User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

CBS Records

The 'walking eye' 1960s CBS Records logo does not belong in the CBS Records article because the 1960s CBS Records has absolutely no connection with the current CBS Records. The 1960s CBS Records and is today called Columbia Records. The 1960s CBS Records logo belongs in the Columbia Records article. There ia already a hatnote directing readers to the Columbia Records article regaring the 1960s CBS Records label and to Sony Music Entertainment regarding the former CBS Records company. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There was already too much emphasis on the old label. I've reverted to an earlier version and put the old label stuff in brackets. Rothorpe (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Beatles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:WGFinley (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thank you. Rothorpe (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing

Hi Rothorpe, Cassianto suggested I contact you to see if you'd have some free time to give Peter Sellers a copy edit? It's had a fairly sizeable revamp over the last few weeks and I hope we'll be able to go to GAC shortly. There's also been discussion about the infobox, which I hope we'll be able to get rid of at some point, although a few people are supporting at the moment. If you have any time for the edit, that would be great, but no problems if you're already overstretched and too busy. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly take a look. I've edited that one myself, though not recently. Thanks for the note. Rothorpe (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks indeed for agreeing to have a go on this!. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure---but I'm rather frail at the moment, please don't expect speed... Rothorpe (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rothorpe, There's no rush at all as I'd like to get this right, rather than quick! All the best - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Great copy editing as always R. Hope you have a speedy recovery. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, Cassianto. Rothorpe (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Fleming

Hi Rothorpe, sorry to bother you with what must seem like a very repetitive request. What are your thoughts on infoboxes? A discussion is taking place here and I would really value your comments. I happen to hate them as I think they are repetitive, redundant, uninteresting, ugly and misleading. A driveby editor has added one and I feel stuck with it until a consensus can be met to secure its deletion. It's made all the more serious as Fleming is currently up at FAC. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for consulting me. Emotionally, I’m indifferent, but on reflection, and donning my teacher-of-English-as-a-foreign-language hat, I’m slightly in favour of the box, as I think it may draw learners in, even help to teach the difference between list and prose by complementing and contrasting with the lead. Sorry! Rothorpe (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks R, I can see your points and respect your decision. The sooner this is over with the better for all! Hope things are good with you! -- Cassianto^Talk 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall be watching Fleming. All the best, Rothorpe (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers on stage, etc

Hi Rothorpe, Thanks so much for all your help on the Peter Sellers on stage, screen and record article (as well as your truly sterling efforst on the main Peter Sellers article too). I'm going to sit on the article for a day or so and then fire it off to a Peer Review, with an FL being the ultimate aim. Your work has hugely increased the chances of getting there: many, many thanks. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

...now at FAC. We would really value your comments as and when you can pop in. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I unwatched it, so will have a look through now. (There are a couple of typos on the FAC page, by the way.) Rothorpe (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My typo's? Oh lord, thanks for that! Now done I think? -- Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we shot one each! Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This and that

Hello, Rothorpe. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A sad ending

Hi Rothorpe, just a quick note to inform you Tim riley has left Wikipedia. There is a tribute rolling on his talk page. I know you and he had a lot in common and he held you in great esteem. -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just got back from holiday, and have left him a note. Morons driving out the good guys, very sad. Rothorpe (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sellers, again

Hi Rothorpe, Thanks very much for all you assistance on the Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record article. The article is now at FLC and this is due in no small part to your efforts. Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the good news! All the best, Rothorpe (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

CBS consensus debate reopened

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#CBS_Records_2

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the hilarious comment in your edit summary at Odeon Records‎. Thanks for the fix. 78.26 (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you were amused. Thanks very much! Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Grimaldi

How nice to see you over at old Grim! I'd be eager to know your first impressions? --Cassianto ^Talk 16:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, very favourable. It's been on my list for some time, actually. Rothorpe (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Splendid! Obviously FA will be the aim of the day, so feel free to conduct heaps of copy edits, even if it means deleting waves of information. I feel so much better knowing your on board :-) --Cassianto ^Talk 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks, I shall. Flattery will get you everywhere! Rothorpe (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CBS Records". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There are too many people involved and the issue is muddled by the five issues raised, none of which is the one I am interested in. The person who calls for the mediation gets to frame the question, and dozens of others get to add what they think in the next section. The best articulation of the issue to the solution is the CBS Records talk page where there is a tie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Discussion continues at User talk:Moxy. Rothorpe (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Since I know that you edit the areas in question, I would like to point you to a open RfC that I think your opinion would be helpful I honestly do not think this is considered canvassing, I hope. Thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made a comment. Rothorpe (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan Melville (writer)

You asked on the talk page why this had been deleted. In fact, although a "DABlink" for it was added to the top of Alan Melville by an IP more than four years ago, there has never been an article at that title. You could consider writing one, if you can find references? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so memory playing tricks again. I just might have a go. Many thanks for the information! Rothorpe (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rothorpe. You have new messages at Feezo's talk page.
Message added 09:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Grimaldi

I currently have the above listed at peer review as a result of a lot of work and research which I have conducted over the last couple of months. I would be extremely greatful for any comments you may have and would welcome any feedback or suggestions. Many thanks in advance. -- Cassianto ^Talk 02:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm watching. Rothorpe (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning CBS Records, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Terrestrial planet

Please go to the topic talk page on terrestrial planet to explain why we need the moon and ceres in the lead picture since they are not considered terrestrial planets. Cadiomals (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was typing my answer... Rothorpe (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

You changed the MoS on 8 December 2011, but you hid it amongst many other edits (it was very well done...). Then you joined the mediation about the/The. Why have you never declared that you made those changes to the MoS on the poll page? Only a question.--andreasegde (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'neutral'; as for 'it was very well done', I reject the implication. I didn't mention it because it seemed obvious that everyone's eyes would be on that page anyway. And you're not the first to have noticed. Also, I was involved in the initial compromise back in the days of WP:MUSTARD, which I may have mentioned (Gabe has taken me to task for it, but maybe that was by email). Lower case is the standard way, no apologies. Rothorpe (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You might "reject the implication", but as everybody is quoting the MoS, it would have been decent of you to mention the fact. People from Northern England usually adhere to those rules.--andreasegde (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm an old and forgetful Londoner. Rothorpe (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Then don't forget the indents. BTW, old Cockneys might say you're an outsider. (Light humour intended, and hopefully accepted, in these dark times... :).--andreasegde (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Apprehension of Forrest

The way you have written the para now reads as though they were both returned to the UK on the 29th Sept.Markdarrly (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was a bit worried it wasn't entirely clear. Trouble was, you removed the fact that she was returned forcibly! Rothorpe (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	the Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your help at Pink Floyd. It was promoted to FA today! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk\|contribs)} 21:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gabe. Let's hope for similar good news about something else soon, eh? Rothorpe (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I Spit on Your Grave?

Yes, it's strange how history can get re-written, isn't it? I assume a perfectly good-faith edit - because the headstone has now been removed. But that's not the only interpretation, of course. Well spotted anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. It was marked before it was unmarked. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

what's going on

why you deleted the cuban and brasilian flag there are two type of latin jazz you have to differentiate what country they ccame from people have to know there are two type of latin jazz, cuban and brasilian.174.98.152.28 (talk)

The page already makes that perfectly clear. Flags are not appropriate for music articles. Rothorpe (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit?

Hi Rothorpe, another user and I are planning on taking Hiram Wesley Evans to FAC soon. Would you be able to give it a copyedit in the near future? Hopefully there aren't too many issues, but things slip through the cracks from time to time. We've done a lot of revising too, so we might have missed a few things that are obvious to an outside observer. No problem if you don't have time though, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again! Certainly, I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think it's fine now. I'll keep watching. Good luck! Rothorpe (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. The project is in it's final stretches, thankfully. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks a lot Rothorpe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on that article, it's now at featured status. Would you be interested in helping with another? I have been working on Church of the SubGenius recently and would appreciate any help. No problem if you can't get to it though. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, looks interesting... Rothorpe (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, a good read. Good luck with it! Rothorpe (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, hopefully the rest of the article's progress will go smoothly :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll be watching. Rothorpe (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sellers discog

Hi Rothorpe, we have listed Sellers again at FLC as it was not promoted due to a technicality. We would really appreciate a re-visit if that's at all possible. There are no new additions to the article so it should just be a quick refresher and then a show of support or oppose. Many thanks once again. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Better luck this time. Rothorpe (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks indeed, for both the support and the copy edit—it's much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure - Rothorpe (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Savile article

Thanks for catching my incorrect edit of the intro. I fixed it, and also added cites per talk page if that was a concern. if you were concerned about the content of the edit and not merely that I mis-edited (ie deleted a chunk by mistake) then see talk page for details, otherwise hopefully this is now ok. Can you let me know? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Magic space removal

Hello, Rothorpe. I believe it was the space between the semi-colon you were referring to in Khalil al-Wazir. If so, I'll just let you know it's done :-) --Altaïr (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I tried removing too much. Many thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars

Unfortunately, I don't have any. Can I borrow some of yours? Good grief, you can give me the one below!--andreasegde (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	the Civility Barnstar
	For sticking it through during a long and tedious mediation while never losing your cool and remaining civil to all. Well done! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk\|contribs)} 00:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Imagine"

Rothorpe, I was/am perfectly fine wtih the criticism that was there. All I am arguing is that is was enough. Please self-revert. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Gabe. I can't support such dreadful writing. Rothorpe (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nor are you willing to re-write the litcrit so as to make it not dreadful while retaining the meaning? Its the content that needs to be preserved. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Content? Quote: "With "Imagine", Lennon attempted to raise self-awareness in relation to the way that individuals viewed their interaction with the institutions that affect their lives. Inspired by the anxiety caused by what he perceived as civilisation's inability to maintain a belief among its citizenry in the civilisation's goals..." Talk about 'imagine'! This is OR, if not actually original research. Anyway, I see you're having a go now, so good luck with it. I'll be watching. Rothorpe (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not OR, its a paraphrase from Blaney, 2007. The article won't make TFA without a sensible amount of criticism, its needed. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The footnote after the direct quote makes it look as if we're done with Blaney. Rothorpe (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to avoid the redundant and jarring "according to", but I've now put it in place to clarify. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now trimmed the Blaney paraphrase as you suggested at my talk. Let me know if this resolves your concerns. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link to the TFAR page as you requested. Thanks again for all your help and advice! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Broken link?

I tried following your link to Sport_Gaffes_1, but after a couple of redirects ended up in WordDictionary.co.uk. Perhaps you would like to consider fixing it or removing it? I didn't touch it since it is on your user page which I regard as sacrosanct. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Pity about that. Still, it was okay for a long time before I found that citation; perhaps another will come along some day. Many thanks for your kind note. All the best, Rothorpe (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Grimaldi FAC

Hi Rothorpe, just a quick note to let you know of Grimaldi's FAC which I have just listed. I would be most grateful for any comments or criticisms you may have to offer. Hope all is well! -- Cassianto ^Talk 13:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. It looks perfect, except that I did notice 'ill-health' hyphenated: Merriam Webster online has it but Oxford and Collins on shelf don't, so it would appear to be a recent Americanism that Grimaldi wouldn't have recognised... Rothorpe (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I removed the hyphen from the decline and death section as its the only one I can see. Feel free to remove anymore I have missed. :-) Cassianto ^Talk 15:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad you agree. There were a couple more hiding in there... Rothorpe (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For making Death of Jacintha Saldanha more readable. Thank you. Rayabhari (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Rothorpe (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

move request for 79360 Sila–Nunam

I opened a move request in Talk:79360_Sila–Nunam#Requested_move. You are receiving this notice beause you have made substantial changes to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit/grammar review request

Hey Rothorpe, hope all is well on your end. I'm currently working on a PR for Cher, at the request of Lordelliott. We could use your help, as he is a native Spanish speaker, and you are of course our resident expert on the finer points of proper English grammar. If you are interested and can find the time, please take a look at the article and help us correct some of the errors we are missing. Your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Also, please feel free to add any comments at the peer review page. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Of course I'll take a look. Rothorpe (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

the' for encyclopedic, as opposed to journalistic

That is a keen 'ear'. Not many people can understand the difference between: 1. The call was part of Australian radio programme Hot30 Countdown; 2. The call was part of Australian radio programme, Hot30 Countdown; 3. The call was part of the Australian radio programme Hot30 Countdown; and 4. The call was part of the Australian radio programme, Hot30 Countdown. Naturally not all four alternatives are possible in all cases, so it is highly improbable that anyone would use Number 2. in this case. Nonetheless, well spotted. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice of you to go to the trouble to post that---thanks very much! Rothorpe (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

PS for anyone else reading this: nº 3 is best.

Bernard Lee filmography

Hi Rothorpe, I've opened a peer review on a relatively new article, Bernard Lee on stage and screen. It's fairly similar in scope and layout to the Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record article you very kindly helped out on previously. If you have any spare time, would you be able to look it over and pass comment, particularly on the coding aspect? It's not a problem if you are too busy to be able to get round to it. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Rothorpe (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks for your edits: it is much improved and reads extremely well now. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep watching. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, better with 'Commander' etc., written out, as Cassianto suggested. But what did you mean by 'the coding aspect'? Rothorpe (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just if there are any obvious things that I've missed in terms of coding (using the wrong types of {{Sort|}} or {{Dts|}} templates etc) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK... Rothorpe (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Le Mez

Hi Rothorpe, this is just a quick note to let you know of the recent FAC of the character actor John Le Mesurier which I have co-nominated along with Schrodinger's cat is alive and Dr. Blofeld. Confident it meets all featured article criteria and should the subject matter interest you enough, we would welcome any comments or criticisms that you may have to offer. -- Cassianto ^Talk 21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that what they call him nowadays? I remember him with Hancock in the 50s... Rothorpe (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

He was Le Mez to his friends apparently, although not me as I was only two when he died! -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, done, nice article, will keep watching. Rothorpe (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Courtier's Reply

There seem to be problems with The Courtier's Reply, see also Talk:The Courtier's Reply In sorting these problems I think I need help from Wikipedians who are more familiar with the very complex rules and guidelines here than I am. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

John Vyvyan

Nope, wasn't intending to create an article, it was just a suggested disambiguation from Dab solver, because one or two other articles redlink to the same non-existent article. Although I now see that the disambiguation page has an external link to a great article at theavengers.tv, it really shouldn't, per Wikipedia:DISAMBIG#External_links. A WP:EGG link to his appearance in the Bed-Sitting Room isn't appropriate either. I'll see if I can dig up enough to merit an article for him next week. --McGeddon (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Mother India

Hi Rothorpe, how are you? We last worked on Ahalya, that you helped reach to FA by a copyedit. Dwaipayanc and I are working on the iconic Indian film Mother India to take it to FA in celebration of 100 years of Indian cinema. Can you please copyedit it. We are facing trouble with the excessive quotes, especially in sections Themes, Critical reviews and Legacy. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The peer review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've done all I can there, but of course I'll keep watching. Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rothorpe. Do you think it possible to get rid of quotes in sections Themes, Critical reviews and Legacy? Can you please guide us how that can done. Thanks again. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you want to do that, they seemed fine to me. Rothorpe (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually we got a comment about quotes in the PR. We reduced some, but were not sure if the existent ones are ok. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have another look. But I can only change what I see as wrong! Rothorpe (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Before we go for FAC, please take a final look on Mother India and please give your nod. Some text was added after your last edit [1]. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's all I can see. 'Give your nod' - where exactly? Rothorpe (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks a lot for copyediting the article. I have two question/ comment. Let me say at the beginning that English is not my first language, and so plee pardon me if I do any mistake in these comments.

First, regrading the doubted versus limited. This is about the a review which told that American audience might not accept the film. So, in this particular instance, the current sentence construction with " limited" does not probably convey the sense. How about " questioned "? If we retain " limited", it means as if actually the acceptance was limited. However, in this sentence, that is not the intended meaning. It intends to say that the review doubted about its acceptance.

Second, regarding noun plusing with with. Please refer to User:Tony1/Noun_plus_-ing. This suggest avoiding such construction. The last sentence of plot now has such construction ( with Radha opening the canal... Water flowing...). Do you think it would be better like this, " The film ends in 1957, when Radha opens ..." ? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In the first instance, thanks for explaining, and have introduced the word 'fears', which is I hope not too strong: I think it conveys what is meant. In the second, I don't agree with Tony that the construction is anything other than quite idiomatic and appropriate, but I've altered it now anyway - hope it's OK. Rothorpe (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, sounds very nice. I have no insight into the noun plus-ing entity; but surely we see quite a lot of that in daily life. Thanks again for copy-editing the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

If you do not understand how to use quotation marks, look at rule #1, seen here: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

In short, you have vandalized the page Joyce Carol Vincent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skriptar (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"…"!
~~US vs. UK~~

This user uses "logical quotation marks". Forcing internal punctuation leads to factual errors. It's not a nationalistic style issue!

...You should read this. Rothorpe (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And you should read this: http://grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html " When it comes to commas and periods, though, logic doesn't enter into the equation, at least not in the United States. Universal American usage places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, regardless of logic." Do you have nothing better to do than to nazi-edit the interwebs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skriptar (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're not taking this inappropriate outburst to heart. I, for one, am grateful that you are dedicating your attention to issues of punctuation, even though I might disagree with you on occasion – see below. As regards the quotation marks, I agree with you: It is much better to follow logic than slavishly obey unreasonable rules – which was, by the way, exactly what kept the Nazis in power! — Sebastian 08:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. Skriptar seems to be a single-purpose troll - I wonder who's got it in for me. Many thanks for your support there. Rothorpe (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Em dash

I noticed that you changed text I wrote from " — " to "—". After reading Dash, I realize that " — " indeed is not common, and I won't use it anymore. However, it seems to me that " – " is a preferable alternative for a number of reasons. Since, if we can trust Dash#En dash versus em dash, the latter is preferred in the UK, I'm wondering why you didn't choose that alternative? — Sebastian 08:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, very interesting. It seems Wikipedia is doomed to mix dashes. My use of the em dash is just a matter of taste, I don't see anything Victorian about it; American, yes, but that's not why I like it. The third, unmentioned, option, the hyphen dash, is the worst, but I usually don't bother to change it. It's also the only one I can type with a single stroke on my Portuguese keyboard. Rothorpe (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, if the keyboard you happen to have influences what you type, then I'd recommend changing the key arrangement. In Windows, that consists of two parts: Creating a new layout, and applying that layout. The second step is quite easy. The first is a little harder, but I'd be happy to do that for you. If you want to use a single keystroke, you could for instance free the "+", which you probably need less often, for that purpose by relegating it to some key combination. If you like the idea, please reply by e-mail, since I'll see that sooner. — Sebastian 21:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but, on reflection, I'm quite happy with the present situation, and I like my keys to do what they say. Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Rocket Record Company - your comments

Rothorpe, can you please quickly communicate your thoughts about the Rocket Record Company to the Wikipedia administrator Kinu when you get a chance. Kinu is handling all final changes made to the Rocket Records Wikipedia page, but he had to lock the page from any changes being made until this upcoming Tuesday, after which the proper changes will be able to be made. Thankfully, it seems as if everybody is now on the same page regarding the proper corrections that need to be made to the page, which is a very good thing. This Wikipedia record label project is very important to many of us in the Wikipedia music community, so I appreciate your input on the matter. Keeping Wikipedia as accurate as possible is incredibly important, and this is one of many changes regarding record label documentation that will help to ensure that. I look forward to your response.

Eric Gregson (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Eric D. Gregson

Thanks for reply; done. Rothorpe (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The 4 Seasons - Use of the lower case "the"

Rothorpe,

Being a collector of recorded music, the album covers and single label references, through the years, all use the upper case "The" when showing 'The 4 Seasons' or 'The Four Seasons' or the other variations from over those years.

I would think that those releases would be enough to be the guidepost by which capitalization is determined. Yes, there are groups that did/do not like the use of "The" in any form, but in many cases, the use of "The" is part of a group's name. It's not Beatles, it's The Beatles.

It would be appropriate to revert those edits as I don't think the lower case approach is correct. Thank you for reading this.

Bbrownlie (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In perusing your talk page, I found the link and had no idea the amount of time spent on the capitalization of the word 'the' in regards to The Beatles. What a waste. I have always been of the belief that what a group or a film called itself was official enough. Some one mentioned trademark/copyright issues - of, course, I would trademark/copyright every variation of my group name if it meant protecting the good of the name from exploitation (acknowledging that that approach can even be a bit over the top or silly if you're seen as over-reaching). Others mention grammar and style with all matter of references. Yet, for The Beatles, the drum logo, the offical recordings that were released, the official re-issues, in other words, the offical product of the organization always referred to The Beatles. Yet, there has to be an arguement because there are rules that override the intent of the group itself. Then, to add to the confusion, are these WIKI rules or guidelines? Guidelines suggest non-mandatory. I suppose, in some ways, it's a healthy debate, but it does make me wonder what drives people to take such sides and force a conclusion because both sides (or all sides) takes hit for being, in their own way, obtuse.Bbrownlie (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember the huge high I got when I first heard the Seasons' "Walk Like a Man" and "Rag Doll" (63 & 64, I think).

It's not a matter of one band having 'the' and another 'The', it's a matter of publishers' conflicting house styles. But the problem does seem to be resolved at WP at least for the time being, by using 'The Four Seasons' in wikilinks and 'the Four Seasons' otherwise. I happen to think that's a very elegant solution, and it looks as if I'm not the only one. Cheers! Rothorpe (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, The 4 Seasons releases were A-list and chart-topping, especially considering the competition from the "British Invasion" and others. To the subject at hand, I don't believe it's a matter of what publishing houses do or do not. It's a matter of the group and its intent through such things as logos, which implies that there is prime importance to the group's desire. I don't think it's an elegant solution because we (the general "we") step in and become arbiters without authority. We are so lucky to have "us" around to make decisions for others that we fall all over ourselves to create debate and decisions when none is necessary. For me, I think we are too full of ourselves (and I can include myself on occasion). Cheers as well! Bbrownlie (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

copyediting
Thank you for your great copyediting, spontaneous, thorough, engaged, evaluating alternatives, to the point, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 70th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda! Rothorpe (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Kercher reversion

Thanks for the reversion. I must have been looking at a previous edit and accidentally saved that version into my watchlist. My apologies and thanks again. -- Jodon | Talk 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, these things happen. Rothorpe (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with “is currently”?

When used with the present tense of a verb, “currently” is almost always unnecessary since the present tense tells us what the current condition is of something. We can just let the present tense of the verb do its job without adding a redundant “currently”.

Is there any difference between these pairs of sentences?

Barack Obama is currently president of the United States.
Barack Obama is president of the United States.

The Burj Khalifa is currently the tallest building in the world.
The Burj Khalifa is the tallest building in the world.

Moscow is currently the capital of Russia.
Moscow is the capital of Russia.

The second sentence in each pair means the same thing as the first sentence, but it is shorter and simpler.

Maybe some people think the present tense could be interpreted as meaning a permanent condition unless modified by “currently”. It is called the present tense, not the "permanent tense" for a reason: these sentences aren’t ambiguous, are they?

I am sick.
It is raining.
He is naked.

No-one would think that those are permanent conditions. The same is true of the sentences above; Barack Obama is not the eternal president of the United States – he is limited by both the US Constitution and his own mortality.

Is there ever an appropriate time to use “is currently”? There are times when clarification can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions. In these cases, “is currently” is correct, but “is now” is better because it is shorter and simpler.

For example:

The restaurant will be open tomorrow morning, but it is closed now.
I was feeling sick this afternoon, but I’m all right now.

In these cases, the present tense on its own isn’t really enough because the reader has just received contradictory information. Adding “now” provide the emphasis to make the situation clear. Ground Zero | t 02:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So why hasn't "currently" become obsolete? Why do people still use it? As at (148209) 2000 CR105, for example (though I see you have removed it again). Rothorpe (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the inherent problems with an encyclopedia written by random members of the public with varying skill levels and motives and as many reasons to edit as there are editors. Britmax (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Is your argument that we should not try to improve the writing style of Wikipedia if people use redundant expressions like "is currently" and "was formerly"? I don't know how to respond to that. I think that Wikipedia should aspire to better writing. If people make improvements on my writing style, I am pleased, and try to learn from their changes. Ground Zero | t 21:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "is currently" or "was formerly". Don't confuse emphasis with redundancy. Rothorpe (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The present tense and the past tense are perfectly clear. There is no reason to add emphasis, unless you're contrasting the current condition as described above. Otherwise, adding "currently" just adds another word without changing the meaning of the sentence. "Was formerly" is just plain wrong. The past tense indicates the condition in the past, and the pluperfect ("had been") is a clear and simple way of identifying something that preceded an event described in the past. Ground Zero | t 22:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm back...

Hello my dear Rothorpe, I come bearing another request. Marie Lloyd has been extended and is 90% complete. I wonder if I can call upon your excellent copy editors eye for a grammar fixing overview of my efforts. It is probably a bit bloated in places and some of the punctuation is debatable (or not). It would be great to have your input once again. Hope all is well and you had a good Easter. -- Cassianto ^Talk 11:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC), in the IPA

Certainly, I'll have a look. All the best, Rothorpe (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Her name is MAAry, rather than maREE, isn't it? That ought to be in there, in the IPA. Also, I confess I find 'at age 52' a bit American, but perhaps I should just accept that as WP style. Rothorpe (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've changed the latter; as for the former, we could just say it rhymes with 'starry'. Rothorpe (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea about the Americanism of "at age 52", I only wrote it like that as I have seen others do so (impressionable young sod that I am!) As an Englishman, I did think that it read a bit odd, but trusted my peers. Yes it is MAAry, I'm sure there is a correct way of doing the pronunciation thing at the start of the article, but I haven't learnt that yet, I may ask around. Your edits are very educational. I love going through them one by one to see my mistakes. I learn a lot from them and often chuckle to myself when I see how obvious my mistakes are. "Earnt" and "Earned" confuses me, as does a surname which ends in an "s" ie, "Sellers's or Sellers' or Sellers'es... When to use semi-colons, colons I can't get to grips with either. I have seen people say "He starred in Mousetrap (1969); Les Miserables (1970); Phantom of the Opera (1971);" and others use commas.... I will finish the legacy section and do some more bits and bobs and then we should be good for a peer review. A last going over from you of the new stuff would be brilliant in a week or so if that's OK? (Is it ok, OK, okay....doh!) -- Cassianto ^Talk 23:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your very interesting comments. Glad to know my edits are educational – well, I was a teacher. I could do the IPA for Marie Lloyd in handwriting, but here it's a bit complicated, so I'll just put in 'starry' for now. 'Earnt', unlike 'learnt', is not in the dictionary, so seemingly not an accepted form, though I'm sure I have heard it. I prefer Sellers's to Sellers', but it's basically just a question of taste. Semicolons are a sort of halfway house between commas and full-stops: I'd suggest, when in doubt, don't use. Colons are different: they introduce – though I'm fond of them, and some would use semicolons there. Of course I'll be keeping my eye on Marie, OK/okay? Rothorpe (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

To illustrate my point about commas being subservient to semicolons: "He starred in Mousetrap (1969); Les Miserables (1970), about which blah blah; Phantom of the Opera (1971), perhaps further blah here;..." Without the extra stuff, commas would be normal instead of semicolons. Rothorpe (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. Weirdly, school never really interested me as a youngster, but the older I get, the more interested I become in English. WP has certainly helped that. Regrettably, I was the one making sarcastic comments and paper aeroplanes in the back row in class. In fact, the only colons I found entertaining were the anatomical kind when discussing them in biology. Now, here I am writing biographies about people in the Victorian era! Isn't life strange? Incidentally, the Queen of the Music Hall is up for peer review now and I'm expecting Tim, Brian, and SchroCat for round one, with others planned in the next few weeks. Feel free to drop in, help out and offer much needed thoughts. Thanks for all your valued help! -- Cassianto ^Talk 10:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It turns out my wife knows the correct uses of semi-colons... how embarrassing! -- Cassianto ^Talk 12:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the best people made paper aeroplanes. Life is indeed strange. Of course your wife knows everything, that is what they are for. See you around! Rothorpe (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)