User talk:Arniep

Welcome!

Hi Arniep! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --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 Wikipedia 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..

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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia:Civility. As to User:Smerus and his phd, that is sadly beside the point. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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; Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession, namely :if the purpose of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is not here to acknowledge the faith or ethnicity of every single person on the planet, but that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, but please remember to assume good faith, and remember that Wikipedia 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)

• [1] 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 Wikipedia 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^talk 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^(t)(c) 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^(t)(c) 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 [*shrug*]. 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 [not the edible kind, except in small bytes ;-)]" 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [2] 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 Wikipedia) 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 Wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia was meant to be original, not just following everyone else. If all referance works were the same you would only need one! Anyway, if Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia!). 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 [3], 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 [4] - 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 [5], 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" [6] 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 Wikipedia'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

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 ^(talk) 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, opr 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 ^(talk) 21:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)