User talk:UpDown/Archive 3

Archives

Stephen Harper

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

Royal Burial Ground

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Midsomer Murders episodes

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

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

Lady Louise, again.

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

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

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

Home and Away character bios

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

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

Haleh Afshar, Baroness Afshar?

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

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

surnames

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

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

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

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

Template 3RR

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

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

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

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

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

The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, ^† D B D 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

My Edits

Dear UpDown,

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

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

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Executive Stress. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Instead of removing the tags over and over, why did you not just ask about them. I've left a reply to your discussion on the talk page of the article. Please do not remove the tags again until the issues I've mentioned are actually fixed. Also, please try to be a little more civil in your edit summaries. I'm not stalking you nor is the tagging a personal issue, it is part of my work as a member of the TV Project. Collectonian (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Stress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vivienne Vyle

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

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

Before you go into revert mode again

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

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

Merge tag

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

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

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

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