User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 5

Syd Barrett

You seem to be in the early stage of a potential reversion war on the Syd Barrett page. You say the issue of the painters category is discussed elsewhere, please could you point out where this discussion is?

Thankyou,
SimonMayer 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category talk:Art Andy Mabbett 17:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any possibility you could add some words in the article about the 35 years of painting ... then this categorisation dispute might just go away? --Tagishsimon

I concur. You linked to Category talk:Art but there is no proof there other than your assertion, Andy. Why not update the article with some facts and then add the category, if it is even necessary. If he is in fact a painter, is he well known or famous for his painting? I think the fact that he is british, painting and famous have nothing to do with each other, making the categorisations unnecessary. MDCore 10:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andy... can't you rather discuss this issue constructively instead of reverting with a sarcastic comment? Let's rather talk and come to concensus; lets build concensus. I, and from comments here it seems many others, want to discuss this minor edit with you. Snide comments and an "I don't answer to anyone" attitude are unnecessary. Please reply to this and the previous two comments. MDCore 15:13, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You appear to have me confsued with someone else. HTH. Andy Mabbett 15:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Um... no. I click on your username in the page history. There's no way I could confuse you. What does HTH mean? And you reverted those edits again. Please discuss this issue. It is getting a bit much now. MDCore 16:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

HTH usually means 'happy to help', but you'd be best asking the original author for confirmation. HTH. -- Longhair | Talk 11:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more painters

useful member of the royal family, charity worker/ promoter youth and enterprise promoter yes, but why make charles, prince of wales a painter, a mere hobby? --garryq 01:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't make him a painter. He did. Andy Mabbett 12:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please stop reverting Windows XP

Andy, I appreciate your efforts to make the Windows XP article concise, but the information you're removing is absolutely relevant to the topic. You violated the three revert rule on August 13th, please don't do it again. Rhobite 15:05, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your efforts to make the Windows XP article overly verbose, but the information you're removing is absolutely superflous to the topic. Please don't do it again. Andy Mabbett 16:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LOTR Birmingham

Hello, can you please explain why you want to include the LotR in the literature from Birmingham category? The book was not written there. Anárion 15:21, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SeeCategory:Literature from Birmingham, England Andy Mabbett 15:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you want to make a category about "Literature written in, about, or influenced by Birmingham, England", then start a category with that name (but don't wonder if people start complaining about that category as well). The Lord of the Rings was not written in Birmingham, so please stop this. You broke the three revert rule again by the way, and I'm not gonna revert you just because I don't want to do the same. --Conti|✉ 15:52, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

i hate to agree with andy but without seeing the article... the lord of the rings WAS massivly influenced by bham and the book may possibly have been written in tolkiens mind whilst in brum (which at that time would have been quite rural)/ user:Nick Boulevard

I hate to point this out; actually no, I take satisfaction in pointing this out: Tolkien grew up in Birminham at the orphanage where he met Edith and was raised by this Priest-mentor, but he didn't move back there after World War I. Tolkien was an Oxford don for many years after that. Birmingham in its original urban state probably did influence Tolkien model of what "the Shire" would look like; an idealized concept of his rural Midlands home. However much of the formative events that took place in Tolkien's life---events which would shape his worldview in LOTR---had nothing to do with Birminham. Tolkien in later life would take hikes through the Black Forest of Germany, and would going climbing in the Alps; this real-world familiarity with such geographical forms probably shaped his ideas of Fangorn, Mirkwood, and the White Mountains, etc. Most important is Tolkien's experience in World War I and the Battle of the Somme Which had nothing to do with Birmingham! This questioning of morality--all but one of his close friends was dead by war's end---drastically shaped his views. Further, the Icelandic sagas, Norse legends, langauges and other myths that shaped LOTR don't have anything to do with Birmingham. Further, Tolkien did not write LOTR while he was in Birmingham; Tolkien began writing while on leave during World War I; Tolkien wrote didn't write even the first page of the Silmarillion until after he had left Birmingham. At best, you could say that it is "a book by an author who spent his childhood in Birmingham" (note; not "an author born in Birmingham, Tolkien was born in South Africa).

Further, in no way do the towers in Birmingham represent the "Two Towers" of the books. Tolkien himself said the title was imposed by the publishers and that in fact her really didn't settle on which Two Towers they were even when people asked; a combination of any two of a set of five towers could be it; Cirith Ungol, Minas Morgul, Minas Tirith, Orthanc, and Barad-dur. But the name wasn't made up until well after he had written the book. Further, I assume that the "two towers" you mention being visible in Birmingham are near each other, as were the twin towers; None of these two towers is near each other at all; standing on one of these towers, it is impossible to see any of the others. They are hundreds of miles apart. Read the books. --Ricimer Sept 27, 2004

Just to notice you. I've put this case to Wikipedia:Request for comment (again). Let's see what others think of your categorization. :-) --Conti|✉ 23:53, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

"reductio ad absurdum. Andy Mabbett 09:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) :

Just to clarify on this old thread (since it's still there), reductio ad absurdum is a LOGICAL way of proving things. The word absdurd refers to the use of extremes to prove a point, not that the argument itself is absurd. As the page you linked states, it is one of logic and maths finest weapons ;) --Sketchee 06:50, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)--Sketchee 06:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Jools Holland

Hi Andy,

I'm curious to know why you chose to add Jools Holland to Category:Architects whilst ignoring several more relevant categories such as Category:British musicians. Jools Holland is not at all known for being an architect, does not appear to have qualified as an architect and does not seem to have contributed anything to the field of architecture. -- Solipsist 16:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He's an architect. If you want to add him to other categories also, please go right ahead. Andy Mabbett 17:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP starter edition

Hi,

I figure the best way of finding out whether we continue with the Linux comparison of XP Starter Edition is to take a straw poll. I've started one on Talk:Windows XP. Would you be willing to cast your vote? This might make things a bit clearer, and maybe help stop a revert war! :-)

Ta bu shi da yu 14:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nobody has yet given a good reason not to include comment on the fact that MS have put up a "crippled" competitor for an uncrippled rival. Andy Mabbett 14:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Subscription sites

Just a pointer to a site I find very useful when I need to look at a subscription (paid or otherwise, I believe) web site. I'm not suggesting its inclusion in any of the Wikipedia pages, but I thought I remembered an earlier discussion you had regarding deletion of articles to news sources which required a subscription. Thought it might come in handy for the odd occasion when you may want to visit such a (frustrating) site. Cheers. PMcM 21:37, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great Britain's canals

RE: History of the British canal system

There is another article on Britain's canal network which lists all Britain's canals, and details abandoned and proposed routes. It has a brief history at the top, my question is, is it better to add a note to that short history (something like for a more detailed history go here), or to incorporate this page into the other page? Grunners 12:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution

Hi Andy. Edits from 80.86.36.97 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 06:14, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Same for 81.5.140.5. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 06:54, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Well done with Cadbury's

Thats all

User:Nick Boulevard

Blocked for 24 hours

Learn the difference between a threat and a warning

You were warned in Birmingham edit log [1], and you replied to that warning at the same time that you continued your behaviour.

Consequently I have reverted your changes, and blocked you for 24 hours for continued vandalism after a warning.

Kim Bruning 13:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles (if any) under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary, but equally important, goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 23:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Andy its nice to see you back, your work is much appreciated. Hopefully we can get on better this time, and avoid having endless rows. However could you please stop removing Nick Mason from the Famous Brummies page. Isn't it about time we let this drop and put it behind us. I'm speaking in good faith here, I genuinly dont want keep falling out with you again. G-Man 19:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to second that, Andy... you are your own worst enemy sometimes, I am sure you could be a likeable character but sometimes you seem to rub people up the wrong way (maybe unintentional I'm not sure?)

A classic example, I was reading your talk page on LOTR, i commented in your favour becuase I agreed with you but then I left the page for ages, if you had let me know I would have stuck up for you further as I happened to agree with you, none of us are perfect but... WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU DISCUSS YOUR EDITS FIRST??? (shouts through a megaphone):) Nick Boul 195.92.67.76 23:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no obligation on Wikipedia to discuss edits in advance. This is your belief, not Wikipedia policy. The Edit summary is there to document the edit; the Talk page to give more detail if necessary. Under most circumstances, that's enough. RayGirvan 19:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arts in Birmingham

Please explain this edit. Even an edit summary is better than nothing although I would prefer to see deletions on this scale discussed on the article talk page before implementation. --Theo (Talk) 00:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy. Thanks for the explanatory edit summaries. --Theo (Talk) 11:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Portman

Just curious, why did you remove the references to other women who shaved their heads for a movie role? I threw that part in so I was curious why you removed it. Thanks.

P.S. I'm a big Floyd fan myself. Cool screenname! Dismas 02:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War

You know, rather than reverting, you could respond to all my postings explaining why that 'sixteen known crises' articles is inherently problematic. I have no idea why you keep on restoring that article, and, then, on top of that, keep on spamming the Cold War article adding a link to that dubious entry. 172 10:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations are false and defamtory. Andy Mabbett 10:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please explain. Did you read what I posted on the VfD page? 172 10:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations are false and defamtory. HTH. Andy Mabbett 10:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quit trying to go in circles and play games with me. Explain why the the list is encyclopedic. 172 10:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quit trying to go in circles and play games with me. Explain why you won't wiat for the result of a VfD. 10:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC). Andy Mabbett 10:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, the results of the VfD are irrelevant to the inclusion of that article in the list in Cold War. Notice that the list of related articles only includes the broadest of history entries related to the topic, rather than just about any article that could be placed in Category:Cold War. Second, the outcome of VfD is only going to decide whether the entry is merged or deleted. No one has (or can, given the content policies) argue for keeping the article as it stands right now as a self-standing encyclopedic entry. Since keeping the article is not an option, the only remaining two options (merge or delete) have nothing to do with the decision to redirect. The article can still be either merged or deleted regardless of the redirect. 172 11:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that you are still editing other articles but haven't responded to me. I can only assume now that you have read my reply, found it satisfactory, and will thus not revert me when I redirect the article again and take the link out of the Cold War entry. 172 11:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewellery Quarter

I'm not sure what your issue is here. There is no copyvio, at least none I can find. "The Jewellery quarter is a successful area of dedicated jewellers in Birmingham England" shows no Google hits. The stub is reasonable as stubs go. I did, by the way, read the discussion page, and it does not indicate any kind of issue with this. Denni ☯ 01:09, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page Andy Mabbett 07:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)