requires major thinking, so I'll have a good look at it tomorrow and finish the review, and answer your questions above. Don't worry about it changing so much, it's your first one, and it's definitely a learning curve! --Beloved Freak 22:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re- Your recent edits

"Hello, please be careful about edits you make. Recent edits to Niger introduced quite a few spelling and grammatical errors, as well as manual of style errors. I thought at first that perhaps English isn't your first language, but a userbox on your userpage suggests that you are a native speaker, so maybe you just need to be a bit more careful. Do you use the preview button before saving, and check what you have written afterwards? In this edit from 27 June, you appear to be trying to correct your own spelling, but still get it wrong. Do you have a spellchecker? I don't want to discourage you, because you are making good contributions, but if you're just a bit more careful, then other editors don't need to follow behind to make corrections. :)

Also, I was wondering if you are going to create an article called 2010 Sahel drought, which you have been adding links to? Otherwise, there's little value in creating a "main article" link to something that doesn't exist.--Beloved Freak 11:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)"

My Microsoft spell checker is useless. Exsampel= Is it "carrt" or "cart", MSN answer= "brick". No, I can't spell at all and grammar is poor. Dyslectic? My spoken English is good, since it only has grammar not spelling. Also I was going on to do 2010 Sahel drought soon. Glad to hear from you and, no, Im' not discourage by you! :-) --Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know dyslexia is a difficult thing to contend with. I don't know what browser you use, but Firefox has a spellchecker that highlight misspelled words in the edit box as you type. I make tons of typos, but I just try to make an extra effort to go back and check. Some still get through! :) ANyway, just checking about that article, as I wasn't sure if you were planning to create it or not.--Beloved Freak 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tanzanian timeline

I hate to admit this, but I took the information from Kilwa Sultanate & Sofala, where there is no source for this. (It does sound plausible, though, & the trading ports of the East African coast have existed since antiquity -- see Rhapta, see for example.) I had thought this came from some material I contributed using an article I found on JSTOR, but after spending half an hour sifting thru my own contribution history, I found my memory was faulty: my edit was to Angoche, another old trading port on the eastern coast. I'll try to poke around in my resources to see if I can find a source for this. -- llywrch (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you got me interested in seeing what more I could find out about Kilwa, using my Public Library's account on JSTOR, & I found two more articles that you may be interested in -- both by Neville Chittick & published in the Journal of African History. The earlier one is "Kilwa and the Arab Settlement of the East African Coast", JAH 4 (1963), pp. 179-190; the second -- & more informative -- is "The 'Shirazi' Colonization of East Africa", JAH, 6 (1965), pp. 275-294. (Chittick's later paper presents a proposed chronology of the East African coast up to 1498.) If you don't have access to JSTOR, let me know & I'll see what I can do to provide you access. -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Canvassing for your FAC nomination

Hi, Belovedfreak. Your concerns about canvassing has been addressed and I sent an apology to Pedro about it (as indictated here). I hope you will also forgive my mistake. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok then. --Beloved Freak 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Merrick

This user helped promote Joseph Merrick to good article status.

Nice one. Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 11:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

:) --Beloved Freak 17:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merrick

Thanks so much for the GA review and for the helpful comments. I shall definitely bear them in mind as I work on the article some more. Oh, and I love your talkpage notice, by the way - makes a refreshing change! --Beloved Freak 17:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to use the email trail approach to messages, so I'll reply with the previous messages attached - that way both parties are kept informed without having to page-watch, and the message history is kept in place. It's only an extra couple of clicks, and I find it worthwhile. And using this method means there's no need for instructions, as the action is done by me! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 17:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Belovedfreak. You have new messages at [[User talk:*Kat* (talk)|User talk:*Kat* (talk)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just so you know, I'm done with the article. Working on the next one in the series now. This time I'm doing the "easy" part of the revision in WordPad instead of on Wikipedia so that I won't need to do a 100+ edits to the actual article.--*Kat* (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Belovedfreak. You have new messages at Usb10's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

I want to thank you about the Manic Monday review (I finished your concerns), I think your support with a sample would be perfect, your copy-edits and others, I can not find another way to thank more than this:

		The Special Barnstar
		For being so kind to help with copy-edits and reviews, to improve the articles in which I worked. Thank you so much Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, that's very kind. I'll sort out a sample for you.--Beloved Freak 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion at User talk:Tbhotch

...It's a bit complicated, so I hope this makes sense!--Beloved Freak 09:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's a crazy thing, so I'll left it to the GA reviewer, if (s)he believe the same I'll change it. By the way, thank you for the music sample :D Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

GAN

Hey Beloved Freak can you do me the favor of review ing The Splendid Source. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright i understand thanks anyway. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's about time...

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		In recognition of your contributions to copyright cleanup at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

...that somebody said thank you for this. And if I've missed that somebody said it before (or even forgotten that I have), so what? I'll say it again. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah... thanks very much! :) --Beloved Freak 08:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Update re Billie H

Hey BF, I'm very excited because today the Nicholson book arrived at my house. I wanted to share that with somebody! ;) I'm actually about three-quarters of the way through Lady Sings the Blues. It's one of my typically-favorite autobiographies in which you laugh and then think about how tragic and pathetic it is and then you feel guilty for laughing. So much fun. Also had to share that. It's gonna be so much fun to learn about Lady Day--what a character she was. I just love her. How are things going with you? ;) Christine (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're enjoying it! The Nicholson and Clarke books arrived here a few days ago; I've started reading Nicholson. I need to get the autobiography though, it sounds good! I've started putting together a discography in my sandbox, so we can have those as separate articles/lists from the main one.--Beloved Freak 08:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think working on a discography is a great way to start. The autobiography has one, too, so if you like, I could help out at your sandbox. Could you tell me how to get there? I'm looking forward to starting Nicholson. I also want to view the movie, just for kicks. I've already seen it, but it was years ago when I was much younger and didn't understand much of it. Christine (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That'd be great. I'm using the one from the back of Nicholson, as well as this website - don't know how reliable it is, so double checking everything, but it's handy to have an online version! I'm working on it at User:Belovedfreak/Billie Holiday discography, and have decided to do the song recordings and albums as separate lists as the songs one is going to be quite long. I'm thinking of moving the one above to Billie Holiday songs discography or something similar once completed. I'm not 100% sure of the format as I haven't found a good example to follow; most of the decent Wikipedia discographies are modern ones. I don't think, for example, that chart history is so relevant here (although it may be for albums), and I have started noting which orchestras she recorded each song with as I think that's relevant. Let me know what you think as I'd welcome any help/suggestions. It's already helping me to understand her life in the context of the recordings she made, if that makes sense. I've just started User:Belovedfreak/Billie Holiday albums discography in case you want to work on that too, it's just a straightforward copy/paste from Billie Holiday so far.--Beloved Freak 12:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good for you! Come to think of it, meeting Holiday through her recordings makes a huge amount of sense. I've already listened to some of them through Napster. I'd love to see her Strange Fruit article get to FA, a la What'd I Say. There's a video of her singing it on YouTube that's painfully beautiful; no wonder she was broken up every time she sang it. She says in her book that she wrote the music, but there's evidence to the contrary about that. I have a feeling that if she was a performer today, Oprah would pick her book and then she'd be labeled a liar. Of course, people who would do that don't understand the autobiography as a literary form. But I ramble, if only to avoid getting back to work! Thanks for the sandbox access; I'll take a look in a little while. Christine (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be great to see "Strange Fruit" as an FA. I'm more intrigued than ever to read her autobiography. I noticed the comment in the article for the song that when challenged about the book, she apparently said "I ain't never read that book"! Nicholson says that it's generally considered unreliable, but that he was able to corroborate quite a bit of it. Just watched that YouTube video; that's quite something.--Beloved Freak 08:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to take into account that it was basically written by a strung-out heroin addict, bless her. I'd like to see how much of it was her and how much was her co-author. The book is still significant, though, just for the stories and the accounts of what it was like to be a Black performer at the time. We in the age of Obama need to be reminded of what it was like for a lot of of folks, and really not all that long ago. Christine (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep—that's one reason why I love reading about different times, and another reason why we must get the article into good shape!--Beloved Freak 16:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Phil Taylor/GA1

Hi, I am very involved in the development of the Phil Taylor article, I was reading over the suggestions for improvements in the review page and was confused by some of them. Could you please explain the following:

Use of contractions like "didn't"
Inclusion of trivia such as "He also appeared on Channel 5's The Gadget Show on the 26 April 2010 to help them review cameras."

I was also wondering if you would have a look over the article again and give some more suggestions for improvements. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll comment at the GA review page.--Beloved Freak 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Holiday discographies

Hi BF, I've looked at your sandboxes, and I think they're a good start, especially User:Belovedfreak/Billie Holiday discography. I think we should go with your format. An issue I can see us running up against is the fact that all of Holiday's recordings were made before the advent of the CD, so there have been numerous CD reissuings. My copy of Lady Sings the Blues, which was reprinted in 1992, tries to deal with that by listing the CDs as they present Holiday's recordings chronologically. I'm not sure that's the way we want to go with the discography here. In other words, I think that the discography in Lady Sings the Blues may be useless for us. We should at least refer to it, a la "See Holiday and Duffy, pp. 193-203, for a list of Holiday's CD reissues." At the very least, I think that the LSTB list should fill in possible gaps. I plan at beginning Nicholson this weekend and will take a look at that discography; I have a feeling that it will be more useful for our purposes. What do you think? Christine (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree we can definitely mention the LSTB discog as a general reference. Part of the problem is that I haven't found a good WP discography from a similar timescale to use as inspiration. Certain details like format and release date are less relevant, so I went with recording date instead. Do you think we should ultimately say what album they are available on for each song? I think that would be a good idea for actual albums recorded by her, (for example, when we get to "You've Changed", it's from the album Lady in Satin) but what about the hundreds of compilations released in the intervening years? Should we mention any of them? Just notable ones? None at all?--Beloved Freak 14:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The recording industry is what makes things complicated for us, so we need to make decisions what to include and what not to include. According to LSTB, she made dozens of recordings and was paid like $75 each and received no royalties. She said that she didn't mind; it was a way for her to earn a living. A lot of African American artists had the same experience, and were regularly cheated out of a huge amounts of money. For these artists, it was about individual songs more than albums, especially in the 20s and even into the 50s, before LPs were common. They'd go into the studio and perform and it was made into a record that was then sold. Royalties went to the studios and record companies, and not to the artists. Eventually, they started making LPs, and the artists had more control over the end product. We're really breaking into new ground here, aren't we? So let's figure out the best route to go, and maybe others can use what we come up with as a model.

So this is what I think. I think we should focus on individual songs. I agree that for Holiday, the most important information is the band she performed with, and the recording date. When Holiday started making LPs (I don't know when that was yet), we can list those. As far as compilations are concerned, let's hold off on making a decision. It looks like the discography in LSTB is a list of the compilations up to that point, early in the history of the CD. We need more information regarding what experts consider the most important ones. I suspect that many of them are exploitative, anyway, and we don't want to perpetuate that by supporting them by including them in a discography. Christine (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds good. I agree that it's hard to tell about compilations; maybe it'll become clearer later which, if any, are important. So, we'll carry on as I've started, unless either one of us has a bright idea to change it, and see what it looks like at the end. If there's some crucial piece of information we find that's not included, we can just add it later.--Beloved Freak 21:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

St Chad's Church, Poulton-le-Fylde

Delighted to see you have written an article on this church, and included the photo of the crocuses. When I worked at Norcross I used to lunch each week in Poulton and have fond memories of the church.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm delighted you're delighted! Norcross eh? Don't suppose there's any chance we'll be putting that on a WP list of lovely or interesting buildings!--Beloved Freak 20:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No way!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

GAN

Hey freak could you respond to my responses at the talk page also could you review Family Guy season 1 which is on Peer Review. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message I will have a look at the GA reassessment later today.--Beloved Freak 15:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BF could look at the page again. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

info

You wrote in the AFD that most female performers do some lesbian scenes then mentioned an uncited comment in Wikipedia.

However, see Justine Joli were there is a cited statement that she does not do any scene with men, only lesbian scenes. This makes her a good addition to the list and makes the list worthwhile. There is such thing as lesbian porn according to google and some of the female performers do only that genre, nothing else.

This topic is so sticky that I don't even want to post in the AFD. I do not want the word "porn" in "my contributions". I would rather have an AFD decided the wrong way than have a lot of porn in my contributions list! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should have thought of that before creating the article! :) To be honest though, this isn't something I'm hugely invested in, and I've probably said all I'm going to at the AFD. I think anyone that's ever used google without the "safe search" feature is aware that lesbian porn exists, but that wasn't really part of my argument. Anyway, as I say, I've made my point as best as I can (maybe not very well!) and I'd rather just concentrate on other things now. Thanks for the message though. --Beloved Freak 17:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)