Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:43, 25 October 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Arniep, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Archive1 (October 8-December 12, 2005) Archive2 (December 13, 2005-January 15)

Jerkmonkee

Hi, sorry, im new to Misplaced Pages and did accidentally write over Murray.jpg, but did so because usually after i upload an image with spaces in its name, it converts them to underscores, and confused that warning screen with the overwrite one.. anyway by the time i realized i did so it was already overwritten.. ill try to pay more attention next time..

DDL

I replied to your message on my talk page. The Filmaker 00:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, check out the discussion area. The Filmaker 00:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

This behaviour really irritates me. Can you please not just revert edits without any explanation of why you have done so. We're not mind readers - well, I'm certainly not. The Edit summary box is there for a reason. I now have to ask the question - what did you object to with my form of words? JackofOz 20:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Regardless of who you thought you were reverting, please always include an edit summary, including when you revert somebody - particularly when you revert somebody. JackofOz 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ouida

Arnie, I'm really sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I've not been editing much recently, and when I have, I've been distracted. To answer your question, I did see the Times articles. Thank you so much for finding them and making them available. They look great to me as sources, so by all means add whatever you'd like to from them, including her animal-rights activism. I wish all editors (myself included) were so conscientious! My sincere apologies again for the delay. SlimVirgin 03:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus

Arniep, note that the page you have nominated for deletion already was once subject of VfD. The whole pioint of existence of this article was to move out the arguments from Copernicus article, where they kept too much space, record the controversy and summarise the arguments for and against Copernicus being Polish or not. The other reason were pragmatic: to save COpernicus to constant revert wars (which purpose only partially was solved). That's why in Copernicus there is link to discussion over this ver, very hot topic and that's why Coerpnicus article is quite nice, without half of the space taken by the arguments whether he was or not Polish. Szopen 10:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish lists

What I am more concerned with is the dissection of anyone's beliefs on a talk page not concerned with that user, see Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:Civility. As to User:Smerus and his phd, that is sadly beside the point. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and one person's phd does not alter that fact. Were I to initiate a phd into the colouring of ladies undergarments on any given day it would not by de facto make such information encyclopedic. Each list and category should be debated on its own merits, and nobody should prejudge the debate based on their own personal preference. There should also be some basic guidelines on what makes a list or category worthy of inclusion within Misplaced Pages. It would be nice to get agreement on those issues rather than see debate sidetracked into discussion on the merits of any one subset of information. No guidelines should be drafted in an attempt to deliberately include or exclude specific subjects. Steve block talk 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

O'Toole

Hi Arniep, The reason why he shouldn't be called British or Irish/British is very clear, due to lazyness i will copy user:Jtdirl's statement.

British is wrong. I don't know who keeps changing it but he is an Irish actor. The fact that worked primarily in Britain can be explained in the article, but where we state nationality we do not say anything other than what he was, which is Irish. O'Toole once said being called British was one of the worst insults he ever received. He is no more english than Chancellor Gordon Brown is english or Billy Connolly is english or Joan Collins is american. Simply working in a place does not make you 'of that country'. Re his accent, he blames RADA for in his words "giving me a toffee-nosed tory

Superdude99 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility and good faith

It is quite sad that Steve has decided to sink to rubbishing other people's research in order to defend his deletionist position. Arniep 18:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could justify the above statement. I believe it violates three policies; Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. I particularly take offence to the claim that I rubbished anybody's research. I was merely making the point that such research is of no bearing in creating guidelines on what should and should not be included in Misplaced Pages. I would appreciate it if you either justify or withdraw your statement. I have demonstrated good faith in the apology I offered, and would hope and appreciate you can do the same. Steve block talk 19:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your statement Were I to initiate a phd into the colouring of ladies undergarments on any given day it would not by de facto make such information encyclopedic in my opinion was a direct attack on the integrity and value of the research being carried out by User:Smerus and therefore, in my opinion violated Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, a fact I was merely pointing out on the discussion page

• No, I'm sorry but it does no such thing, I was using an outlandish example to demonstrate that no research should have any bearing on wikipedia policy, hence the use of the phrase de facto, and also the preceeding statement anybody can find reason to justify any particular list. It is not a direct attack, since I have already checked with User:Smerus and he finds no such attack implicit in my words. Were it a direct attack it would not be couched in the language I used, I would have quite explicitly denounced the research. I also fail to see any justification for you stating I am attempting to defend a deletionist position. I would further point out that your comments are a personal attack and have no place on the talk page on which you posted them. You did not merely point them out, you made a statement that was both a direct attack, incivil and in bad faith. Do you accept that fact, and are you willing to apologise and withdraw the statement? Steve block talk 20:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you would have to point to a deletionist position made in that particular portion of the debate to justify it. Those statements I made were on direct positions which, whilst loosely connected, were unrelated to the debate at hand, in which I would hope you can agree I was expressing no desire to delete anything. You're raising of those statements in your defence, however, indicates you were assuming my actions in this instance were in bad faith, counter to guidance at Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Please do not attempt to place any meaning onto my words other than those that are within the debate at hand, it does not allow people to change an opinion, nor does it allow for a conducive debate. You have shown your statement was made in reaction to comments at another time and place which have no bearing on this matter, and you have allowed comments I have made previously to discolour your thinking here, without discussing such a reading with me, which should surely be your first point of call, as per Misplaced Pages:Mediation. And further, regardless of whether you believed I had besmirched the research in question, the language you have used is far too direct to be easily brushed aside as an attempt to clarify if such was my attempt. You have also made such an attack after I have apologised for any and all offence I may have caused and indicated I wish no further part in the debate. In light of all of the above, I will ask you one final time, since the statement is a direct personal attack, are you going to do me the honour of withdrawing it and apologising? You have made a direct attack on an open talk page, which is unacceptable and contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. Are you prepared to acknowledge that fact? Steve block talk 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I find no retraction nor an apology in your recent statement. Further, your statement indicates I was at fault by accepting an apology which was not intended to be accepted in such a way. You leave me no other choice but to take this matter further. Steve block talk 20:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I state they are loosely connected is because they were not opinions I was expressing at the time I made my comments. I have asked you if you intend to apologise, I have asked you to consider the fact that you words are a personal attack, I have asked you to retract your words, I have pointed you to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and you refuse to even countenance the fact that your words were too strong and based on false assumptions and instead continue to question me over statements I have already explained elsewhere. Either do me the courtesy of addressing my points or seek moderation. Steve block talk 21:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept your apology, I assume you will also be making one on the talk page at which the attack occurred. I would however ask you to consider the following: Since I am unaware of the fact that the research concerns a relative of yours, is it acceptable for you to personalise the issue in any way, by which I mean why should you take something I say personally, when I have no way of knowing it is personal or could be taken personally. You should consider that you may have assumed bad faith rather than good faith. As to your question on my talk page:

• You stated that to acknowledge people as part of a Jewish community in the form of lists or categories is not of encyclopedic value, and that Jewish people should only be categorized under Category:Jews

I did not state that Jewish people should only be categorized under Category:Jews, that again is your interpretation. I explained what I meant at Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession, namely :if the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to acknowledge people as part of a Jewish community then we would have to add every single Jewish person to such lists. I meant that Misplaced Pages is not here to acknowledge the faith or ethnicity of every single person on the planet, but that Misplaced Pages should seek to note only information that is of note to a fairly broad audience.

As to my votes in the two deletion debates, I believe they speak for themselves. I am unclear as to how Jewish people are categorised, by faith or by ethnicity, and so I voted delete since I saw no clarification of the term offered. I was also concerned that categories such as Category:Jewish chess players would detract from Category:Chess players. Do you not agree that clicking on Category:Chess players and finding only links to such subcategories as Category:Atheist chess players and the like counter productive? On the deletion of the lists, I again voted yes because I'm not convinced such lists are notable. However, I believe the proposal failed, and I am happy to leave it closed. I object to you describing me a deletionist because I so rarely vote delete. It simply appears to me we have a difference of opinion, and I do not understand why you are personalising this issue. As to other solutions, I have asked a question at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Categories and tags regarding implementing a tag scheme like they use at flickr, which would alleviate any such concerns I have. I leave you with a reminder that you should avoid rudeness at all times. I find it helpful to reconsider my words before I hit Save page. Steve block talk 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it

I wouldn't worry overly much, I'm happy that the matter between us is now settled. I too agree in that I would prefer if people could remain in both the narrower and the broader category when categorised in such a way, so as to avoid confusion. I think you should be wary of categorising people as wishing to delete solely lists of notable Jewish people in history. It is more an attempt to delineate what lists and categories are acceptable. There is much confusion with regards ethnicity, I have seen people comment that Welsh categories should be merged into English categories since there is no difference between them. Please don't give up on Misplaced Pages, but please remember to assume good faith, and remember that Misplaced Pages will never be finished. Steve block talk 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Living people

I have been mainly adding people whom I personally admire to this new category. I am doing it manually, and am about finished. Gilliamjf 03:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Most Noble

See you reverted me being reverted at Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington - thanks. It all sounds embarrassingly cringe making and humble to me - I changed it on a few of the live Dukes too, but they've been reverted too; but if that's what the Brits like - well so be it. Even if it is 2006 elsewhere in the world. Giano | talk 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

None that I have ever seen. Obviously a Brit thing - do they have to throw themselves in a ditch if a noble one passes by? All very odd! Giano | talk 17:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• One can but try! Begging to remain your humble and obedient servant Sir. Giano | talk 18:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing styles from articles. Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Tch tch tch it will be the Tower of London for you. Giano | talk 22:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:(( Arniep 23:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm off to bed - so you'll have to man the guillotine on you're own Giano | talk 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• For anyone interested in defining future policy on this subject in a definitive way I have instigated a debate here at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#The Most Noble Giano | talk 10:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering where you had got to Giano | talk 16:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I had missed that. Seems to be becoming a long winded debate. Mackensen has changed his tune since it started, but arguements seem to go round in circles and tangents - perhaps that's the intention - I don't know. Giano | talk 16:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, I'll go with that - but it's going to be some months before a decision is made - if ever. Giano | talk 16:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Silly revert war

I can't quite believe you are edit-warring over someone else's userpage. Stop it — you are hard up against the 3RR and one more time will earn you a block. -Splash 02:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell

I think your latest edits on this userpage are in poor taste and verging on abusive. They could easily be interpreted as a personal attack. Would you please revert them? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony is, in fact, being very gentle here. I would encourage you, in the strongest possible way, to think about what you're doing. We can, for the moment, ignore the 3RR as you've not yet gone over the line. What's hard to ignore is the implication of kicking someone when they are down. Joke, not a joke, Greg would approve, it doesn't matter. It looks bad to keep putting it there, and is at the very least unfriendly. - brenneman 02:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I only meant it in a light hearted way, and seeing as he wrote the troll comment himself and the image is free use I am not sure why people are getting so upset about it. Arniep 02:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider. It's one thing a person lightheartedly calling himself a troll (in whatever context) and quite another if we as a community are seen to take that label out of context and place it, without asking him, on his userpage. Greg has done something stupid, over-reacted and made bad faith edits (sock puppetry to evade a block), but we know that, whether we agree with him or not, he has made some immense good faith contributions to the project both as an editor and a developer. He doesn't deserve to be abused in this way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your question, I meant it's unfriendly to the people reverting your changes, but I cannot of course speak for what Greg would want or think funny. I won't remove the image again. - brenneman 03:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought the image was actually pretty funny, m'self. However, it's been repeatedly reverted by a number of different people, all of whom know Greg much better than you do. It was inappropriate of you to continue adding the image when you knew it wasn't wanted. Even if it was funny ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the image is pretty funny too. Just wikipedia and stuff is kinda sensitive with the dude right now, so I'm a bit worried how he'd respond (until he figures out that it's actually a joke ;-) ). I'll ask him about putting the big troll picture next time I see him :-) Kim Bruning 09:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well then. And polite of you to wait for me to read too. :) Kim Bruning 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

that was quick!

thanks for leaping in and rescuing Robert Garrison from the fate of being out of alphabetical order. I don't quite understand how the category thing works and am in no rush to learn . see Old Dog, New Tricks. Were we doing Icelandic style everyone would be listed by first name, but alas, we are not, so thank-you very much. Carptrash 03:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Tarantino

Alright, I admit it...so I see a similarity that simplifies the entire explanation of his style by a good deal. So sue me . Hell, I just thought it was easier to get this guy with Runyon in mind, y'know? Ah, well, if you decide to delete it because it wasn't some stuffed shirt in a stuffed chair on a TV show who thunk it first, I can't do anything. I've grown to be familiar with that happening, as my user talk record shows.

WAS 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S.--You said "we meet again." I don't remember where, and so I don't know if you were one of the "cute-but-no" editors or the "you-are-fucking-crazy-get-out-before-we-send-you-a-whole-jarful-of-cookies " editors. Please tell me, to satisfy my morbid curiousity...

Also, I need to do something for the next seventeen years of my solitary confinement...

WAS 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Milla Jovovich Pictures

I'm a bit confused. Both of the images are sourced, and uploaded to NNDB which, much like Misplaced Pages, has copyright regulations. The first is promotional type image (you can check IMDB) and the second is an attended fairuse given that is in the NNDB database. Sorry, I don't entirely understand the rationale for removal. But if you can show me that the images aren't usable, then yes. Antidote 20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Though it may be more beneficial for the source to state more information on the image, it is not required as the source is meant to be the place where the image was derived, and a good majority of pictures on Misplaced Pages don't have sources that tell much about the image. That however isn't a "nonsourced" image; it is at worst a poorly defined image. These I, however, don't see as poorly defined as they are from a database that works similarly to wikipedia is presentation and regulations. If you just don't like the images, then I'll remove them, and I suppose thats reason enough. Antidote 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and helpful advice. Antidote 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for future reference, do all images that are free have to appear at the top of a page? Because I'm looking around and finding some exceptions. Antidote 01:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I can make a thorough search for them if you wish, and add any free use images I know of, since the vast majoriy (at least of actor pages) have movie-clip images (usually big ones) instead. Does size really matter in the long run? I know that for an public domain artwork there should be a limit but I was unaware that there was a limit on a fairuse image. Antidote 03:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Josh Lucas

Thank you for re-re-re-organizing the Interview links on the Josh Lucas article. I've changed it twice and had it reverted by User:JackO'Lantern both times. I pretty much gave up. Thanks again! -wadems 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the correct copyright tag for my user image. I don't know all the ins-and-outs of Misplaced Pages yet. Normally I just make minor changes like link repairs and spelling/grammar fixes. I'm such a newbie. ;-p -wadems 12:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Tyra's pictures

Thanks, you are kind. You know, I don't understand some people here.. These pictures (my Banks pictures), I think, are (very) good photos and free. I do not understand, why they are delete again. (Uhh, this is not good sentence, but I hope, you are understand me. My English is not very well :-) Nyikita 14:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't beat up the newbies

You are being very heavy-handed with him/her. Please back down on the threats, exagerrations and downright misleading statements. Just because they are a newbie does not give you carte blanche to bully them into submission. I would also point out that there has been no policy to remove English as a nationality either, so stop playing high and mighty.--Mais oui! 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I still think you would get on a lot better if you laid off the heavy stuff. You seem to be mainly concerned with English people of some obvious immigrant descent (I assume primarily Irish descent). So why not concentrate on those limited range of people, rather than trying to make huge generalisations about ALL English people.--Mais oui! 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

24 hour block

I have blocked you for 24 hours for 3rr violation on Ian McKellen. As I warned you on Talk:Ian McKellen, I have no hesistation for your 5th reversion in 48 hours. Please do not call 82.4.86.73's edits vandalism, however if that anonymous user continues to revert as much he too could be subject to a block, but think this less likely as several other editors are making the same changes as him. --TimPope 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert De Niro?

Hi, I just removed him because it seemed from the article that he's pretty distantly German. He's usually identified as Irish and Italian. JackO'Lantern 20:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

ok. I usually like keep these categories restricted to one parent unless the person seems to identify with whatever grandparent or distant ancestor, but it's no big deal. JackO'Lantern 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

lol, what "obvious reasons"? JackO'Lantern 20:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Italy was well involved in the second of those two world wars, but never mind I guess. JackO'Lantern 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks! I generally start low as with IP vandals you're never quite sure whether it's the same user or someone else using a shared computer (and hence doesn't know about warnings, vandalism etc.). I find that 75% of vandals stop as soon as they've had one or two messages. But you're right, with obviously persistent vandals I should probably go straight to DEFCON 3 or above :-) Stephenb (Talk) 16:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Vegan Vandal, for what it's worth. Ben-w 19:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • My point is that I am not going to consult Wisden every time this idiot adds someone with two overs' first-class experience to three tiny and unnecessary categories. It's not worth it. The user has a long and proven history of deliberate, malicious vandalism and reverting his/her edits on sight is just good policy. If anyone cleaning up after this vandal reverts an accurate edit about a cricketer, then just add the information back. Ben-w 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Eliza Acton

Hi Arniep, The list at is a good source, in spite of its goofy domain name. It's also the only source I've found for her birth and death dates, so they are unreferenced since you removed the citation. Rbraunwa 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't remove the link, I just moved it to the external links section. Cheers Arniep 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Arniep. Is it better to put references in the External Links section, even when they reference just one or two specific facts?

Rbraunwa 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hi, Arnie, could you check your email? regards, Pecher 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lauren Bacall image

Hi, and thanks for your message. If someone keeps changing the content of the various templates over and over again all those people (like yourself) who check whether all images are okay copyright-wise will never be satisfied. When templates were introduced contributors were encouraged to add "fair use" if no other rationale applied. I did so on numerous occasions, only to read "Do not use this template" suddenly one day. Okay, I thought, edited numerous images and obediently replaced their tags with "promophoto". Now you come along and explain to me that this isn't okay either.

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time by playing that silly game again. It's perfectly clear that the Bacall image is an old autograph, and as I downloaded it from somewhere on the net ages ago (before templates were even introduced in Misplaced Pages) I have no record from where I could look up its "source".

If it contributes to your peace of mind and/or happiness, please delete it.

All the best, <KF> 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Zubin Mehta

Hi there. As you deleted all references to "Persian ethnicity" of Zubin Mehta, I would like to inform you that: 1. Persian refers to an ethnic group which includes Persians of Iran, Tajikistan, Parsis of India and other parts of Asia and some immigrants to Europe and US. 2. The word Persian in Persian language is Parsi. Persian is the English word for Parsi in Persian language. 3. Persian is broader than Parsi's of India. So Persian is not equivalent to Parsis who are mostly Zoroastrian. 4. Not all Zoroastrians are Parsis. But almost all of them are from persian ethnicity.

Therefore: Parsis of India is a subclass of Persians and also Zoroastrians and not equivalent to either of these.

I agree that there exist some disputes about this issue. So wikipedia must be neutral and unbiased. We should not take just one side.

Zubin Mehta is from a persian descent. Please notice vandalism. Thanks in advance. -- Teimoor Jan 09:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a Minute panellists category

Hi - I was not sure of the accepted spelling of panellists either but I checked with the BBC website for Just a Minute and they prefer the double L: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/justaminute.shtml Maybe we should keep it as this? Tony Corsini 23:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK - now I'm not sure if we should go with the spelling the show prefers or the version that's more common internationally? I don't mind either way. By the way, as I am quite new to Misplaced Pages - I'm not sure how a category is renamed - can it be done at once or do all the pages have to be moved individually? Thanks a lot. Tony Corsini 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks a lot! Tony Corsini 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Kirstie Allsopp

Just wondering why you removed her title? surely it is relevant in a persons biography. Boddah 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that Misplaced Pages's Policy of removing styles from everyone's opening lines on their articles in incredibly stupid. It would be like removing their dates of birth and death. If someone is a 'Honourable' or a 'Rt. Hon.' because they are a Member of the Privy Council then this important information about them and removing is removing facts from the article. Misplaced Pages will soon became a joke if it continues to do things like this. --Berks105 19:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You can not just answer my point by saying what other referance works do, I thought Misplaced Pages was meant to be original, not just following everyone else. If all referance works were the same you would only need one! Anyway, if Misplaced Pages has always used styles before I don't see why it needed changing? Removing Rt. Hon. from peers I understand, but removing that from Privy Councellors or removing 'Honourable' etc is removing important information!--Berks105 19:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Kirstie Allsopp's style in connected to a peerage in immaterial. My point is that if someone is say a heredity Baron then that is in the opening line, and therefore Rt. Hon/Most Hon/Most Noble is not needed as well. However, for children of a Peer their style is needed as otherwise people may not know they hold it. --Berks105 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

For one, stop spelling Kirstie Allsopp's name wrong ('ie' not 'y'). Secondly, I did not say that Peers' children are always known by their titles, but they do hold them and this should be made clear in the opening line of the article. People are not normally known by their middle names but it is still in the opening line of the article. --Berks105 11:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Harriet Beecher Stowe

Yeah, that was a mistake, sorry about that. Feel free to revert it back, of course, if you haven't already. My apologies. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 04:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Baker

I am positively certain that Tom Baker's father was not Jewish. Nothing in his auto-bio leads me to believe that, including several references to his mother making frequent anti-Semitic comments and (I hate to use the "Ira David Wood family tree defense", as I call it, but...) his father's full name "John Stewart Baker", is not exactly very Jewish. These official web bios are often wrong, since they are almost never written by the person themselves and often copied from elsewhere (I've seen a few copied from Misplaced Pages!). There are a number of interviews with Baker online, I'll see if I can find something else if you're not convinced... Vulturell 01:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A long interview here , spends a lot of time talking about religion but doesn't mention being part Jewish. Vulturell 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here it is, I found a family tree of Baker - looks almost conclusively like a non-Jewish geneology on his father's side. I'll remove his name again. The same site, under this page , says this his father was Jewish, but I believe they've gotten that from one of the web bios. The page tracks his father's ancestry all the way back to Scotland, with surnames like Baker, Grieves, Burnell and Stewart on his father's side. Vulturell 02:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a weird story. Every single detail about Baker's paternal ancestry is consistant with a non-Jewish background, even the fact that his paternal grandfather and his uncle share the exact same name, something Ashkenazi Jews almost never do. Does Baker "look" Jewish? Sure, but at the same time, you could say that he looks quiet "English" if you think about people like, say, Prince Charles. I'd have to lean strongly for this being a mistake - since there is really just no what I call "First hand" - i.e. words directly out of Baker's mouth - for this info. Although his official site is in contact with Baker - it is not run by him and it may well have been formed after the incorrect biographies made their way online. Official site bios are usually not written by the person themselves. I had a huge argument with some idiot about Jamie-Lynn Sigler - her official site bio said that she was "half Greek half Cuban", well, she was definitely not half Greek, and not even 1/4 Greek in a conventional sense, something made clear by dozens of interviews and the like. I've e-mailed his official site and asked, but this looks overwhelmingly like a mistake. Vulturell 16:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know that Charles isn't "very English" (well, actually, his mother is Scottish, which is similar to Baker's ancestry), but he's certainly not of mediterranean origin at all. I hope I'm not using any undue stereotypes or the like, but isn't the "classic", 19th century Dickensian image of an Englishman similar to Charles or Baker (i.e. tall, gaunt and with a long, thin nose?) Anyway, looks can be deceiving, as I've discovered in this "business". I'm not sure about the whole "adoption" business - I mean, Baker's grandparents were married in 1900, their first son, named after Baker's grandfather, was born in 1901. Seems odd that a working-class Liverpoolian couple would adopt a child so quickly - i.e. it would take a while for them to discover that they couldn't bear children or something of the sort. And if we take the geneology as being Baker's, then we can pretty much discount his paternal grandmother being Jewish (by birth, anyway). Vulturell 17:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Prince Philip and George VI are both descended from the Stuarts as well but I doubt that constitutes a high percentage of their ancestry." They must be related to Jennifer Aniston, then, eh? :) Vulturell 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that Tom Baker's sister, Lulu, looks like a typical British woman. Vulturell 19:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can verify that his father's ancestors were most recently Scottish and English. But his father being Jewish is in dispute. The current version doesn't necessarily say that his father wasn't Jewish (i.e. it doesn't mention him being a Christian or anything). And again, there's no first-hand source. One can imagine a scenario where the site's webmaster saw a web biography that mentioned Baker's father being Jewish, and put it in, and from there on it was copied and pasted around. Similar to how most sites now say that Kate Beckinsale's maternal grandfather was Burmese, thanks to the IMDB's efforts (it was her paternal great-grandfather). Since it's not really that important to Baker's article - not important to his life as he didn't even mention it in his autobio or in his interview on religion - then it's definitely not important to the Wiki article unless we have confirmed it. So it should definitely stay off until we know for sure. His agent's e-mail is hill@ehillmanagement.freeserve.co.uk - you don't by any chance want to e-mail and ask, so we can settle this Evan Rachel Wood-style? Vulturell 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure, the tree could be incorrect, but all the other above points still stand - it's just not important to say that Baker's father was Jewish if it's both in dispute AND was not mentioned by him in his rather extensive autobio or his interview on religion. By the way, it's not considered original research under Misplaced Pages's policy, because another site did it for us. Plus that site has wedding pictures of his parents, so you could say they probably did their research.... Vulturell 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why on Earth isn't it verified? I'm sorry, but you can't just go around claiming that certain family trees are "wrong" because people might have been adopted or had some kind of affair. What is your rational for discrediting this information? Vulturell 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, saying that the tree is bad because it implies that Baker is not Jewish is not a great defense, but how about you e-mail his agent and ask? Vulturell 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not verified, but yet you claimed that Evan Rachel Wood's family tree, which was not even associated directly with Wood (unlike the Baker website) is accurate? Then what family tree IS verified? We can't disqualify these family tree sites just because we don't like the information. Either we don't use any of them or we use them all unless they are somehow suspicious looking. Obviously, a site that has the wedding pictures of Baker's parents is on the positive side. Vulturell 00:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the e-mail from Ira Wood. I was talking about the family tree you found of her grandfather. In any case, you haven't answered my question - what makes this family tree unverified as opposed to all other family trees that we use? It makes no claims as to Baker's religion, it just says his ancestors were most recently Scottish and English. Vulturell 00:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Constance Ford

Thanks for the additions to her article! I didn't even know she was a model, and for a famous campaign at that! How remarkable. Again, thanks a lot. :) Mike H. That's hot 01:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Page

Hi, nice page design, unfortunately it doesn't work for 800x600 users :( Is there any way to code the curves instead of using an image? Arniep 01:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the code cannot adopt curves like that. Primarily because only good browser's (Firefox for instance) can display that code. Also, wikipedia does not permit CSS code unless each user implements it himself. What I will do is shrink the design to make it fit in 800x600. I plan to change the color anyway (i hate the orange), so I will do it at that time. Thanks for your input.--ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Damn internet explorer users! Arniep 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This user page has some curves, but no shading. Arniep 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yea, because it uses "-moz-border-radius:20px;" but try it in IE. Also, if I used these browser methods, I couldn't pull off the shadow effect. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 02:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Words of a Nation

I was stumped to find any details at all on this one! So I clicked on "What links here" and found it mentioned on his page. I haven't found corroboration anywhere, so if you do, please fill in the article. Cheers, Her Pegship 01:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for the note, will always warn on vandals' talk pages from now on. ConDem 01:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Formatting birth info in headers

I've noticed we've had a few formatting conflicts, and I thought I'd give my rationale. The reason for giving the date of birth in the opening paragraph right after the name is so the reader immediately knows what time period the person was active in. As for location, parents, etc., I typically include that in the biography/early life portion of the article to go into greater detail (since a lot of people don't grow up in the place they were born) and to avoid redundancy with the top paragraph.--Fallout boy 20:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Plácido Domingo

Do you think there is a place in the article for mentioning the former confusion? It seems like the sort of thing that warrants a mention. It would probably take some of the heat out of the reverts, too.

Vandalism warnings

Vandalism

from User talk:Joy Stovall Hi, I am trying to get our vandal fighting system working a bit better. The user Special:Contributions/82.30.5.239 who you warned at 23:37 had already vandalized 9 articles. In cases like that I think a much stronger warning is appropriate i.e. {{subst:bv}} or {{subst:test4}}. This will enable us to get the user immediately blocked if they vandalize further and save lots of work for others reverting articles. Really it shouldn't matter what template is placed but some admins do not think they are allowed to block unless the bv or test4 messages are posted. Thanks for listening Arniep 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I understand your concern. We both want the same thing: we want the vandal to stop. My goal is not to block someone, though. If he stopped after test1 or test2, that's as much of a success as if it was after test3. Perhaps more so, because a nicer message accomplished the same thing. It's entirely legal to jump from test1 to test4 and block quickly. Joyous | Talk 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Our policies ...

... say that the burden of evidence lies with the editor adding the material, so please supply a reputable source who calls her an animal-rights activist, as opposed to someone who once appeared in an ad about fur, but who has worn and advertised fur since then. See WP:V and WP:RS. SlimVirgin 21:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to find a source saying she is an "animal rights activist," which is what you want to call her, or at least showing she engages in activism. I don't have a source to hand about her fur antics (but I don't need one, because I'm not trying to add anything), but the incident is well known and the animal-rights movement is disgusted by her. SlimVirgin 21:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Arnie, the policies are very clear. Any edit may be challenged by any editor and a source requested. The burden of evidence is on the editor wishing to make the edit. If no source is forthcoming, the edit may be removed by any editor. You're making Misplaced Pages look foolish by trying to claim she is an animal-rights activist, and as you know, we don't need your help for that. Do some research, please, and read the policies. SlimVirgin 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Arniep. SlimVirgin has me hunting for citations in unrelated articles. I have no interest in this discussion, but I checked Canadian and American news indexes. I can find no record of Pamela Anderson doing a fur commercial or endorsing the wearing of fur. She likes pleather, which Peta endorses, and fake fur. She has apparently been a Peta member for 15 years. Hope this helps. --Cyberboomer 23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Geldof

Good catch; I was about to revert that myself and you beat me to it. "...his granmother was Jewish or someone in his family anyway". Ha ha ha, very reliable. Made me laugh, at least. :) Kafziel 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Arniep, what page did I "vandalize"? I assume you are refering to my comments on talk: cheese. Would you care to explain how that was "vandalism"? Just because you dont like a comment doesnt mean it is vandalsim.

By the way, I didn't see anything about you being an administrator, so what gives you the right to threaten to ban me from editing?

-Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztsmart (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Arniep, if you want to leave your own warning, do so. do NOT edit my post; that is vandalism. You left MY sig attached to a warning I did NOT leave. Do NOT ever, ever, do this again. Thanks. KillerChihuahua 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AGF and WP:BITE for that matter. Assuming a user making silly edits like that is never going to be a useful contributor is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And, again, never, ever, edit sombody else's comments like that!—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

One instance, one warning

Do not add additional, especially escalating, warning messages to a user's talk page when there has been only one instance of vandalism. That is misleading, and could be construed as harassment. Also, please use the -n switch, so it is clear which page you are talking about. KillerChihuahua 19:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Removal

Today I uploaded a new screenshot for Tyrone Power's movie, The Eddy Duchin Story. It is to replace the one that you edited out of his page, saying that it was of inferior quality. I believe that this new screenshot is satisfactory. If, however, your opinion differs, I would appreciate your bringing it up for discussion, rather than removing it from the page. I also uploaded a better screenshot from King of the Khyber Rifles. It is not an additional photo, but rather a replacement for one that had a reflection on it, which was your complaint on the Duchin photo. The reason that I put several screenshots on the page is that I was following up on your suggestion to have a range of photos from earlier movies to later ones. goldenerafn 01:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

62.171.194.45

As you're already aware of this user, you may be interested that they recently blanked Participants in World War II after having deleted the section on the UK. I've reverted the article, but I don't have the authority to take it further. Folks at 137 10:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Domingo

Well, clearly, the anon has now sunk to the level of bad-faith edits and vandalism. I'm reluctant to protect the article at present, since the vandal is more of an irritation than a problem and I'd prefer to ignore him with my rollback button for a little while. We can take away the foodbowl if it is persistent, however. Also, I'll start blocking the vandal on sight, since it has had all the warnings it needs. -Splash 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Disraeli

Come now, arniep! Surely you know that Disraeli described himself as "a Jew" in several quotes, including one in a reply to an anti-Semitic member of parliament. Obviously Disraeli would be included. But anyway, I have proposed that we extend IZAK's proposal to every list and settle this once and for all. I hope you vote in support, since you have previously expressed concern for a variety of ethnic labels. Vulturell 23:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, check Wikiquote's page on Disraeli. It includes the quote there. It is a famous quote and it would be grounds for his listing. Vulturell 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

John Major Rt. Hon

Hi there. You removed the Rt Hon from the start of the John Major article. I have since found a lack of consistency in how this is dealt with. Neil Kinnock has it, Margaret Thatcher doesn't. Has ther been a discussion and a consensus somewhere about a standard approach? Captainj 00:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Thank you for your suggestion on my talk page. I apologise that I have not replied to it earlier, but I have spent some time thinking about the issues, and I have now replied on my talk page, so as to keep the conversation in one place.-Mr Adequate 09:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates Man of the Year Time Magazine

There is a major difference between being on the cover of Time Magazine and being Time Magazine's man of the year. Bill Gates was man of the year according to Time Magazine and that is important information and should have the accompaning picture. Also Bono and Melinda Gates were (Wo)Man of the year as well, their pages have the same picture and description so I just thought for clarical reason that all three pages should have the pic since all three of them appear on the cover, that would look better than the picture of all three of them only appearing on two pages. Thanks --DragonWR12LB 18:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Browser

I'm normally using Opera on both Linux and Windows. The edit in question wrecked the formatting by pushing the image of Isaac D'Israeli into the middle of the page. Mackensen (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Domingo edit

It was not vandalism but sorting out some repetition and adding reference to the NY Met post (see Norman Lebrecht article). Hope my revised order reads better.--Farsee50 00:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Phoebe Cates

What's the problem? Do you deny it? Wahkeenah 00:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• She's of mixed race, which gives her a unique facial appearance. It is undeniably true. Tell me how I can word it properly. Wahkeenah 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Couric Pic

The photo is from my own collection, I don't keep track of where I get the photos from. I gave the proper info on it already when I uploaded the image.--Moosh88 03:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about, the photo is from a Katie Couric group on yahoo. Do you really need the link?--Moosh88 03:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard O'Brien

Hmmm. At first I thought this was vandalism, but having read the site it obviously runs a bit deeper. However, per WP:V the accepted view of history must prevail. I've put some banter I was having with Moriori on the talk page with some more detail. Deizio 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts on vandalism

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the whole test warning system on my talk page. As warning for vandalism is subjective this leads to inconsistencies and disagreements. I totally understand what you are saying regarding this issue. Have a nice day! ¡Dustimagic! 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's very true. Thanks again. ¡Dustimagic! 15:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua

I think it's time for you to stop following KC around. Your showing up yet again on another userpage in order to contradict her is making your repeated accusations against her of wiki-stalking appear mighty hypocritical. Badgering admins is not a good use of your time and tests the community's patience. Please find a more productive way to contribute to the project. FeloniousMonk 16:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do not badger KC, one of wikipedia's most tolerant admins. Thanks! ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure KC is capable of speaking for themselves. Arniep 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As am I. However, I was speaking my own thoughts. I speak for noone. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 03:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Workspace categories

Hey, I'd just like to say thanks for fixing the category tags on my two Workspaces. Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 13:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Chavez Theory on Bolivar being half black and half indian

It is his theory, not mine, thus I can not give a source for where from he gets those ideas; my guess nowhere, he just makes it up. At most I can tell you where and when he has said those stupid things. He just did it last sunday on his weekly telecast "Alo Presidente N 248" You can google that and find the info. Anyway, it was reported in the local press the following day (March 6 2006), so any newspaper (El Nacional page 2 or El Universal) of that day is a source. He has also said that before many other times. You can also google "Bolivar era zambo" and you will get references to Chavez saying that; but all in Spanish I leave it to you to pick a source, I do not know how to list a source in the article. In any case, a safe one is the El Nacional newspaper from March 6, 2006, page 2. Chavez is quoted as saying in his Sunday telecast: "Bolivar no era blanco. Bolivar nacio entre los negros, era mas negro que blanco. No tenia los ojos verdes, Bolivar era zambo." Cheers. Anagnorisis 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation cabal

Hey ArnieP, I've been asked to help mediate some issues regarding the Tyrone Power page. I'd like to invite you to the discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-03 Tyrone Power. --JereKrischel 01:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Got your message, if you would like to email me privately regarding the matter, that's fine. You can email me at jere@krischel.org if you'd like. At some point I'd like to make sure any consensus we reach is recorded though. Thank you for your prompt response! --JereKrischel 02:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding "Jews" to the List of British Jews

Arnie, please, I realise that for whatever reason you wish to add as many people as possible to the list of British Jews. But you can see that I'm systematically working through the list. Why be in such a hurry to revert? I'm not going to have changed my mind in the ten minutes since I removed Born, for instance. You are simply creating conflict. Why not discuss it on Talk? Why not wait until I have finished and then bring those names you have a problem with to my talkpage? Simply editwarring over them is not constructive and, I have to say, does not paint you in a good light. Grace Note 03:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you are the one whose actions do not paint you in a good light. If you want to dispute someone why not post a message on the talk page about them instead of dismantling the whole list? It is nonsense that I want to add as many names as possible to the list, as I have told you before I am only really interested in early British Jewry and I have personally have only added about 4 people, mainly early Jewish politicians to the list. Arniep 03:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly comfortable with my actions. I am removing names that shouldn't be on the list and posting them to talk. This is exactly how unsourced material should be treated.

"Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place {{citation needed}} after the relevant passage. This should be used sparingly; Misplaced Pages has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many instances of {{citation needed}} is unlikely to be beneficial." WP:CITE Grace Note 04:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

List

Arniep, I don't think anyone is listening to you and they have mostly started disregarding me. I can predict anyone's answer to your latest post to a T (i.e. "we don't draw our on opinions" yada yada). What we need to do is what I've been wanting to do all along - draw up a large proposal for all ethnic groups (including, indeed, list of British Indians!) and post it somewhere where tons of people, not just the "usual suspects", can vote on it. Of course we'd have the same rules for every ethnic group in it. Make it reasonable enough to get it approved and thus overrule the "proposal" we have now. And yes, I realize you want to only list historic people, etc. but obviously neither side agrees with you there or is interested in that, so I suppose you'd better stick with me and a larger proposal, so you can list all the historic people you want... Vulturell 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

why do you ban ethnicity from the heading? and Why in some cases and not in others?

Yes, it is a game of words and that's what I said the first day Grace Note got there. So let's come up with a policy proposal for all ethnicity lists alike (I'm open to suggestions for the critiria, as long as it is the same for every group), post it somewhere, get it voted on, and then we can easily overrule GraceNote's irrational and unapproved proposal, which right now can legally only effect one page anyway (and which you didn't vote against, for some reason). Vulturell 03:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on Iain Lee

Hi Arniep. More 'new editors' on Iain Lee are continually inserting a claim that he is engaged. Slightly more believable than the claim that he is gay, but it's completely unsourced and the modus operandi of the editors inserting it is very similar to those that were inserting the gay claims. They claim that Iain Lee said in an email that he said he was engaged, but this is dubious and unprovable anyway, so it's not a reliable source.

Basically I'm asking you, to put it bluntly, to back me up on this. I can't keep this out by edit warring, and I can't start dispute resolution if it's only me taking the position that this information is dubious, unsourced and should stay out. If more than one editor tries to point out the meaning of 'reliable source' to the 'new editors', we can progress to RFC if they refuse to acknowledge it. Or, of course, you could tell me that you know the thing about him being engaged is actually true, and I'd take your word for it.

I've considered requesting CheckUser for the 'new accounts', but I don't think their edits are obvious enough vandalism to justify it for the moment.

I've also posted this message to JamieHughes and Westminsterboy (the real ones). --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is minor

Arniep, first of all I like your idea that the UK should be a United Queendom! I have reverted your edit to E. Nesbit because the square brackets I introduced are there for a reason, namely to show that the words inside them were not in the original quoted material (to which I do not have access). See Bracket. Please add a reason for your changes in the edit box, especially for a revert. Thanks. BrainyBabe 12:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

It's rather standard to put the stub message after the categories, simply because a number of editors find it nice to have the category section begin with the primary categories instead of the so-and-so stubs category. However, I don't know if that's a necessary requirement, and a number of pages do put stub message before the cats. However, what is required style is that stub messages come after all the sections of the article. In the case of that article, it was listed prior to the External links. Hope that helps. Sarge Baldy 21:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Stubs2

You are probally right sorry i will try to fix that. ILovEPlankton 05:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Tony Robinson

Actually, it was an anonymous editor who added him to the Jewish-British category - Tim (meep) 17:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rory McGrath

Yeah, whatever. Bentley Banana 22:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jovovich

It was never quiet clear to me whether or not we are allowed to use cropped images of movie posters. Most people, after consideration, have said that it's probably fine, as long as we mention the film in the caption and talk about it in the article. JackO'Lantern 17:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Eric Clapton revert

The reason for deleting the line is explained in explicit detail on the discussion page - a little investigation never hurts. - Slow Graffiti 20:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

Indeed it looks like I will have to do that eventually, though no one's opposed them thus far... Oh well... JackO'Lantern 21:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I noticed, thanks for adding me. JackO'Lantern 21:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Disraeli

Thanks for catching that anon changing him from Portugese to Italian Sephardic. It's gotten so common I left an HTML comment warning them off; not that it does any good. Any idea where people get this idea? Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

And what's wrong with pro-Israeli bias, Arnie? Every source has a POV. Are you saying only pro-Palestinian POV is welcome in Misplaced Pages? As I said before, please read our policies and edit in accordance with them. SlimVirgin 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's only your POV that it's "extreme bias." The guy is a mainstream academic at an American university. SlimVirgin 00:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't change that citation again. We don't add our own descriptions to citations. See WP:CITE. You're going to have to at least read our policies and guidelines at some point, you know. SlimVirgin 01:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And you've violated 3RR. Revert once more and you'll be reported for it. SlimVirgin 01:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

MEF link

Oh well... you saw I weighed in on the talk page, mostly in a manner sympathetic to you. I tend to agree that the MEF article is spurious. On the other hand, I cannot get all that worked up about the issue, since it's just one endnote reference among several; if the real body of the article were repeating content from that link, I'd have quite strong WP:RS concerns. Excessive references are relatively low on the list of pitfalls of the WP process, to my mind.... which isn't to say I haven't encounted the problem lots of places. Some articles have "every link anyone can find that is vaguely related to the topic"... which is its own kind of problem, because whichever link you remove first it seems like it's being singled out as so much worse than all the dozens of others (which it usually isn't). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

De Niro's mother

De Niro's mother was of Irish ancestry. Yes, his father was Irish-Italian. But it is possible to have two parents of Irish heritage. De Niro's mother also was believe it or not, was a Jewish convert.

But it is a well-documented fact that De Niro's mother was Irish and his father was Irish and Italian. He is mostly Irish but considers himself Italian. You will not find any info to the contrary anywhere.

Thank you.

MrBlondNYCMrBlondNYC 13:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Every bio I have ever read of De Niro states he is of mostly Irish descent. Is there a book or site where I can see his family tree? MrBlondNYC 11:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes please send me the info when you can! De Niro is my favorite actor and I'm always wanting more info on him. Thanks.

mrblondnyc@hotmail.com

Vandalizing?

You accused me of vandalizing the site. I didn't think I was vandalizng. Could you tell me which atricle you were referring to when you wrote that message?

(Simninja 19:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Bono

Dude, seriously. No one wants to see Bono when he looks like that. Why did you take off the GOOD picture of Bono? Leave it on it. Dont take it off.

user:Koolgiy

Dude your picture seriously sucks ass. Bono looks like hes gay in that picture. The one I put on, WHICH I have a right to since I put where it was from and what kind of copyright it is, you shouldnt have to take it off. Leave it on there or im taking yours off.

Disraeli

Disraeli's paternal grandfather, Benjamin Israeli, emigrated from Cento, then part of the Papal States. Once in England he married Rebecca Furtado, whose brother-in-law was Aaron Lara. Lara was a Portugese Jew, but not related by blood to the (D)israeli family. Benjamin's second wife, Sarah, was connected to the Villa Real family of Livorno. According to Robert Blake a number of people confuse this family with the Villa Reals of Portgual. So while there's bound to be a connection with Portugal somewhere, it's trivial. Thanks for taking a look at the link. Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

London (2005 film)

You may be right ... I'm not totally sure how its officially "supposed" to work, I was just going by IMDB. We know it was shown at a film festival in 2005, so I think perhaps they are going by first showing. They do that for oscars sometimes ...

I actually started with this one London (film). -- ProveIt 17:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's how it works, but I could be wrong. I found out about the film festival from the IMDB page. -- ProveIt 17:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Inaccurate"

Dear Arniep

Why in the hell are these divisions inaccurate? The information is absolutely the same; the only difference is the much more clearly structure. (By the way, this is not my personal point of view, its wikipedia standard.)

 • Indo-Europeans
   • Celtic peoples
     • Welsh
     • Manx
     • Bretons
     • Scottish
   • Germanic peoples
     • English
     • Icelanders
     • Scandinavians

--lorn10 23:31, 04. April 2006 (CEST)

Mary J pic

I'm sorry I disagree.

The image I added falls under "fair use" due to the fact its released as a promotional picture to promote the album. Its also used on a single sleeve in the UK, so there is no problem with using the image imo. Rimmers 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

bono

By the way, where are all the free pics of Bono?? Is yours the only one?? I think so.

Koolgiy

Vandalism?

You left a note accusing me of vandalism because you said my edits were inaccurate but you didn't say which ones. As far as I know all the information I've contributed is correct. If you disagree then I would need to know what you disagree with and why. Quilters 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rikki Lee Travolta

While I agree that the family connection between Rikki and John is not clearly proven (maybe the term 'nephew' isn't used correctly and Rikki's father is only a half-brother of John from a previous marriage if their father/mother ???). However, I don't believe that so many sources would dare to claim Rikki being the nephew of such a famous person like John if it would be simply a lie from Rikki's management (but I'm still trying to find some more sources connecting those two, although one would probably have to do an DNA test to be sure).

In any case being related to John is in no way important for my opinion that Rikki is 'notable' enough as artist (even if he certainly isn't in the top rank) in his own merit to be included in an online encyclopedia. Gu 18:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to add that I also found a reference which says he is the cousin (and not the nephew) of John Travolta which would explain why his father is not mentioned as John's brother. Gu 07:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Uma

That's ok, that's what I figured happened. But are we really supposed to organize filmographies that way? RadioKirk believed this user and changed it in the Lindsay Lohan article. I believe Katie Holmes is still latest to recent, however. Which is the way I prefer it. JackO'Lantern 02:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yuppers on the IMDB. I only remembered my long ago submission last year, and discovered that Quigley interview a and believe me, I had a hoot and a howl looking at it.

• Here it is: "You had a small part as a hooker in The Prophecy 3 in 2000, did you have any scenes with Christopher Walken and what was he like? I don’t think unless they used old footage that I’m in Prophecy 3. I have to see it sometime but I wish I could have worked with them. Damn, if you have seen it and I’m in it let me know."
• if you cross-search Quigley and Prophecy, you get plenty, plenty of matches. I feel proud. JackO'Lantern 02:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Sorry, I didn't see your post there at first. The rules should be very simple here. And first of all - "Americans of xxx descent" is pointless, useless and we could end up having 10 of them for one person. Who really cares if someone had a French great-grandfather, for example? Anyway. The rules should be, if I made them (and I'm working on it) - list/categorize anyone with one or both parents of that group. And that's it. Make exceptions for people of lesser ancestry if you can prove they identify with that group, like Robert De Niro's quote on his page. This seems to solve all problems, since no matter how you identify you would be influenced by one or both parents of a group. And any lesser ancestry is up to the subject themselves to decide. On lists, the citation style should follow what I did for, say, the now fully cited List of Swiss Americans. JackO'Lantern 02:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Why are you reverting all of my entries? Sonybmg 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rikki Lee Travolta

Yous said: The problem is we need reliable sources that explain who Michael Travolta is and who is his mother is and how she came to have an affair with Salvatore Travolta. If it is true you need to get it explained in a major newssource. Arniep 12:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the page was about Rikki Lee Travolta, not Michael Travolta. The affair is just my theory reading into things I didn't read it anywhere. It doesn't say that anywhere on the site from what I see. KingJamesCav 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories by TV shows

Perhaps this is a loosing battle. It looks like it might spread into Musicals. It is not the end of the world. Eventually, if there is a perception that everything has been overcategorized, a proposal to remove these categories might have support.

I'm not sure what you mean by your other comments. I've been pushing for over a year now so that both articles and categories will each be categorized on their own merits. It used to be that articles were only put in their eponymous category (if there was an eponymous category), and then the category was made a subcategory of any other category where the article belonged. The new guidelines have changed this, so that Benjamin Franklin belongs in any category to which the Benjaming Franklin (the person) belongs, and Category:Benjamin Franklin belongs in just the few categories where the collection of articles relating to him belong. This is often only Category:Categories by person and perhaps one or two major categories. -- Samuel Wantman 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I don't feel that my last entry was vandalism. It was a constructive add in. I told nothing but the truth. Please tell me what exactly was wrong with it. Thank you, thechanger25998.

"HINKEL FINKEL DINKEL DOO WEEHAAA" isn't vandalism? Arniep 19:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Travolta Family

Please don't tell me not to make inacurate changes when I'm not making inacurate changes. That's crazy talk.  :EraserX 01:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Damon

I won't remove the category for now, but a grandfather isn't that close, and it definitely wasn't a full parent. It generally shouldn't be done unless we have proof that that person identifies with that group above others. Since there are no established rules, I guess we can't argue either way. There's no real point in having "Americans of whatever descent" because I have no doubt that we could put David Carradine and Val Kilmer in 10 of those each, so what's the point? JackO'Lantern 04:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"people usually identify with whatever ethnicity their surname was at birth" LOL!!!!! Oh my. That's a good one. So I guess Eddie Murphy identifes as an Irish-American, right? Anyway, clear rules need to be formulated on this, unquestionably - written down somewhere, I mean. I think what I proposed above is perfectly reasonable - one parent or both, or if we can prove they somehow identify with their more distant ancestry (i.e. I don't think you can in Matt Damon's case, btw) JackO'Lantern 18:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would think that lists should follow the same method as categories, otherwise they become unmanagable. As for identification, that doesn't make any sense. What do David Caruso, Steve Buscemi and Michael Douglas identify as? (and don't tell me Italian for Caruso and Buscemi without proof. Just because people think they are because of their last names doesn't mean anything) JackO'Lantern 18:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well no, obviouslt that's not true. A person with an Irish surname is thought to be Irish by the public. It doesn't mean that the person themselves do, and it's pretty silly statement to make that a person usually identifies with what their last name's origin is. JackO'Lantern 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But we have no idea who self-identifies with what usually. I.e. you didn't answer my questions on Caruso/Buscemi/Douglas, as random examples JackO'Lantern 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes but those are three super-stars. You can probably find me a few good examples of your point. What about the three people I just asked you about? Or any three random others? And besides, Madonna identifies as some kind of weird British Jew, as far as I can tell. :) JackO'Lantern 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Pacino, DeVito and Gandolfini are all 100% Italian-American, so what else could they possibly identify with? But what about the three I asked you about? JackO'Lantern 18:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm basically making the point that for most people you don't know what they identify as. So it's silly to make a system based on something that is generally not known to us. JackO'Lantern 19:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I said we should make a system based on a few clear-cut rules relating to parentage - i.e. one parent or two of whatever grou

Grandparents are iffy. Billy Bob Thornton says his mother is "Italian and Cherokee", but looking at his family tree, it's clear that both ancestries are farther back, though Thornton was listed as both Italian and Native for a while. The problem with limiting to grandparents is exactly that - it is very hard to confirm that someone has a grandparent who was fully of whatever group. Most descriptions are kinda iffy. It's not as hard with a full parent, and a full parent is a significant influence in any way. Plus this limits a person to two categories, which I think is quite enough for anyone. And besides, there is no currently accepted system of listing by grandparents, otherwise certain recent problems on a few ethnicity lists would not have ever happened or been allowed to happen. JackO'Lantern 19:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well this self-identification with who-knows-how-distant ancestry is kinda rare. I haven't seen much of it, but I don't think it's a big problem. In any case, what has to be done regardless of the specific rules is some kind of system that is written somewhere, so this subject wouldn't have to be debated all the time. JackO'Lantern 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What did Brando identify with? (except as Native American, which he wasn't). But my point was regardless of the rules we use, we need an explicit guideline written down somewhere and agreed on, because this is becoming an issue that is often debated. JackO'Lantern 19:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe we can keep the identification down to a great-grandparent and grandparent, if we have to. You'd also have to prove that he did identify. But the point, again is, there should be clear rules written down somewhere, as this is becoming repeatedly an issue. JackO'Lantern 19:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 4 grandparents thing is a weird rule precisely because it is so hard to confirm if someone had a "full" grandparent, usually, and also because as you can see, it isn't actually a written down rule and only a few people know about it. If it was a rule, certain recent edits by a few unsavory characters would not have happened on a chosen few lists. That's why it is imperative that some kind of written down agreement be made - regardless of the specific rules you use - to prevent more of this discussion and debate. JackO'Lantern 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rikki Lee Travolta

I have already read them all, and I think it should be kept. The Chicago Sun Times is convincing enough for me. Sandro67 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• This link, posted by someone on the deletion page:

• • I wasn't offended by the bold caps but I thought others might have perceived it as uncivil. The reason I labeled the contribs as "Travolta-releated" is that I didn't check every single one to make sure it was actually Rikki-related (inserting his name in other Travolta articles). If you have verified that this is the case then the change is fine. Thatcher131 12:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Actors by series cats

Thanks for the note. I think we have slightly different goals, as I don't have a problem with the actors by series categories, on the whole. The categories I don't like are the ones that mingle regular and recurring actors with one-time guest stars, like Category:Law & Order actors and Category:Star Trek actors. It seems like every time one of these comes up for discussion, the votes are split between removing the guest stars and deleting the entire category, and we wind up with no consensus. It would be nice if we could get these resolved for once. - EurekaLott 21:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That would work, I suppose, but it would be a heck of a lot of work. Because there are so many guest stars in the categories, it may be easier to empty them completely (with the help of a bot) and then repopulate them with the appropriate people. - EurekaLott 22:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Franz Liszt

Hello,

I'm a bit surprised that you've completely reverted an edit in the above article. It also seems plausible to me that his father can have some Hungarian ancestry, since liszt as a common name is a Hungarian word, meaning "flour" (still widely used in Hungarian today). It would be strange for a pure-blooded Austrian family to have a Hungarian name, wouldn't it?

If you agree, would you be so kind as to revert this part in your recent edit?

Adam78 22:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• According to the Hungarian telephone directory, there are 55 people with a landline telephone subscription only in Budapest today who have the surname "Liszt". (I think there is a law about protected names that one cannot freely adopt a famous person's name unless they can prove their lineage, so unrelated people are probably not allowed to adopt this name.)
• Beside the fact that the word is meaningful in Hungarian but it isn't in German, "sz" itself is a digraph which occurs in Hungarian but not in German (excluding other languages). So even if the name itself originated from a similar-sounding German root (let's suppose), it was apparently Hungarianized.
• It would be also strange for Liszt to have professed himself a Hungarian if he hadn't have any kind of Hungarian lineage from either of his parents.

That's all I can say at the moment. I may still be wrong, just it seemed (and still seems) somewhat improbable to me. Adam78 22:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adolf

What's the beef with naming me in an Advertising Scam? What was I advertising? I started the Joey Travolta page and I contributed to the Rikki Lee Travolta page because I know a lot about the Travolta family. How is that advertising? Icemountain2 22:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Morrissey photo

Hello. I have replied to your recent comment on my talk page. If you could make any further comments on the situation following my statement it would be much appriciated. Yours, SaltyWater 22:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What did I do incorrect

What I did I do incorrect so I can fix it? thanx Dramalover 14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Notation of Procedural Error and Foreword Communication Efforts

I was notified of your naming me in your Scam notation by Bostic5.0 via talk/discussion communiqué. I've looked through your Scam notice and your nomination of the Rikki Lee Travolta article for Deletion. I wish you would have taken the initiative to contact me directly with your concerns. I am not 'the' expert, but as you know I have given input into the afore mentioned article in the past. You comments seem to indicate thoughts that the article requires noting of sources to establish validity of fact mentioned therein. Upon review of the article at the point your nomination was entered, I can see your point. I would argue that entering a notice on the article calling for citation of sources would have been a positively motivated directive and perhaps more inline with governing principals of operation, but in response to the measures you did opt to undertake it appears an initial undertaking has been forged to add the sources previously missing from said article. That said, while again realizing I am but a modest source of information not 'the' or even 'a' source of expertise on the subject matter, as an individual who has made contributions in the past I will make my best attempt to further the cause and see what research I can do to give proper indication to just sources within the article in question. If I can be of service in the future, or if there is a potential point of difference you feel exists from your vantage towards my execution of duties and obligations, I invite you to utilize the preferred means of direct contact; it would be, in my personal estimation as well as in respect to adherence to governing principals of operation and conduct, a far more advantageous means to end and exceedingly more resolution-oriented than learning of such insinuations and actions via secondhand notification. Cokenotpepsi 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I, User:Jersey Devil, award you User:Arniep with this Defender of Misplaced Pages Barnstar for your working in fighting off hordes of sockpuppets in the Rikki Lee Travolta Afd and reporting the matter as a "possible advertising scam" on AN/I. Please continue the good work in fighting off the sockpuppets who try and manipulate Misplaced Pages to fit their own POV.--Jersey Devil 21:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta

Hi, I'd really like to know what Margaret Travolta said, i.e. whether Rikki Lee is related or not (email through my user page if you prefer). Thanks Arniep 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Travolta did especially mention Rikki Lee, however based on her timing and comments, I presume she did see this entry. I created a page called "Travolta family", which includes her exact list of siblings. -- Zanimum 23:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume she quashed the claim that Rikki's father Michael was her half brother, did she mention whether he was really a relative of hers and in what way he is related? Arniep 23:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, she did mention any of the specifics. She mainly was commenting on the removal of her family relationship to John. I can ask her about this situation in the future, but I'm currently awaiting a bit more info on her mother and father, that I've asked if she'd be kind enough to send to me. -- Zanimum 23:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Braganza

Hi, I think the "House of Braganza" article should be the one that remains, but I will alert the Portuguese users who had drawn me into that area in the first place (some of the WP:BCOTW gang). Thanks for the note. Kaisershatner 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Squid

Oh, ok. No wonder! —Khoikhoi 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

the "relatives" category

I don't have any problem with the position that the category should be deleted. As you can see from my and Use:Michael David's discussion pages, I wasn't sure what to do with these folks when clearing out category:Suicides. The only thing that I had trouble with was the nomination of eight related things for deletion in eight different places, which makes coming to consensus very difficult, in my opinion. But I'm sure it will all sort itself out.--Mike Selinker 22:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Americans of xxx descent

There is now the List of Americans of Irish descent over List of Irish-Americans. I would like to continue this kind of re-titling i.e. with Americans of Italian descent, Americans of Jewish descent, etc. Do you think some sort of proposal need be drafted to move all the other pages to similar titles, or should I just slowly and methodically perform the moves myself? Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We'd have to change that title too, or else the whole mis-interpreting of Original Research could continue to be enforced. Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. People like Neve Campbell, K.D. lang, Beck (singer) or Robert Downey, Jr. identify as Jewish despite more distant connections, and Kate Hudson who just has a Jewish grandmother was raised Jewish. And besides, with the "Jewish Americans" title, we would have certain elements removing names from the list who are fully Jewish or have a Jewish parent, as has happened recently. Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is all problematic. Anyway, I'm going to do this thing one list at a time, usually one a day or so, so we'll see what arises. Mad Jack O'Lantern 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Afds

Hi, you removed the votes of EraserX from the Travolta afds. Can you tell me who this user is a sock puppet of? Thanks Arniep 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No but look at this user's contribs, and some of their edits. They clearly have some fetish for the Travoltas. -- Zanimum 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi they have a POV they only John Travolta is really notable in the Travolta family. As that is a perfectly reasonable point of view I have restored the comments. Regards Arniep 23:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please can you explain who they are meant to be a sock puppet of? Thanks Arniep 00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't know who they are, but I have the right to express my concern with this user's suspicious edit history. -- Zanimum 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, their ability to get roles really isn't a consideration, it's how many they've had that influence my vote. User:Zoe| 02:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, differences of opinion are what make horse races and elections.  :) User:Zoe| 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

EKN

Thanks, Arnie. Definitely looks weird. I'll keep an eye on it with you. SlimVirgin 01:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh I see, thanks. — FireFox • T

Naomi Watts Pic

It was found at http://www.actressarchives.com/naomiw/

List of Irish-Americans

The List of Irish-Americans page is different from the List of Americans of Irish descent. The list of Irish-Americans page is for Irish-Americans only, not anyone with some Irish ancestry. There is a page List of Italian-Americans, List of Chinese Americans, List of Greek Americans, I don't see any reason why there should not be a List of Irish-Americans. I am going to continue working on the list. 75.3.4.54 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Until that happens

Well, until the lists for other groups are changed, it is descriminatory to leave out an Irish-American list.

Also, do you want to talk about unsourced? Please go to List of African-Americans, there are no sources on that page. Should I remove everyone off that list? 75.3.4.54 22:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Irish-Americans are being made an exception at Misplaced Pages. It is descriminatory because they are the only ones who are being attacked by being denied a list. 75.3.4.54 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Change the others now then, also, remove everyone listed on the List of African-Americans, there are no sources for any of them. 75.3.4.54 22:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Irish-American politicians

Can I make a page with that title? It would be similiar to the List of Italian-American politicians page but it would be divided by in addition to state by city and political office. 75.3.4.54

xxx-American

qualification for the lists like this could be a person being native to that country, of 100% of that ethnicity, of mostly heritage from that ethnicity, or self-identified as that group.

Like for the Irish, William O'Dwyer would be on the list because he was born in Ireland. Conan O'Brien would be on the list because he has 100% Irish acenstry. Alec Baldwin would be on the list for being mostly of Irish ancestry. Jack Nicholson would be on the list for identifing himself as an Irish American. 75.3.4.54 23:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

viva la revolution

hello my favorite captain is bluebeard? who is yours?

War of the Worlds actors

Thanks Arnie. JW 11:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

McConaughey

I'm not sure why you keep putting him under Irish-Americans. While it is OK to list him under "Americans of Irish descent", there is no evidence that he's mostly Irish, identifies as Irish, or has been described as an "Irish-American" in any good source. Let's not all break 3rr here. Mad Jack O'Lantern 19:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, he says he doesn't know if he feels particularly Irish in the interview you linked to on the Irish list. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename the Irish page? Well if we did we would have to take out people with distant roots. "Deductive reasoning" means that it's up to us to decide, so how exactly do we decide? "Branches" could mean he has a fully Irish great-grandparent and that's it. We need more than that. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if we can use deductive reasoning, then what about Newport's proposal? Should it still be approved as a way to make sure the lists stay in line with each other? Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I love the categories but they should be appropriately placed. I like Newport's proposal (well, I wrote it) because it seems logical. We shouldn't just slap "Irish-American" on anybody because they have some Irish ancestry. Deductive reasoning and common sense should go together. Wearing a shirt that says "Irish" on it doesn't make a person Irish, otherwise anyone celebrating St. Patrick's day would be. Since it seems we don't know if he's at least 50% Irish, and his self-identification, as you've admitted, isn't clear, I don't see how he can really be called an "Irish-American" (and I doubt he considers himself one). We can certainly mention that he has some Irish ancestry in the article. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Having no clear definition is the exact problem, because someone (I will most likely) can contest having people like, say, Vince Vaughn, Robert DeNiro, etc. on an Irish-Americans list. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

On the grounds that they aren't really "Irish-Americans" and that a person who is 1/16th Irish, for example, is not considered an Irish-American by anybody. The whole problem with having no definition is that anybody can contest anything. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. Putting Robert DeNiro on the Irish list because it is your personal opinion that he belongs there, and my personal opinion that he doesn't. DeNiro says he considers himself more Italian than anything else, so I think he belongs on the Italian list. You adding McConaughey to Irish-Americans because you think he belongs there is your personal opinion, I removed him because it is my personal opinion that he doesn't. See? "Personal opinion" works both ways. That's the problem when there is no definition. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact that his grandmother was Irish, but you putting him on the Irish list is your personal opinion that he belongs there. My removing him is my personal opinion that he does not belong there. It's really that simple. There is no clear definition of what an Irish-American is, and you won't find one anywhere on line or elsewhere. Misplaced Pages's definition doesn't count, because we can't source ourselves. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, if he was only 1/4 Irish, regardless of his surname, and if I couldn't confirm that he identifies as Irish, then no, I wouldn't place him on the list. I don't like going by last names, anyway. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean I wouldn't put him on a list of "Irish-Americans", but we could on a "List of Americans of Irish descent" Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now there are people who are less than 1/4 but that's because I brought them back after the title was changed. Before that, everyone was at least 50% Irish or identified as Irish if less. In my opinion, an Irish-American is an American of significant Irish descent, and by that I mean at least one fully Irish parent, ethnically speaking. An Irish-American could also be someone with lesser ancestry who identifies as being Irish. That's what the Pump proposal reflected. Most people would agree with this definition. I can't imagine anyone claiming DeNiro being an Irish-American (aside from the people who think that his mother is Irish). Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If that person was listed as being an Irish-American (and explicitly that) in a reliable source, then they should go in the list, too. But you'll find this would rarely happen, if at all. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I don't know, but so what? If they claim to have an Irish parent, I'm not going to tell them any different. We would post their quote on the list, and if it's a mistake, then it's their mistake, not ours. Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Descent

Sammy Davis Jr., was of Puerto Rican descent as stated by himself. Just because one person claims differently doesn't mean a thing. Here are three of the dozens of reliable sites which back up his own Puerto Rican claim. Bio of Elvira Sanchez in IMDB, Sammy Davis Jr. and Tribute to Sammy Davis Jr. . Tony the Marine 21:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sammy Davis Jr.

Thanks for answering. Sometimes even the best books may conmtian a mistake or two, it happens. However, Sammy mother was of Puerto Rican descent not onl;y is it stated in all of the websites that you'll find but, he himself had often made jokes about being Puerto Rican, Jewish and Black. This is "not" made up stuff but, facts. Anyway, I just want you to know that I hold no hard feelings and that I realize now that you were not attenpting to vandalise. Tony the Marine 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• You mean that Sammy Davis Jr., didn't know where his mother was from and that his claim doesn't matter because some author states something else? O.K., state other reliable sources which back up the books claim. What one book states doesn't mean anything, the author may be mistaken. Tony the Marine 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I read your source but, this is a direct quote from Sammy:"I'm colored, Jewish and Puerto Rican. When I move into a neighborhood, I wipe it out!". Something similar came up with an article that I once wrote. It was about the pirate Roberto Cofresi. In my research I found two different versions as to his father's origin. One stated that his father was of German descent while the other claimed he was of Italian descent. I therefore included both versions (take a look). I believe that this would be a good solution as to Sammy's mother. What do think? Tony the Marine 23:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Check this out Elvera Sanchez. I think both versions are now represented in a satisfactory way. Tony the Marine 23:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to be reasonable with you but, you seem intent on getting only your way instead of meeting one halfway. You seem to disregard the research of every other sited source and even Sammy's own personal quotes to have your way. An unathoritized bio. has as much weight as all the others. State the documents that the author sites as proof of his allegations. If you can't do that then youi may be banded for violation of the 3 rervert rule. Tony the Marine 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tarantino

Of course Tarantino would be on a list of Italian-Americans. His father was 100% Italian as far as I've seen. You're making this whole thing out to be a lot more complicated then it really is. A relatively small number of people aren't worth this much discussion. We'll talk about every individual example when we need to, there's no point in this kind of general discussion. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This whole dialogue is making me think that maybe Grace Note had the right idea. As for Tarantino, I think he is more relevant to the Italian page because his father was fully Italian. You are free to disagree, but I think most people would agree on listing Tarantino. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Because they share that parent's ethnicity regardless. What if a person is orphaned at birth but had Italian-American parents? etc. etc. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Frida Kahlo's father wasn't Jewish. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Because an ethnicity list like Irish or Italian-Americans is as much about genes as it is culture. So, people of significant Italian genes, so to speak, should be listed, as should people of significant Italian culture. That's why Tarantino and DeNiro would be listed under the Italian page, but neither, as far as I've seen, would be on the Irish page. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything beside that a person who has, for example, a fully Italian parent would usually be considered worthy of listing in a list of Italian-Americans. A person who is 1/32 Italian on the other hand, not so much. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly say it's moot. And it's kind of a silly title. As for marking anything, most of the quotes right now make the most of the person's Irish background, so there's not much to add. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am so weary of this that it seems fine for now, but there may well be complaints from other people. However, the category "Irish-Americans" should remain as is. Are you going to change Frida Kahlo's entry? I know you've worked a lot on it. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I noticed your Davis Jr. thing, which surprised me, which was why I brought Kahlo up. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Man Ray

Hi there. I actually did not write that passage concerning Man Ray's changing of his name. I merely edited the statement to include a space after Man Ray's given name, as there had not been one there before. This is clear when comparing the revision as of 11:00, 21 April 2006 with the article's previous version (this information is also included in the edit details I left). As to when the original statement was made, I could not tell you.

Nakore 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Frida

All that has are the names of her grandparents - it doesn't even say they were Jewish. The book on Kahlo's father traced his ancestry back 300 years, which is a bit more than Davis Jr... Those are indeed her grandparents, and it doesn't seem unlikely for any reason that they were ethnic Germans and Lutherans from what I can see on that site. Mad Jack O'Lantern 03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wellll......... Besides, there were plenty of ethnic Germans all over the place in Europe before WWII. Mad Jack O'Lantern 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the website you linked me to (with the pictures) says they moved to Germany in the late 1860s. The geneology of Frida's father says that he was born in Pforzheim, it doesn't say his parents were, so I don't see any inconsistancy. Mad Jack O'Lantern 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess the wording is ambigious. The linked article says Frida's father was born in Germany, which makes sense. And it says that he came from a long line of German Protestants - it doesn't say specifically where they lived. I haven't seen the book myself but you should if you're interestedMad Jack O'Lantern 15:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Elvera Sanchez

Unauthorized, books with no documentation such as givernment documents, baptism records, etc. are considered non-reliable. Your inability to provide concrete proof than what you read in a book that is written on the basis of speculation is not wise journalism. The article has been tagged for dispute and therefore will revert to its original state unless you can show concrete proof. I have notified other users and they will respond with their viewpoints

Blocked

You've been blocked for breaking the 3 revert rule in the article Elvera Sanchez. Your block will be liftrd in a short period of time. Tony the Marine 19:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Succession Box location on the page

You may want to enter this discussion: Template_talk:Succession_box#Box_location_discussion_or_style_guide_or_policy.3F. per your remarks on Jane Fonda and your many rvs of user Joey80 Doc 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

ok, so i made a big mistake and caused inconvenience for many editors by moving the succession boxes below the pages. i just started editing the academy awards-related succession box this week. before, i used to edit sports-related articles, that's why i got used to putting the succession box at the page's bottom. further, some actors' articles also followed the same convention so i thought that this same standards apply. anyway, i admit that it was my mistake. further, i just learned of this talk pages days ago, that's the reason for not responding to requests. anyway, i'm currently moving the succession box to where it is more appropriate (in the filmography/awards section). but so you know, reverting back is not the only solution. i didn't just moved the succession box, i also added the film titles and did some formating in the succession box, that's my main goal. and by reverting back you ignored that for just the sake of location.Joey80 07:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! While editing some other pages, some editors pointed out that a succession box might not be appropriate in such instances as awardees (like in the Oscars). This is a winner in the next year does not necessarily succeed the winner this year (like calling this year's winner an "ex-Oscar winner"), like a head of a country or an institution. So I'm beginning to think that since a template was used to tie all the Best Picture winners, maybe a template can also be used to tie all the winners in the same category. What do you say? Of course, being a template, it means putting it at the bottom of a page, so that will not cause that much trouble.Joey80 08:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing One's Own User Page

Is it considered vandalism to remove some or all content from one's own user page (not user talk) I want to know before starting my user page. Thanks in advance Vintage Philco Radios 09:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ~

Vicki/Vicky

Why'd you do that?

CfD

Hi. Hope you don't mind - I've expanded your CfD to include the same issue with Category:Imdb title and two other similar templates created by the same editor for the same purpose. —Whouk (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

EKN

Just to let you know that the editor you were keeping an eye on is editing as User:QuizQuick, not as well as, but instead of. Just in case you want to keep on watching. SlimVirgin 04:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Last section

Please see my talk page for my reply to your post. Thanks. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Elvera Sanchez

You will be blocked if you insist on your continous vandalism. Tony the Marine 23:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you don't have the authority to block anyone. Furthermore, disputes about the content of an article are not vandalism according to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I must address you since you addressed me on User:Arniep's talk page. Yes, I have the authority to block a person for continous reverts (3 revert rule) and what is deemed as vandalism. Let me make this clear to you, I am hesitant in blocking, it's a rare thing for me to do. I have no personal interest in either of the Elvera Sanchez or Sammy Davis Jr. articles. The problem here is that you cannot "delete" commonly accepted facts from an article based on the information of an unauthorized book. That's the debate between User:XLR8TION and User:Arniep. As a solution to both parties I offered the following versions which should have satisfied both parties involved and which includes what is unversally believed and what author Haygood states. These are the most logical versions and continuos reverts of these versions and deletion of what is commonly believed may be deemed as vandalism. If you wish to address me in the future, you may do so in my talk page.

Sorry but I didn't delete anything, I still mentioned that Davis claimed he was Puerto Rican. Marlon Brando claimed he was French, Frida Kahlo claimed she was Jewish but these claims have both been shown not to be true. There is nothing unusual in celebrities making false or misleading statements on their ancestry.Arniep 14:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Lichtenstein

"He was attacked by alians and was transported to mars" -Not count as vandalism does it not?

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean, I can't see the text you mention I just restored an image which you deleted . Arniep 16:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Elvera Sanchez

Dear Arniep: The only way this argument will end, and the way it should be, is to write Elvera Sanchez is of allged Puerto Rican background, although "(name)" book claims she is of Cuban ancestry. If the National Enquirer says Oprah dated an alien and she claims she didn't who are you gonna believe,. the National Enquirer? Antonio nonsensesout Martin

Evera Sanchez 2

I have an intellectual relationship with Prof. Olimpia Colon who happens to be the niece of Jesus Colon (Who's bio I wrote). I e-mailed her in regard to Sammy Davis Jrs' mother and this is what she had to say:

Hola Tony:

On Oct. of 1999 I attended the Schomberg Center, for a commemoration of the 100 New York Black. The Schomberg Center paid all the expenses for me and my son Nelson López Colón, transportation and hotel. I have picture of the event, also the pamphlet handed out with all on the honorees, with photos and a brief biography. On the last page they state the Honorable Mention, when you see those names and know that Jesús Colón was chosen, I felt so proud.

Sammy Davis Jr. was one of the chosen and his mother was there. Since I am handicap and use an electric wheelchair, a van was provided for use and the elderly. Once in the van she was sited in front of me, very proudly I asked from what part of Puerto Rico she from was. Very indignant she replied that she was not puertorrican, that a neighbor had spread that rumor and she did not want me to repeat it.

I have a friend that is a croupier, and he had told me that when Sammy came to PR and stayed at the hotel, when this was mentioned to him he was rude in his reply and had treated them as inferiors. Like mother, like son.

You can write to the Schumberg Center in NY, write to Dr. Dodson he was the coordinator of that activity and has been with the center for many years, I think her name was Josephine, some say her last name is Sánchez. What ever you find out let me know please. My son is my witness I felt very bad for inquiring but I am glad she is not puertorrican.

Maybe at CUNY they might have some more information, it is necessary to clear this up because we are proud of what we are, he who is not should not be acknowledge as so.

Hasta pronto,

Olimpia Colón Aponte

I respect Olimpia Colon and accept what she told me as a fact. I want you to know that I have nothing against you and that is way I wanted to get to the bottom of this. If I cna ever be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Tony the Marine 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for writing, I hope that you realize that I wasn't biased at all. My only interest in the articles was in their accuracy. I'm sorry for any comments which may have offended you posted by others on my talk page, but I have no control over the actions of others. I'm totally against name calling. I hope that you consider dropping the "Misconduct" accusation, I can understand why you did so in the first place. As a writer I have a very good intellectual relation with other writers and intellectuals. That is why I cannot doubt the words of Olimpia Colon. As far as I'm concerned I did my part in clearifing the disputed issue and I will now continue to work on other projects. Take care and as I said before, do not consider me as a foe but, as a friend. Tony the Marine 18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for the advice. I've since removed the links to those images.Ladida 09:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish-American

Hello. I have been trying to get an answer to "standard" biographical usage and I came across you when I saw you asking a user not to use the term "Jewish-American" in the header of a biography. It seems that there has been a effort by a few/maybe more editors to use the Jewish American "label" in biographies. I am not even going to get in NON BORN Americans, but it seems that this label is inappropriate. If people want to discuss ethniticy or decent, that seems like it should be discussed further into an article. Does somebodies "Jewishnesss" really define them and is it their most important attribute. Thanks for your thoughts!Tom 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arniep, I will try NOT to remove any "dual" citizens since I am really concentrating on ONLY American born biographies to start. I am however VERY tempted to change biographies when they read something like...."Hungarian born Irish American Jewish painter" ect....was he born in Hungry to Irish parents and paints only Jewish topics????? Misplaced Pages style on biographies, although not the end all, seems to say use the person's CURRENT nationality or the one he had WHEN he became notable. I believe Americans are NOT allowed to maintain dual citizenship while most other countries allow it. Again, I am just trying to "fix" biographies that were clearly edited for some sort of political reasons about 7 months ago. PLEASE change any of my edits that you think are questionable since MY only agenda is to stop people with agendas :) Tom 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that article left by Slim, very interesting. While most of the "Jewish American" additions seemed to be have done out of "pride" I finally ran into one editor who was noting the person's "Jewishness" in every article of notable criminals and persons of disgrace. These were pretty quickly ferretted out and the persons agenda brought to light. If nothing else, Misplaced Pages with its "paper" trail of edits makes to difficult to hide ones "true" agenda and POV since we ALL have them it seems :) --Tom 21:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Knightley

Telling you that you shouldn't be making these kind of comments is not a personal attack. What it is, is letting you know that these kinds of comments are offensive to many people, as you must have realized when that person from list of Irish-Americans wrote you that long letter and called you a racist when you said something like "The concept of Irish American is by definition unencyclopedic" and "People are notoriously ignorant of thir ancestry". Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling you a racist and I do acknowledge that those people were extreme to call you such, but the point is, these kind of comments are offensive, generally untrue, and almost definitely not relevant to any discussion. I'm not English and don't have a dip of English in me, but I was still offended by that comment on the English, not to mention a few of the other ones. Any kind of generalities on a specific ethnicity/nationality ought to be avoided. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well "identify with surname" is not offensive, but the other two most assuredly are - without question. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you why you think people don't tend to identify as Jewish, etc. and I don't much care why. I'm telling you that looking at all the groups out there, choosing one and making that kind of statement about them is offensive, even if you've conducted a scientific survey that proves so without a doubt. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Saying people "usually" (I think you said) don't know what they're talking about about when they talk about their ancestry is alas, also "usually " offensive. Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the way you just worded it on my user page is basically not offensive, but that wasn't the wording you used before. For example, before you said "Jewish American is really a different case as people don't usually identify as Jewish American unless at least one of their parents were Jewish, so it's not really equivalent to other xxx Americans who may identify as such due to a much further ancestral connection", which is offensive. (I.e. the whole "not really equivalent to other xxx", etc.) Anyway, the point is, be careful how you word these things, because people get offended easily. :) Mad Jack O'Lantern 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark Lawson

Very interesting.  :-) Hmmm ... what's the lesson for us, in your view? SlimVirgin 06:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Albert Abdullah David Sassoon

Hello, and I feel really nice talking to you. Thanks for adding the photograph. Good work. Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

omitted by author upon reconsideraton.Incorrect 23:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I do apologize for reacting so strongly today. It seemed to me (as you surmised) that you were accusing members of the project of a conspiracy. It was a very serious accusation, and one which I knew to be unfounded. When you specifically accused Proteus, I was offended. I know him to be a man of his word, and an honourable individual. You've greatly offended him, by the way. Anyway, I apologize for my language and hope that we can continue to work together. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all right. No bad feelings, I hope. Proteus (Talk) 15:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Arniep -

We are talking about the category, not about the list. As far as I can see, flagging a mathematician as a "Jewish mathematician" is little different from giving him/her a "Jew" flag, except for the fact that a non-sensical intersection of two categories is introduced. (Remember Magritte's pun about how "Belgian painters" makes about as much sense as "vegetarian painters"? This would seem to be truer of the present categories than of Magritte's example.)

As for whether it is appropriate to flag every living or dead human being as a yehudi or goy, irrespectively of his wishes, the criteria used or whether or not the presumed fact had or didn't have much of an impact on the way his life was led - well, I'd like to hear your opinion. Hasdrubal 15:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Josh Lucas

I did not crop the screenshot. I don't see why we can't have two images. What if we have a gigantic article and one free picture, does that also mean we can't use screenshots? Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

McCartney picture

The picture is a promotional photo; many articles on Misplaced Pages have promotional photos in their article and as the main photo. I don't see the problem.

Bbsrock 01:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The photo was not taken by the magazine, it is a publicity photo that McCartney took in the 70s and has been widely circulated on the internet and elsewhere.

Bbsrock 04:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper grammar

The books makes allegations. It does not suggest. Proper grammar needs to be put into the article allowing the reader to determine what they consider factual and hearsay. You (or whoever is editing the article) is not properly putting this into text, therefore giving the book's side of the story as the only valid one. With the way I word it, the reader can see the discussion page and make an educated judgement. Grammar is key. Please understand how to use wisely on this site. XLR8TION

Proper Grammar & Already With This Topic

Suggest is when you provide advice, hence "I suggest you take the road to Rome." That is why stores have "suggestion boxes". Allege and allegations are facts presented that is up to the public to determine is what is presented is valid. Hence, "There are allegations that JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe, however this has never been proven officially." The author has suggest but the so-called Sanchez family can't speak for Sammy's estate or descendants as they control his image to this very day. Hence, if a Juan Sanchez claims that he is Sammy's long lost uncle, that would be an "allegation" not a "suggestion." I am not telling th reader to take a side. Instead I would prefer to put a "dispute" banner on the site so that they can refer to the notes in that section. Bear or Bare? Sound alike but mean two different things. Suggest and allege are also two different things. XLR8TION

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:XLR8TION"

Please do not make a habit of re-editing an article. Give it a rest and please do not become zealous. I am trying to be fair in allowing Misplaced Pages readers to decide if the facts presented in this article require personal research. XLR8TION

curps

that's how he had it, he made a new archive--~~~~ 02:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Barry Manilow

Thanks for restoring that comment I didn't spot! --62.255.232.80 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish musician Cats

I think it would be best to create a Category:Jewish songwriters for such people as, say, Barry Manilow, who aren't classical in anyway, but are more than just musicians. Believe it or not a lot of Christmas songwriters were Jewish, so they would fit in this category as well. However, creating Category:Jewish composers just adds a third category to the lot, which really does overflow a lot of articles. Since Category:Jewish classical musicians has both composers and literal music players, its a nice category. Thats why I proposed a merge..putting all composers and music-players into that category. This reduces the amount of categories one person has (it could just be Category:Jewish classical musicians as opposed to Category:Jewish musicians, Category:Jewish composers, Category:Jewish violinists, Category:Jewish banjo players etc..etc..) Another alternative is to make Category:Jewish classical musicians for people who were music PLAYERS only and not composers. This would reduce the amount of categories one person has too. Antidote 01:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

There is no mention of him being Irish in his article, but he is in the Irish-American politicians Category. Why is this? Grimhelm 11:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I found references for this:

"His grandfather, Daniel Carroll, was a native of Littemourna, in Ireland, and was a clerk in the office of Lord Powis, in the reign of James the Second."

"Charles Carroll Was a descendant of Daniel Carroll, an Irish gentleman, who emigrated from England to America about the year 1659."

And also evidence of Irish descent from the Maryland Office of Tourism

Grimhelm 11:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Once I've updated the article, you wouldn't mind if I restore it to the Irish Diaspora section? Grimhelm 11:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

GA spam on featured template

hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).

this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!

they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.

i would appreciate any comments on the template's talk page. i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You Fool!

Please don't accuse me of adding nonsense to the Iain Lee page when what I added (and will continue to add if it gets taken off again) was 100% fact (as you can find here: http://www.chrysalisradio.com/article.aspx?ID=295&BrandID=1&SectionID=9 ). Perhaps it is better if you don't post on this subject as you obviously know little about it! Oh and who elected you as being in charge you fool?!

Irish

Sorry. I meant to remove Irish from 'Ethnic Groups in the United States' category which already has the article Irish American' in it--which is the appropriate article for this category. Questions? Thanks Hmains 02:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Background

Hi -

we can go on whatever length you wish as to his (secularized) background; the important thing is to make a distinction between how he was seen by the Nazis and how he was seen by himself, and to have some respect for the latter. By the way, the Nazi racial policies were not the only reason why he emigrated; he was an outspoken pacifist, and objected to the Nazis as a matter of principle. I hope you will find the new version acceptable.

(On a completely different note - what is up with the attention given to his descendants?) Hasdrubal 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PS - note that this is not a revert; I have kept the reference to his specific "race" under Nazi laws. Hasdrubal 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Crime Fiction

I'm not sure what the RLT connection is and I don't really care to delve into it; frankly I think the RLT fiasco was just part of a long-standing campaign of astroturfing and bio-fluffing and for once he got caught. I'm much less concerned about Crime Fiction; I got an article reference and I think the film is real but very small time (unlike RLT who was small time but unreal) so if the debate goes the other way I won't lose any sleep over it. Wannabe (short film) is a much more dubious entry, which I only created because there are two 2005 films called Wannabe and I wanted Misha Sedgwick's article to go to the right place. I would not be surprised if NOT:paper trumped NOT:an indiscriminate collector in this case. Thatcher131 02:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your Comments and Backstabbing Attacks

Arniep. I am being a man and addressing this directly with you. I am confused why you continue to attack me and refuse to address me. First you named me in something called an "advertising scam" when I asked you what an "advertising scam" is and what it is I am "advertising" you decided not to talk directly to me and inseat told me to post a complaint at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. So I did what you asked. I posted an accurate account of your actions. Now again you have failed to reply one-on-one and have instead labeled my user page as a "Sock Puppet" as some kind of retalitory action. I'm sorry that I don't know these terms like you do. I don't know what "Sock Puppet" is. I don't know what an "Advertising Scam" is. But it seems like you're doing a lot of name calling and appointing yourself some kind of Fuhrer to impose your will and judgement on others without regard to facts or discussion. I am trying to be the bigger man here, again, and open discussion; give you a chance to explain your actions and allegations; open the doors to positive resolution. I welcome you to face up to your accusations like an adult and address me in a factual, non-antagonistic way. I hope to hear from you. Icemountain2 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Crime Fiction (again)

Hi, note of thanks for being patient with me regarding the AfD for Crime Fiction. I tend to see a lot of AfD's where people vote without understanding or researching the topic - and you clearly did plenty of both. So, I hope you understand why my initial reaction in those cases is to say keep. Aguerriero (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Arnie, can you show me where it says you may only blank your page if you archive it? I've never seen this stated anywhere. SlimVirgin 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He has said he doesn't want them. Please don't revert again. SlimVirgin 21:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The edits survive in the history if anyone needs them, and it's just harassing an editor to force those archives on him against his wishes. Archiving may be recommended, but it is not obligatory. Please respect Grace Note's wishes. If he later decides that he wants them, he can add them himself. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Arnie, regarding your note, I have no doubt you created them in good faith, and I'll alert Grace Note to their existence in case he chooses to use them. My only concern is that he previously made it very clear he wanted to blank his page, and it's not appropriate to gainsay that, and especially not to imply in edit summaries that he's not allowed to blank it, which of course he is. The only time we insist on material staying on talk pages is if, for example, admins need to see warnings during a block. SlimVirgin 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I also don't doubt that you created the archives in good faith. However, since archiving is recommended rather than obligatory, and since Grace Note made it plain that he doesn't want them, I think it's more important to avoid creating bad feeling than to enforce a policy that doesn't exist. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Let me reiterate that established editors are entitled to blank their talk pages, and that reverting this counts as disruption. If there is blanked content that you wish to highlight, feel free to cite the pertinent diffs on your own talk page. Thanks. El_C 01:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Block

Arnie, I've blocked you for three hours for continuing to restore material to User talk:Grace Note that he has said he doesn't want. Three admins have asked you not to do this, MusicalLinguist, El C, and myself, and yet you continue. GN's talk page is none of your concern (or indeed, ours), and he has violated no policies, so he's entitled to leave it blank if that is his preference. SlimVirgin 02:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oasis pics

Ha ha, leave a message, my stars, my sides.... Sorry mate, you'll have to explian what you mean. Preferabley in the sort of English a 4 year old child could understand. Just give me time to get my 4 year old coiusen so she can explian it to me.--Crestville 12:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig

Thanks for the message - I appreciate the honorific point. The thing is that the Right Honourable A.N. Other denotes membership of the Privy Council, unlike the Honourable A.N. Other which goes to certain children of members of the aristocracy. Strictly speaking I don't think that Rt.Hon can be called an honorific, it denotes membership of one of the bodies of State. Any thoughts?

Xdamr 00:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Arneip, there is a ban on the inline not the article proper so you might confuse people if you say what you did on Xdamr's talk.Alci12 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish People, new pic

Please allow me to be a bit non PC here, I see there is only one RC in your montage, otherwise a good pic. Joyce and Behan amongst others spring to mind. Red blaze 01:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't seen your post on the Irish People talk page before I wrote above. Agree, that's a good idea putting a 3rd tier into the collage. Red blaze 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My talkpage

Please don't get yourself in trouble over my talkpage. We disagree over an article, that is all. Please don't make it personal and conflictual just because you didn't feel you had the resolution there that you wanted. Grace Note 05:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Prematurely deceased entertainer categories

Hi. FYI, folks are trying again to delete the prematurely deceased entertainer categories at this link. I noticed you voted to save them in the past and thought you might want to know.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish People Image

Sorry about that Arniep, I was unaware of that the new collage was the result of a discussion. Other then Joyce's removal from the top photos, I have no real objection to the new format. Cheers! Fergus mac Róich 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

you questioned the use

Andrew Kendall has taken the photographs and has given permission himself to use the photos specifically for this website, therefor able to use. What is the problem?

Irish People

Good work there, Arniep! We desperatly need more of the fairer sex in photos - and bios - though! Fergananim 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello I agree, needs more sex in it- what about Maureen O'Hara? Mary Black, maybe Brenda Fricker? Dusty Springfield, the Corrs? If you are worried about offending unionists then the list to avoid is a long one. Dont use Dana, Any provos/political types, no presidents, etc. Or to maybe offset one of those choices you could include people like Tom Crean, Blair Mayne, Ian Paisley? Or use one of the American presidents with "Ulster Scots" roots. Ernest Shackelton maybe but I dont think his face is well known. 1st Duke of Wellington is another one born in Ireland. Fluffy999 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Offensive comments in Village pump (policy) discussions

Please note Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Offensive comments in Village pump (policy) discussions. Please also note that unlike your own discussion regarding User:Humus sapiens, I have had the courtesy to bring this to your attention. Jayjg 21:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason, but I see that the cake is gone and you were already notified by Jayjg. I hope my response covers your concerns. ←Humus sapiens 00:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

I understand that. But you need to understand that identifying a user's unacceptable behavior is different from identifying his/her ethnicity. You cannot, and should not, assume that user being Jewish will necessarily determine his/her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor should you assume that the personal views of a user will necessarily cause them to push that POV. It is the POV-pushing, not the political views and certainly not the ethnicity, that is the problem. When you fail to differentiate between these things, you are inadvertently insulting a lot of people. Hope that helps. -- SCZenz 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to say things more clearly than they've already been said, by me and by others on the village pump. If you have a problem with specific users doing something, and want to bring it up, bring it up in regard to those specific users. There's no need to say they're all Jews, even if they do all happen to be Jews—and it's quite counterproductive to do so because you will appear to be saying the problem is that they're Jewish. -- SCZenz 00:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is an argument with a bit of subtlety, yes. But you see the purposeless argument you caused through carelessness. I for one would not label any one, editing on any topic, by their religion or ethnicity. -- SCZenz 08:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever made the generalizations about Catholics or Serbians also made a mistake. If I had seen this mistake, I would have objected strongly. Their statements don't excuse yours. Now as I've said, I've done all the explaining I can do. I consider it a gross violation of WP:CIVIL to continue categorizing alleged miscreants based on their ethnicity/religion, and even more disturbing to assume someone's ethnicity/religion because of your generalizations about their behavior. I'd offer to agree to disagree on this point, but unfortunately I do not think this behavior can be tolerated whether you understand that it's wrong or not. And yes, I'm afraid that's a warning. -- SCZenz 19:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, that warning was given in my capacity as an administrator, and I am declaring the debate on the policy page over by administrative fiat. I hope you will let this all drop; if you feel I'm being heavy handed, then WP:AN is the place to bring it up. -- SCZenz 19:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot continue, anywhere on Misplaced Pages, to talk about "Jewish editors" doing anything. Instead, if specific editors are vote-stuffing based on any criterion at all, then raise the issue about specific editors. -- SCZenz 20:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that you are biased is his perogative, if he's prepared to back it up and discuss it in a productive way. Claiming that the bias of individual editors is because they are Jews is not okay. You need to stop organizing people by categories and deal with them as individuals; it may be that others have been organizing around a category, and certainly it is frowned upon when that happens, but that doesn't justify generalizations. -- SCZenz 21:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You ought to have received the same criticisms in any of the hypothetical cases you mentioned, yes; whether you would I obviously can't say. I can't imagine why you find specific statements about the behavior of an undividual more disturbing than generalizations about ethnicity/religion; the former may be uncivil, the latter are totally unacceptable. But yes, Jayjg should back up his claims—I think SlimVirgin made some effort in that direction before I shut down the discussion on the village pump. You are within your rights to request info on cases in which people have thought you biased, in an effort to help explain the issue or to improve. However, letting this whole thing drop might be the most positive thing for the encyclopedia, to give everyone a chance to approach future problems with more clarity. I would hope in the future that all editors will be specific about problems, rather than making generalizations either about individual behavior or about groups. -- SCZenz 21:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget that you also assumed certain users were Jews based on their opinions and the articles they edit. You and I are going in circles here; the core issue is that I don't think it's appropriate to categorize people you think of as POV-pushers by their ethnicity; instead, you should complain about POV-pushing by specific individuals rather than "many" members of some category. (Even if it's true, it's not a constructive or appropriate observation.) As for "deliberate personal attacks," I think they are opinions about your editing style presented in a perhaps unnecessarily-harsh way, which I might have looked into were that issue not overshadowed by you insisting that the worse statements in the whole argument were completely ok. To be very frank, at this point I think we should stop arguing and you should just think of me as an asshole who doesn't understand what you're saying; I take no offense in you thinking of me in that way, and to try to argue things out until we agree will likely only make things ugly. All of us on Misplaced Pages are prone to continue arguments out of pride rather than productivity, and I at least intend to stop now. Have a nice day. -- SCZenz 22:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the discussion; it is not about Palestinian articles, but about your offensive comments regarding what you decribe as "Jewish editors". Jayjg 19:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

about my rufus picture

why do you keep removing it? its a nice picture and it looks a whole lot better than the one from the currently on the page.

Rachel Corey

The Guardian and the Independent are leftwing, anti Israeli anti Jewish papers; however, they are considered "respectable" papers and are therefor citable. The ElectronIntifada is a pro Jihad pro death site that reflects the views of Al Qaeda and Hamas - it is not citable as a reputable source, and therefor will be removed from all sites in which it appears as a source. In the same way that Mein Kampf would not be sourced for information on Jews, the EI is not a source for information on anything (other than revealing the true feelings of the murderers amongst us).Incorrect 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on May 28 2006 (UTC) to Rachel Corrie

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 10:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your 4 reverts are: , , (note: this is an unmarked revert) and William M. Connolley 20:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish people collage

hey there Arniep, just wondering how goes the new collage (or new edit of the current collage) ? I know you were having trouble finding certifed images on Wikipeda for Irish of other professions and more modern examples. Maybe I should start browsing the web for some actual copyrighted photos we can use. Let me know whats up, ciao Epf 01:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Streep image

Hi, I was notified that the screenshot from Silkwood might be deleted, commented on that proposal and argued against deletion (Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2006 May 23), got no reply whatsoever, and now I notice the image is gone. Could you explain that to me, or could xou refer me to someone who might be able to do so? All the best, <KF> 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

CfD

Arnie, thank you for letting me know of the situation. I couldn't help but to fully agree with you on the issue. You made a very valid point and it seems as if the issue has been taken care of. As always, if I can ever be of any help, do not hesitate to write to me in my user page. Tony the Marine 17:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion

I don't like you. Sorry. 63.23.56.87 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

lol Oh man, your a trip. lol

Irish-Americans

"Americans of Irish descent" is needless and without encyclopedic value. Any list that puts someone on it because of a grandparent's ethnicity has little value. There's been no request for this name change and consensus to change it back. I will revert until you tell me why an encyclopedia would have a list like this. Mad Jack 13:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The only criteria we are using is Misplaced Pages policy. If a person is referred to as an Irish-American or Irish, we can call them that. No Irish father, mother, grandmother, nanny, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with this from the List of British Jews. Aside from being the only non-subjective way to do it, it fits in perfectly with Misplaced Pages:No original research, which explicitly says we can't add A and B ourselves to make C, and it makes this into an actual list of Irish-Americans, which can be encyclopedic, rather than a list of persons with some kind of Irish connections, which is not encyclopedic and borders on fancruft. We're not a geneaology. Mad Jack 13:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think of the term "Irish American". If you want to add that it is a subjective term to its article, then you should, with proper sourcing. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what you think about the term. The reality is that the term exists, the "Irish American community" is encyclopedic enough to document in an article and have a list of, and the only possible "criteria", so to speak, is that sources out there have chosen to label the person an Irish American - regardless of why they have done so. Misplaced Pages editors don't get to decide who is or is not Irish-American. And frankly, I'm not sure why we're having the discussion. It's not like the list, which currently lists actual Irish-Americans by external description, is bare. It has plenty of names and I'm positively certain there are dozens of more names to be added of actual Irish-Americans. Mad Jack 14:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. You could list their mother, though. Anyway, this has been discussed over and over again. So, as Grace Note told me, I'll point you to his and others' posts on List of British Jews, for starters, and to Misplaced Pages:No original research, which explicitly states Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. So we cannot connect A. Irish-American can be an American of Irish descent/Irish mother with B. This person has an Irish mother to form C. This person is Irish-American. I simply don't understand the need to list all these people who haven't actually been described as Irish-Americans, or the encyclopedic value - but that's just for the record. The policies are clear, however. Mad Jack 14:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, can we not have your opinions on what Jewish is or is not compared to other groups again? Please? I just really don't wannt hear it. It doesn't matter what Grace Note's motives are, all that matters is that he is right. I have just quoted a passage from the original research page that explicitly forbids this "deductive reasoning" that you suggest with A + B = C. I'm sure the source that says C is out there for people who are actually Irish-Americans. For example, can you think of any glaring omissions from these lists? Mad Jack 14:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wernher doesn't set Misplaced Pages policy. The OR page explicitly says that A + B does not equal C. if we have A, i.e. Irish-American is American of Irish descent, and B. Person 1 has an Irish mother we can not form it into C. Person 1 is Irish-American, unless we have a source that explicitly makes this statement directly on the topic of the article, Person 1. This is exactly what the passage, which I have quoted above, says. And furthermore, let's say that mostly everyone thinks a person with an Irish mother is Irish-American. So you add them. What next? What about grandmother? Great-grandmother? And so on. You'd have to draw the line somewhere - but the point is that we can not draw the line anywhere. This version of "Deductive reasoning", which is already forbidden, becomes less-and-less deductive, and we start using our own standards. I don't really understand what this is about, by the way. Who do you think should be on the list that isn't? Which celebrity out there is being denied their right to basque in Irish-American glory? Mad Jack 14:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand. You started this conversation with telling me that we shouldn't be subjective. Why are you then trying to allow subjectivity to enter the article, if this is exactly what the OR forbids in very clear terms and if you yourself did not want to be subjective? Mad Jack 14:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes exactly. XXX-American has been used to describe Americans of X descent. That's "A". Person 1 has X descent. That's "B". And the OR thing very clearly says we can not join the two together unless the two have already been joined together by a reliable source specifically about that person. Aside from that, "x descent" is very vague and can mean anything from both parents to an ancestor 1000 years ago. If certain sources are dubious, quite obviously we should not be using them. What does that have to do with anything? The lists are incomplete precisely because we spend our days arguing about who is or is not X-American, when it is pretty clear according to the policies who is, instead of looking up proper sources, both online and off, as well as looking up new names, which there are doubtless plenty of. Mad Jack 14:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is never going to end, is it? What is "X descent"? Both parents? One? A grandparent? Great-grandparent? See? We can not draw the line anywhere. Doing so is using our opinion, which we can not do. Again, I would really rather be doing something constructive now, like properly sourcing or expanding some of the lists, or working on the many articles that I edit. Can we please not have this conversation anymore? Please? There was enough of it from what I could see on the British Jews page, and regardless of what Wernher says, the OR policy is very clear and does not leave room for exceptions, even if they are very logical exceptions. Mad Jack 14:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're gonna have to accept it, 'cos I'll revert ya, and keep revertin' ya, citing the OR policy which explicitly forbids what you call "deductive reasoning". Misplaced Pages publishes facts, not the "deductive reasoning" of its editors. If it's obvious to you, great. But Misplaced Pages isn't here to make what is obvious to you fact to everyone else. Any editor can remove anything from Misplaced Pages that is not cited to a source that explicitly says what the piece of info being removed says. Mad Jack 15:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Again this opinion on Jews vs. everyone else! I told you I don't wannt hear it! Jezz louise almighty. I don't care what you think is commonly used. I am sick and tired of this discussion, which is wasting my time. The OR policy does not include any exceptions, at least at the moment. I will revert (as much as I am able), any name added that is not sourced to something that says the person is Irish-American or Irish (American) and which I can not find a source for myself. Misplaced Pages is not here to publish a list of people Arniep thinks are Irish-Americans. We're not here to transform your deductive reasoning into hard facts. Mad Jack 15:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the passage. Again. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. " Mad Jack 15:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please end this? No more. If you have a source that a person is X-American, then they are X-American for Misplaced Pages purposes. Misplaced Pages does not accept people's deductive reasoning and turn it into facts. End of discussion, ony my part at least. This has been re-iterated ad nauseum. Mad Jack 15:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Irish Americans = Americans of Irish descent is fine. Person A is of Irish descent is fine. We are not joining the two together, per NOR, which explicitly says we can not join A and B to make C. Now, I am telling you that I do not wish to discuss this further on my part. We will deal which each "name" on each "list" on its own time and basis, I suppose. I'm tired of generalizing, and we are both better off making productive edits elsewhere, as well as looking for sources that actually say these people are X-Americans. Mad Jack 15:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, on, no. Please. Not other people's opinion. Anything but this. PLEASE!! I am honestly asking you as one human being to another - let's not continue this any further. Please. And again, we are not here to publish your or anyone else's "deductive reasoning". Mad Jack 15:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not gonna rest until you can "legally" list any person with any Irish connection whatsoever, are you? Mad Jack 15:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There is probably some kind of value to the lists, precisely as long as they are kept in line with people who are actually Irish-Americans, not everyone in the US with some kind of Irish connection who has not been labelled that. This is precisely not a subjective position - or at least not subjective as is subject to the opinions of Wiki editors. I don't understand why you don't embrace this, especially if you don't think the lists should be there. This makes the lists legitimate, at least, and bulked down to people who are definitely X-Americans as stated elsewhere. Mad Jack 15:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I think you're out of luck with Wernher. His last post was on April 23. I don't think you'll pull him out of retirement. :) Mad Jack 15:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack, you're coming seriously close to violating WP:POINT. Drop this. Move along. Do something else, and let Arniep do something else too. I am sure you will both be more productive when you do. KillerChihuahua 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for telling me about the discussion on the Village Pump. I completely agree with you on the heritage matter. Michael 06:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

X-American nonsense

There is no hope of having these lists deleted, but I have in any case voted. The curious thing, I find, is that people will queue up to vote out articles about minor bands or schools, which harm no one, and were they well written would surely have a place in an encyclopaedia that really did contain "the sum of all human knowledge", yet they won't rid us of lists such as these, which are specifically banned by policy. Grace Note 00:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Why are you attack the Irish American pages but not any other ethnic group pages? 75.3.49.50 03:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Reagan/Power

Thank you for adding those two with great sources. Let's hope, since it's clear the page is not getting deleted, that we can work together to make it fully reliable, accurate, complete, and of course, under Wiki policies. Mad Jack 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just fabulous, now you've contacted ExRat. Which means he is going to go to the village pump, make the exact same points users made before, and be refuted and disagreed upon by the exact same users, starting with me. I am just going to be copy-and-pasting my replies from before, though. So forgive me for that. I don't see why you think it's necessary to prolong this argument. You've been shown the policy, which explicitly forbids this kind of mix-matching people's names with definitions, and you've been explained this by several top editors who understand the policies. Politically or strategically speaking, what did you hope to gain by contacting ExRat? Nothing is going to change, except my time is going to be wasted some more, and you know neither me nor anyone who supported me is going to change their opinion, and I'll still remove X grandma, etc., etc. etc. Mad Jack 23:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did say that? I saw a comment of Grace Note's on the British Jews page, where he said if the person has been referred to as "Jewish", that is fine as long as they are "British". I've seen no disagreement among this group of editors. Mad Jack 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, "he" isn't going to the village pump. ExRat 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maurice Costello & Hyphenated Americans.

Arniep,

Thank you for alerting me to the whole "hyphenated American" discussion in regards to Maurice Costello. Although I perused the discussion and fervently agree with your statements, I am not going to involve myself in this, and I do apologize. However, I believe if you read the talk page of List of Estonian Americans you will understand why. There is a particular user who I wish to have NO involvement with after a brief edit war on the List of Estonian American talk page and another run-in. Please read my statements on the subject on the talk page of List of Estonian Americans. ExRat 00:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If "Many users disagree" with me, then "many more" (and ones who are slightly more experienced, if I may a bit of POV here) agree with me. And users who specifically stated that "British" + "Jewish" is "British Jewish" is not Original Research. I'm sure the same is true of X-American. Mad Jack 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, My English is sometimes a little rusty...and I am a little tired...but I have no clue what that response was all about...and frankly don't care. I left a response to Arniep because he contacted me. It was not an invitation to have any interaction with you, as I clearly stated. You, my friend, I believe are a provacateur and a troublemaker. ExRat 00:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a response to you, ExRat, it's a response to Arniep's comments on your page. Yes, "Irish American" is a label; so is "British Jew". As I've told you, there is nothing prohibiting adding A and B and getting AB. Just getting C. Getting "C" requires us to consult a definition, which is a no-no and which is not being done here. My "job" here, ExRat, is cleaning up the lists from all the nonsense people put on them, and this system, strictly with Wiki's policies, has proved perfectly adequate so far, short of Arniep's cries of "NO NO NO". I did not start this discussion and I begged Arniep not to start it, because I knew there was really no way in which anything would remotely be lost for "my side" or gained for "arniep"'s side (I do not enter discussions intending to surrender), so it was a waste of time we could've spent properly sourcing some of these lists or doing actual work on the Wiki project, instead of writing up long pagagraphs, such as this one, that will eventually fade into cyberspace oblivion anyway. Mad Jack 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Gambon

Anyone born in the territory of what is now the Republic of Ireland on or before the 31 December 2004 was automatically an Irish citizen unless one of his or her parents was entitled to diplomatic immunity at the time of the child's birth.

Unless you can find any source stating that Gambon has renounced his Irish citizenship he stays Irish-british Superdude99 12:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Barry Manilow

Just wanted to thank you for trying to help by putting the paragraph back I had written re: the Manilow biographies and personal life, but it appears to have been censored once again and with a note that includes a rather vicious attack on the characters of those who would DARE go against her. It's obvious to me that that individual is not interested in neutrality or fairness. Rather, they have a personal agenda of their own or at the very least has made a heavy emotional investment on that particular issue. In the process of being so unnecessarily 'overprotective', they think it is ok to be overbearing, to ruthlessly censor other people's contributions and also to make unfounded slanderous accusations on the characters of other Wikipedians! As for me, I'm not going to try to fight this one. It's just not worth it. I've got better things to do than stressing myself out, or getting into a pissing contest with anyone at this place. So onward and upward I guess it is... Ladycascadia 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

New policy proposal

Does the proposal allow for people who may be half a certain ethnicity (one parent) to be classified as "x-American"? Thanks. Michael 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Our "Friend"

Thought you may find this at least amusing:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Grace_Note

He berates you for contacting me for input/help, but clearly doesn't seem bothered that he has done the same for "back up". ExRat 05:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Good article

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Louis-Dreyfus

Check one of the links - her paternal grandmother was an American or something like that. Julia herself said that she is "not Jewish" in a radio interview in 1998, according to Jewhoo (though I'm sure her grandfather was). So that's goodbye to that category, which we didn't have a good source for, anyway. As for "French Americans", if you have a good source that calls her that.... Mad Jack 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If the term French-American is not often used, why the heck is Misplaced Pages ought to frequent its usage? In any case, check out List of French Americans. Perfectly fine and perfectly sourced under Wiki policy. Sure, some people who are at most "ethnically half French" are excluded, but so what? As for Louis-Dreyfus, yes, her father was born in France but his mother was American. According to the article, he considered himself "American" too. If you have a source that said he was French, you could list him under French Americans if he was notable enough. As for Louis-Dreyfus herself - zero reason to put her under French-Americans if no source has called her that. Why would we? She's probably not "ethnically French" at all and I doubt she considers herself French American, so what's the big loss? Mad Jack 17:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Say what? Every name on that list has a source that the person is French, not that their mother, grandmother, descent, etc. was. Mad Jack 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about fair or not fair? Misplaced Pages isn't here to set the wrongs of the world right. If Italian-Americans, etc. are more often labelled as such publically, it is absolutely invariably necessary that Misplaced Pages reflect that, not try to make it "Fair" by having the same amount of names on every list. Mad Jack 18:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I told you, I do not add anyone that says "family is X". I've shown you the quote from the British Jews page where Grace Note says if a person says "X" (not "X descent", etc.) and we know they are American, British, etc. that is fine. Stop putting words in their mouths. Mad Jack 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Who said I think they have encyclopedic value? I mean, they may have some on some level, but of course in general they are useless. However, since we do have them, we need to keep this "ethnic pride" thing that certain editors (not you) seem to be trying to foister on other pages under tight reigns, and that we do by strictly following Wiki policy. Mad Jack 18:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A big hello to you

Hello there I am writing with reference to your comment you made about Tyrone Power's ancestry. Can you give me any info as I am also related to Tyrone Power through my great grandmother Mary Catherine Power. She married a Harrington and they moved to England about the time Ty senior was born.I am led to believe that Ty the second and my grandmother were cousins but unfortunately the Harringtons are particulary sketchy when it comes to exact details. Can you tell me please what relation are you and also whats this about the French connection? I wasn't aware there was any. Any info would be most helpfull as i am trying to update my own tree. Thankyou for your time.--Fairy.dust 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help i've had a look at the respective page you suggested and it does help a lot what I'm now trying to do is piece together the after Ty the second and find out where exactly the link of my family comes in any suggestions? Also what is your link to the Powers we are obviously related somewhere would be nice to have a full history of the family instead of sketchy bits here and there. Thankyou for pointing out the french connection so obvious now when looking. Thanks once again --Fairy.dust 23:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Winner quotes

I've removed the quote you added to the article as there were already too many, and it was unsourced. (See Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.)

I wasn't sure whether the part in brackets was part of the quotation, or a commentary – if the former, the formatting was incorrect; if the latter, it was inappropriate. If you wish to add more of Winner's quotes, please add them to wikiquote:Michael Winner. It's OK to list attributed (i.e. unsourced) ones there too. JRawle (Talk) 13:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Iain Lee

You do realise that you've reverted the page back into a load of unencyclopediaic rubbish? Anon Dude 15:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

good work

nice additions to Category:Troubled former child stars!

Justforasecond 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Troubled former child stars

Hi, I nominated this category, which you made, for deletion. You'll probably wish take part in the discussion here. --Rob 00:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

troubled child starts, up for deletion

Troubled child stars is up for deletion -- be sure to register your vote

Justforasecond 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

If you continue with this line of accusation without verifiable references you will be blocked. Study BLP carefully and also read my warning on the Michael Jackson talk page. Tyrenius 12:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are the references for these potentially defamatory statements? Have you read this warning? My message is not uncivil. It's just stating the facts. I have had to do a lot of work trying to get policy adhered to on this page and I'm not prepared for war to break out again. Please be more careful with your remarks in a delicate situation. Tyrenius 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not, but you have completely ignored my questions, so where are the references for these potentially defamatory statements and have you read this warning? Tyrenius 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On reviewing your contributions to the article, I see you have been helpful and correct in pointing out policy, so I apologise if you felt I was sharp with you. I trust you will see that the situation has needed some strong intervention, which you have been caught up in, even if not one of the real protagonists in the debate. However, please keep your wits about you. We're all responsible for our own actions, and a bad precedent isn't an excuse for its continuation. Check out BLP. Tyrenius 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

maurice barrymore

Hi, I dabbed ] to ] without really thinking. You're right, of course, Punjab as an Indian state didn't exist back then. I have changed it to ]. Do you think that's better?

Also, I'd appreciate if you didn't use caps in your edit summaries... it really is the online equivalent of shouting. Also... Amritsar is in Punjab (currently what is Indian Punjab). Take it from an Indian, and a Bengali :)

Have a great day, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

CFD again for "Entertainers by age upon death"

They are trying to delete this group of categories for the 4th time. Closing soon. P.S. Don't you think it's about time to archive? – this page is 178 kB! --Blainster 10:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Following other editors around

Arniep, I saw the thread at Misplaced Pages talk:List of banned users and I want to warn you very, very strongly about following people around and showing up at pages they edit. There is a precedent for blocking people who do this, and I'll have absolutely no hesitation in imposing a block if I see that this is happening. I haven't looked into SlimVirgin's claims, and I knew nothing about it until now, but I note that you don't deny it; you claim justification in following her around. Please keep in mind that the user contributions link is intended for cases where you revert clear vandalism, usually from an anon or from a newly-registered user, and you reasonably suspect that that user may have vandalized other articles. You can also use it if you post a question to someone, and want to check if he has been online since. It is not intended for the purposes of stalking people with whom you have a dispute or with whom you disagree on article content. If you continue this pattern of showing up at a page that SlimVirgin has just edited, you will be blocked. I hope it won't come to that. AnnH ♫ 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Arniep, I find your allegations and stalking completely unacceptable. I urge you to change your behavior. ←Humus sapiens 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not new behavior. See above, User_talk:Arniep#KillerChihuahua. He's been warned before. There was also a discussion on my talk page and I believe FM's page as well. KillerChihuahua 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Arniep stalked me and attacked me until I got fed up with Misplaced Pages and basically quit. I tried many times to address him/her directly and through Misplaced Pages-recommended channels but he refused to communication, only attack. I found it a very disappointing reflection that Misplaced Pages has become a place where bullies and cliques can push other users around. Icemountain2 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OR on Ikey Solomon

Regarding Ikey Solomon, you added, a good while ago, the OR tag. I'm just wondering to which parts you are referring, as it all seems sourced to me. --Irishpunktom\ 13:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Variation exists

Hi I'm not sure why you are attributing germanic characteristic features of freckles and fair/red hair with black Irish- Black Irish are western Irish and their descendants who have less germanic and scandinavian ancestry. Arniep 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Arniep,

You appear to be misreading my statements to the effect you have the wrong idea on some level. Please look again closely and you will notice that in describing "Black Irish", I made no mention of red or fair hair, only pale skin sometimes accompanied by freckles, which is commonly associated with the "Black Irish" in addition to a medium complexion. Irish and Irish-American celebrity figures Lara Flynn Boyle, Lauren Graham and Pierce Brosnan each have dark brown hair and blue eyes. Rose McGowan, along w/ freckled Graham and Boyle are very pale skinned brunettes. Keep in mind that many people have alternate views as to what a typical "Black Irish" phenotype ascribes to. The difficulty in assigning a distinct label on certain branches of humanity stems from the fact that variation has and will continue to always exist amongst the human race. Regardless, many consider the stereoptypical view of the "Black Irish", as having dark brown/black hair, blue/green eyes and pale skin; whereas, others denote the term as being associated with brown (or hazel) eyes and a fair to medium (or even olive) complexion. Although, there may be less "germanic and scandinavian" ancestry found in the west, it is still present. As a result, fair skin and light eyes (blue or light mixed) are commonly found in persons having the darkest of hair in Ireland . Also of note, rufous and blond haired types are certainly not non-existant to the west of Eire. In short, the description of the term in question is known to vary depending on who you talk to, largely based on personal experience. Please be advised that I was sure to include an alternate description (i.e., brown eyes and a medium complexion) in the text of the article, as being frequently linked with the label.

Anthony Hopkins image

Not that I mind the credit on the article. But the image is released is under cc-by-sa, I don't think we have a legal duty to mention the credit on the article space. Clicking on the image and seeing the credit there is good enough. Or I really am messed up in my CC knowledge...always possible. :) Garion96 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't mind the credit. I wasn't the one who removed it, I just re added the image afer I saw it was (as often) replaced with a fair use image. But legally I don't think we have to. (morally is something else). Garion96 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Seacole - Challen.jpg

(request and reply copied from User talk:ALoan)

Thanks for uploading Image:Seacole - Challen.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Arniep 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking. The image page says:

Portrait of Mary Seacole (1805-1881), c.1869, by otherwise unknown London artist Albert Charles Challen (1847-1881). Original held by the National Portrait Gallery in London.

It is a scan (by me) of a print (in a book) of a portrait (by an artist who died 125 years ago). What more is required? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Seacole - Challen.jpg

There is absolutely no question of the image's copyright status. I'm not exactly sure what ALoan's resistance is to simply naming the book be scanned it from, but it isn't in reality germaine to questions of copyright, so reverting the image page is both inappropriate, unhelpful, and rude to a very good contributor. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:DrewBarrymore.jpg

Abu Badali 21:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots/Film promos

Hi Abu Badali, it has been accepted practice to use these film promotional images in biographies of actors and in film articles - many articles using such images have been featured. A film company would also claim all rights reserved for a screenshot made by a user so we have to make a fair use claim on the images by only using them in conjunction with critical commentary (as laid out in fair use law). Regards Arniep 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't be accepted practice. It has been common pratice. All such images that are tagged for deletion are deleted. The point is that the image is used as "promotional", but it cleary isn't. Also, I don't believe we could use that image under any other image tag, as the use of the image on Drew Barrymore violates the first fair use criterion (see Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria). Unfree images of living people should only be used in very extreme (like bin laden) where it would be very unlikely for someone to come up with a free alternative.

For now, it would be better for the article to stay with no picture at all. Best regards, --Abu Badali 22:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, do not remove the {{imagevio}} tag. --Abu Badali 22:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to your interpretation no screenshots of actors' appearances in film or TV would be permitted on their article pages. Can you link to somewhere where such a discussion has taken place agreeing that this has been accepted as policy? Thanks Arniep 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to {{film screenshot}}, such images can only be used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". A limited number of unfree screenshots to talk about a character is ok. No number of unrfree images to talk about an accessible actor is ok.

Avoid removing my comments in WP:CV, as this may be considered vandalism, just like removing the {{imagevio}} tag.

The "rationale" you added to the image fails to explain how it passes FUC#1 and how our use of the image is not competitive with yahoo's use. --Abu Badali 22:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:David Cameron .jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:David Cameron .jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Misplaced Pages and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image 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.

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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Sorry to bother you with this matter, but I need some third-party help concerning Elvis Presley. I have seen that you are interested in music and in improving Misplaced Pages articles and that you have some experiences with edit wars, for instance, concerning the Tyrone Power article. The problem is that User:Lochdale, who seems to be an Elvis Presley fan (see this contribution or this discussion), is frequently deleting passages and paragraphs I have written from the Elvis Presley article. See, for instance, , , , . I don't think that this is O.K. I do not understand what should be wrong with my edits, as all of my contributions are well sourced and I have quoted from mainstream biographies and university studies. Other users are also of the opinion that the critical section on the 'The Elvis Cult and its Critics' includes "a lot of great information " but needs some rewording. See this discussion. However, Lochdale totally deleted the whole paragraph. Here is the original text I have written:

There is a star cult surrounding the singer uncritically feeding the fans with information they like. It has been claimed that there are over 500 US fan clubs and that they exist in every state except three: North Dakota, Idaho and Wyoming. According to the American Demographics magazine, 84% of the US people say that their lives have been touched by Elvis Presley in some way, 70% have watched a movie starring Presley, 44% have danced to one of his songs, 31% have bought an Elvis record, CD or video, 10% have visited Graceland, 9% have bought Elvis memorabilia, 9% have read a book about Presley, and 5% have seen the singer in concert. Not all of these people are Elvis fans. A collection of essays entitled The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media critically examines what distinguishes fans from general audiences and explores the relationship between fans and their adored media products. Part of this volume is the article, "Fandom and Gender" which includes an examination of female fantasies of Presley. To many of his female fans, the songs Presley sang "were secondary to his personality and the way he performed them," evoking the well-known emotional responses. In her autobiographical article, "Sexing Elvis" (1984), Sue Wise even describes "how she came to terms with her lesbianism through a close identification with the feminine side of the King." "Elvis's 'effect' on young girls threatened those men who assumed that young girls needed to be protected both from sex in general and from its expression in questionable characters like Elvis in particular." However, there were not only female fantasies directed at the star. According to Reina Lewis and Peter Horne, "prints of Elvis Presley appeared to speak directly to the gay community." "Perhaps it is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load", as, according to a public opinion poll among high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was "the nearly two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls"; yet, Presley "clearly outshines the other performers in rocknroll's first pantheon." There can be no doubt that it was primarily "the recording industry, which made Elvis Presley a mythical media demigod." On August 16, thousands of die-hard Elvis fans travel to Graceland every year in order to celebrate the anniversary of Presley's death. The ritualization of the Elvis cult is also manifested most prominently through the many live performances by Elvis impersonators. According to Marjorie Garber, "The phenomenon of 'Elvis impersonators,' which began long before the singer's death, is one of the most startling effects of the Elvis cult. What is more, David S. Wall has shown that many authors who are writing books and articles on Presley are part of a "worldwide Elvis industry" which has a tendency towards supporting primarily a favorable view of the star. The content of the majority of these publications can be characterized as based on gossip about gossip, only occasionally providing some new surprising details. There are not many critical, unfavorable publications on Elvis's life. An example is Albert Goldman's controversial biography, Elvis (1981), in which the author unfavorably discusses the star's weight problems, his performing costumes and his sex life. Such books are frequently disparaged and harshly attacked by Elvis fan groups. Professor Wall has pointed out that one of the strategies of the various fan clubs and appreciation societies to which the bulk of Elvis fans belong is " 'community policing' to achieve governance at a distance... These organisations have, through their membership magazines, activities and sales operations, created a powerful moral majority" endeavoring to suppress most critical voices. "With a combined membership of millions, the fans form a formidable constituency of consumer power." According to David Lowenthal, "Everything from Disneyland to the Holocaust Museum, ... from Elvis memorabilia to the Elgin Marbles bears the marks of the cult of heritage." "When it's an exhibition of Elvis memorabilia," even Marilyn Houlberg, professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, "puts on the campy art-world hat and becomes a priestess of the Elvis cult." Paul A. Cantor goes as far as to call the American Presley cult "a postmodern simulacrum of the German Hitler cult." Some fan groups even refuse to accept the fact of the star's death in 1977 (see the "Elvis lives?" section of this article). In his book Elvis after Elvis: The Posthumous Career of a Living Legend (1996), Gilbert Rodman traces in detail Presley's manifestations in contemporary popular and not-so-popular culture. He draws upon the many Elvis "sightings," from Elvis's appearances at the heart of the 1992 presidential campaign to the debate over his worthiness as a subject for a postage stamp, and from Elvis's central role in furious debates about racism and the appropriation of African-American music to the world of Elvis impersonators and the importance of Graceland as a place of pilgrimage for fans and followers. The author further points out that Presley has become inseparable from many of the defining myths of US culture, enmeshed with the American Dream and the very idea of the "United States," caught up in debates about race, gender, and sexuality, and in the wars over what constitutes a national culture. This Presley cult has been much criticized. "As one reader complained: I was really surprised that you used that article about the boring Elvis cult! You would use one on McDonald's?" Indeed, there are not only positive voices concerning the singer and his life. During the early years of his career, Country blues guitarist Mississippi Slim constantly criticized Elvis. According to Jennifer Harrison, "Elvis faced criticism more often than appreciation" from a small town in South Memphis. "Much criticism has been heaped on Elvis, the Colonel, and others who controlled his creative (or not so creative) output, especially during the Hollywood years." According to Robert A. Segal, Elvis was "a consummate mamma's boy who lived his last twenty years as a recluse in a womblike, infantile world in which all of his wishes were immediately satisfied yet who deemed himself entirely normal, in fact 'all-American.'" When a CBS special on Presley was aired on October 3, 1977, shortly after the singer's death, it "received such harsh criticism that it is hard to imagine what the public response to Elvis's degeneration would have been if he had been alive." This special "only seemed to confirm the rumors of drug abuse." In a recent study on the analogy of trash and rock 'n' roll, professor of English and drummer Steven Hamelman demonstrates that rock 'n' roll productions are often trash, that critics often trash rock 'n' roll productions, and that rock 'n' roll musicians often trash their lives. The author uses the tortured lives and premature deaths of Presley, John Lennon and Kurt Cobain in his section on "waste" in order to underscore the literal and figurative "waste" that, in his opinion, is part of rock 'n' roll. However, one of the most frequent points of criticism is the overweight and androgyny of the late Las Vegas Presley. Time Out says that, "As Elvis got fatter, his shows got glammier." It has been said that the star, when he "returned to Las Vegas, heavier, in pancake makeup, wearing a white jumpsuit with an elaborate jewelled belt and cape, crooning pop songs to a microphone ... had become Liberace. Even his fans were now middle-aged matrons and blue-haired grandmothers, who praised him as a good son who loved his mother; Mother's Day became a special holiday for Elvis's fans." According to several modern gender studies, the singer had, like Liberace, presented "variations of the drag queen figure" in his final stages in Las Vegas, when he excessively used eye shadow, gold lamé suits and jumpsuits. Although described as a male sex symbol, Elvis was "insistently and paradoxically read by the culture as a boy, a eunuch, or a 'woman' – anything but a man," and in his Las Vegas white "Eagle" jumpsuit, designed by costumer Bill Belew, he appeared like "a transvestite successor to Marlene Dietrich." Indeed, Elvis had been "feminized", as Joel Foreman put it. Thus, "Elvis' death did occur at a time when it could only help his reputation. Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society." He was chiefly "referred to as 'overweight and over-the-hill.'"

Perhaps you are able to rewrite this paragraph. As a second example, here is the original section on the FBI files on Presley which has also been removed by User:Lochdale:

As Presley was a very popular star, the FBI had files on him of more than 600 pages. According to Thomas Fensch, the texts from the FBI reports dating from 1959 to 1981 represent a "microcosm behind-the-scenes life." For instance, the FBI was interested in death threats made against the singer, the likelihood of Presley being the victim of blackmail and particularly a major extortion attempt by Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau while the star was in the Army in Germany, complaints about his public performances, a paternity suit, the theft by larceny of an executive jet which he owned and the alleged fraud surrounding a 1955 Corvette which he owned, and similar things.

The same paragraph now reads: . Just two examples. Perhaps you can have a look at the article and help to solve the problem. Thank you in anticipation.

thats good, i didnt actually remove icelanders from related ethnic groups someone else must have, but i did remove norwiegens. thanks for adding icelanders back.

--Globe01 16:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

==Cameron image==

No, I found it on some free use website but I can't find it now. I uploaded another one at David Cameron Q&A.jpg but it seems to have been taken down. Child of Albion 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Patricia Routledge

Yes sorry, once I wrote my comment I realised it wasn't you who changed it to British, it was an earlier user and I hadn't realise. Sorry for the confusion. --Berks105 20:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

David Cameron image

No, we don't have to use the free-est image possible. We have to use the free-est image possible that meets a sufficient quality for a wikipedia page. If someone finds a free use image that isn't a massively-zoomed in shot in a poor quality photo, then go ahead. But we have wikipedia standards to maintain here. Child of Albion 11:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cameron image

It clearly is not of sufficient quality. Show me one other politician's page which has an image that blurry. Child of Albion 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Any reason you really want Desmond Tutu in the list twice?

First and near the end? In general, it pays to read the edit summaries and the talk pages, and actually LOOK at what was changed before you blindly revert; not to mention, it doesn't show the assumption of good faith. You may which to take it out so the article doesn't look foolish -- Avi 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at your first edit, you added Tutu back after I placed him first on the list. Secondly, asking you to discuss it instead of blind reverting as you did is much more of an assumption of good faith than your edit summary calling me a troll, which is completely uncalled for. Thirdly, I posted on the talk page BEFORE I made the change unlike yourself.

For the record, with regard to edit summary: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. . -- Avi 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Another warning

This edit is also completely uncalled for. As you can tell by the history, I had nothing to do with the protection, nor did I revert your changes, as I was attempting to engage you in discussion. It was another editor who reverted, a second who requested protection and a third who protected. Further, as discussed on the talk page of the article the name "Tutu" and all other individual names were removed from the entry, and the full data was placed in the appropriate section. Lastly, I should tell you that removing user warnings from your talk page, especially when you are not dealing in good faith, is often considered a form of vandalism. You may archive the page, but not remove the warnings. You are not attempting to respond in good faith to my efforts to engage you in discourse, and your posts about my "getting the page protected" are bath false and insulting. For the record:

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

I hope we can continue to discuss the issues reasonably on the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 14:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy violations

Please do not recruit people for edit wars, and please avoid additional violations of Misplaced Pages's civility and good faith policies. It's astonishing to me that you have no remorse over your rather relentless persecution of SlimVirgin in the past, but, regardless, please desist from any further harassment. Thanks. Jayjg 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

1. See Elvis People, A Play by Doug Grissom.
2. See Lisa A. Lewis, The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (1992).
3. Roger D. Blackwell, Tina and Kristina Stephan, Brands That Rock: What Business Leaders Can Learn from the World of Rock and Roll (2003), p.33.
4. Quoted in Kate McGowan, Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory Volume 5 (2002), p.199.
5. Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1996), p.136.
6. Reina Lewis and Peter Horne (eds.), Outlooks: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities and Visual Cultures (Routledge, 1996), p.20.
7. Philip H. Ennis, The Seventh Stream: The Emergence of Rocknroll in American Popular Music (Wesleyan University Press, 1992), p.251-252.
8. Donald Theall, Virtual Marshall McLuhan (2001), p.129. See also Sylvere Lotringer and Sande Cohen (eds.), French Theory in America (2001), p.114.
9. Cameron Tuttle, The Bad Girls' Guide to Open Road (1999), p.192.
10. See Annalee Newitz, White Trash: Race and Class in America (1996), p.262.
11. Marjorie B. Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety (1997), p.369.
12. David S. Wall, “Policing Elvis: legal action and the shaping of post-mortem celebrity culture as contested space”, Entertainment Law, vol. 2, no. 3, 2004, 52-53.
13. David Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
14. James Elkins, On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art (2004), p.53.
15. Paul A. Cantor, "Adolf, We Hardly Knew You." In New Essays on White Noise. Edited by Frank Lentricchia (Cambridge University Press, 1991), p.53.
16. Rodman, Elvis After Elvis, p.75.
17. Dundy, Elvis and Gladys, p.288.
18. Jennifer Harrison, Elvis As We Knew Him: Our Shared Life in a Small Town in South Memphis (2003), p.71.
19. Hopkins, Elvis in Hawaii, p.58.
20. Robert A. Segal, Theorizing About Myth (University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), p.109.
21. Samuel Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power (1989), p.173.
22. See Steven Hamelman, But is it Garbage? (paper): On Rock and Trash (University of Georgia Press, 2004).
23. Time Out at Las Vegas (2005), p.303.
24. Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing & Cultural Anxiety (1992), p.380
25. See Patricia Juliana Smith, The Queer Sixties (1999), p.116.
26. Garber, p.368.
27. Joel Foreman, The Other Fifties: Interrogating Midcentury American Icons (University of Illinois Press, 1997), p.127. No wonder that "white drag kings tend to pick on icons like Elvis Presley." See Bonnie Zimmerman, Lesbian Histories and Cultures (1999), p. 248.
28. Roy, Elvis, Prophet of Power, p.173.
29. See Thomas Fensch, The FBI Files on Elvis Presley (New Century Books, 2001).