User talk:Icarus of old

Before leaving a note, consider whether or not you should leave it on a talk page instead. Thanks.

Do not use Wikipedia's rules to legitimize linguistic sexism and racism/erasure. Any comments to the contrary will be deleted.

Gao Xingjian

This change is accurate as it is mentioned in his papers. As for the miscapitalized tidbit, thats been fixed. User:AspiringEntrepreneur 04:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

On Abbas Kiarostami

Dear Icarus, some relevant discussion is going on here: [1]. You may wish to contribute to it. Kind regards, --BF 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

Hi, can you explain your recent edit to The Dark Side of the Moon? I realize this is a revert, but both stats link to the same page, and on that page it appears the album rates fifth. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted it to the last good version of the page, which was one of your revisions. I don't keep track of the numbers, and honestly, I had missed the disparity, focusing instead on removing some idiotic thing someone had written after someone's name in the article. Icarus of old (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars 'R' U

		The Hidden Page Barnstar
		I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (And thanks for the compliment. It did seem like an obvious question to ask, tho. You also save me asking why you visited... ;) )

Swan Lake

I've only just noticed your removal of my edit at Swan Lake. Where would you have put it?--Launchballer 14:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The information isn't notable enough to include in the article, unfortunately. The band doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page, and there is no other mention of single "tracks" from the ballet being "covered" in other, similar articles. Some stuff just isn't meant for Wikipedia. Icarus of old (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! I forgot all about this. Anyway, the band article, The Cats (reggae band), now exists; does the cover now deserve an article?--Launchballer 20:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not necessary for "a one-hit wonder" band (according to it's own page) to have single encyclopedia pages for their singles. How much could one possibly need to know or be able to cite for a full, quality article? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. Icarus of old (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:NSONG #2 a recording is notable if it "has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts"...--Launchballer 06:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

At most, it would belong here with a slight mention, like the only one mentioned. Cheers. Icarus of old (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Kubrick

I assume Christiane Kubrick knows the difference between St Albans and Harpenden even if you don't?

http://www.childwickbury-arts-fair.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.227.133.151 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Despite your horrific tone, I looked through your link and found no substantiation for the change. The other sources (and there are many) state otherwise. A Google search also yields Harpenden. So yeah you assume wrongly. Icarus of old (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, Here says that it's between the two, while the other online sources point to Harpenden. Please try and be more civil in tone in the future when commenting on others' talk pages. Icarus of old (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the tone. I would have thought that Mrs Kubrick's own website stating clearly "beautiful private grounds of Childwickbury Estate, St. Albans" would be enough. Harpenden postcodes start AL4. Childwickbury Estate has the postcode AL3 6JX which puts it firmly in St Albans. Royal Mail has the address as Childwickbury House, Childwickbury, St Albans AL3 6JX. Please visit http://www.royalmail.com/postcode-finder/ and enter the postcode to see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.227.133.151 (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Then that kind of evidence must be cited when changes are made, or things like this happen. It's obvious you know more about this, but when you change things without giving reason or evidence, they're likely to be reverted. Do you know how to make a reference in the page? Icarus of old (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I do Icarus, but I honestly didn't thnk it warranted the reference as it really is a matter of fact (particularly for us locals). I'm a huge Kubrick fan who has lived in St Albans for many years and was genuinely shocked when I saw the word Harpenden! I will be more carefull in future. I apologise again for my earlier tone which was wholly unecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.227.133.151 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It means a lot. I'm a big Kubrick nerd too, on this side of the pond though. I really love Barry Lyndon the most, though my friends think I'm an idiot for it. Anyway, thanks for discussing your change. I would throw a citation in because it doesn't hurt, but I'll leave that to your discretion. Best. Icarus of old (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear you on Barry Lyndon Icarus and there's definitely no shame in that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.227.133.151 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering...

Do you know why the US flag was removed from the Mike Tyson article? I added the flag yesterday and you accepted the change (it was 'semi-protected yesterday), now it has gone again!

Thanks/Danke. : -) 70.238.221.233 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where the flag went. I certainly didn't remove it. Icarus of old (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Another user removed it per this policy, with which I agree. I hope that answers your question. Icarus of old (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Oh, sorry, I haven't noticed it was a part of a quote! --194.181.135.162 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Shaun Whiteside

Nice one! What an interesting lot of stuff he's translated.Dsp13 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and that's not even a quarter of it. But I'll leave the list here relatively small for cleanliness. Icarus of old (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ingrid Bergman

Hallo Icarus, Ich habe deinen Revert in o.g. Artikel wieder rückgängig gemacht. Es gibt eine "offizielle" Quelle für die Information. Natürlich beigefügt. Gruß --Ben Ben (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Kein Problem. Danke sehr. Icarus of old (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

German translation

Hello. I was on Wikipedia:Translators available and notice that you were on the list for German to English translators and wondered if you could translate content from de:Ludwig Gaston von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha to Prince Ludwig Gaston of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I'll get to it this coming week. I'm wrapping up research for another article, but I promise I'll get to it soon. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you finish translating the bit about Ebenthal Castle and the overthrow of the Brazilian monarchy, his daughter's involvement in the church and the citations and literatures/references too?? Thanks.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been researching for another article for a while. I'll get to Ludwig when I'm finished. All best.Icarus of old (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky's Ballets

Hello. I noticed you deleted the links I just added to Swan Lake and The Sleeping Beauty without giving a reason. There was already a similar link on the page for The Nutcracker, and the articles referenced include information not present in the Wikipedia pages, could you explain why you felt it necessary to remove them? Sincerely, Old Wittonian (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. It's part of our standards for verifiability. See this page if you have questions. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and I can see how a misunderstanding might have arisen. The content of Tchaikovsky Research is not editable by the public, and all its contributors are all published authors of books or articles about the composer. It so happened that yesterday, after eight years, the site changed from a series of static web pages to using the MediaWiki software, as a more practical method of managing 7,700 pages. Today I've been updating all the existing Wikipedia links to the site that have changed as a result of the switch, and adding a handful where they could be helpful.

I note the Wikipedia guideline you mentioned has an exception for 'notable projects', which there is a good case for applying here. (If required I can provide a list of published and media sources which have cited Tchaikovsky Research.) I hope it will be possible to restore the two links? Kind regards, Old Wittonian (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Normally wikis are not appropriate, but your background on the issue makes the notability clear. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Alice Liddell

Hi. Why do you keep vandalizing the Alice Liddell page?41.82.146.198 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly vandalism. Your inclusion is not cited properly, nor is it notable enough for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability if you have further questions. Also, please read up on what vandalism is (WP:VANDAL). I include a summary each time giving my reasons for removal. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Cary Holladay

The problem with the article was that you just copypasted content in and made an article that way. Properly cited or no, we can't have that on the site. If you can write an article in your own words, then that's entirely fine. Wizardman 02:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I did at all. There just happens to be very little originality to the content as it focuses on the schools she's taught at and attended. I changed plenty of it to my own words without losing any of the factual content. Icarus of old (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll add least provide the sources right here so you don't lose those. As for the content, I restored what I could, but there was little original content. I'll provide an example. The first paragraph of holladay's main website was copypasted to the article, with the only change being one group of names reordered. That information can be moved around and stuff can be reworded slightly without difficulty. (i.e. say Bachelor's Degree instead of A.B.)Wizardman 02:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip and restoring the article. It's hard to make rote, factual content into one's own words, but I will find a way to do so. Icarus of old (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Illness or Modern Women

Does this imply all books/plays/movies about vampires should be included in the Category:Vampires? Wouldn't it be more orderly to do what has been done (for example) with Twilight (novel)? Instead of including this book into Category:Vampires, there is Category:American vampire novels, where it belongs - obviously, being a novel about vampires does not make the book itself a vampire, but rather, a vampire novel. Shouldn't there be a category for plays about vampires, rather than including plays about vampires in the Vampires category? Why would we treat a play any differently from a novel in this regard? Food for thought, I hope! It sure is for me! -- Ciaraleone (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I definitely see your line of reasoning. I would totally be fine with that kind of categorical shift; would it look something like Category:Austrian vampire plays? I've put in Category:Vampires in written fiction in the meanwhile. Have a happy holiday! Icarus of old (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

William S Burroughs

Hi, can you explain your recent edit regarding my contribution: ' copyright violation; also, relevance? ' it has an important relevance for the distribution of Burroughs worldwide, if the tranlation of it is censored in soem parts of the world... — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoraSophie (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It's redundant to add the same information to more than one page; including it in The Soft Machine is enough. As for the copyright violation, your addition was copied word for word from the source, which is a copyright violation. Good luck with future edits. Icarus of old (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words. --70.49.171.225 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your 3RR report has been closed

The report has been closed with warnings to both parties per this result (permalink). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

removal of category 'pigs in literature' from Thom Gunn

hi Icarus of old, just wondering why you reverted my edit? Gunn's poem Moly is about him changing into a pig. see [2] and [3] (page 146) so I think the cat is appropriate. thanks,Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for articles about those works then, but not the author himself. He is not a Pig in Literature, even though pigs may appear within his literature. There is a big, but subtle difference. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

okay, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from German

Hello Icarus of old,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

1. Bernhard Schweitzer ✓ Pass
2. Bremen Vier ✗ Fail

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for bringing these my way. I'll look into both; let me know if other articles need verification. Have a good one. Icarus of old (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! There are plenty more, actually; can I send you another few? No obligation, of course, just whichever ones interest you, and whenever you have the time and inclination. Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Any time! All best. Icarus of old (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Here's a new batch:

1. Anna Maurizio ✗ Fail because it ignores entire sections about her life; will try to revisit soon
2. Disarmament of the German Jews ✓ Pass
3. Hamburg Museum of Work ✗ Fail because it ignores two sections entirely and focuses on a timeline
4. Thomas Gaitanides ✓ Pass

Same deal: {{pass}} or {{fail}}; accuracy rather than completeness; any questions, ask! And, thanks again. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: When looking at these past four, issues of completeness seem tied up with issues of accuracy. I teach German, so I feel a pattern of flaws in terms of the program's ability to move beyond a chronologically-based narrative. It's interesting to see where it gets the accuracy right though, because those articles are thorough, if not sometimes moreso than their German counterparts. Icarus of old (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)