User talk:Gareth E Kegg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the praise. You do yeoman work on the 'pop standards' articles. Good luck with the Sinatra GA effort - that article used to be a horrowshow of bias, imbalance of material, edit warring, etc. Wasted Time R 22:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Sinatra films category

Looking at Category:Frank Sinatra, the top level contains a lot of his films, which would perhaps better be in a new Category:Frank Sinatra films. Except that his most famous films (Manchurian Candidate, From Here to Eternity, Von Ryan's Express ...) don't seem to be there. So is there a rationale for the categorization? Just wondering ... Wasted Time R 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to create Category:Frank Sinatra films, but have always been discouraged from doing so by the current violent consensus. This annoys me, cause Sinatra isn't in a position to make any more films, and thus make a category unmanageable or non notable. Having said that, Sinatra is one of the few musicians whose category hasn't been deleted. Gareth E Kegg 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Bennett at Carnegie Hall

I looked at the article, and I think I would help you somewhat improve the article. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Article body for better edits. Another way is to create sub-headings of LP and CD versions of an album. Or, you can let me do the job for you rather than {{cleanup}} --Gh87 06:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The LP and CD subheadings are already there and correct. I shall expand the main body, a I have been meaning to do. Gareth E Kegg 10:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Louis

Do you have a good ref for the St. Louis fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Salon.com [1]? Gareth E Kegg 18:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD nomination of a category you created

Just to let you know that I have nominated Category:Argentinean singers for merging into Category:Argentine singers. If you want to participate, the discussion is here. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by at the discussion. You can just add {{db-author}} to the category and an admin will delete it for you. (It's a handy way of hiding mistakes that I've used in the past!) Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== User:Enigmabooks ==

You should be able to revert these yourself & put a WP:EL warning on his talk page. If he's been warned before, then WP:ANI is the place to take it. I've left a note there to this effect. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Didn't Know About You

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article I Didn't Know About You, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Martijn Hoekstra 13:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I Didn't Know About You

Glad you got them to back down. I will look in my Alec Wilder book and see if it mentions the song so the article will have an independent source.

By the way, did you see that the guy who changed "The Lady Is a Tramp" to "This Lady Is a Tramp" earlier tried to do it again. Of course he provided no sources or justification. I undid his edit already, but you might want to put the page on your watchlist in case it happens again. InnocuousPseudonym 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a large body of people in the Wikipedia community who don't know anything about any song written before they were aware of music. Of course, nothing seems notable to them unless it was written in the last few years. We just have to remain vigilant. -- BRG 20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As the person who originaly tagged the article for speedy deletion, I would like to make a comment about that. The article as it stood when it was tagged did not assert notability as specified in WP:SONG. When more content was added to the article, it turned out to actualy comply with all guidelines. The template was removed without further discussion. The tag was placed in good faith of my behalf, and I am not part of any 'they' that are out to get 'your articles'. Afterall, we're all in this to write the best encyclopedia we can. I won't say I never make mistakes, but when I do, I like to believe I am quick to admit them, and make sure we can move on, and make things better. If you do have any comments how I could be a better editor, my talkpage is always open to suggestions! Happy editing! Martijn Hoekstra 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sinatra category

Actually I will be surprised if the main Category:Frank Sinatra goes. The rules for categories named after people are designed to accomodate ones where there are several different articles about different aspects of the person's life or work. Articles like Frank Sinatra's recorded legacy mean that the main Sinatra category fulfills this requirement, whatever happens to the subcategories. Personally, I wish the rules in this area would be liberalized somewhat. InnocuousPseudonym 00:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I fought a wierd battle to keep Bobby soxers in his category, after being told that a link was sufficent enough, despite the fact that there was a tag requiring categories. Gareth E Kegg 11:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Algonquin Round Table

Hi Gareth, what is new? Are you making sure to drain as much ale as possible out of your pubs over there? I did see that project page for the Algonquin Round Table. I will kick in some ideas for it, but I also am leery, after watching the shenanigans that went on over the Dorothy Parker article by the same main user. I actually wrote a book about Parker (A Journey into Dorothy Parker's New York) so to see the Wiki errors and mistakes on Parker drives me batty. I just don't want to see it happen in the Round Table article, which also keeps having dumb stuff added to it. So... I guess I will put my 2 cents in on the subject. However, I do love the List of iconic drinkers the most! --K72ndst 17:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How ironic! I'm fighting a battle with the very same guy over the Frank Sinatra category...which is heading for destruction :( The pubs are good, the Rugby world cup saw to that, I couldn't help thinking of Rugby internationals when Burton, Reed and Harris would roll into town. The pumps certainly took a battering then. I'm trying to find stuff on Chinese drinkers, as they have an ancient alcoholic heritage. I expect your book would get slapped down for "no orginal research!" Gareth E Kegg 09:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I agree with you. It was 5 years research on the first book, and almost as long on the new one. It isn't worth my time getting into a pissing contest, because it just ends up on your shoes (sorry). The sad part is seeing wrong information that could be fixed if they just bought the book. For the drinkers list, I was also thinking of adding notable drinkers from non-English speaking countries. I would say Spanish, German, Italian most. China? Did Mao like his rice wine? --K72ndst 13:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sammydolittle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sammydolittle.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 00:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject:Algonquin Round Table

Greetings! I see you listed yourself on the project proposal page. I'm hoping for a few more people; I figure if we hit five then we can push ahead with a project page. Otto4711 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sinatra

You could word it either way, but just saying American is easier, causes less trouble, and is more correct. Daniel Chiswick 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Gareth E Kegg 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Coltraneplaystheblues.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

"Bleh"? InnocuousPseudonym 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I posted a pointless message, but then pretty much resolved it :) Gareth E Kegg 13:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Kind of Town

I see you followed the GA reviewer advice of removing the NN redlinks. I kind of disagree with the advice. Did you do this because you agree with the advice, independently, or sort of because the reviewer said to do it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with the advice indepedently, and had suggested similar earlier on the talk page, calling them non notable compilation albums. The four recordings are amply referenced on the albums currently there, and having done so much work on theChronological list of singles and albums recorded by Frank Sinatra, I fear being bogged down in Best of's and the like. I'd finally like to add my deep thanks for making such a good article, and I hope it's the first of many related to Sinatra! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Let me know what you think of my compromise. P.S. reply at my talk page if you can.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this one. You may want to post this somewhere:

This user helped promote the article My Kind of Town to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harriet Harman

I said yesterday's PM which certainly was broadcast - the interviewer was Nick Robinson. How is 'direct answer' loaded. She was asked did she or any of her team approach this man or his proxy for money. Simple enough question to answer. She could not do so and changed the subject, she was asked again and again changed the subject and on the third asking weas still unable to give a yes no answer. I shall have look on the Radio 4 site and hoepfully there will be a downlaod of the programme avaibale that I can link to on my next edit if her article. 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I totally agree with you on this subject, as I heard the same interview, it is still open to interpretation as to the directness of her answer. I agree that all parties involved have been shifty on this matter. I hope that in the future you shall contribute to wikipedia in a mature fashion. I'm going to try and take down the loaded video you linked on Liam Bryne's article as well, and with regards to the title of the subsection we really cannot claim things are illegal before the law has run its course. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you listen to the relevant parts of th interview again I think you will find the word 'evasion' best describes the answers she gave. If she could possibly have answered positively from her point of view she would have. a highlight of the interview is surely the contrast of how she aimed to 'stick to both the letter and spirit of the law' at the beginning and by the end has been shown to be peddling in half truths and falsehoods.As for what is illegal or not illegal....if i crash my car into someone and drive away then that is illegal, i would not expect to have to wait till an appearance before a judge to find out about the legality of my actions. What they did is against their own recent law and the police should be involved. Why can a political party get away with saying 'we made a mistake and what we did was unlawful but its okay, we'll give the money back'. does that mean i can have ago at robbing a bank and if unsucessful say that 'well its okay, i'll give the money back, can i continue as normal now?'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipov (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The only illegal actions have been committed by Janet Rudd. Harman has not broken any law, as she accepted the money "in good faith". It is hardly akin to "robbing a bank" Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If we assume for a second that her inability to answer the question in question :) means that her campaign team were indeed tipped off that they should contact the Abrahams proxy....and that her inability to answer indicates that she knows this to be the case then surely that would mean she is culpable. Further, if word was put out that the proxy was good for a few quid then how likely is it really that those moving in these circles were really unaware that the proxy was indeed just that, a proxy. That must make them knowingly involved in breaking the law. yesterday it was one person who knew about the details of this, today it seems to be two, how many tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipov (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As a QC Miss Harman probably knows a thing or two about correctly answering questions. I'm not willing to engage in any more libelous tittle tattle over this. Your description of the radio interview should be deleted. It proves nothing, and we should await on the news as to see how this will proceed, not inferring from intonation intention :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strangeway

Thanks for the wiki tidy up on Strangeway - nice work - and I think this will grow and grow. Excalibur 00:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 4 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rothschild (Fabergé egg), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 4 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Renaissance (Fabergé egg), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 5 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rosebud (Fabergé egg), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Woody (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of iconic drinkers

An editor has nominated List of iconic drinkers, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic drinkers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

Just thought you might like to know RMHED (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last call for alcohol

I put my 2 cents in. I hope the article is not deleted, I loved learning about snooker players and rogue Brit politicians. I'd miss it! If it is taken out and shot, let's start a new article in a similar vein. -- K72ndst (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll miss it too. It'll always be labelled as NPOV by the joyless. Let's take it to Drinking culture Gareth E Kegg 11:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I have 3 holiday parties this weekend at various NYC pubs to reflect on the woebegone article. Nobody is sticking up for keeping it around, which doesn't surprise me, because they are probably out drinking right now. -- K72ndst (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You should go up to your friends and say "Vinny, I demand my regular". Those who have read the article will know to get you 6 double vodkas, a lá Richard Harris. Wikipedia is the darth of fun. Next thing you know, List of sex positions will be no more, and Hanno will be homeless. I'm drowning my sorrows with my transatlantic namesake, Keggy the Keg. Gareth E Kegg 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bunny Roger

Well, I originally nom'd him because the article didn't say anything about notability, but then I started reading about him... I'm actually using that article in the WikiProject LGBT "Jump-a-class" to see how good I can make the article :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 8 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Order of St. George (Fabergé egg), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On 15 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Duchess of Marlborough (Fabergé egg), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 14:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of jazz vocalists

and other such pages--they are for some reason showing up on the speedy deletion page, WP:CSD which i cannot figure out. first nobody in their right mind would want to delete them, but also there is no deletion tag I can find. If you can figure it out let me know. If they are not there when you look, someone alreadyf ixed it. DGG (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 21 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Royal Danish (Fabergé egg), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 23:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gladys Knight

I've let him have his little reference to the Empress of Soul stuff - hopefully it'll stop him from messing up the rest of the article, especially now I've tidied it up enough to be able to take the improvement tags off it! Happy Holidays, BLACKKITE 16:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's do it Let's fall in love

Why did you undo my contribution to the song "Let's do it"? It's an exact transcription of what Peggy lee sung, and as far as I know the only one recorded (and nowadays available) that starts with: "Thats why the chinks do it, Japs do it". So I undid your action again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artinas (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote to me: I undid your action as the lyrics are still copyrighted. I don't feel that Wikipedia should become a repository for lyrics, and the relevant passage is already highlighed in the article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment to that is:

That's not correct. Wikipedia shows under the text: "This pop standards-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." So I did.
And about the copyright: all over the web lyrics are available. All Sinatra songs, all Ella songs, you name it and it's available for reading.
So let's keep it this way until some moderator thinks Wikipadia will be sued for this.
I guess it will not.

Because other people do something wrong and haven't been reprimanded is not a reason to do so yourself. We should lead by example, and expand the stubs by discussing the song rather than becoming another text dump lyrics site Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Christina Ebner

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christina Ebner, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Ebner. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Guitarsalalee.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Guitarsalalee.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) 06:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ConversationsWithMyself.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ConversationsWithMyself.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) 05:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Acertainmrjobim.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Acertainmrjobim.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) 06:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Inloveagain!.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Inloveagain!.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) 17:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy Dandridge

Thank you for removing all the nonsense on the Dorothy Dandridge page. I tagged it a few weeks ago and the only reason I didn't remove it straight away is because one or two editors (it's been suggested it's actually one "person" who has various sockpuppets) keep re-adding it and claiming it's encyclopedic. Just a heads up to let you know that the content will probably be added back and yes, it probably will be unsourced when it's re-added. I'll keep an eye on the article and attempt to remove any unneeded content because the edits you did made the article MUCH better! Pinkadelica (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here!! Here!!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to tag what I saw needed work. As noted above, there have been a lot of issues with certain articles which were "enhanced" by some editors. It's just a relief to have someone else come in and help restore one of them to encyclopedic terms. It bolsters our concerns about articles, and makes us look less picky. I also rearranged some sections to give it a better organization, removed some, erm... tripe, and changed that annoying section title "A victory over tabloid journalism" to "Hollywood Research, Inc. trial." You go!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I would like my Deleted Page Content

The page 'Robert Fletcher' was deleted on January 8th. I would like the content back so to place on a purchased website space. The content of 'Robert Fletcher' had been upkept for over a year and the information is unlisted on any other resource. Please can you cut and paste the page onto my user profile if you have access to it? Many Thanks if you can. Bobbyfletch85 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gareth. I'm struggling to find out who deleted the page, which administrator. Have you any idea who and how I cant contact them. Things seem to move fast and they've left no clear track. Cheers. Bobbyfletch85 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Stand by Me (album)

An editor has nominated Stand by Me (album), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stand by Me (album) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Terrabrasilis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Terrabrasilis.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) 09:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Burrell

Why do you keep deleting newly added information on Paul Burrell? All the new information has refrences from reputible sites, including the BBC.

Ok, i think first off that most people will regonise that the description given is the same given in all sources, even the BBC website states this, thus i feel it is fair to include such commetns as there is a general agreement in different sources that this is correct. As for suggesting ulterior motives for Burrells actions - i feel this give sthe readers of the page histoiry behind the story of Burrell in general, not all will know that there is often a perception here (in the UK) for Burrel having "cashed in". I DO NOT state these as facts but possibilities, thus leaving readers to make up their own minds. Please think hard before simoly deleting any mention of the entire inquest again as i have spent time writing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1716 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I live in the UK as well, and couldn't give two hoots about Burrell or Fayed's pointless inquest, but your edit leads readers to a general conclusion, namely that Burrell is an opportunist. I propose the following text :

In January 2008 Burrell appeared as a witness at the Inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Burrell said that he had approached a Catholic priest about a private marriage between Diana and the heart surgeon Dr Hasnat Khan ^[1], and he rubbished rumours that Diana was about to annouce her engagement to Dodi Fayed ^[2].

The coronor dismissed notions of a "secret" that Burrell knew about Diana that he swore he "would never reveal", as detailed at the end of his book, A Royal Duty ^[3].

I think, to be frank, that the above text totally overlooks the intensense media furor over Burell's appearance in the court, which i beleive is an important issue to be discuissed here, prehaps next time i wont bother as you feel you own this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1716 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel I own any page, but I wish to keep the Burrell page free of edits that do not adhere to a non-neutral point of view. Media furore is fed and grown by the media themselves, and will surround any story that involves such sensationlist elements as this one. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Togetheragainbennettevans.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Togetheragainbennettevans.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) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Seashellspeggylee.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Seashellspeggylee.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) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thecomposerofdesafinadoplays.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thecomposerofdesafinadoplays.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) 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rothschild clock

Will you please stop editing the text regarding the recently sold Rothschild Clock on the Faberge egg page. It was documented in 1964 and I have provided the reference REPEATEDLY. 1964 predates November 2007 when the sale catalogue was published and shows beyond any doubt that the clock was documented prior to Christies sale. Christies have since acknowledged their error in saying it was not previously published. The BBC page you keep referring to was written by a random journalist who was innocently repeating the erroneous claim that Christies no longer make. If you have any doubts go to the library and read the book yourself or call Christies in London and ask for Anthony Phillips head of the Russian department and he will tell you you are wrong. You may also email Mr Ivanov the purchaser via www.rnm.ru and ask him personally. I have amended the Rothschild Egg page to reflect the above; kindly leave that alone too. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.3.182 (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I kept deleting the text as I felt it violated Wikipedia's non-original research rule. If Christie's have acknowledged their error, I'll gladly include the text. Please register an account, as ip addresses are quite suspicious, and you are obviously knowledgeable in matters Fabergé Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Thatwasthennowisnow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thatwasthennowisnow.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) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:That'sLife.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:That'sLife.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) 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tidejobim.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tidejobim.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) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wavejobim.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wavejobim.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) 03:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Withrespecttonat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Withrespecttonat.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) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Watertown(1970album).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Watertown(1970album).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) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Hi Gareth,

I am the commuications officer for the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. I recently updated the Wiki entry for the foundation. There was incorrect information posted. (e.g. the foundation's inception date is September 2000, not 2003).

What I posted was a general backgrounder on the foundation, not a press release nor an article. Just basic, current facts. This needs to be restored. Right now what is posted is wrong, and gives a very misleading picture of what the Foundation is all about.

Please contact me if you'd like to discuss. Otherwise, the info I post is correct, current, and needs to remain i9ntact.

Thanks, Greg Nelson gnelson1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnelson1234 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You discuss it at WP:COIN#Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Also the deal with Wikipedia is that any material submitted can be freely edited. If you want it to stay "intact" in any particular form, it can't be used. 86.148.152.74 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per the COI guidelines, that's the wrong way to approach things, 86.148.152.74. —Viriditas | Talk 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carioca

Glad to help. I'll go ahead with the Astaire list - thanks for the reminder. D7240 (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Billevansmontreux.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Billevansmontreux.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) 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Franksinatraconductstonepoemsofcolor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Franksinatraconductstonepoemsofcolor.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) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CompleteEllaLouisVerve.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CompleteEllaLouisVerve.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) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CompleteEllaSongbooks.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CompleteEllaSongbooks.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) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EllaRodgersandHartSongbook.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EllaRodgersandHartSongbook.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) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ClapHandsHereComesCharlie.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ClapHandsHereComesCharlie.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) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Elistom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Elistom.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) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Melgeorgewwii.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Melgeorgewwii.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) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz cats etc.

I certainly agree with you that these categories need to be merged; I don't have any strong preference for one name over the other, though I guess I would lean slightly toward "Vocal jazz" as that word order seems somewhat more common and conventional.

I'd love to see the Betty Carter article in better shape, but aside from looking up specific pieces of information and citations I haven't read the whole Bauer book for a couple of years now and good as it is I don't see myself getting around to it in the forseeable future. My life has gotten much busier in recent months and I have been doing a lot less on Wikipedia, mostly doing maintenance on articles I created last year and making the odd original contribution. You've been doing excellent work on the Carter-related pages and I'm sorry to disappoint for my part. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New box

[edit] Adminship request

Dear gareth, As one of the users I come accross most frequently I would like to ask you to see if you would be willing to take the time to review some of my work and post your vote on my adminship request page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Camaeron). Thanks and keep up the good work! --Camaeron (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six nations box

No problem. It didn't take much effort as I just copied what you had to start with, then thought later about dividing it further. I meant to post you a message to say I had sneakily taken it, though I did put you in the edit summary when I saved it! I don't want to take the credit for not doing that much! I have started making the articles already, and have done all home nations, and about half the five nations... I am aiming to finish the rest over the coming week or so, but feel free to join in! I have followed the formatting style of the most 2008 article so they should all look better that way. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, 1977 was missing from the previous box, so I have miscounted the series number for 1972 onwards so need to address that sometime! Nouse4aname (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of performers' list in Someone to Watch Over Me article

How is the information provided by the lists otherwise accessible in Wikipedia? --Pbn-dk (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I always felt that very little infomation was provided by the list, other than a list of names. For a song as popular as this, there could be a list of thousands of names. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think a list (in some form) of recordings or performances does bring something to a song article, and many song articles have them. Basically, it's information. It is true that the list may be very long in this case, and that it will probably never be complete, but I'm not sure that's a problem. --Pbn-dk (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Love A Child

Hi there, I read over your To Love a Child article, and good job with it. I am pretty educated on Nancy Reagan and the main editor of her FA article, so if you need any help, please drop me a line. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page edits

FYI: Discussions at WP:ANI have repeatedly supported the user as being able to remove most content from their own talk page, provided it's not disruptive (the main items barred from removal are denied block removal requests during a block). As a result, I would suggest against making edits to restore your edits on talk pages ... it serves simply to provide those users for material to claim a 3RR issue against you. If the information in dispute ever becomes relevant in future discussions about the user, the information could always be added back at that future date. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Coolio! I'm just baffled by the Users apparent claims not to be the person he is removing infomation about. How can I take it further if they spam again? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think there's enough to submit the issue to WP:COIN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I went ahead and submitted it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll keep an eye on it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Vaughan

If you can't find the discography anywhere else on the WWW I don't suppose I can either. We'll have to do it here then I guess. I like a challenge. -) Nice to meet a fellow SV fan. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By the by I think that List of iconic drinkers would have made a fine page. If you ever feel like re-creating it I will support you.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 06:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It WAS a fine page! It arose from a CFD discussion, was fully cited, but was still criticsed as 'vague'. We would have to have a proper definition if it was recreated. Cheers! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion page for Sarah Vaughan Sings Great Songs from Hit Shows. Do you happen to know the re-issue date? I may to invest in this (and a few more Sassy albums). Thanks.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help with spam

Thanks for catching and flagging the Cryellow spam problem!

Also, I suggest you not worry about whether the site-owners real name is directly connected with the spammer's Wikipedia accounts. It just opens the door to a lot of peripheral side drama and potentially gets you in hot water. (Trust me, I've been there).

It's very simple. One more link spammed anywhere in Wikipedia and the domains get blacklisted. Otherwise, we don't have much to discuss with this guy. If he decides to spam again and gets his domains blacklisted, there's still nothing to discuss.

Again, thanks for your good work. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Phew, thank you! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi Gareth. Good to hear from you. Thanks for the welcome, and for fixing my Jo Stafford songs category. As you've probably guessed I copied it from another cateroty. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I wondered if you could help me with an article I created yesterday. I couldn't seem to get the reference to work properly. It's from one source, but quoted in two different places, and it's ended up being listed twice in the references section. The article is Giddy Up a Ding Dong. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Wow! Thanks for the quick response. I have never had a wish granted so quickly - and on my first visit to the Wikipedia "inside." I am excited for the discography, how long do you think it will take?DJMsings (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ato Bolden

I noticed you added the drug allegations to Maurice Greene. I added details of a letter from Ato Bolden concerning Greene to Boldens page [1], and wondered if you had heard of it? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Saw it in yesterday's Observer newspaper. And, I must say, I believe Ato. -- GWO (talk)

I saw it there too, and I believe him as well. It doesn't seem to be that well known at the moment. We need to make sure Ato and Greene's pages match. We could create an article for John Smith as well. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

While I don't agree with you reverting me, that is your right. However please be careful with your edit summary, RVV - reverting vandalism, should be used only for vandalism, while it may be a mistake on your part, I do take offence to be called a vandal, and consider that to be a personal attack, if you revert my edit, then please give details in your edit summary, explaining why you disagree, don't just use RVV. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Diana article

after reading the discussions on the talk page, I came to the conclusion that what had been stated there (create a page dedicated to the Institute for Peace) would be the best solution. So I did that (the first article that I have ever created !!) so after lots of mistakes, I worked out how to do it, there were issues with the naming, feel free to go there and change it.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace and if you could help with the citations, then it would be nice.

It is hard to assume good faith sometimes, regarding the other editor who removed the statement and his location, it would be damn easy to assume that conflict of interest came into play..however as you may have worked out by my edits, I am certainly not from Sri Lanka, I don't give a flying f.. about politics relating to Sri Lanka, I just edit whatever I feel like.

There is a small issue, another editor is being a little disrputive and when I made the new article, and removed the old section, they started reverting me, and I was forced to make an ANI report.. feel free to give some input. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_edits_by_user_Bermudatriangle

take care Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Gareth E Kegg will understand your actual intention of the creation of the new institute by considering the time he posted of the creation of a new article and your "Vandalism" warning here and then now with your appealing words to appreciate your "Kudos".Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think any reasonable person, will see that I created the new article in order to calm down a potentially stupid edit-war. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not your appealing words, but your edit history.Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bermuda, if you have an issue with me or my edits, please add a message to my talk page, this was a message for Gareth, I don't want his talkpage to develop into our private battleground. thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana "thing" Hi, I went ahead and added a bit into the legacy section as agreed with Bermudatriangle. I've tried to make sure it isn't as "spammy" as before and not copyvio like the last bit talking about the Institute appears to have been (see edit summaries). I'm still not 100% convinced it belongs but, want the matter to come to a close. Could you have a look and let me have your opinion. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

for dragging your name into that petty ANI argument.

Regarding the princess diana article, I wish to ask your opinion. The other user has received a 24 hour block for 3RR, so I was highly tempted to revert his edit straight away, however that would seem a little rude. Do you think that as there is a dedicated article for the Princess Diana Institute of Peace, and that it is linked to on the Princess Diana article, it is OK to delete that section? Is consensus in favour of deletion? or do you think their should be more discussion? 3rd party intervention? Personally, as I am sure you are aware, I am in favour of getting rid of it, no political agenda, I just dont consider it to be notable, and now it has its own article. But your opinion is more than welcome. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added more details (Legacy section) Diana, Princess of Wales

I have added some more details with reference as the article "(Sri Lanka)Princess Diana Institue of Peace" was speedily deleted. I am expecting your input there.Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Liechtensteinian princesses

Category:Liechtensteinian princesses, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –

[edit] Red Cross with Imperial Portraits (Fabergé egg)

On 28 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Red Cross with Imperial Portraits (Fabergé egg), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sammy Davis Jr. "satanist" deletion

Thanks for contacting me about this. I do understand your position about my talking about alerting his estate. I kind of knew when I posted it that it would naturally be read as a threat, even though I sincerely don't mean it as a threat. I know it sounds like me saying "don't you revert, or I'm gonna call Sammy's estate". It's sometimes hard to express intent though text - there is no tone of voice, etc. to give one clues. I just looked at the LONG back-and-forth discussion about this, and thought deleting it would probably just result in it being reverted - there seem to be some people highly invested in keeping the rumor on his page. I thought that if we can't settle it here, maybe Davis's heirs could definitively settle it, even if their settlemen would be to ask the Wikipedia management to make sure this is not on his article. It borders on libel, and is hardly encyclopedic. If I had an encyclopedia article written about me, and someone added some possibly libelous information in it, I hope someone would alert me so I could set the record straight. It's any wikipedian's choice to revert my edit, and it's Wikipedia management's choice to decide whether or not that exposes them to a libel suit, and it's Davis's heirs' choice to decide if they want to ask that it be permanently deleted, or seek legal relief. In order for Davis's heirs to have that choice, they have to know about it, they have the right, but wikipedians and Wikipedia have the right to know in advance that I would alert his estate, which is why I said I would. Again, I didn't mean it as a threat, but I guess there is no way to say it that wouldn't be taken as one. If the edit is reverted, I will not alert the estate until after I have contacted Wikipedia management, to give them a fair chance to deal with the situation internally.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with your frustrations, but you can't libel the dead, and I have grave doubts that the views of relations are more objective than those of biographers and researchers. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

His estate is an ongoing entity which still earns from use of his likeness and royalties from his artistic products and could be financially harmed by damage to his reputation. I don't know the law in UK, but in the US, depending upon the state in which the suit is brought, relatives of a dead person can sue for libel. For instance, in my state, Oklahoma, the law reads:

"Libel is a false or malicious unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, or effigy or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or which tends to deprive him of public confidence, or to injure him in his occupation, or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, [683 P.2d 1349] and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends."Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)