User talk:UpDown/Archive2

Stephen Harper

Hello UD, we need more opinons at the Harper page about inclusion/exclusion of Head of State at infobox. Your imput would be appreciated. GoodDay 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground

Hello UD, your idea of using a footnote has been accepted. Now, the question of that footnote's content is being discussed. GoodDay 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think G2bambino accepts the compromise (as it gives him room to mold the footnote content). However, I fear Tharky may not budge on the 'footnote' content; anyways, keeping my fingers crossed - we're sooo close to ending this schism. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I do hope so, we all have better things to do than argue!! Thanks for your co-operation on this.--UpDown (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, John Kenny might also be digging his heals in, on the footnote content. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it'd seemed I was suggesting G2 be the sole author of the footnote. My apologies, as it wasn't my intent. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally didn't think you were suggesting that.--UpDown (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello UD, I've no suggestions for the footnote content. I'll go with whatever the majority chooses. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at what is now taking place on this, and I hope that you will. G2bambino is, I think, making moves which do not accord with what was agreed when the issue quieted down, Nov 19. See the latest commentary at Talk:Commonwealth realm and Talk:Royal Burial Ground, following from G's try at changing "Royal Burial Ground" so that its "British Royal Family" link leads instead to a section of "Commonwealth realm".
-- Lonewolf BC 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Midsomer Murders episodes

Sorry, but had to revert your edits. There was an unregistered user who deleted loads of material from the article without giving reason. The safest way was to completely undo all the work after your edit, and those before. The only way I could do it and be sure of doing it properly was to revert to the last edit of the 2nd December. This meant that your edit, which does appear to be a valid one, was undone.

Sorry to be a pain, but could you re-do your edit? If I were to have a go, I might miss something. Thanks, StephenBuxton 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lady Louise, again.

Greetings! I know the debate has raged before – in fact, I previously shared your opinion on the matter. However, in my discovery of this site, I read the source I referenced, which actually outlines the case against the "legally a princess" position eloquently . Therefore, as a NPOV encyclopaedia, we must include the arguments of both sides, and without a satisfactory "win", we should write in a tone of "continuing debate"! Please, therefore, revert (wholly or partially) my edits to Lady Louise Windsor and British princess. Cheers DBD 11:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but there is another side, which says that, as fons honorum, the Queen can alter styles through any means she wants, and we are bound to represent this side, for the sake of NPOV! DBD 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then this is something to be mentioned on the page – it's definitely worth mentioning – the concept that all styles flow from the Will of the Sovereign etc – it's important! DBD 12:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Home and Away character bios

Hello, UpDown ... since you expressed an interest in preserving these articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away), perhaps you would be interested in identifying other copyright violations caused by copy&paste of articles from http://www.backtothebay.net/cast/bio/ ... I think you would agree that copyvios are an issue quite distinct from notability, and that these kinds of articles should be G12 speedy deleted without any further discussion ... I find that a quick scan for the word "whilst" should identify articles copied from this website ... for all we know, this copying permeates the actor as well as the character biographies, and since you seem to frequent these articles, I thought you might keep a lookout.

BTW, I'm not on a campaign against Home and Away character bios (or any Down Under soaps or actors), but I am on a campaign against articles with absolutely no attribution to reliable, published sources, and especially against any copy&paste from Some Other Website ... these just happened to cross my radar, and pretty soon I will MOVE ON ... Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Haleh Afshar, Baroness Afshar?

Hi, I see you have moved Haleh Afshar article to Haleh Afshar, Baroness Afshar. May I know which part of MoS supports that? I watchlisted your talkpage so feel free to answer here.Farmanesh (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names point 2. It is very widely known.--UpDown (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

surnames

Hi. I have a few comments regarding the footnote and the whole surnames issue:

• In general: although I personally agree with the school of thought that titled royals have no surname, I believe that there's some disagreement on this matter. Should the wikipedia really be pronouncing this as an absolute fact? Do we have a cast-iron source for this?
• In the specific case of Viscount Severn, I think it's really weird for us to be jumping the gun and referring to things in the future with a present-tense verb. So far the only formal communication we have regarding him is the press release, which does not refer to him by name. So it's weird to say "when one is used", since that hasn't happened yet.
• persistent references to "legally" sound to my ears like we're criticizing the palace for its handling of the Wessex children. That's not encyclopedic.

Cheers, Doops | talk 19:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing: the real problem with saying "as a (legally) titled royal..." is that it's incredibly cryptic for people who don't follow all these debates. (Legally? As opposed to illegally? Huh? — is what they will think. Plus they may well be unable to recognize 'Lady Louise Windsor' or 'Viscount Severn' as NOT being royal titles.) Clarity is paramount. Doops | talk 20:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Template 3RR

Just a warning: you've already breached 3RR at Template:British Royal Family. --G2bambino (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at my talk. --G2bambino (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, I suggest that you self-revert this. I'll gladly make that edit, afterward, as the simplification seems most sensible to me. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think there it would be any help anyway. I broke 3RR on the 4th edit, the 5th I don't think counts, as its not reverting. But, perhaps its a good idea, if you'll change back. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No point in your self-reverting now, anyway, because of the intervening edit. If your edit was not a revert -- my guess is that it was, to somewhere back in the page history, but I haven't looked -- then it does not matter at all. If you'd already broken 3rr, I don't suppose a technical 5th revert, no affecting the contentious bit or any other contentious bit, much affects your 3rr-wise standing. Take care -- and I mean that in every sense. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Many Thanks. I have done so, as you can see.--UpDown (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My Edits

Dear UpDown,

I am sorry for my poor edits, but i have followed the guidelines to the letter on Template:Infobox Television for Cranford, i would hope that you view my most recent edit and tell me of what you think! Thanks.

Hamilton365 (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Executive Stress

• Sigh* You tell me to do the work myself, I do, and you turn around and undo it? Do you want the article improved or not? I've fixed the source (must have copy/pasted wrong) for airing in Australia. I changed the format of the dates in the infobox per the infobox instructions so they will format properly based on user preferences. Collectonian (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The date thing should be UK dates. These will format. --UpDown (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ask on the infobox page. I'll defer to what they say. Right now, the instructions currently specify dates in the format of month day, year, hence my changing it. It didn't have any notes that using UK dates was okay. Collectonian (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is common convention, and policy, to use the date format for the country in question. Both will format. --UpDown (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know its common convention and policy in the article text, but that doesn't always hold for templates. That's all I'm saying...it doesn't auto format properly in the television info box. Collectonian (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I will change, as common convention and policy trumps the infobox, which needs to be changed if it doesn't format correctly. It is not right that US dates should show for all those without autoformatting (which is most readers).--UpDown (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into another edit war over this article. The episode list headers are properly formatted, please stop changing it.Collectonian (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Either do I, but in it appears there is nothing I can do right in your eyes. I also do not appreciate you reverting whole edit, while telling me to change back infobox if I like. If you only want to change episode then do so, don't change all and tell me to do my edit again. Where is the episode list guideline that backs you up?--UpDown (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you had waited a few minutes, I was already putting back the appropriate infobox changes. I actually do know what I am doing on this article. I am an experienced Television Project editor you know. I have taken several TV articles from stub and start class to B class, have several getting ready to go for GA and featured status, and have a taken a episode list to featured list status. I do know what I'm doing and this article would be improved much faster if I didn't have to fight with you over such minor stuff. The format is what it should be. You were the one talking consistency...the format I used is the one most often used for episode lists including multiple featured lists. Collectonian (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There really is no need to brag, none of that impresses me or makes me change my mind. The fact if I hadn't kicked up a fuss regarding the tags, you most likely wouldn't have touched the article, just left the tags there. I would still like the link stating that the way you like the years is correct.--UpDown (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't bragging, I was trying to show you that I am experienced and not just some idiot trying to annoy you. There isn't an official MOS for episode lists at the moment. I'm sharing what I was taught by other editors during peer reviews and discussions with more experienced Television editors. Please remember you do not own this article, and that other editors may have more experience to offer to improve the article. If you are not going to listen to others try to correct issues, the article will never be more then a start class article. If you want to change it back, go ahead. I'm not going to bother edit warring with you again and I do have better things to do.

And you are probably correct. I tagged the article originally while doing a batch of about 50 article assessments. While I am doing those bulk assessments, I tag those with issues to alert other editors to problems. Usually the editors who work the article will just fix the issues rather than throw up a huge and unnecessary fuss over them. If I tried to fix all of the issues on all of the articles while I'm doing the assessments, the assessments would never get done. I have a full set of my own articles that I'm doing major work on, and I tend to prefer to let the regular editors on an article handle the issues I've tagged it for when possible. I only bothered attempting to fix this because you seemed so unwilling to even acknowledge them and I was sick of fighting with you over the tags. Collectonian (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have better things to do (bringing To the Manor Born and episode list up to GA article quality). I never claim to own the article, but did feel at times that what you thought. If I'm honest I don't agree with mass-tagging (and this isn't aimed at you, I never have), if an article has an issue try and fix it yourself is my view. But I am aware that this is probably not a widespread opinion. Anyway, lets stop arguing (as you righty say, we both have have better things to do). I apologise for my part in the whole argument and wish you a Happy New Year.--UpDown (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vivienne Vyle

The citation is not required. The information (the names of the writers and stars) is readily available from the primary source. Few if any of the starred articles in the television portal feature such an unnecessary citation. The community consensus seems clear on the preferred style. Respect it, please.--Dr Fell (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

By your logic nearly every line of an article would require a citation. The overwhelming majority of articles on television programs are not littered with redundant and superfluous references. I would direct you to Wikipedia's style manual for a review of when citations are recommended. Articles are not fiefdoms and changing something you wrote is not vandalism.--Dr Fell (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Before you go into revert mode again

Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Thanks. - Dudesleeper Talk 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And how will that help me in the case?--UpDown (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge tag

I will not be using a merge tag because you seem to be the only user interested in the article. I have dealt with you before, and I remember that you are one of the various users that abuses the spirit of consensus by playing around with both the definition and the fact that you can just claim "no consensus" at any time to wikilawyer your points. TTN (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And remember you are the one that seems uninterested in actually contributing to Wikipedia, by building articles, improving articles, creating articles. You just destroy them. Like a vandal. But to the point, the article has real world information and a discussion should at least have been started. How did you know I was the only one interested, you haven't started a discussion to see? In addition, if you are going to merge the information do so correctly. The production information does not belong in the episode summary box. It belongs outside it. If the result of a merge discussion I will go with it, but I am not happy with you just redirecting a referenced article with real world info. --UpDown (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing and rearranging unencyclopedic information is contributing. Would you say that wikignomes also aren't really contributing because they don't really do anything constructive? I see that you're the only one interested by looking at the edit history and the dead project. If you can find some people besides ones that will instantly side with you because they either hate me or have a bias towards episodes, I won't mind discussing. The summary box is a fine place for the information, but you can feel free to place it outside if you would like. TTN (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing other people's hard work and annoying so many people, as your talk page constantly shows, is not contributing. Have you ever created an article, or really improved one? You don't even merge page properly, you basically delete by redirect. If you merged correctly, you would get less opposition. But you don't seem to care what anyone else thinks, so sure you are that destroying articles is a constructive use of time. But to the point, the summary box is not a fine place for the information, you clearly haven't read TV guidelies, the box for a summary of the episode. And production-related information should go in a production section. In this case though, I believe the page should remain. --UpDown (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

When "hard work" constitutes watching a television show and writing down its plot in great detail, I have to say the world has fallen. I merge when merging is necessary; episode lists only need so much detail. It honestly doesn't matter where it goes as long as it looks fine. We're not really sticklers for following any real episode list format. TTN (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesn't look fine there! You say "We're not really sticklers for following any real episode list format", in other words you don't mind ignoring the guidelines at WP:TV. Guidelines are there to be followed, as you constantly say. You may not care about TV articles or how they look, but others do. --UpDown (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you're free to move it. I don't have any magical powers keeping it locked there. I'm saying that when dealing with a minor style issue, it doesn't really matter. This is nothing, so please don't try to turn it into something big to help you make me look bad. TTN (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Palace (TV series)

As a royally-inclined person, would you be interested in helping out with this article when the series starts next week? Brad (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Oh. I didn't watch it. I was completely turned off by the preview in The Times that described it as "Footballer's Wives with tiaras". I was quite excited about it when it was first announced -- British screenwriters have long been trying to make a "British West Wing". But I didn't tune in so have nothing to contribute to the article now! Oh, well. I'll try to make some time to watch it on ITV.com and I'll keep an eye out for any more production info that crops up. Brad (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Felicity Ann Kendal

Hello UpDown. I thought that I should tell you that Felicity Ann Kendal the article has already been created. The article which is actually Felicity Kendal was created December 2002. You may put a redirect to that page from Felicity Ann Kendal if you like. Thanks! Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. There is no Felicity Ann Kendal article, and I certainly haven't created it.--UpDown (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Felicity Kendal is the article I'm talking about. That is the same person you are writing about am I correct? The article was already created in December 2002. You may however, want to put a redirect page to that article from Felicity Ann Kendal. Sorry for the confusion! Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 15:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I still don't understand, I have never written or created an article "Felicity Ann Kendal". What I am writing on my user page is not anyone else's concern. What I am doing is rewriting the Felicity Kendal article, adding refs and more info. Instead of doing so on the actual article, which would mess it up as I'm doing it over several days, I have done it on my user area. When I have completed finished writing it, I will transfer to the main article. --UpDown (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Palace episodes

Hiya — I noticed you've been editing The Palace (TV series) — do you reckon we could maintain an individual page for each episode? I've written an extended summary at my sandbox, so please do take a look, and if you want, a fiddle — I daresay if we decide to go ahead it'd need a serious curtailment! (P.S. I've posted this to Brad too) DBD 02:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lizzy Bardsley

I'm going to leave the merge tag up in case anyone else wants to weigh in. As I said, I don't think the stuff about her tax-dodging adventures is worthy of WP, and with that gone there isn't much else that couldn't be said as "Wife Swap made a minor celebrity out of Lizzy Bardsley, who appeared in her own reality show in 2003..." in the main article.

A second point, could you weigh in (and perhaps lend me some kind of metaphor thesaurus...) at Talk:Kingdom (TV series)#Proposal for filming locations. Ta. Brad (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Viscount Severn

He's never known as James Windsor, we don't even have confirmation thats his surname

Well, Louise is known as Lady Louise Windsor, so I would assume that James' surname would be Windsor as well. Plus, the article is located at James Windsor. Morhange (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not our place to assume. He legally has no surname and the palace has not announced the surname he would use. In my eyes the article is wrongly located.--UpDown (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

K.U.A Episodes

I've reverted your changes on the Keeping Up Appearances Episode page for two reasons: A) The new layout is more concise than the old one. B) It makes it far more easier for users to find information; the new layout means they do not need to read the entire paragraph to do so.

If wish to discuss the matter further, I will consider your comments posted on my talk page, and respond to them thus. Edito*Magica (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the other episode list pages, especially FA ones. This is the way they should be formatted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and people are expected to read paragraphs! --UpDown (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"people are expected to read paragraphs"- They are also expected to read tables and other forms of layouts; the paragraph is not always the best way to convey information. I have also viewed other pages, and you will find there is no generic rule for an episode page as such; many pages for different shows vary (hence "2 point 4 Children").

I have stated the logical reasons for the changes I have made, which are anything but vandalism. Furthermore, I advise you not be threatening, it is not the best way to solve desputes.Edito*Magica (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are generic rules, as I said look at most episode lists (2 point 4 Children episode lists need serious work, but I note that the opening is more how it should be (although it should be longer)). Wikipedia has to look consistent and your way of doing things is not. Feel free to take this to WP:TV if you like, but I think they'll back me up on this one. For FA articles examples see List of Lost episodes, List of Claymore episodes, List of Desperate Housewives episodes etc etc. As I also said in an edit summary articles never start with subheadings. --UpDown (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains layouts vary according to each article, and just because some follow the same layout does not mean that is the most appropriate or preferred layout. There are many advantages, as mentioned, regarding my alterations on the episode page, however the argument is defunct because I am removing the information which repeats what’s on the previous page anyway. And a whole paragraph describing the opening credits? Utter pointlessness.Edito*Magica (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, you really need to learn more about how to edit Wikipedia. The FA articles one are the ones to follow, and does mean it is the preferred layout. The opening is meant to be of a certain length per WP:LEAD; yes information is repeated but it's a different article so that is expected. The main article is not a "previous page", its a seperate article; you appear wrongly to think that they are one page split in two. They are two different articles. If you continue to do these anti-MoS edits then I will ask for the intervention of an administrator. You cannot continute to disrupt Wikipedia.--UpDown (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You really need to grow a brain at some point, for your own good. And I think you’ll find “Upstairs Downstairs” that it is you who is the disruptive one who is determined to reverse all of the many improvements I’ve tried to make to Wikipedia. Thus you are the vandal, and as you persist in threatening me with administrators you are technically committing acts of “cyber bullying”. Now I and other editors don’t have a problem with you making positive contributions but if you persist in pulling Wiki pages backwards instead of forwards, we advise you to leave the site.

Now I have read about the lead and on the very same page a tag states quite clearly that the rule does not have to be followed, and my rule does suit the article better, it is more concise, quicker and easier for users to find details, hence I strongly advice you not to reverse the changes. “If you continue to do these anti-MoS edits then I will ask for the intervention of an administrator. You cannot continue to disrupt Wikipedia” Edito*Magica (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many pages on Wikipedia, some with layouts very different from others. YOU might prefer the old episode layout but as an editor of a public website, I have to consider what is visually appropriate and is easiest to read for other users, the new layout is just that. Please see sense. Oh, and can you please tell me what is the utter point in repeating the same information on the same page?Edito*Magica (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said we abide my rules and guidelines on Wikipedia, and you are ignoring the episode lists article guidelines. If you wish to change them start a discussion on WP:TV (or similar), but don't change them on this page which makes them at odd with everything else. The lead and the infobox are both quick summaries of the page and the information is expected to be repeated. --UpDown (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind you that my minor alterations to the layout still follow the guidelines on the lead page which I have read. It is still a quick summary, it is concise, and still features paragraphs. Furthermore, such alterations to the layout will be made to other articles eventually, so it is not as if this one will be the only one set out in such a way. If you look at the Wiki table defining types of vandalism, my changes cannot be classified as such. You are in fact committing “sneaky vandalism”, I quote the manual: “reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages”. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to inform you of the growing consensus of my recent edits to the episode page, I quote: "Well, it looks like your changes are harmless (at the very least; they look quite good)". I am hoping to make similar improvements to other episode lists, I hope you soon see sense. (Remember I have not removed the lead, just altered its appearance)Edito*Magica (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus, you and your little friend have no right to alter the entire tabular layout without considering other user’s POV. The new layout looks ugly, the old tables looked far better. Furthermore, in the original layout there was consensus, here there is not. Your disruptive edits have, once again, been reverted. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

British/English

Sorry mate, didn't know. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

K.U.A Episodes

Hey, to lend a helping hand, I've given the List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes a semi-quick overhaul to get it formated in the standard episode list manner, and to put all of the episodes into the episode template. You may want to give it a check as some of the titles on TV.com were different from the ones in the article (changed for US broadcasts?). Feel free to change the colors if you want, I just tried to pick some fairly muted ones that would contrast each other. :) I also put the specials in with their seasons, and add some refs. I hope that helps in the clean up efforts. Collectonian (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Extinct logo.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, UpDown, I went ahead and put in a FUR for that one for you. Collectonian (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks, I thought I'd tagged that one right first time! I'll do it more carefully in future!! Will sort the rest in the morning.--UpDown (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of royal wedding

The item in The Tablet says that this date has been confirmed by Buckingham Palace. At the very least I think it would be fair to include something in the articles like, 'It has been reported that the wedding will take place on 17 May 2008 at St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle though no official announcement from Buckingham Palace has been made.'--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know any other media had claimed to know the date of the wedding. I don't follow royal events but did happen to see this in The Tablet. I wonder why it would say, 'Buckingham Palace confirmed this week that the couple will wed at St George's Chapel, Windsor, on 17 May', if Buckingham Palace had not confirmed it. The Notebook section of The Tablet is, as you may know, anonymous, so it's not as if a journalist is getting any kudos for being able to break the story. The only reason it was mentioned is because of The Tablet's longstanding interest in the Act of Settlement 1701. It is generally a pretty accurate publication and apologises for any errors it makes, most recently, for example, to the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean, whose views on the Lambeth Conference it had slightly misrepresented. I shall enquire of the editor how this apparent lapse came about.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Many newspapers have claimed to know the date & place of wedding, and although The Tablet does say BP confirmed it, if it had I'm sure the papers and BBC etc would have mentioned it.--UpDown (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

John Lydon

A user is insiting on the British description on the John Lydon article, despite Lydon even self identifying as English. Able to help? I know you are an established user and have dealth with these issues before. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.164.86 (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello UpDown, I'm the user who disagrees with the notion to use English instead of British in this entry. While editing this page to this effect, I have not violated the 3RR rule, as I had done only three rv within a 24-h period (the editor who had suggested I had fallen foul of it seems to have misunderstood the rule). I also question your assertion of a consensus on this subject. J Lydon is a bona fide example of how misconceived the notion of using the restrictive term English really is. If anything, as an Eastender he would describe himself as "Cockney", and with his parents being of Irish extraction labelling him English obfuscates his origin and background further. Moreover, my main beef are "editors" whose sole mission seems to revolve around inserting their unfounded or misinformed views on country of origin--usually they are anonymous or (as in the case here) their account was created for only this purpose. Unless I see a learned and measured discussion on the talk pages of such disputed articles (invariably such editors never respond to such request), I will gently apply my changes aware of a broader consensus. BTW, I'm neither English nor British, so I am relatively impartial and very amenable to reason on this subject. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your point of view--in my experience you're the first of the advocates for "English" as local origin who's deigned to explain his/her point of view. Although I fail to concur with your arguments, and I also fail to see a broader consensus. I don't deny that "British" is a slightly inaccurate designation for country origin (due to Great Britain being commonly used to describe a geographical area), but I have not heard of any other adjectival form for citizens of the United Kingdom. The usage of English would be generally appropriate in the context of cultural origin, such as "English folksinger" or for a historic person, but it has no place in an encyclopedic article that deals with contemporary persons whose work (or life) is not interwoven with their place of birth. The states in the US enjoy a great deal of political independence and in many areas are geographically and demographically much more diverse than the UK, so it would seem more than logical to apply the same rules here (even if traditionally they have not been "countries" in the classical sense). But if one were to change, say, George Clooney's cultural heritage as Kentuckian, one would surely be laughed out of court. I'm not going to embark on a protracted battle on the JL article, as I've made only minor contributions to it, and so I don't feel that I have gathered enough clout to bring about a thorough discussion there. Thanks Malljaja (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Felicity Kendal

Hi UpDown,

I know I haven't exactly been brilliant with my edits, but if you would take a look at Felicity Kendal, I hope that it is up to Wikipedia's standards and yours. I'm sorry for ruining some articles but I think I have got the hang of it now. I hope you think so too, because I worked really hard on it.

Thanks,

Hamilton365 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and also, I know you said about Solo not being her most famous, but I used it because she was nominated for a CableACE award for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilton365 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

K.U.A-a slight disagreement

Well I still think “synopsis” clarifies what the text is, similar to the “title” heading clarifying what the title is. There is no reason why the synopsis should be the only section unlabelled. Edito*Magica (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I say, its self-apparent. But more than that, its general policy for that template, so if you disagree, then you will need to discuss it at the template's talk page. We cannot make an exception on this episode list.--UpDown (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jam & Jerusalem

Through research, i found that jam and Jerusalem is a situation-comedy/drama, I will cite it if you feel that you think it isn't. Thanks. If you don't believe me, here is a link to confirm what I am saying [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by HAA Best (talk • contribs) 12:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Aired"

With regard to your use of the word "aired" in the sense of "broadcast" in the Who Do You Think You Are? article, this is a US journalistic cliché that has gained currency in some UK downmarket magazines and similar-styled websites. I searched the BBC News site for entertainment stories that used it and found only one example. 'Broadcast', 'transmitted', 'shown' and 'screened' are all certainly used, but 'aired' is frowned upon in some circles. However, I won't revert. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I, like I'm presuming you, like in the UK and regulary used aired as do many I know. I also find it shorter and to the point in the opening line to say "aired". The BBC I tend to ignore as they don't italicse programme's like we, and most media, do!! Anyway, thanks for not reverting.--UpDown (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

See WP:R2D linking to redirects is fine where it makes the editing process more obvious, however Officer of the British Empire is incorrect usage, I mis-typed initially. David Underdown (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia so we have to be picky - about the right things, have you actaully read the link I pointed you to, there is no need to pipe a link like that one. I'm not going to revert you again though. David Underdown (talk)

Yes, I did, but I still see no harm is ensuring the link works correctly. After all there is very unlikely to ever been an article on the OBE itself (nor should there be), so it will always be a redirect. Also, I do believe that it linked correctly before your initial edits, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.--UpDown (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Heartbeat Characters

Hello

Why did you delete my linking on the article? Putting up "PC" is stupid because people dont understand what it is supposed to signify. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think many do understand PC, and linking Police and Constable is unnecessary. Not all words should be linked.--UpDown (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit...

I've got this horrible feeling that I'm going insane... thanks for catching that :P _TalkIslander 16:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)