| Revision as of 10:21, 31 August 2004 editVioletriga (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users37,361 edits reply to User:Opus33← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:43, 2 September 2004 edit undoBodnotbod (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,469 edits ==Robbie Williams==Next edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| Hi Violetriga--Easy to check book titles on Amazon.com. Cheers, ] 16:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) | Hi Violetriga--Easy to check book titles on Amazon.com. Cheers, ] 16:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) | ||
| :Took me absolutely ages trying to figure what you were going on about! I presume you're talking about the Grinch books. Well yes, I ''know'' it's called "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" but I've always known it as "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" and am sure I've seen it that way. Amazon doesn't prove that it doesn't exist as spelt that way. ] ] 10:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) | :Took me absolutely ages trying to figure what you were going on about! I presume you're talking about the Grinch books. Well yes, I ''know'' it's called "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" but I've always known it as "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" and am sure I've seen it that way. Amazon doesn't prove that it doesn't exist as spelt that way. ] ] 10:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) | ||
| ==Robbie Williams== | |||
| Hello. I appreciate you not seeing The Sun as a reliable source. However, this report has quotes direct from the artist. | |||
| Even in tabloid land it is unusual for something of this sort to be fabricated. The way that tabloids usually get into trouble is by using unattributed quotes. ie "a close friend says they are having an affair and are deeply in love..." or "sources close to..." or "an ex-girlfriend..." | |||
| This story is all attributed to Robbie's own mouth. The consequences for a journalist (even on The Sun!) of ''making this up'' would not be worth the trouble. If it were a story about some scandal about Robbie then all sorts of people might stand to make money, ie "I slept with Robbie and he " might earn the story teller many thousands of pounds. To ''invent'' a story about a new character and ''falsely claim'' that Robbie said this would be an immediate sacking. | |||
| Now... this is not to say that Robbie isn't just having a joke at the expense of the journalist and just being mischievous - however, even this being the case I think it is worth including in the article cos it shows Robbie's playful side. | |||
| Also, I gave the source - so people can make their own mind's up. Furthermore, should it later prove to be untrue, then this could be stated. | |||
| I tell you all this is an avid follower of the press and a trained feature journalist. | |||
| So, I wonder if you would consider reinstating that paragraph. If you don't feel this should be done, perhaps you would paste it into the Talk page and give your reasons for not including it in the article. --] » ]]] 10:43, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:43, 2 September 2004
Say anything you want – I won't edit any comments but I may reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy (I'm a virgo)
Is there anybody out there?
Yep, me. I'm aware of the eclampsia problem. Unfortunately, I know too little about it to properly write it up from scratch. Do you have any information I could fall back on? Nice review articles from good medical journals are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 16:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lists of fictional animals
Why delete links to Lists of fictional animals? There has to be a pretty good reason for removing links in Misplaced Pages, which is all about links. Ortolan88 21:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Because the only content of that article is a failed redirect to Category:Lists of fictional animals and all the relevant articles are in that category anyway. violet/riga 21:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Works for me. The words "superfluous and miscoded" in the comment would have warned me off my question. Ortolan88 21:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You're right - I did mention it in an edit on the main article itself but should have done it on each altered article. violet/riga 22:00, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Works for me. The words "superfluous and miscoded" in the comment would have warned me off my question. Ortolan88 21:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Book titles
Hi Violetriga--Easy to check book titles on Amazon.com. Cheers, Opus33 16:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Took me absolutely ages trying to figure what you were going on about! I presume you're talking about the Grinch books. Well yes, I know it's called "How The Grinch Stole Christmas" but I've always known it as "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" and am sure I've seen it that way. Amazon doesn't prove that it doesn't exist as spelt that way. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Robbie Williams
Hello. I appreciate you not seeing The Sun as a reliable source. However, this report has quotes direct from the artist.
Even in tabloid land it is unusual for something of this sort to be fabricated. The way that tabloids usually get into trouble is by using unattributed quotes. ie "a close friend says they are having an affair and are deeply in love..." or "sources close to..." or "an ex-girlfriend..."
This story is all attributed to Robbie's own mouth. The consequences for a journalist (even on The Sun!) of making this up would not be worth the trouble. If it were a story about some scandal about Robbie then all sorts of people might stand to make money, ie "I slept with Robbie and he " might earn the story teller many thousands of pounds. To invent a story about a new character and falsely claim that Robbie said this would be an immediate sacking.
Now... this is not to say that Robbie isn't just having a joke at the expense of the journalist and just being mischievous - however, even this being the case I think it is worth including in the article cos it shows Robbie's playful side.
Also, I gave the source - so people can make their own mind's up. Furthermore, should it later prove to be untrue, then this could be stated.
I tell you all this is an avid follower of the press and a trained feature journalist.
So, I wonder if you would consider reinstating that paragraph. If you don't feel this should be done, perhaps you would paste it into the Talk page and give your reasons for not including it in the article. --] 10:43, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)