User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2007

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, (I’m) Stranded, was selected for DYK!

On January 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article (I’m) Stranded, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE get back with me

as far as the news regarding Colin Thurston goes. I just heard about the announcement by John Taylor on Duran Duran's official site regarding his passing and I'm really wanting additional information as soon as possible. Thanks. (Krushsister 03:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

United Airlines Flight 232

Great edit! --Guinnog 15:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheGoldenSection1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheGoldenSection1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, a good reminder to get off my proverbial and update The Golden Section album article with this image and much else - done (finally). Ian Rose 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

mea culpa re: 12th St riots

I was / am 207.75.224.89. I made those edits before I realized I needed a login name.

What I did last year was try to bring together what, at the time, was obviously the work of various authors.

I provided citations for a couple of quotes. On further review, the John Conyers story comes from a dubious source, and we probably need to kill that section if we can't find a better source.

Tim Wohlford tim@wohlford.net Twohlford 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Goizueta

That comment about his poor presentational skills is actually sourceable to his colleagues. Although, since I looked over my notes and couldn't find an exact cite, I won't put it back in until I have a chance to review the source material again. Daniel Case 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AshesToAshesContinuing.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AshesToAshesContinuing.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

'Primary Mission' in RAAF squadron pages

I agree: this section is pointless, especially as the text of the article generally already stated whatever the squadron's mission is. --Nick Dowling 07:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ian?

Yeah, me here again. I really need your assistance now, because Colin Thurston's recent passing (I know, it broke my heart into a billion little pieces once I found out) finally gave me the push to try to create a Wiki article for him. But my problem is, I don't have enough free time to devote to making such an article as kickass as it should be! So if you would, could you please help me out with this article? Thanks. BTW, I think it's awesome that you did up the article for John Foxx's The Golden Section. I f***ing love that album and am thus duly inspired to try out more of his solo material out. (Krushsister 02:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Hi once again. I *heart* you for your much-appreciated contributions to the Colin Thurston article. Thank you so very much. Now it looks like something that would befit the late Mr. Thurston. BTW, I'm still incredibly saddened by his passing. (Krushsister 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Proposed RFA Nomination

Natl1, many thanks for your offer to nominate me for RfA. I'm afraid that there are still many mini-projects I have on the boil article-wise that I'd like to try and get out of the way before I seriously consider it, however. My feeling is that I might not do it justice right now. If the offer stays open I'd like to see how I'm placed in a couple of months or so. Very sincere thanks again. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Scherger, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Scherger

An impressive expanding work! I just wanted to ask if you could mention the specific volume (and, if pertinent, the volume's title) used of the Units of the Royal Australian Air Force so I could add an ISBN for the book? Circeus 20:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, could you mention the specific author and section (with the page range of said section) cited in The Commanders? Since horner is an editor, it's very possible he didn't actually write the bit you arere ferencing from. Don't let yourself be put off by the template. I can always add it myself. I'd have done it myself if I could have located a table of contents. Circeus 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Morotai Mutiny, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong credit

Hello, I'd just like to point out that this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monty_Python%E2%80%99s_Life_of_Brian&action=history Has you mention that you fixed a fake assertion by myself. It might be a fake assertion, but it's not me who posted it, though! I posted the My So-Called Life/Life of Brian reference, which you can check by yourself on the MSCL page on Wikipedia. Just don't put credit where credit isn't due ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nao-cyna (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi there. My edit summary was "Rv dubious assertion with fake citation to last version by Nao-cyna", meaning that the edits that occurred between your last version and my version were the dubious ones, not your version. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that then, I guess "Rv" means "Reversed (to)" ;) Nao-cyna

Thank you

For reverting vandalism to my user page. I appreciate it. --Guinnog 15:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Monty Python

Thanks. I wasnt aware of the comparison between the Beatles and Python, so I had to look. Check out the second citation I added, the relevant paragraph is the last one. Derwig 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sex Pistols

While I agree with you that there is no "the" in the band's name, I think you have erred in removing so many instances of it as this is UK usage in a UK article. Please see my comment at Talk:Sex Pistols. Thanks. --Guinnog 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As discussed on the Pistols' talk page, only two instances reverted; could be pummelling a straw man here...! Cheers, Ian Rose 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Sorry for overstating your edit. --Guinnog 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob - keeps me honest...! Cheers, Ian Rose 18:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the ""

Thank you for catching the quotations...or should I say, "lack of"..lol

--Gavinmacqueen 06:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is coming to Sydney

Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney#April 25th for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Rv a rather sweeping statement"

Hi Ian Rose -

I'm not sure what I'm about to write here will make any sense, but I just tried to do a undo on Buddhism with an "RV" statement and, instead, I found you did the undo with the "Edit Summary" of "Rv a rather sweeping statement". I'm not sure if you somehow intercepted my undo but, in case (beyond my understanding) you did, I just want to point out that if you look at each of the edits made by User:81.157.146.166, you'll see that each of them attempts to delete references to Buddhism or otherwise debase Buddhism. Thus, I was going to undo this user's changes and leave a relevent warning on his page.

Of course, if your statement "Rv a rather sweeping statement" was not directed toward me, feel free to ignore this. Sorry for my confusion. :-) Thanks for any feedback, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Golly -- I see now: totally my bad. I realize now that we were trying to revert the same thing and you just beat me to it. Kudos to you! Again, sorry for my vast confusion. Best wishes :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All understood and not a problem... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 13:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your kindness, understanding and goodness :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Monty Python

hey there, I've noticed you're a Python fan and have been working on some Python-related material here on Wiki. I thought I'd let you know that I have proposed a Wikiproject dedicated to Monty Python and would like you to show your interest. You can do that by adding your name under the interested user page on the proposal page. Fell free to leave comments there as well. Also I ask you to let any other users you know have been working on Python-related material about the proposal as well. I look forward to starting this project as soon as some interest shows itself. Ganfon 03:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Subterranean Homesick Blues

Ian, Thanks for your article cleanup. at first I was alarmed at the changes since they were in huge edits and took some sorting through, but after reviewing them I was really happy you put in the time!

What are your thoughts on editing by section or by type (references in one edit, spelling / grammar in another, etc)? I feel like this would simplify sorting through the changes. Again, thanks for your contributions! Datapharmer 18:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no prob. Heh, I tend to have a (polite) go at people who do a dozen little edits one after the other but there's a happy medium between that and everything in one go, I quite agree. Cheers, Ian Rose 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Aladdin Sane (song)

On 25 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aladdin Sane (song), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:10SQN.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:10SQN.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Re: Hunky Dory rating

In response to this message:

Those are reasonable arguments, but I think we should follow the current guideline until it is changed. I do think you should bring it up again, so that this issue can get the attention of other interested parties. I actually re-read the "Professional reviews" section before reverting, and I too noted that the use of a review interpretation was phrased as being optional, and was considering proposing that this be tightened to make the use of a review interpretation preferred over not using any review rating or review interpretation at all. That section of WP:ALBUM was recently rewritten (by me, see diff). The previous version did not make the use of a review interpretation optional ("...should be either a rating (e.g. 4/5) or the word favorable..."). I can attest that the change to make it seem more optional was unintentional (at least for me). The reason I used "you can use" was to allow the user to skip adding a review interpretation if doing so would be too difficult. I intended the same level of optionality as for using "link" instead of a date: "If you can not find the date of publication, the word link will suffice." The lack of formatting of a date is a problem, and I have considered bringing up the issue of standardizing (or standardising :-)) the formatting of dates for professional reviews, but I've been hoping the wiki software would eventually grow a feature to allow dates to be formatted according to user preferences without being linked. However, I fail to see how a date (even if it isn't formatted according to all users' preferences) would be worse than using the word "link". --PEJL 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have now proposed tightening the wording, see WT:ALBUM#Professional review wording. --PEJL 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bowie singles writer credits

Hi Ian - thanks for getting in touch - I'm brand new to this and was just making my first tentative steps. I didn't even realise changes were flagged with the page owner!

Still stumbling and learning, so apologies if this is not the accepted way to contact you...

Steve

Mate, you're doing fine, this is just the way to contact me. Couple of things, there are no page owners here, just editors - I've done a lot of the work on the Bowie articles so I keep a 'watch' on them (you can watch articles you're interested in as well, just toggle the 'watch/unwatch' tab at the top of the page, you can also set Preferences to automatically watch any page you edit, which is what I do). Also you can date and sign your posts by just typing four tildes (~) at the end. Pls feel free to ask me anything and happy editing...! Cheers, Ian Rose 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I'm leaving copies of this on my talk page and yours. Yours is automatically on my watchlist so if you reply there to keep the thread of a conversation going, I'll see it. IR

Non-free use disputed for Image:Bowie DriveInSaturday.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bowie DriveInSaturday.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale has since been added to the image in question. Cheers, Ian Rose 10:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

David Bowie/Venture Bros.

Hi. I do beg your pardon. I totally misread the context of the entry, which I took to be entries. Thanks for reverting my good faith. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a prob. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Smithshowsoonisnow.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Smithshowsoonisnow.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ho-hum... Another rationale added. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As per your edit on the Apollo conspircay page

Why should the refutation also be presented, that doesnt make any sense, what if there is no refutation at the moment. You are implying that unless the "theory" is shown to be inaccurate it may not be presented.Pubuman 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh... I can only assume you're referring to this edit. If you look again at the revert and the Edit Summary accompanying it, you might find that a) there was a refutation for that theory and b) I did not suggest that all theories require refutations but rather that both theories and refutations need to be sourced. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking

Hi. Please be aware that Shōko Nakagawa, one half of the "non-notable in Wiki terms" artists, is, it appears, in fact notable by Wiki standards. It was just linked wrongly, creating a redlink. However, I agree with your edit (as it was me who cited for fact in the first place, and because Katsuhiko was certainly not notable, except for appearing on this list). I tried and failed to find any internet reference to "Japanese Bowie" when I cited, so well done. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Ref - who am I to gainsay someone else's pedantry?! Cheers, Ian Rose 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:300_spartans.jpeg

I have tagged Image:300_spartans.jpeg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Graham Kennedy

Thanks for your corrections to the Graham Kennedy page -

Mike Hamilton 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ta, Mike - keep up your good work. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"$150,000 dollars"

Hi again,

Thanks for your note on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikeham#Graham_Kennedy:

Hi Mike, on 11th May I believe you added a quote from Blundell's book under Benefactors, mentioning "$150,000 dollars". Is this superfluity ("$" as well as "dollars") a typo or an exact quote - in which case we should add "(sic)" after it? Cheers, Ian Rose 01:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's my source: the quote is verbatim from the 2003 edition of Blundell's book (Chapter 28, "A Shining Parade", p. 423, line 3):

"... to tell Sattler that $150,000 dollars had been deposited [...]"

I agree with you that "dollars" is (although common usage) superfluous. However - to me, at least - "$150,000 dollars" reads more smoothly than "$150,000 dollars (sic)" would.

There may be something in the Wiki Manual of Style stuff about currency issues, but a (very brief) check found nothing.

I'll leave it to you - will not revert you if you add the "sic" -unless I change my mind :-)

Kennedy's finances at the end of his life aren't clear. In his last years it seems that (a) he should have been, at the very least, comfortably well off; (b) and yet Sattler and Brown apparently paid for at least some of his care; (c) Sam Chisholm made a $150,000 gift; (d) Kennedy assumed that the Packer family would "look after him"; and (e) his will left a "seven-figure sum" - so, at least a million - to the Sydney Central Mission.

Much of that seems confused and contradictory.

Of course, to be added to the Wiki page, anything on the above would have to (a) be notable and (b) have references.

Thanks again,

Mike Hamilton 12:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Edward III

Hi, thanks for the comment. I've had a look. Not sure what has happened to the references section; I didnt edit that or, at least, not intentionally. (I shall restore it in any case). As to information removed; I dont think I've removed anything of note. But if you disagree by all means do put back what you think is needed. Both this article and Edward II (especially that one) needed a lot of interesting but really rather superfluous material removing. (The articles would have lost the average reader). But one always cuts the odd bit or edits out something important when doing such an edit and if I have cut anything that needed to stay; I apologise. regards etc... Marcus22 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)