User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive05

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive05 (January-February 2008)

Reflist

"references/" vs "Reflist"

Sorry to bother you, but do you think you could point me at an explanation of the difference(s) between "references/" & "Reflist", and give me a brief summary of why you prefer the latter over the former? Thanks in anticipation of your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more condensed, and looks better in my opinion, so all articles should use that. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Most appreciated. (I can't understand why they have two "things" that do almost the same job.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist

It's more condensed, and looks better in my opinion, so all articles should use that. That's the only reason I can really give.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"references/" vs "Reflist"

{{helpme}} Sorry to bother you, (I tried searching, without success), but do you think you could point me at an explanation of the difference(s) between <references/> & {{Reflist}}? (Also, I don't understand why WP has two "things" that seem to do (almost) the same job.) Thanks in anticipation of your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, reflist is preferred. It is customisable, in for you can select the number of columns you want. I will go and see what I can find. Tiddly-Tom 09:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thing I can find is that reflist uses a smaller font, and so is useful with pages with lots of references. Hope this help, if you need more info, replace the helpme tag. Tiddly-Tom 09:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use <references /> when there are only say a handful of citations, then convert to {{reflist|2}} as the list becomes larger. The latter merely formats the former if you look at the code. Note that this isn't your only option; there are many other citation styles to choose from. –Pomte 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you use <ref> for notes, you must use either <references /> or {{reflist}} for the notes to display. References/ displays the notes in the same size font as the text; Reflist make the font smaller, and has an option for two columns. There is no specific guidance about which to use on Wikipedia. Gimmetrow 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: request

One of your edits turned all " " into " ". Can you point me at a description of "br" that will describe what the difference is? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's not really important. Both ways work in Mediawiki software. It's just isn't valid XHTML, which Wikipedia uses. is self-closing so it should have that extra "/". Personally, I think it makes the code neater because that extra space allows a break in the code itself, so it's not all on one line. The only reason I change it is because I use AWB which does it automatically. I wouldn't waste time doing it if it was the only change. IMO, it's not anything to pay attention to. Rocket000 (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could u fix Aretha Franklin ?

Certainly!

HI:

1) "Jewels In The Crown: All-Star Duets With The Queen" is on arista. So did aretha close/stop/shut down her Aretha records and return to arista ? She left Arista back in 03.

Have you had a look at Aretha Franklin discography? It simply says she's been with Arista since 1980. Similarly, the Aretha Franklin#Recent Years section (or Aretha Franklin#Recent years if someone has changed it back) is a "bit loose" too. Both need "tightening up. It looks like a bit of searching-for-the-facts is required.

2) Can u fix these: So Damn Happy goes 2 Loudon Wainwright III 's album. Could u make a page for aretha's album please. I cannot.

Done. (So Damn Happy (Aretha Franklin album))

3) Wonderful redirects to a disambig page. AF is listed ( 3d from bottome). Could u make a page for aretha's song?

I could, but I don't really understand why you can't. All you need to do is edit a page, type in something like [[Wonderful (Aretha Franklin song)]], click on the "show preview" button, and you should have a "red link" (like this: Wonderful (Aretha Franklin song)). Click on the red link, and lo-and-behold you'll have a new page to edit.

If that doesn't work, ask me and I'll do it for you.

4) I see her kids are briefly mentioned, what about her ex husbands. ThX. 70.108.96.29 (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much much gratitude.
I didnt know I may start pages. Will do from now on. But I may still seek your guidance so the articles I start arent deleted.
Mahalo.70.108.96.29 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites and Anastacia

Howdy!

a) What's the definition of "too many"?

b) I guess I'm an "inclusionist; I don't see any harm in having such a list on such a page. It's not going to mislead or divert any "normal" reader - they'll simply ignore it, and the sort of readers who want to read that sort of stuff would appreciate it being there.

Yes, I know "WP is not a link farm", but on-the-other-hand, WP is becoming the de-facto "one-stop-shop" for a useful filtered summary of what's on the web, (saving hours of sifting through Google pages of useless, irellevant, and/or duplicated information), and this list is saving the sort of reader who wants this sort of info a lot of messing around.

So I don't see the harm in leaving it there. Clearly, there's a significant body of people who would like the information to be there.

However, also clearly, you have a different POV. I'll be interested to read your opinion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally brought up the external links at Talk:Anastacia#Fansites. Listing one or two high-quality fansites is fine, but editors keep adding more, including sites which are closed, and non-English sites. WP:FANSITE discourages these. Gimmetrow 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But removing all of them seems, perhaps, an over-reaction? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: rm ws?

WS = white space. Groupthink (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Static

Thanks for help on the Wayne Static Page StereoDevil (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell T Davies

a) What's wrong with the flag icons?
- They go against the manual of style laid out at WP:FLAG, specifically Wikipedia:FLAG#Not for use in locations of birth and death: "The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is strongly deprecated"
b) It's not JUST his pen name
- My mistake
c) Yes, he's Welsh, but "Welsh Television Producer" implies he only produces "Welsh television", which is clearly not the case.
- No it doesn't. "[[Welsh people|Welsh]] television producer" implies that he is a Welsh person who produces television. "[[Welsh television]] producer" would have the effect you are thinking of. It is standard form to have "Subject of article (born on date) is a <nationality> <occupation>..." in the lead of biographical articles.

Brad (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

both sides

Thanks for going to the trouble of addressing my comments. Many wouldn't. Most appreciated.

a) What's wrong with the flag icons?
- They go against the manual of style laid out at WP:FLAG, specifically Wikipedia:FLAG#Not for use in locations of birth and death: "The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is strongly deprecated"

Fair enough.

b) It's not JUST his pen name
- My mistake

I'm glad there's at least one thing you agreed with ;-)

c) Yes, he's Welsh, but "Welsh Television Producer" implies he only produces "Welsh television", which is clearly not the case.
- No it doesn't. "[[Welsh people|Welsh]] television producer" implies that he is a Welsh person who produces television. "[[Welsh television]] producer" would have the effect you are thinking of.

Well yes, but ...
I should have been more precise and said, "it's ambiguous - it could be interpreted as television producer from Wales and/or producer of Welsh television.
I agree that when placed next to each other as in your explanation, the difference is more obvious, but when presented separately, it's not quite so obvious. (i.e. when viewed, the only difference is whether the word "television" is in blue or black font.)
I can live with what you've changed it back to, (but I still feel it's slightly ambiguous).

It is standard form to have "Subject of article (born on date) is a <nationality> <occupation>..." in the lead of biographical articles.

Fair enough.

Brad (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boas

Long time, no chat. Yes, the referendum was successful in terms of the public vote, but it failed at the House of Commons, so it may be misleading to describe it as successful. A reader may otherwise think that it was implemented. As this aspect is not particularly relevant to the article I took the word out. —Moondyne 15:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, my take on it is that we decided hang in the Federation a bit longer to give you guys a hand. You know you'd be lost without us. But seriously, its an issue that quietly bubbles along here not far beneath the surface and at least once every few years or so another movement or politician or newspaper winds a few people up and its back in the news for few days. Its been that way since 1933 I suspect. Anyway, cheers. —Moondyne 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

both sides

Long time, no chat. Yes, the referendum was successful in terms of the public vote, but it failed at the House of Commons, so it may be misleading to describe it as successful. A reader may otherwise think that it was implemented. As this aspect is not particularly relevant to the article I took the word out. —Moondyne 15:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! Long time no chat indeed!!
I gather WA is still there, despite secessionism/secessionists?

You're quite right in saying "this aspect is not particularly relevant to the article"; in fact, it was because the original said "during the debate prior to the 1933 secession" that I added the word "referendum", because I felt the original implied that a secession had occurred, and that this implication was creating a red herring.

But then I read that the 1933 referendum had been carried, and felt that I simply had to mention that!
I guess I got "carried away"!! (I just love the idea that 68% voted "Yes"!!!)

I digress.
Your edit is an improvement, and I agree with it / support it (or whatever it is I should be doing with it.)

Good to "hear" from you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, my take on it is that we decided hang in the Federation a bit longer to give you guys a hand. You know you'd be lost without us. But seriously, its an issue that quietly bubbles along here not far beneath the surface and at least once every few years or so another movement or politician or newspaper winds a few people up and its back in the news for few days. Its been that way since 1933 I suspect. Anyway, cheers. —Moondyne 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know you'd be lost without us. Indeed. Without you, Hunter Valley coal, Tasmanian woodchips and SA uranium, you'd be justified in wondering how Australia would manage. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aust Barnstar

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Australian articles Gnan garra 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between images

There isn't one! The difference is the file name. "OF-10" would be the NATO designation for a 5-star general, while "O-10" is the correct U.S. designation for a full general. It seemed important to me to get it right, otherwise other Wiki projects might get confused and put it in the wrong place. -- I. Pankonin Review me! 23:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gwen_Gale

I made the acquaintance of this gracious lady on the fondue page. Delightful sense of humour and quite knowledgeable about fondue<g>. Happy New Years! jmcw (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Air Disaster

Hi, Pdfpdf. No idea, mate. I didn't make any edits to that part of the text. I've encountered this sort of thing previously, and I've looked and looked but found no changes whatsoever. I assume it's some sort of software glitch. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Hi!

Yes i did read your comment but didn't respond to it. Remember people can make mistakes. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, as you probably know teenagers can be quite quick on the gun. Ether way i am sorry for any inconvenience Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think that your attacking me. Please don't. I'm in no mood to begin a war with anyone. May I ask a favor. begining the moment you read this post please forget the past. If you still have problems with what I am doing from now on please point it out but in a nicer tone than before. I'm not interested making enemies, just friends. :) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the Will you be next like you asked :) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much :) Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Douglas Allen

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of William Douglas Allen, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/biogs/P001585b.htm. This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page.

I'm not sure if this is what you're after, but this is a quick note to tell you that while I was developing the article, it did contain some blocks of text that I was using as reference material, and your bot spotted a chunk (within 1 minute of me hitting the save button!!). But I have now further developed the article and removed those blocks of text, and removed the tag left by the bot. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alfred College

Hi Pdfpdf, I removed that sentence because I felt it limited the heading 'Academia' to Professors only, when im sure there are notable ex-students not yet listed that are not Professors, but would fit best under this category (e.g. Headmasters of notable schools). I have added "Professor at" or "Professor of" to each of the people listed. The statement "The Director of Rowing is colloquially known as "The Rangga"." should definately not be included.. I missed that one! Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. I think with a bit of work it could be great. Loopla (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes inside quotes?

Three questions: Your bot changed "U.K." to "UK"

I was wondering why? (i.e. What's wrong with U.K.?)
Of more interest to me: In this case, the "U.K." was inside a piece of quoted text, and hence, presumably, should have been left alone? (i.e. What's your POV for this sort of circumstance?)
What about text inside ?

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:00, 2 F

Hi PDF, yes I probably should have left stuff inside quoted text alone. Could you tell me what article the bot edited so I can add it to my exception list? I added the U.K.→UK rule to my bot after this exchange with another user. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, it's not simple to handle the general case, it really isn't. However, I have made some modifications to the bot that should cover some of the common cases. The bot now ignores

Text inside a <blockquote> tag
Text inside one of the 25 or so templates used explicitly for quoting (eg Template:cquote)
Plain text with no wiki markup inside double quotes.

Running this over a couple of thousand articles from a database dump, I see that the bot now ignores a few quoted corrections that it should have before, but also incorrectly misses a few things that it should have corrected. I can live with that tradeoff for now--it's not like wikipedia lacks for things that need to be corrected. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda (song)

Yeah, I made an edit before but I forgot to log in. So I just re-did it under my name after I logged in. Baycore (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aretha/Quasimodobell

Hi. (Aretha's page seems to be getting a lot of attention this week!)

You reverted an edit and said: "inappropriate EL". I'm guessing EL means External Link(?) What's inappropriate about that EL? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I screwed up. When I looked at the link, it looked like a sales site (which are inappropriate ... I nuke links to Amazon pretty frequently). However, I see that the page really is a discography, and that the site lists albums and releases that it doesn't sell through Amazon. If you add it back, I won't kill it again.Kww (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aretha/spaces

Hello. Sorry, my bad. The space should be there. :) - Darwinek (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing between list items

Following on from your answer on User talk:Dicklyon#Spacing between list items, I'm obviously missing something. (Probably a number of things!)
I interpret your code illustration as saying: "No blank lines produces one list with many items, whereas interleved blank lines produces many lists, each of one item." Is that the intention of the illustration? If so, no problem yet.

Exactly :) And that's what I mean by 'render properly' (I'm possibly using the wrong term, with "render"). See the intro at Semantic Web for possible clarification. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you're also saying: "They're all part of the same unordered list, and should be next to one another in order to render properly." That one I don't follow - Why should they "be next to one another in order to render properly."? (I know "appearances can be deceptive", but I can't distinguish any difference in the rendering. i.e. to me, they both seem to be rendering properly.)
So, what is it that I am missing? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a different tack, my POV is that computers are here to make life easier for people. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that people need to modify their behaviour and inconvenience themselves in order to make things easier for computers. Or is it a case of, again, I'm missing something? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's partially a part of developing Best Coding Practices, not really a requirement. Slightly more important than (because it has an actual effect), but sort of analogous to using instead of (one is xhtml, the other html).

Similarly, putting 2 spaces after a fullstop is not a good practice, because it doesn't have any actual effect. (Aside, see an interesting (to html-geeks) last paragraph at kottke)

Or, putting 2 linebreaks between paragraphs might be clearer to some people (or using doublespacing throughout), but we can't because it effects the rendered layout.

I'm not sure about this last one, but putting linebreaks between list items might also have a drastic effect on how screen readers interpret-and-hence-read the text back to blind users.

Hope some of that helps. I'm just an amateur with regards to web accessibility, so take with a small pinch of salt ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure I entirely agree with you, but at least I now understand you! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - (From User talk:MickMacNee)

Gotta run, so just a quick note to say thanks for your interjection - it helped!! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n.p. MickMacNee (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning - (From User talk:MickMacNee)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Geordie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. , what you don't seem to understand is to use the talk page and you can't accuse me of being a sock as an excuse to revert, and "you believing you are right" does not excuse you from 3rr. 86.148.189.190 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, unbelievable. You have to laugh sometimes I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock, and the version will be left at the sysop version until concensus is done on the talkpage, the references are invalid because there is no definition for the term itself therefore you can't define who is a geordie, Gregs the baker is pretty ignorant and so are you. 86.148.189.190 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets better... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just wow isn't it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to revert any further, you can re-revert back to your "right" version, but then you face 3RR, you are gregs the baker don't seem to understand just because you think you are "right" you can win an edit war, all this was explained on greg's talk page by the blocking admin. 86.148.189.190 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't think we are right, we are editing as per wikipedia policies. I would point them out to you, and the reasons why you are wrong, but as you and I know, that has already been done time and again. Only one person here is unable to build a consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about ZogontheTyne. I've been speechless and astounded since tracking down what he has been up to, (as my dearly departed mum would say, "bless his little cotton socks"), and I've only just gotten to the point where you were 3 hours ago. Yes, wow. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts vis Betacommandbot (From User talk:MickMacNee)

I just wanted to say thanks for your efforts re the ridiculous betacommandbot. I am now one of those relatively infrequent editors who won't bother uploading images because of him/her/it?. I also suspect that after I complained once, the bot must have then trawled all my previous uploads and tagged most. I uploaded the self made versions of Australian Army World War Two colour patches (logos) in the Australian Commandos article. This is how Australians identify with the individual units and is really an essential part of the article. Now they will all dissappear on 19 Feb according to "it". Anyway keep up the fight and thanks again. Krait (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks!. If they are self made though, i.e. you made them in paint?, then you can release them as own work public domain I think. If not, let me know where you uploaded them from and I'll do the tags for you, they improve the article, it isnt that hard when you know what's required (I've ended up learning during the fight lol). My issue is not the tagging or the policy (although it's a nightmare to understand, it's the sheer tidal wave way the bot is being operating, I don't think it's intelligent to be able to target all your uploads, I think it's just the sheer number of the last run (>15,000tags) probably caught them all. It's also not fair that so many previously acceptable images are being tagged because the policy changed. MickMacNee (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add my thanks. I don't upload images, but I've seen the destruction and irritation this bot has caused in the last few days alone. Enigma (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to give up, common sense will never prevail. Editors have pleaded with Betacommand to make his bot follow the redirect when someone has simply moved the page (without changing the precise pagename in every fair-use rationale on the article) but nothing changes. Some people are committed deletionists and the bot gives them a great big list of images to delete every time it does a run of 15k+. English peasant 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed editing (From Talk:Geordie)

Let's put this right.

1) Gregs the baker makes the claims that a number of people from the region of North East England are geordies, with references, however what he fails to understand is that these "references" are not valid or accurate because they are from tabloid newspapers and there has been a mis-understanding by the creators who presume a geordie is from northeast england "which is wrong".

2) Many of these people claimed as "notable geordies" are from the wearside region, which is covered by a dialect and term named "mackem" and hence they have found their way into this article because of a mis-understanding. The mackem dialect is not always reconised, hence forth people mistake them for "geordies", hence sources like this and what has happened here.

3) since a mackem is a completely different thing and has been mistook on this article, the Ip wishes to remove these "mackems" or "wearsiders" because it is causing confusion. Yet Gregs the baker refuses to listen.

thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zogonthetyne (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your definitions of a geordie and a mackem are WP:POV. The sources stand, unless you provide an official definition of a geordie (there isn't one, that is the whole point, these are not just 'mistakes, it is normal evolution of language), or a source from the person themselves disclaiming their geordieness. Other than that, I don't understand why you needed 3 bullet points to say the same thing. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Heh, heh, heh, there is no official documentation as to what a Geordie is, and PS read Jack Commons quote. Also read all the references in the document.

Heh, heh, heh. --Gregs the baker (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pathetic response, since there is no definition of a geordie, you can't accuse people of being them. You've just proved the references are invalid. Zogonthetyne (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

? It's not an accusation, it's reporting a source. As I say, feel free to add sources disclaiming it, otherwise you are just POV pushing. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are not POV, I am stating basic facts. I think we should come to the concensus that geordie is a misunderstood term, hence why the sources are invalid. Due to this point and due to being no actually definition we can't really point out who is a geordie and who isn't, etc we might not know these people, and hence they might just not speak the dialect, they might speak standard english, it can't be decided unless we met them, not with rubbish news sources which just take anyone from North East England as a geordie, I say to get rid of the section to prevent confusion, the same on Mackem. Zogonthetyne (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments from a confused bystander

This section starts with Zogonthetyne putting up three numbered paragraphs. In the first I read these "references" are not valid or accurate because they are from tabloid newspapers. I have a number of problems with that.
- Why are they "references"? (As distinct from references.) Independent of its quality, reliability, source, or anything else for that matter, a reference is a reference.
- I do not understand how a reference can not be valid. It might be irrelevant. It might reference false information. But a reference is a reference. I suppose it could be "not valid" if it referenced something that did not exist, but that is not the case here. So how can a reference be "not valid"?
- "not accurate". OK, a reference can be not accurate. But I read not ... accurate because they are from tabloid newspapers, and that doesn't follow at all! Yes, there is a lot of rubbish in tabloids, but not everything in tabloids is "not accurate"; such a statement is an inaccurate and unreliable generalisation.
- Then we have the statement there has been a mis-understanding by the creators who presume a geordie is from northeast england "which is wrong". If a geordie doesn't come from northeast england, which quadrant of england do they come from? I assume Zogonthetyne means something like: there has been a mis-understanding by the creators who presume a geordie is anyone who comes from any part of northeast england "which is wrong"? In any case, the statement is not backed up with any supporting argument or supporting evidence, so as it is, its simply a statement of POV.
In the second numbered paragraph, again we have a statement of POV.
Similarly the third numbered paragraph.
These are followed by a bullet from MickMacNee saying (in my POV) "Your statements are POV. You need to provide supporting evidence".
This is followed by a non-helpful statement from Gregs the baker.
Zogonthetyne responds That is a pathetic response. Although I'm inclined to agree, obviously both the response and my inclination are POV, and neither are helpful. Then follows the statement You've just proved the references are invalid. Well, I've already stated my opinion on whether references can be invalid, and, as-far-as-I-can-tell, nobody has proven anything yet.
This is followed by a bullet from MickMacNee repeating his earlier bullet. i.e. "Your statements are POV. You need to provide supporting evidence".
Zogonthetyne responds "My edits are not POV, I am stating basic facts."

Well Zogonthetyne, I don't know about your edits and hence can't comment on your edits, (all I've noticed is that you are reverting other people's edits), but your statements sound very much like POV to me.
Could I impose upon you to clarify for me which are the basic facts that you are stating, and why they are facts and not opinion? I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by your line of reasoning, and would appreciate you clarifying it for me. Thank you in anticipation, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, sorry to say this after that large summary, but ZogontheTyne is banned indefinitely [2] so you might have a wait on your hands. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra International Airport (from User talk:Johnsp1)

OK. If you insist. I won't revert it again in the near future. But I do wonder what is the point of creating this red link? Are you planning to create the article? If so, when, and why not create that link AFTER you've created the article? If not, why are you creating this red link? I'll be interested to read your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over-eager archiving (From User talk:BetacommandBot)

It is less than 24 hours since the last posting to both of the next two items.

Why were they archived? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has my question already been answered? (From User talk:BetacommandBot)

I'm very sorry that I'm not a robot and have to do things "manually", but I'm not about to spend hours looking through 21 archive files to see if someone might have previously asked the question I would like to ask. Have you given any thought to providing a method by which users may quickly and easily determine if their question has previously been answered? Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of common responses are in the big grey box at the top. Might be of some help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It is point #3 in this big grey box that is saying:

Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint. It is likely someone has already registered a similar complaint, and that complaint will have been given an answer.

I sincerely doubt that 21 archive files have been condensed into 17 numbered paragraphs.

So thanks for your reply, but my question remains unanswered. Viz:

Has anyone given any thought to providing a method by which users may quickly and easily determine if their question has previously been answered? Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct image on the right page for the right reason, but rationale has shortcomings ... (From User talk:BetacommandBot)

I'm not sure how much of this is a "bot" issue, and how much is an "image" issue, so I'm posting this question in both places.
If I understand the policies, guidelines, etc. correctly, the appearance of the company's logo on the WP page about the company, the album cover on the WP page about the album, and the school's logo on the WP page about the school are all "correct" usages.
However, I frequently see BetacommandBot "Fair use rationale" messages complaining about the inadequacy of the rationale.
Two questions:

Given that these are "correct" usages, why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
Given that these are "correct" usages, why is a generic rationale not acceptable?

Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo template ({{Non-free logo}} specifically states [emphasis in original] [emphasis added]:

“

This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded.

”

The album cover template ({{Non-free album cover}}) specifically states [emphasis in original] [emphasis in original] [emphasis added]:

“

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

”

WP:NFCC explains the basic reasoning and lays out the very restrictive circumstances in which fair-use images should be employed. WP:FURG#Necessary components lays out the minimal requirements for a valid fair use rationale. Vassyana (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I've read all that stuff before, and I believe I understand it. However, you haven't addressed my questions, viz:

Given that these are "correct" usages, why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
Given that these are "correct" usages, why is a generic rationale not acceptable?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed unique rationale for each use is required by the policy, for the reasons stated in the policy (and because a Foundation-level policy requires it). Bear in mind the usage is not "correct" if not accompanied by an appropriate rationale. Vassyana (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of the fallacy that the bot enforces correct anything. All you need to do to not be tagged by the bot is state each article name in an otherwise gibberish piece of text. Seriously, we are not talking about a sophisticated piece of A.I. here, it is one persons attempt at coding a super tagging machine, it enforces nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a detailed rationale is required, I'm not questioning that. I am asking:

(Given that these are "correct" usages), why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
(Given that these are "correct" usages), why is a generic rationale (with gaps for required specific information) not acceptable? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand your questions, the answers are provided above. Could you perhaps rephrase the questions or better explain what you are asking? Vassyana (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but gotta go right now. Will respond later Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that took longer than I expected. Sorry for the delay

As I said, I also posted this question on Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk. Their response answered my question. I am reproducing it here for the future benefit of those searching the archives.

Also, in an interesting coincidence, the very next question originally appearing after mine happens to be on exactly the same topic! I'm reproducing that here too.

So, merging MickMacNee, Masem, Adammckenzie101 and β^_command, it seems MickMacNee has the most concise summary of the situation:

"All you need to do to not be tagged by the bot is state each article name".

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk

The use of images as you describe are acceptable uses, but a correct rationale - in the sense that a machine can understand what the rationale is applying to - still must be provided per the Foundation requirements, it's just very unlikely that the non-machine readible sections of the rationale will be challenged. --MASEM 16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in general, it doesn't matter if the rationale is imperfect; the bot messages are complaining about the machine-readable bits of the rationale that are not conforming to its requirements/expectations. Is that correct? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the bot can understand some parts of the rationale and make sure it's compliant, but other parts (the validity of the claims of fair use, no free counterpart, etc.) will have to be judged by a human. --MASEM 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Your answers have been very helpful. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacker Gachet image Help!

I would be grateful if you would tell me what exactly is insufficient regarding the rationale I have left for the use of this image. This is what I included on the image page:

Fair use rationale

The image is a low resolution copy of the original work, and of such low quality that it will not affect potential sales of the art work.
Inclusion of the image is for information, education and analysis only.
The text discussing the significance of this art work, or referencing it as a key example of the artists work, is enhanced by inclusion of the image.
There is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement image available.

With many thanks for your help. --Adammckenzie101 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you forgot to state which article that the rationale is for. β^_command 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all involved. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding obvious FURs... (From User talk:Redvers)

...are you making a point and aren't up to scratch. Please reconsider disrupting BCBot's activities as you are just disrupting Wikipedia. These images are now going to get tagged manually, which is just wasting everybody's time. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it's pretty obvious I'm trying to make a point.

However, it is not my intention (or desire) to disrupt BCBot's activities.
Unfortunately for me, it would seem I don't understand the process, and/or the requirements of the process, well enough to satisfy the requirements of the process.

Also, I don't understand about half of your message.
...are you making a point and aren't up to scratch. - Do you mean that I'm not up to scratch? Well, that may be the case, but it's rather rude of you to say so. I'm sure you could have worded it more politely.
These images are now going to get tagged manually. - I have no idea what that means, and more importantly, I have no idea what I have to do about it.

If you do your homework, you will see that in my history of over 3,000 edits there is NO vandalism, and NO disruption. You will, in fact, see a long history of reversing the effects of vandalism and disruption, and politely asking people to explain to me things I don't understand.

So, rather than telling me I've been a naughty boy, why don't you explain to me what's inadequate about what I've done?

My understanding is that I need to say why it is OK for those images to appear on those pages. Is that correct?
Well, I believe I've done that.

My understanding is that the FUR required in these two circumstances is, I believe, to state that this is fair use because the image is promotional material for the page that the image is appearing on:

Is that correct?
Isn't that what I did?

Or is this a case of I've done what's necessary, but you don't like the way that I did it?

As I've said, I really don't understand the requirements well enough, and I am politely asking you to help me understand those bits of the requirements that I have not fulfilled.
And also, These images are now going to get tagged manually. - I have no idea what that means, and more importantly, I have no idea what I have to do about it.

I would appreciate your help. Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting your reply, but it's bed-time here, so I thought I should advise you that I may not be able to respond for 18+ hours. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale

I'm afraid there's now another thing I don't understand.
You've posted that you dispute the rationale, but what you've posted says:

This image or media has a non-free use rationale that is disputed. Unless concern is addressed ...

However, I can't find any description of what the concern is.
Can you tell me where to find the concern so I know what it is I have to address?
Or am I missing something?
Clearly, I need some help here please. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. What interesting posts from you. I'll have to think on for a while. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These images are now going to get tagged manually. - OK, I now know what that means.

But I'm still not very sure of what I have to do about it, particularly as I haven't located the description of the concern that needs to be addressed. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting

Can you give me some indication of when you might respond?

(Again, it's past midnight here, and I will be away for the next 18+ hours.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another 24 hours pass ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Bleeding obvious FURs... ...are you making a point and aren't up to scratch. Reads as one sentence (so the subject of the sentence is "FURs" not "you").

These images are now going to get tagged manually. Removing BCB's tags and using inserting a sentence designed to avoid the bot's detection routines doesn't work; the bot is not the only thing that patrols non-free images on Wikipedia and the tags can be added manually by anyone.

If you do your homework, you will see... Homework was done. This piece of user page vandalism by you and this one led me to this edit which led me to checking your image contributions here which led to me finding this and this bit of pointery: despite all the easy-to-find advice given on how to do a FUR, you wrote a sentence specifically designed to be ignored by the bot but not provide the information.

My understanding is that the FUR required in these two circumstances is... lacking or incomplete. If you use the template at Template:Non-free image rationale (which also needs Template:Non-free image data, but both are explained in plain language on the former's page) then you will get everything that is needed.

Can you give me some indication of when you might respond? Not when I'm not online, no. Powers of telepathic communication are only given out to every third administrator.

And another 24 hours pass ... ...with no edits by me (see Special:Contributions/Redvers). I can't reply whilst not I'm online. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 14:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith?

Dear me. Whatever happened to assume good faith? You appear to have taken the most negative view of the situation possible. I thought WP administrators were supposed to be above such things. No matter; I can learn to live with it - I'll just have to become less trusting.

Reads as one sentence (so the subject of the sentence is "FURs" not "you"). - Good. Yes, if you read it all as one sentence, it does make more sense, and it isn't offensive. (I guess I wasn't AGF; my apology.)

Removing BCB's tags and using inserting a sentence designed to avoid the bot's detection routines - That's one (very negative) way to interpret what happened. Another way is to look at my actual motivation, which was to supply a FUR that would satisfy all requirements, including those of the bot.

Homework was done. - Again, a very negative interpretation of the circumstances.
The order in which you present the events is not the order in which they occurred, and you are drawing (negative) relationships between events that are either not related, or are related in a different way from the way you have deduced/assumed.
In what way is it vandalism to re-revert an edit which has been reverted without explanation, and put in the edit comment: (Could you please explain why you have reverted this posting? It doesn't look like vandalism to me, but if you think it is, could you please explain why you think this? Thanks.)?
Clearly, your definition of vandalism is different from mine, and from my understanding of WP's definition.
However, you are the administrator, and I'm assuming your knowledge is superior to mine, (I'd be rather foolish to persist with asking you questions if I didn't think you could answer them), so I will bow to your superior knowledge.
I would, however, like to understand in what way the re-reversion and request for explanation is vandalism.

you wrote a sentence specifically designed to be ignored by the bot but not provide the information.
As explained above, I did nothing of the sort. You may chose to (negatively) categorise it that way if you feel you need to, but please be aware that is simply your (negative) point-of-view, and as I have previously stated, neither my intention, nor my desire. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FUR requirements

Now we get to the point that I really want you to discuss with me. Unfortunately, you have chosen to focus on other matters, and not put much effort into answering my question and addressing my declared inadequate knowledge. Hence, I will ask my questions again.

To "My understanding is that the FUR required in these two circumstances is...", you responded lacking or incomplete.
I don't find that a useful response. Presumably one of the two major reasons why this conversation is occuring is because the original was lacking or incomplete, and my attempt was lacking or incomplete. I don't think that is in dispute(?)
I have asked: What is it lacking, and how is it incomplete?
Whilst your response is completely accurate, it is not answering my questions.

As I said before:

So, rather than telling me I've been a naughty boy, why don't you explain to me what's inadequate about what I've done?

My understanding is that I need to say why it is OK for those images to appear on those pages. Is that correct?

Well, I believe I've done that.

My understanding is that the FUR required in these two circumstances is, I believe, to state that this is fair use because the image is promotional material for the page that the image is appearing on:

Is that correct?
Isn't that what I did?

Or is this a case of I've done what's necessary, but you don't like the way that I did it?

As I've said, I really don't understand the requirements well enough, and I am politely asking you to help me understand those bits of the requirements that I have not fulfilled.

I would appreciate your help. Thanks in advance. (11:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm looking forward to your helpful and useful response.
If you don't want to give one, just say so, and we'll stop wasting each other's time. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The order in which you present the events is not the order in which they occurred No, but it is the order that I discovered your edits to image pages.

In what way is it vandalism to re-revert an edit which has been reverted without explanation Well, actually, that would be edit warring; but I didn't notice you'd been doing that. I noticed that, having not got a response to your (continuing) harassment of Betacommand, you started posting stuff to his user page rather than his talk page. Great way of getting attention, but vandalism and harassment nonetheless. You give the impression of being impatient. Since Wikipedia has no deadline, perhaps you might consider a deep breath now and again.

Is that correct? Nice framing of the question, but I can confidently say no. You've aimed for the bare minimum possible and slightly undershot. We need to know a set of things; these are explained on Template:Non-free image rationale (plus the twin template, as previously explained) but if you don't want to use the templates, you can always provide the information required.

Isn't that what I did? No. You wrote a barbed sentence that the bot would not follow-up. You neglected to note that a human might follow it up, to much the same effect.

Or is this a case of I've done what's necessary, but you don't like the way that I did it? No, and yes.

I have asked: What is it lacking, and how is it incomplete? Template:Non-free image rationale explains. If you want me to hold your hand through every step of that template then, with respect, you're not ready to be writing non-free media rationales and should consider refraining from doing so in future. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue

You really don't get it, do you. You seem incapable of distinguishing between POV and fact.
I said: I'm looking forward to your helpful and useful response. If you don't want to give one, just say so.
Your response was neither helpful, nor useful. You are wasting my time.
Goodbye. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Toothless Tiger" warnings (From User talk:Nlu)

You placed the following on User talk:81.145.242.67:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Audrey Hepburn, you will be blocked from editing. --Nlu (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

However, this user continues to vandalise, and has not been blocked.
What is the point of placing such warnings if you have no intention of following them through? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't monitor every vandal every day. --Nlu (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, as you noted, the edit that the person made this time is of very poor quality -- but after looking at it, I see no vandalistic intent. Bad writing is not the same as vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of your statements, but neither of them address or answer my question:

"What is the point of placing such warnings if you have no intention of following them through?" Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I block properly warned vandals when I see the vandalism, so it's not true that there are no intentions of following them through. --Nlu (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. So it's a bit difficult then, isn't it.

The problem is, this guy has a page full of warnings and threats (not just from you), none of which have been followed through on. Not surprisingly, he continues to be a nuisance because his experience is that the words on his talk page are just that - words.
Despite all the words, there's no action, and hence he sees no negative consequences from his negative actions, and so continues them.
I think you think I'm having a go at you personally - that's not my intention. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd worded my question more generally. e.g.: "What is the point of such warnings if it is obvious to the nuisance that there is no intention by anyone of following them through?"

So, how do we stop this nuisance wasting our time? (Clearly, threatening him with words alone is wasting our time, and having no effect on his behaviour.) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, continuing to monitor is what we can do. Wikipedia's blocking policy does not allow blocking IPs indefinitely unless they are open proxies, so that's out of the question. --Nlu (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm again. That doesn't sound very effective to me, and it certainly doesn't sound very efficient either. Is that the only option available to the part of the WP community that's being inconvenienced? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, timed block is the main tool to stop vandalism from IPs that won't heed warnings -- but in this case, this IP did heed warnings, and so a block is really unwarranted without further vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, your statement is incorrect.
I've just had a look, and every edit done by this IP since November is either blatant vandalism, or subtle vandalism made to look like poor quality editing!
The fact that amazes me is that two of the vandal edits are still there, but nobody has noticed!!!
Here's a list of all of his edits since November. They're all vandalism. He hasn't heeded any warnings:

26Nov2007 Brian Harvey (reverted and warned)- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Harvey&diff=prev&oldid=173880716
29Dec2007 Audrey Hepburn (reverted and warned) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audrey_Hepburn&diff=prev&oldid=180784046
1Jan2007 Eidagale (still there) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eidagale&diff=next&oldid=165618739
15Jan2008 Widnes-Runcorn Transporter Bridge (reverted and warned) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Widnes-Runcorn_Transporter_Bridge&diff=prev&oldid=184317649
4Feb2008 History of Wales (still there) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=188814562
17Feb2008 Vice Admiral (reverted and warned) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vice_Admiral&diff=prev&oldid=191848839

I really do think it's time to do something. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him on December 29, and it is my opinion that the post-December 29 edits are not vandalism. They're poorly written, yes, but that's not the same as vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, he vandalized today -- and was immediately blocked by another admin for a week. --Nlu (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sadly. Again, you have your facts wrong.

You warned him 29Dec2007
He vandalised on 1 Jan2008
He made a nuisance of himself on 15Jan2008
He vandalised on 4Feb2008
He made a nuisance of himself on 17Feb2008
23 hours later he did two almost-useful edits that were not vandalism.
I drew the vandalism to the attention of the two other people who had posted to his page
One of those is an admin - he blocked the IP

So:

There are two post-29Dec edits that most definitely are vandalism. (In fact, the vandalism is still there, 6 weeks after it occurred!)
He did not "vandalize today".
He was not "immediately blocked by another admin": the situation was brought to the admin's attention; the admin investigated it; the admin blocked the IP.

Changing the subject:
I've been re-reading this conversation; I'm rather puzzled by your behaviour.
You may, or may not, find the following useful. When reading it, keep in mind that I have no vested interest in your behaviour one way or the other, and I'm writing it because I hope you will find it useful, because if you do, wikipedia will be a better place.

You're an admin; you placed a stern warning on a user's page saying: "the next time you vandalise, you will be blocked"; however, you didn't keep an eye on that user.
The user vandalised again 3 days later, you didn't notice; the user saw that he can freely vandalise and not get blocked.
He vandalised again a month later; again you didn't notice; again the user saw that he can freely vandalise and not get blocked.
I drew this to your attention; I asked you, "What's the point of making threats if you have no intention of carrying them out?"
Your response was to start making excuses for having done nothing, and to continue to do nothing.
Again, the user saw that he can freely vandalise and not get blocked.

You say: "I block properly warned vandals when I see the vandalism".

Well, you're never going to see it if you don't look. And you're never going to see it if you ignore it when it's brought to your attention.

I hope you found that useful. Good luck and best wishes. I wouldn't want the job of admin because by accepting it, you accept a pile of responsibilities; you are no longer responsible for just your own actions, you have accepted the mutual responsibility for upholding the role and credibility of all admins.

As I said, Good luck and best wishes. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:81.145.242.67

User talk:81.145.242.67 (From User talk:Rodhullandemu)

81.145.242.67 is at it again; you may be interested to read User talk:Nlu#"Toothless Tiger" warnings Pdfpdf (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. For the first time in at least 3 months he's just done two useful edits:

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Now, perhaps, I should get on with my life. (Or failing that, get some sleep.)

Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:81.145.242.67 (From my talk page)

Thanks for letting me know about this. He appears to have a fixed IP address (WHOIS says it's an ADSL connection, which are usually static) and the pattern of edits switches between vandalism ("poo", "penis biggus" etc.) and unhelpful (i.e. at best unsourced, at worst nonsense). He's had enough warnings but doesn't appear to edit every day. Accordingly, I'm going to block him for a week and see if that concentrates his mind a little. However, I will mention this on WP:ANI just to make sure I'm not out of line here, but I think we could do with a rest from the unhelpful edits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the mis-spelling of "vengeance", looks helpful, but he is now blocked anyway. He can appeal in the usual way, but the matter is now on WP:ANI for review. Even if it's overturned, it might get the message across that we don't put up with this sort of nonsense. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

69.139.68.133

Advice please (From User talk:Rodhullandemu)

The order of release of Heart (band)'s first four albums is open to interpretation, and, this being WP, two "camps" have formed supporting different interpretations. One camp is making changes, and explaining their rationale. The other camp is reverting those changes, without explanation.
The situation has degenerated into silliness. Example (from Dreamboat Annie):

20:21, 19 February 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,009 bytes) (Why won't you explain yourself?) (undo)

03:34, 19 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (4,987 bytes) (undo)

22:36, 18 February 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,009 bytes) (We can play this silly game until one of us gets bored or annoyed. OR, you can explain on the talk page why you don't agree with me. Who knows, I might agree with you.) (undo)

09:54, 18 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (4,987 bytes) (undo)

21:28, 17 February 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,009 bytes) (rv vandalism - Nothing has changed since 8 February. You were wrong then, and you're still wrong now. If you don't agree, discuss it on the talk page. Repeated vandalism won't solve the problem.) (undo)

20:01, 17 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (4,987 bytes) (undo)

20:01, 17 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (5,008 bytes) (undo)

19:55, 8 February 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,003 bytes) (The initial release of Magazine was before Little Queen.) (undo)

09:23, 8 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (4,981 bytes) (undo)

I'm not achieving anything; the "sensible" thing for me to do would be to just walk away - after all, who cares?

What's your advice? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep bothering you ...

FYI - Magazine was released twice; first time in 1977 (before Little Queen), then Heart got an injunction, bits were re-recorded, then it was released again in 1978 (after Little Queen). Perhaps it should be called "Magazine 1977" and "Magazine 1978", and release order should be "Dreamboat Annie", "Magazine 1977", Little Queen", "Magazine 1978", "Dog and Butterfly".

I started writing that with tongue-in-cheek, but now I'm thinking the idea it has merit! That's a worry - I think I'm getting obsessed by this. Yes, it is time to walk away.

Many thanks for your help and advice. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody good idea! Are you going to join me? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but I will join you in spirit later - OK. Make sure it's a single malt.

It's midnight here; now that I've finished that beer, I'm off to bed - It's a hot night, currently 80F / 25C. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart (band) (From my talk page)

Hi, I've just taken a quick look at this, and checked at Allmusic.com. They have the release order as "Dreamboat Annie", "Little Queen", "Magazine", then "Dog & Butterfly". It's the middle two that seem to be causing the problems, and I can see why. As I understand it, the norm (although it's not policy) is to describe albums in release order- see The Beatles' "Abbey Road" & "Let it Be", for example, when AR was released before LIB but recorded afterwards. So as a convention, we should follow the Allmusic example (unless there's a better source), but have some mention to the timing issues (as indeed, we do). Meanwhile, the IP's lack of edit summaries are unhelpful, and I will leave advice on it's talk page, and monitor the situation. However, edit summaries are not compulsory, just part of WP:CIVIL, and I don't see anything blockable; IP also seems to understand WP:3RR so that's not an option. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I will keep an eye on this. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to crack a tinnie? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a bit early in the day for me (lunchtime), but I will join you in spirit later. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The edit comments are a bit snarky but at least you now know where he's coming from. Strictly, removing warnings from the Talk Page is vandalism but I don't feel it's useful to crank up the warnometer just yet. My view may change if things heat up, but I am keeping an eye on this. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blanking his talk page again, and I see he's been blocked before. Therefore, he's now blocked for 55 hours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. He used to have an account and blocked warnings from that talk page as well. He then switched to using the anon IP to avoid scrutiny. I've now indef blocked both accounts on the basis that his edits are, in total, disruptive, and for sockpuppetry. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. However, he only uses the one IP that I can see, and I have blocked account creation, so his only hope is to persuade someone to unblock on his talk page or email another admin or the ArbCom. I think we can do without people who show this kind of single-minded arrogance. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Static

wikipedia can't be used as a source - Why not? (i.e. Can you point me at the relevant WP explanation page please?) Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a good place to start off. The Prince (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TLA question

Well done for asking for clarification - I was similarly mystified! PamD (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference in edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shout%21_Factory&diff=192501508&oldid=192501495

I can't spot the difference. Is there a difference? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode v. ASCII I used the typical straight quotes that are found on the keyboard instead of the curly quotes. If you use a different font or make the type face's size really big, you can tell the difference. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting me out of my misery. How on earth did you notice the difference in the first place? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle eyes I don't know; I am just always on the lookout for curly quotes, I suppose. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart (band)

Archived.

Cecil Rhodes

Thanks for generous comments about the article Contaldo80 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you!

That's really nice! I've always wanted an award. Have a nice day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Officer

This is just to acknowledge your message on my talk page and to thank you for the time to explain this. I responded on the General Officer Talk page as well. Althena (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

Thanks for your support, but as they say on those TV shows about lawyers & courts, I now have "reasonable doubt". I'm not convinced yet, but have a look at User talk:71.35.161.45. He's either a good con-man, or he has a point. As I said, I need more information. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I'd be interested to read your reaction to him. (i.e. Am I being conned?) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a lot of clandestine original research. Perhaps you should track down someone at the WP:BLP project. Personal information/history about a living person that resembles "drama" or "soap opera" should have some sort of verifiable ref from an rs. I think. 156.34.220.185 (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely! I agree with you 100%. For example: "There are further details I can't expose". Yeah. Right. Why can't he expose them. (rhetorical question)

I think your use of "clandestine", "drama" and "soap opera" are all spot on. Never-the-less, I'm intrigued. (i.e. I've been "sucked in".)

Thanks for your response. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the Mike Flicker article is pretty much a copy/paste from his own website and should be reported as a potential copyvio problem. 156.34.220.185 (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Copyvio: Oh. That's a shame. But can you hold off on that for a week while I get to the bottom of this soap opera? That would be appreciated. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all yours for now. I will have an admin friend watch it and see what comes of it. Have a nice day. 156.34.220.185 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:81.145.242.67

Archived.

Hi, I didn't unblock this guy, his one-week block lapsed. they guy I unblocked was the one who had been changing theHeart releases around without explanation. He seems to be quiet at the moment which is good. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZZuuzz's notice is pretty standard for anonymous IP addresses; it alerts admins to the fact that they might be dynamic & shouldn't be blocked for long, and gives the editor a clue that we know roughly where they're coming from. Standard stuff. As to this guy, if he continues, he'll get blocked again. Simple as that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart editor/User:KieferSuth1985Marx

I've had an email from this guy asking to be unblocked, and he now seems to understand the need for communication, so I have unblocked him, with conditions (which he should have been following anyway). He still thinks his own knowledge is an adequate source, however, & I've left advice as to that. I will keep an eye on him myself, but could you let me know if he steps out of line & I'll immediately reblock him? Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Flicker (From User talk:71.35.161.45 )

Mike Flicker (born Michael Fisher, 1952)

Was he really!?!? Well, that would explain a few things! Have you got some evidence to support that?
Mike Fisher as in Roger Fisher (guitarist)'s brother?

Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it certainly does explain a lot, doesn't it? Mike Fisher had already adopted Flicker as his professional name before the age of 18. It was fortunate for Fisher that there was a big boost to the music business in Canada when the government started the Canadian content rules in 1971. We already know that Mike Fisher left the U.S. when he became eligible for the draft at the same time.

Here is some of the evidence that I can share with you. Consider the following:

-Having an assumed name certainly made things easier for Mike Fisher during the early 70's when he living in Canada and wanted by U.S. authorities for draft evasion. By 1977 or so things had cooled down and evaders were pardoned by Jimmy Carter. At that time Michael Fisher moved back to the U.S and continued to work with Heart until the Fisher brothers and Wilson sisters had a falling out around 1980. At that time Mike Flicker's name disappears from Heart's album credits along with Mike Fisher.

-Most of the recordings that Mike Flicker worked on during the 70's and early 80's also credit Mike or Michael Fisher. A quick look at imdb.com shows a lot of these coincidences in music for films. There are also the same credits on all the early Heart albums as well as rock and pop albums that Flicker recorded for other artists.

-Both Michael Fisher and Mike Flicker have worked as professional drummers and sound engineers or record producers. The engineering and producing professions are so closely related that it is often hard to tell the difference between the two. Both men have had essentially the same career path since the very beginning.

-Both Roger Fisher and Mike are seen in early promo pictures of their group "The Army", which later turned into Heart. The young Michael Fisher bears a striking resemblance to the adult Mike Flicker.

-In interviews Nancy Wilson mentions details of Mike Fisher's draft evasion. Then she suddenly says Mike Flicker just appeared on the scene as a successful musician and record producer who wants to make the group famous. The interviews of which I speak can easily be found online. Where did Mr. Flicker get his experience in the music business? From Michael Fisher, of course. Why did Heart suddenly move to Vancouver? Ann Wilson followed Michael Fisher, who was unable to return to the U.S. at the time.

Mike Fisher and Mike Flicker have always been the same man. Check it out for yourself and I am sure you will find more strange coincidences.

BTW, if you intend on keeping the "Mike Fisher (guitarist)" article you will need to change the name to "Michael Fisher (producer and drummer)" or something like that. The Michael Fisher we are talking about here never worked as a professional guitarist to my knowledge. Roger Fisher was the guitarist, not Michael.

Thanks for the reply - can't respond right now - be back later. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All highly plausible.

However, there are a few statements in a few places that are contradictory, and a few gaps. It would be nice to sort it out and have some consistency.

It would also be nice to have some verifiable sources.

The conflicting sources and other related pages that I've come across (so far) are:

The holes in the story are:

There's no explanation of how Flicker could be living in LA and Vancouver while Fisher was living in Seattle.
Johnstone & Derosier were credited with playing drums from 1970-82, not Fisher.
Fisher is credited with playing guitar 1970-79.
Fisher was Ann's "boyfriend" from 1970-79. She was living in Seattle 1970-1974. So was Fisher. However, Flicker was living in LA & Vancouver.
The idea that Fisher was the Magic Man has been put up and removed several times, because no-one has found any supporting evidence.

Now, I (personally) would love this to be true, but there are too many holes.

And nobody is providing any supporting evidence.

I'm afraid that until you supply some verifiable evidence, I have to treat this as a lovely fairy tale.

And I really don't want to; I want it to be true. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: "BTW, if you intend on keeping the "Mike Fisher (guitarist)" article you will need to change the name to "Michael Fisher (producer and drummer)" or something like that. The Michael Fisher we are talking about here never worked as a professional guitarist to my knowledge. Roger Fisher was the guitarist, not Michael."

Yeah, that's a problem, isn't it. I didn't create that red link, but you can see why that other guy did.

Without some evidence, I don't know what to do about that one. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I actually agree with most of your points. But I think there needs to be more fact checking not only on my part but by Wikipedia also. This definitely needs some more explanation.

Fisher and Flicker were NOT living in different cities at the same time. Michael Fisher was already in Vancouver since 1971. Flicker had previously been in LA, but moved to Vancouver in 1971. They had both just become eligible for the draft at the same time and were the same age. They had the same careers and moved to Vancouver for the same reasons, to escape the draft and seek new opportunities in the Canadian music industry.

Mike Fisher stopped playing drums with the group when they were still "The Army" during the 1960's. I never claimed that Fisher actually played drums with the group while they were called "Heart." A guy who is on the run and using an assumed name would not remain a part of any rock band trying to make it big. That is why M.F. dropped out of the spotlight and became a behind the scenes member of the Heart entourage. He worked with them as engineer, producer, manager, etc.

I have NEVER seen a primary source that credits Michael Fisher as a guitarist. This is an error in the Wikipedia article about Heart. Heart already had 3 guitarists, Roger Fisher, Howard Leese and Nancy Wilson so why would they want another? Aside from the error about Michael Fisher as guitarist, most of the Wikipedia information about Heart is, I think, correct. The articles you list don't conflict with my argument.

Fisher would not have been living in Seattle from 1970 to 1974 if he was evading the draft. If he had a high draft number he would have most likely been drafted in 1970 or 1971 when he turned 18. If he had a low draft number there would have been little reason for him to take the risk of becoming a fugitive in Canada.

I don't know exactly when Michael Fisher and Ann Wilson first met. But all sides seem to agree they were romantically involved while living together in Vancouver starting around 1974/1975 and lasting until 1979 after moving back to the U.S. around 1977. Of course, this does not rule out the likelihood that they met much earlier while living apart. For a long time they had friends and family, like Roger Fisher, in common. There would certainly be no problem with Ann visiting Michael Fisher in Canada, in fact we know she did that many times. But as a draft evader between 1971 and 1977 Michael could not visit the U.S.

I am from the area where Heart originated and have met people who know the group members. I also remember a lot of the circumstances surrounding the Vietnam draft era. Precise details of Heart's early history have always been rather sketchy and hard to pin down. The members don't like to go into much detail about these things because some of the politics of that time still make them angry. Personally, I have always thought that they (especially Ann Wilson) had a habit of glossing over the details and embellishing stories. Even among fans in Seattle there is a lot of confusion about the group's early history. Perhaps author Charles R. Cross, who wrote excellent books about Northwest rock legends Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain, will be able to set the record straight about the Fishers and the Wilsons, as well as the whole debacle with Mushroom Records, and the early singles by "Ann Wilson and the Daybreaks."

The reason why the stories of Michael Fisher as the "Magic Man" keep popping up is because the band and their press agents told the story for years. I first heart the story in 1976 when it was told by disc jockey Casey Kasem. He told the story while doing his weekly radio show of the U.S. top 40 chart hits. Casey sure did tell a good story. Some of it was probably true, though it is hard to tell how much.

zz 66.212.64.234 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 71.35.161.45 (talk)

Again, thanks for the reply. This might be boring-the-pants-off of other readers, but I'm fascinated. :As I said: "I (personally) would love this to be true".

I'm disappointed to say I don't have time to answer you now. Sorry. (I have to prepare a powerpoint presentation for tomorrow, and I'm going to be out-of-town next week, and have to prepare for that too.) But I will give you a reply worthy of your efforts next weekend if I'm unable to do so this weekend or next week.

Just a few points for you to keep in mind until I can get back to you. (Maybe you can address some of :them in my absence?)

Please "sign" your comments with four tildes viz: "97.113.21.163 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)". This puts a time stamp on your comments and makes it easier to work out who said what, when.[reply]

I assume you are both 66.212.64.234 and 71.35.161.45? i.e. I assume I'm talking to one person, not t different people?
Now I really don't want this to sound pretentious (but I'm afraid that it probably will!) WP is intended to be an encyclopaedia, not a blog. Statements are supposed to be verifiable, and the evidence be from reliable sources. Opinion, hear-say, and annecdote are not reliable sources.
If you put something on WP, it's up to you to provide the independent reliable verification. (Not me.)

I'd like to go on, but I don't have time at the moment. Quickly:

"Fisher was Ann's "boyfriend" from 1970-79. She was living in Seattle 1970-1974. So was Fisher. However, Flicker was living in LA & Vancouver in the period 1970-1974." - You didn't seem to address that point. (Or I wasn't paying enough attention, in which case, my apologies.)

Got-to-go. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see you have sort-of-addressed the AW-MF relationship. But not the 1970-1974 period. Again, how could they have been a couple if she was in Seattle, and he wasn't? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Glad to hear from you again. Sorry I confused you by logging in from 2 locations. Here are more thoughts about the AW/MF relationship.

Seattle and Vancouver are only about 2 1/2 hours apart by car. I see no reason why AW and MF could not have carried on a long distance relationship like this for quite some time. Aside from their romance they needed each other for other reasons. MF knew that AW had the looks, ambition, and talent to make the big time. AW knew that MF was a shrewd manager and had connections with big-shots in the music business. Together they were one powerful team.

I don't have verifiable proof for some of what I have told you. But I also know from personal experience that some of the stories the group have told really just don't add up. I also think the group was used by Mushroom in the scandalous and totally misleading "Dreamboat Annie" advertising campaign. But that is the way hype works. Each side tries to use it to their own advantage.

Has the band ever produced any evidence that MF was living in Seattle from 1970-1974? . I don't completely fault the Wilson sisters for misleading the public about the Michael Fisher/Mike Flicker story. I am sure that they group only wanted to protect someone whom they cared for very much. But besides all that their success in the music business depended entirely on MF staying out of the draft and out of jail. The consequences of draft evasion were taken VERY seriously. But the draft ended over 20 years ago! I think it is time that the truth can finally came out. Thanks again for reading.

zz97.113.21.163 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TLA (22Feb08) (From User talk:PamD)

Hi Pam. Heads-up: Lots going on at Three letter acronym and Talk:Three letter acronym. Pdfpdf (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I noticed, with sinking heart. Not sure I've got the stamina/time to keep on with the struggle, but I might drop by again! PamD (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take "first strike" on this one, and have you come in and "mop up" after, if that makes life easier for you.
Conversely, I'm happy to keep right out of it, if that's your preference - Your call. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TLA, etc. (From User talk:PamD)

By-the-way: I'm contemplating taking TLA etc. off my watchlist - you seem to be doing a more than adequate job of monitoring it, and a better than me job of handling it; I don't feel like I'm adding any value, and perhaps I'm getting in your way. Plus, it's time I got a life. (Or failing that, my wife thinks it's time I indulged in some interests that didn't involve a keyboard.) So, "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish", and keep up the good work. I think you know that I think you're doing a great job. Bye, Peter. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about taking it off my watch-list too, as it's hardly one of the most important bits of WP - but then I rather like it, and don't want to see it messed up! I'll stay keeping an eye on it in case some serious-minded person comes along and wants to delete it all as unencyclopedic. I don't really think it needs all the examples, but will go along with them to keep the third editor happy. I too ought to get a bit more of a life - am spending far too much time on WP, as I keep discovering new little games like Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery, Wikipedia:Typo, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting and Wikipedia:Most wanted articles to play with. As well as keeping an eye on interesting pages. And creating news ones from time to time. It does feel like an addiction (well, as far as I know, having had the fortune to avoid any acknowledged addictions hitherto!): too often I sit down at the keyboard with my breakfast muesli in one hand and then realise it's become lunchtime and the morning has disappeared. Good luck in sorting out your life, and thanks for the kind words. PamD (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist

"references/" vs "Reflist"

Reflist

"references/" vs "Reflist"

Re: request

Could u fix Aretha Franklin ?

Fansites and Anastacia

Re: rm ws?

Wayne Static

Russell T Davies

both sides

Boas

both sides

Aust Barnstar

Difference between images

User:Gwen_Gale

Canberra Air Disaster

Oh Hi!

William Douglas Allen

Prince Alfred College

Changes inside quotes?

Barracuda (song)

Aretha/Quasimodobell

Aretha/spaces

Spacing between list items

Hmmm - (From User talk:MickMacNee)

3RR Warning - (From User talk:MickMacNee)

Thanks for your efforts vis Betacommandbot (From User talk:MickMacNee)

Disputed editing (From Talk:Geordie)

Canberra International Airport (from User talk:Johnsp1)

Over-eager archiving (From User talk:BetacommandBot)

Has my question already been answered? (From User talk:BetacommandBot)

Correct image on the right page for the right reason, but rationale has shortcomings ... (From User talk:BetacommandBot)

Answer from Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk

Blacker Gachet image Help!

Bleeding obvious FURs... (From User talk:Redvers)

Disputed fair use rationale

Waiting

Response

Assume Good Faith?

FUR requirements

Epilogue

"Toothless Tiger" warnings (From User talk:Nlu)

User talk:81.145.242.67

User talk:81.145.242.67 (From User talk:Rodhullandemu)

User talk:81.145.242.67 (From my talk page)

69.139.68.133

Advice please (From User talk:Rodhullandemu)

Heart (band) (From my talk page)

Wayne Static

TLA question

Difference in edit

Archives

Heart (band)

Cecil Rhodes

Well thank you!

Archives

General Officer

Hmm

User talk:81.145.242.67

Heart editor/User:KieferSuth1985Marx

Mike Flicker (From User talk:71.35.161.45 )

TLA (22Feb08) (From User talk:PamD)

TLA, etc. (From User talk:PamD)